Ad agencies don't worship at their own temple

I just read Al Ries’ commentary in the Aug.8 Adweek, “Ad Agencies Should Take Their Own Advice”, where he points out that advertising agencies do very little advertising themselves. He then asks the rhetorical question, “Why is that?”

It seems that ad agencies like to convince their clients to spend great amounts in advertising but do not themselves practice what they preach.

Would we take our vehicles to an auto mechanic who doesn’t own a car or believe in them? Would we go to a doctor who thinks that prescribing medicine is a waste of time and money?

Most advertising either fails to deliver ROI or it cannot be measured so results are dubious, at best. From what I’ve seen, most advertising that comes from agencies is geared more toward pleasing the client and making sure the message cannot possibly be seen as controversial rather than writing strong headlines that select the right audience and then communicate benefits that motivate action. Most advertising seems to be for vanity’s sake so clients can say, “Did you see us in _____”? They then mistakenly believe that being visible is the same as building a strong brand or planting the seeds of strong customer relationships.

One of my favorite columnists is Tom Collins who contributes to Direct Magazine where he analyzes print advertisements critically from a direct marketing/copywriting perspective. Almost every one of his critiques highlights the colossal waste of advertising dollars that are spent to create ads that lack any compelling elements whatsoever. In fact, many of the print ads seen these days feature “big art” creative that just screams out “I’m an ad” and we instinctively and immediately turn the page.

Anyone who is familiar with me or my philosophy knows that I am a proponent of marketing communications that communicate core brand values while at that same time communicating compelling calls to action. Therefore, I believe that ads should both support the brand and contain a measurable direct response element.

What about you? I’d like to hear from you if you have invested in advertising through an ad agency and hear your story first-hand about how happy you were with the results. Let’s hear the good, the bad, and the ugly.

Is Al Ries right? Do advertising agencies not practice what they preach because they don’t believe their product produces satisfactory results?

Advertising metrics

Today’s Wall Street Journal ran an article entitled, “Econometrics Buzzes Ad World As a Way of Measuring Results”. The article discussed a new statistical measuring model announced by WPP Group that promises to measure the effectiveness of ads. This “econometrics” is being touted by the leading ad agency as “the Holy Grail” of advertising.

While the article was short on details about the new measuring model--undoubtedly due to its proprietary nature—the news is encouraging none-the-less because it shows that marketers are finally waking up to the reality that marketing and advertising Dollars must show measurable ROI in order for campaigns to be accepted in today’s boardrooms as wise investments. Ad agencies are finally responding to the demand for new metrics to show advertising effectiveness.

Nick Wreden, author of “Fusion Branding” will undoubtedly be pleased since he recently pointed out that branding’s dirty little secret is that it doesn’t know how to count and old measures such as awareness and image are no longer sufficient to justify marketing investments.

I’m happy to hear that marketing has taken such a step forward in providing metrics that demonstrate measurable results. I hope to hear much more about this new marketing accountability in the future. It will help us all raise the stature of the marketing function in our organizations.

Marketing, career management & personal branding

I was recently asked to comment on how marketing and career development are related so I’d like to share my response with you, the readers of this blog.
There are many similarities between marketing and career management. Good career strategy also involves a personal branding effort.

Much as marketing professionals study their markets, evaluate the products or services they offer and then design marketing campaigns, so too should all professionals examine the product and market of their careers.

Career management begins by designing a “personal marketing campaign”. A personal marketing campaign is a career strategy whereby strengths and weaknesses are identified and then tactics are devised to communicate those strengths to effectively sell the product--the person, are steps are taken to overcome weaknesses-professional development.

In a traditional marketing campaign, a marketing plan is thoughtfully designed and carefully implemented.
Benchmarks are defined, measurements are taken along the way and results measured before, during and after the campaign. Only then can one evaluate whether or not their plan is working.

Personal branding and personal marketing involve the processes of bringing clarity to your core purpose, your unique attributes, expertise or perspective and then communicating those consistently to a clearly defined market who will benefit from the unique value you offer. Career benchmarks are defined and measurements taken at pre-defined intervals. Only then can the professional track if their career is progressing according to plan.

Career management is nothing more and nothing less than marketing yourself by fully understanding your unique value and fully understanding who can benefit from that value and then delivering it to them.

DaimlerChrysler breaks bread with Iacocca

I would be remiss if I did not send kudos out to DaimlerChrysler for tapping Lee Iacocca to appear in its current television ads for Chrysler Group.

Lee Iacocca is the visionary leader who helped bring Chrysler back from the brink of extinction during the 1980’s and the move shows that this brand is willing to stay in touch with its roots and honor those who were so important to building the brand. It also shows that DaimlerChrysler acknowledges the value and authenticity that Mr. Iacocca brings to the brand despite the fact that he backed an unsuccessful takeover bid for the company in 1995 that left him at odds with the current owners for years.

Imagine that. A man who loves and believes in a brand so much that he tries to buy the company. What better brand champion could there possibly be?

The new ads represent a brave and bold step for DaimlerChrysler that will bring back thousands of older Iacocca fans who remember the 1980’s when this man not only had us believing in Chrysler again, but also made us start believing in America again. I can think of no better way for the company to tap emotion to help strengthen the brand.

Now, if younger people would only stop asking me, “Who is that guy at the end of the commercial” when they see me smiling at it…

Pay for advertising? Shift happens.

Recently I heard futurist and publishing industry veteran, Bob Sacks (http://www.bosacks.com), talk about the future of the publishing industry and how there is a shift taking place from a mass marketing perspective to one where consumers, by choice, are selecting the type of advertising they want to receive based upon their very personalized and "customized" likes, desires and interests.

Bob also stated that there is a growing willingness amongst consumers to gladly exchange personal information—or even pay—for ads that are directly relevant to them and that match their likes and interests.

This is a stunning indictment of the marketing and advertising professions.

Shift happens.

The room full of marketing professionals listening to Bob that evening went silent until one voice asked…in complete bewilderment…why consumers would actually ask and/or pay for advertising.

Consumers are willing to pay for relevant advertising because for too long they have been bombarded by appeals that are of absolutely no interest to them. We live in the information overload society and marketers have abused consumers for too long with un-targeted advertising.

Here we are with consumers willing to pay for relevant advertising because they are overwhelmed with irrelevant advertising messages and they are willing to pay or give up personal information to weed out the garbage.

This is an important trend to watch because we are now in a situation where we should embrace consumers who self-qualify themselves and provide us segmentation information. We should carefully target them with our brand messages that speak to their needs and avoid marketing to them with offers that irrelevant to their expressed interests.

Get ready to respond to your consumers when tell you they are interested in your brand. Even more importantly, avoid advertising your brand to them when they tell you they have no interest.

-Dave

This blog is back!

Hello all!

Sorry for the l-o-o-o-o-n-g break in the blogging action, but now this blog is back up and running.

I've posted many of the old entries this evening and will keep the blog updated on a regular basis once again. This blog serves as "the blog" for both www.DaveDolak.com and www.BrandTrellis.com.

The older blog got overrun with spammers and scammers but, hey, I'm willing to make a fresh start if you are!

-Dave

Branding commodities

I've been conducting research over the past months for my upcoming e-book on branding commodities. In the process, I've talked with several people who seem to believe that "commodities" simply cannot be branded.

If brands are highly differentiated entities that convey unique value and highlight points of singular distinction, doesn't it make sense that commodities are simply products/services that *lack* such clearly differentiated positions?

Any commodity may be branded, but I think too many people out there get hung up on the idea that the points of differentiation must be product features (especially folks that deal with technology products).

Why is it so hard for people to understand that brands can be built on many other attributes other than simple product features? The product does not necessarily have to be different, but the total experience must be unique.

Thoughts?
-Dave

Cut through the clutter

Cut through the clutter

I'm tired of hearing marketers and branding gurus speak of ways to "cut through the clutter". We all realize that marketers have created a situation where there is advertising overload and it is virtually impossible to make it through a day in this modern world without being exposed to hundreds of advertising messages. Typically these experts proclaim to have the latest-and-greatest method to be heard or seen by target audiences. Most times, they are trying to sell products or services that put a slightly fresh spin on an old idea. They are also adding to the clutter.

What nobody seems to talk about, however, is the fact that we ourselves created the "clutter". Why do we think that making more of it will help alleviate the problem in the long-run?

The only way to cut through the clutter is to reduce the clutter.

Precise targeting based on knowledge of our customers and relevant communications that speak of customer benefits is the way to reduce the clutter. Let's not just blast our commercial messages out there and let our prospects qualify themselves. That is our work to do. Let's qualify our prospects and then speak directly to them, their needs, wants and desires.

Stop wasting all those dollars on unqualified prospects and help clear the clutter. The more clutter there is the less likely we are to be heard. We have so many direct channels available to us these days that it seems to me that mass, untargeted commercial messages should be dwindling, right? Why are they not?

Is traditional marketing dead?

I was just recently asked to comment on all the latest "experts" who claim that traditional marketing is dead.

Traditional marketing is not dead. Marketing is more vibrant and important than ever.

Marketing tactics, however, are changing rapidly.

New tools are being developed all the time to communicate messages and reach the people you want to reach—primarily through technological advances but often through new twists on old concepts. The challenge is not to throw away all the previous tools and switch to the new ones. (This is where the “traditional marketing is dead” argument comes from). The challenge is to identify *all* the viable tools available *for your customers*, determine which of those tools your customers prefer, and integrate those tools into a comprehensive marketing plan. Traditional marketers, however, have to learn the new tools and tactics and many of them would rather say that marketing is dead rather than adapt, change, and learn something new.

Perhaps it is the traditional *marketer* who refuses to learn new ways to address the same, "traditional" challenges who should be put on the endangered species list.

Dave

Is branding too trendy?

Funny thing about politics. Once you start considering them you begin to realize you want to steer clear of them.

At this point in time I thought I'd start a discussion about the Republican convention and how George W. Bush performed as a brand but due to lack of response about Kerry and the Dem's convention, I decided to forget about politics (aren't we all here in the US just sick of it already?) and talk about something else.

Is it just me or is everyone in business talking about branding these days? I'd like to think that branding has finally been accepted as a legitimate marketing science and that business leaders are finally embracing it as more than just voodoo, but I can't help but think that too many people are simply hopping on the band wagon. The brandwagon, so to speak.

Experiential marketing, living the brand, bleeding the brand, dying the brand, fusion branding, emotional banding, personal branding, etc. etc. What is going on here?

I have had a great interest in and a passion for brand marketing for many years and have tried promoting it as a science for years. Lately, however, it seems as though *everyone* has an interest in it but very few actually offer tangible, actionable, fundamental tools for people to go about building strong brands for their products, services, and organizations.

Has branding gotten so trendy as a business topic that "talk about the topic" has become as important as the topic itself?

I launched this site partly in reaction to what I see as a startling trend. There are too many so-called experts out there providing flash-in-the-pan advice that might actually be hurtful to brands.

Is branding currently too trendy for its own good?

Dave

Are U.S. politics harming the Zippo brand?

Another interesting branding issue was just raised as a result of the U.S. presidential election.

In a news story that has been widely reported in the media (see http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39816), a new book that is coming out critically against Senator John Kerry states:

“During the Vietnam War, a searing image in the anti-war movement was one of American GIs torching huts with cigarette lighters. It turns out, according to "Unfit for Command," that Kerry did just that – entering an abandoned Vietnamese village, slaughtering domestic animals and burning down their homes with his Zippo lighter.”

Let’s forget about politics here but consider the Zippo brand.

Does such an image associated with the Zippo brand harm the brand’s image? Should Zippo, the company, respond in any way? What lessons can branders learn when their brand(s) encounter negative press?

When I first heard the story, my first reaction was to think that mentioning the Zippo brand by name is not relevant to the story. I also thought how unfortunate it is for Zippo to be getting this type of attention—attention that it might not want. Upon some reflection I now feel that the Zippo brand is not being harmed by the story. Getting negative press about your brand in such a manner does not always do damage to your brand.

Zippo is no more responsible for the actions of its users than gun manufacturers are for the criminals who use guns to commit crimes or SUV manufacturers are for reckless drivers who operate their vehicles. The real crime here is reporting such stories using brand names when doing so is not necessary and the brand is, in fact, materially irrelevant to the story. Consumers are wise enough to know that such brands are not responsible for the actions of their users and, in fact, the attention these brands get may not be negative at all. In this case, the Zippo brand might actually be helped because, in essence, it is getting free media attention.

A while back I was interviewed by a USAToday reporter doing a story on the Zippo company. The reporter was looking to get some perspective on the Zippo brand. In the USAToday story, Zippo was presented as having universal appeal and as being recognized around the world. As such, “Zippo” is almost a perfect substitute for “cigarette lighter” in the recent story so no ill was intended toward the Zippo brand itself.

But the question remains. The story itself has nothing to do with the Zippo brand and mentioning it by name is not critical to the story. So why report it?

-Dave

After writing these comments on my blog, I contacted Patrick Grandy, Marketing Communications Manager for Zippo, who told me that yes, Zippo indeed is concerned with the recent media attention surrounding the story. While he reiterated to me that the lighters were not intended for such purposes, he went on to say,

"We would much rather that the press focus on the positive aspects of the lighter during wartime. These include deflecting bullets while in a GI's pockets (our archives contains many stories of this happening -- and we even have some sample lighters with the bullets still in them). Zippo lighters were also used as signals to rescue soldiers in lifeboats. There are other positive occasions when the lighters were used in wars."

Great comments and great stories.

Couldn't Zippo be more proactive getting such stories out there to enhance its brand? It seems to me they could capitalize on the the media exposure they are currently getting to tell the stories of lives being saved. I for one am happy to tell the story because I think it is a good one.

There is a lesson to be learned here.

Although we can't always control the publicity our brands receive, we should always be ready to respond to negative press with positive stories or evidence that refutes or neutralizes such negative attention. "Damage control" is very much a part of brand management.

PBR- The anti-brand?

Now that I’ve brought a couple beer brands under scrutiny, we may as well explore an additional beer brand.

Pabst Blue Ribbon (“PBR” for those in a hurry at the bar).

This brand is currently seeing tremendous sales growth and has garnered a cult-like following in the past couple years. While some think the brand is enjoying a resurgence due to the “retro” trend, others think the brand’s recently revitalized success is due, in part, to the brewer’s lack of mass-advertising and lack of any highly visible branding effort. The PBR brand has been around since 1844 has had all but been written off just a few short years ago.

What is it that new PBR drinkers find so appealing about the brand these days? Is it the quality of the beer? Is it the low price? Is it the lack of mass advertising? Could we be seeing a backlash against the tactics of the 3 big brewers?

Please comment! Let’s hear from actual PBR drinkers and loyalists to understand directly from them what they find appealing about this brand.

-Dave


PS- Interesting followup. I just had the occasion to ask Jack Trout, world renowned marketing guru and "The Father of Positioning", this very question about PBR. His answer was that PBR is seeing renewed interest due to a couple things. 1) They have a heritage/they've been around a long time and most people recognize them and 2) It has more to do with low price than anything else. He also added that Pabst is so far back in the pack (not one of the top two or three brands) that it really doesn't matter because it is hard to make any money when you are so far down on the competitive ladder.

Interesting comments that bring up another interesting question: Do any of the "also rans" in the beer industry have any shot at all of ever truly challenging Anheiser-Busch, Miller, and Coors for a leadership position? If so, how could they do it?

The Budweiser frogs are so right and so wrong

I heard a radio ad earlier today that struck me. It was the voices of those Budweiser frogs talking about the ad campaign by Miller Brewing and basically slamming Miller for claiming to be “The President of Beers”. The frogs went on to talk about how Miller’s advertising agency should be “handing out pink slips” to the folks who came up with that ad campaign. “Is that the best they could come up with?”, the frogs ask rhetorically.

Never have imaginary frogs been both so right and so wrong.

As a branding initiative, claiming to be “President of beers” after Budweiser has already staked out the position of “Kind of beers” is truly unimaginative, silly, and a sorry attempt at positioning. I think Miller ought to not only rethink who is working on the creative team but also rethink who is approving such advertising. Indeed, couldn’t they have done better than that?

But oh how the frogs are wrong also.

Here is Budweiser, “The king of beers”, right about the silly strategy Miller chose but sinking to the same level by responding to the attack.

Is it not sad that we live in a country where we actually are entertained by the inner workings of branding strategy and advertising agencies?

Here’s a bit of advice for both Anheuser-Busch and Miller: If talk about your branding strategies IS the message, then the branding strategies on both sides are losers.

Americans are much more sophisticated about the media we consume than we ever used to be. Nothing wrong with that…BUT, the sad thing is that we have turned the inner workings of the media into entertainment itself. We know more about the media than ever, but it is not enough for branders to simply acknowledge that we are in on the game. Clever as that may seem, it advances nothing. I know the game. You know the game. I know that you know the game. I know that you know that I know the game. Why, therefore, don’t we just take the game to the next level?

Can’t we all grow up a little bit, acknowledge that we are more media savvy than ever before and simply expect better communication and more sophisticated advertising messages that speak to real benefits, address real problems, and inform and persuade us on the power of the message alone? Whatever happened to branding that had real substance?

Give us substance!

Ad recycling?

I recently read with interest and amazement an article by Geoffrey James, “New Life for Old Ads” in the June issue of Business 2.0 Magazine (page 50).

In the article, James tells of a firm that specializes in reselling old advertisements to clients other than those for whom the ads were created. In this manner, small companies or companies on tight budgets can purchase pre-made ads that ran in different markets or that never ran at all and simply strip the name of the original company/brand out and place their own name/brand name in. The idea is that these "pre-aired ads" can be resold at a fraction of the production costs of creating a new, original ad.

While the idea of using “pre-aired” ads may seem appealing to advertisers, I think this practice demonstrates all that is wrong in advertising today.

The notion that a brand would communicate so little about its unique qualities that its name may be simply stripped out of an ad and another brand name put in its place is appalling a represents a vast waste of advertising dollars. Shame on the ad agencies and corporate marketers who allow such ineffective ads to be made in the first place! I think this practice also demonstrates that while simply capturing attention by using shock or clever creative may be alluring and raise awareness, unless you move prospects down the sales path once you have their attention and tell them what is unique about your brand, you are not building strategic awareness.

Marketers need to learn that everything they do should promote core brand values that only their brand offers. Viewers of ads should clearly understand the unique promises of value being made so there is no mistake what brand is being promoted—even before the name is mentioned. A truly effective ad is one that distinguishes its brand from all the rest and could never be mistaken for any other brand.
While small businesses may like the idea of cheap advertisements and ad agencies surely will love the additional revenue stream, don’t allow your brands to communicate so poorly as to become generic! That is exactly the opposite of what your ads are supposed to do.

Happy branding,
-Dave