Marketing is a function and a process for creating, communicating, and delivering value to customers and managing customer relationships in ways that benefit both the organization and its customers.
The marketing mix or promotional mix consists of Advertising, Public Relations, Personal Selling, Promotion, and Direct Marketing.
As you can see, marketing is all about creating and delivering value to customers. This includes developing products that meet needs, promoting those products, monitoring customer satisfaction, managing the sales process etc.
Advertising is just one small part of the marketing process. Marketing is strategic. Advertising is tactical.
Just because you see lots of advertising for a product or service does not mean it is marketed well.
Please pass this on to anyone who thinks Advertising = Marketing.
Friday, September 29, 2006
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Advertisers run amok
Earlier this year I reported on how product placements are creeping their way into television content as a reaction to technology advancements that allow television viewers to skip traditional television commercials (i.e. zap commercials). The logic on the part of marketers is that they must expose their brand to consumers one way or another and if traditional television commercials don't work then they must find ways to get their brands worked into the content of the shows.
Gary Levin has a story in today's USA Today entitled, "The newest characters on TV shows: Product plugs", that also discusses this relatively new form of advertising. Advertisers are paying large sums of money to have their company and product brands featured in the content of television programming.
After you read my previous blog post and the a USA Today story, I have three questions that I'd like my blog readers to comment on.
1) If you are conscious of brands either obviously or overtly featured in television content, does that create positive or negative feelings toward those brands in your mind?
2) Are you more likely or less likely to buy certain brands if they work their way into programming in this manner?
3) Do you believe there should be full and obvious disclosure in television programs when advertisers pay a fee to have their brand featured in the content?
We are on a slippery slope here, folks.
Soon marketers will find a way to bombard us with commercial messages in every imaginable fashion and we will be forced to tune it all out. How can we trust the integrity of anything if we do not know what is creative content vs. what is paid-for promotion?
A word of advice to marketers: Make the strength of your brand and your message be so compelling that consumers will want to hear your brand's message without you ramming it down their throats. If you have to sneak the message in somewhere, then you probably are not very confident in your brand's promise or value proposition.
And, hey, as long as I'm talking to marketers and television advertisers, let me ask you a question. Just exactly how are you going to measure results of product plugs in television content?
That is one ROI calculation I'd like to see.
Gary Levin has a story in today's USA Today entitled, "The newest characters on TV shows: Product plugs", that also discusses this relatively new form of advertising. Advertisers are paying large sums of money to have their company and product brands featured in the content of television programming.
After you read my previous blog post and the a USA Today story, I have three questions that I'd like my blog readers to comment on.
1) If you are conscious of brands either obviously or overtly featured in television content, does that create positive or negative feelings toward those brands in your mind?
2) Are you more likely or less likely to buy certain brands if they work their way into programming in this manner?
3) Do you believe there should be full and obvious disclosure in television programs when advertisers pay a fee to have their brand featured in the content?
We are on a slippery slope here, folks.
Soon marketers will find a way to bombard us with commercial messages in every imaginable fashion and we will be forced to tune it all out. How can we trust the integrity of anything if we do not know what is creative content vs. what is paid-for promotion?
A word of advice to marketers: Make the strength of your brand and your message be so compelling that consumers will want to hear your brand's message without you ramming it down their throats. If you have to sneak the message in somewhere, then you probably are not very confident in your brand's promise or value proposition.
And, hey, as long as I'm talking to marketers and television advertisers, let me ask you a question. Just exactly how are you going to measure results of product plugs in television content?
That is one ROI calculation I'd like to see.
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Haven't I heard that before?
I'd like to up the ante by making one last ditch effort to do an about face and go back to pick the low hanging fruit. Once I think outside the box I'm sure I'll be able to level the playing field and get out of the red and into the black.
Our friends at Factiva recently released a study that used its text mining technology to search the most commonly used words and phases in publication. They found some phrases so common that it turned them into a special list.
The Factiva List of Most Overused Business Cliches
12. Up the ante
11. Clean bill of health
10. Low hanging fruit
9. Last ditch effort
8. Think outside the box
7. Wealth of experience
6. About face
5. Time and again
4. A level playing field
3. In the red
2. In the black
1. At the end of the day
As marketers and communications professionals, let's remain keenly aware of these cliches so as to avoid them in our marketing communications. Find new ways to express your thoughts and communicate about your brands. Avoid phases that are so overused that they actually don't communicate very much at all.
At the end of the day, we don't need any more cliches.
;-)
Our friends at Factiva recently released a study that used its text mining technology to search the most commonly used words and phases in publication. They found some phrases so common that it turned them into a special list.
The Factiva List of Most Overused Business Cliches
12. Up the ante
11. Clean bill of health
10. Low hanging fruit
9. Last ditch effort
8. Think outside the box
7. Wealth of experience
6. About face
5. Time and again
4. A level playing field
3. In the red
2. In the black
1. At the end of the day
As marketers and communications professionals, let's remain keenly aware of these cliches so as to avoid them in our marketing communications. Find new ways to express your thoughts and communicate about your brands. Avoid phases that are so overused that they actually don't communicate very much at all.
At the end of the day, we don't need any more cliches.
;-)
Saturday, September 09, 2006
Can brand value be measured?
With several available methods and approaches to measure brand value with the most prominent among them being proprietary (Interbrand and Young & Rubicam), BrandChannel.com has a debate going about what is the best method to measure brand value.
Join the debate over at BrandChannel.com.
One of the best discussions of the topic that I've seen is in a presentation over at The Chartered Institute of Marketing website at:
http://www.cim.co.uk/mediastore/Brand_eGuides/eGuide7.pdf#search=%22measuring%20brand%20value%22
I believe that every brand is unique with emotional components that are difficult to measure using any standardized approach. I further believe that in any brand valuation it is important to define a model or equation where all the factors to be measured are clearly identified along with the weighting factor applied to each.
Just like any economic model, once all the players agree to what gets measured, how the measures interact with one another and what weighting gets applied to each factor, then the parties know what goes into the model and can reach a value that they agree on.
When anyone states the value of a brand, the first question asked should always be, "How was it measured?" If you agree with the method and measures used then you can agree on the value.
Join the debate over at BrandChannel.com.
One of the best discussions of the topic that I've seen is in a presentation over at The Chartered Institute of Marketing website at:
http://www.cim.co.uk/mediastore/Brand_eGuides/eGuide7.pdf#search=%22measuring%20brand%20value%22
I believe that every brand is unique with emotional components that are difficult to measure using any standardized approach. I further believe that in any brand valuation it is important to define a model or equation where all the factors to be measured are clearly identified along with the weighting factor applied to each.
Just like any economic model, once all the players agree to what gets measured, how the measures interact with one another and what weighting gets applied to each factor, then the parties know what goes into the model and can reach a value that they agree on.
When anyone states the value of a brand, the first question asked should always be, "How was it measured?" If you agree with the method and measures used then you can agree on the value.
Thursday, September 07, 2006
Buzz Brands
I don't like the use of the term "buzz" when used in marketing circles to describe word-of-mouth advertising. In fact, I don't even like the term "word-of-mouth advertising".
Let's review the definition of advertising.
Advertising is any paid form of non-personal presentation and promotion of ideas, goods, or services by an identified sponsor.
Unlike advertising which relies on purchasing power to get a message across, publicity relies solely on the quality of content to persuade others to get the message out.
Therefore, I favor the use of the term "word of mouth publicity" to describe genuine buzz. You know, the buzz that happens when people start talking about your brand without you directly greasing the skids or without you investing resources of any kind to directly propagate the discussion.
If you are blogging or directly encouraging bloggers to talk about your brand, then I don't believe that is genuine buzz.
When marketers launch a campaign to get the blogosphere talking about their brand, then it is no different than advertising. Resources are being invested to directly get people talking about your brand. That is artificial. That is paying for advertising. It is also potentially misleading because you are not making it clear that you are paying to get people talking.
The difference is the shift in focus of who is driving message about the brand. The difference is also where you are investing your resources--into the product or into the discussion about the product.
Strong brands focus on the quality of the product to get people talking on their own. Strong brands generate grass-roots buzz. Strong brands cause people to talk based purely on the quality of the product.
If you are paying for buzz, then it is not really buzz at all.
Now that I've got that off my chest, let's talk about a recent study that seems to have identified the top 10 brands that enjoy genuine buzz.
The Keller Fay Group recently released a market research study that identified the top 10 brands that enjoy positive word-of-mouth publicity.
The Top 10 positive word-of-mouth brands are:
1. Toyota
2. Wal-Mart
3. Honda
4. iPod/Apple
5. Chevrolet
6. Target
7. Sony
8. Home Depot
9. BMW
10. Verizon
Keller Fay's methodology reviewed 30,000 organic word-of-mouth brand mentions that include email, blogs, telephone and face-to-face conversations.
It is important for all marketers to keep in mind that focusing on creating a truly strong brand will generate word-of-mouth publicity as a by-product.
Focus on the product offering and the buzz will follow. Focus on the buzz and you will just be another advertiser.
Let's review the definition of advertising.
Advertising is any paid form of non-personal presentation and promotion of ideas, goods, or services by an identified sponsor.
Unlike advertising which relies on purchasing power to get a message across, publicity relies solely on the quality of content to persuade others to get the message out.
Therefore, I favor the use of the term "word of mouth publicity" to describe genuine buzz. You know, the buzz that happens when people start talking about your brand without you directly greasing the skids or without you investing resources of any kind to directly propagate the discussion.
If you are blogging or directly encouraging bloggers to talk about your brand, then I don't believe that is genuine buzz.
When marketers launch a campaign to get the blogosphere talking about their brand, then it is no different than advertising. Resources are being invested to directly get people talking about your brand. That is artificial. That is paying for advertising. It is also potentially misleading because you are not making it clear that you are paying to get people talking.
The difference is the shift in focus of who is driving message about the brand. The difference is also where you are investing your resources--into the product or into the discussion about the product.
Strong brands focus on the quality of the product to get people talking on their own. Strong brands generate grass-roots buzz. Strong brands cause people to talk based purely on the quality of the product.
If you are paying for buzz, then it is not really buzz at all.
Now that I've got that off my chest, let's talk about a recent study that seems to have identified the top 10 brands that enjoy genuine buzz.
The Keller Fay Group recently released a market research study that identified the top 10 brands that enjoy positive word-of-mouth publicity.
The Top 10 positive word-of-mouth brands are:
1. Toyota
2. Wal-Mart
3. Honda
4. iPod/Apple
5. Chevrolet
6. Target
7. Sony
8. Home Depot
9. BMW
10. Verizon
Keller Fay's methodology reviewed 30,000 organic word-of-mouth brand mentions that include email, blogs, telephone and face-to-face conversations.
It is important for all marketers to keep in mind that focusing on creating a truly strong brand will generate word-of-mouth publicity as a by-product.
Focus on the product offering and the buzz will follow. Focus on the buzz and you will just be another advertiser.
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
American Marketing Assoc. M-planet conference
The American Marketing Association is holding a first of its kind marketing conference Nov 29 - Dec 1, 2006 in Florida. It appears as though this should be a very informative conference for marketers covering most aspects of marketing.
Details at:
http://www.mplanet2006.com
Details at:
http://www.mplanet2006.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)