Putting air in the balloons

At the BMA National Conference recently, one of the speakers remarked, “we don’t want to become one of those people at tradeshows putting air in the balloons.”  His point was that many marcom people spend way too much of their time doing tactical things that, to be sure, need to be done, but are not viewed by upper management as being terribly important.

The problem is exacerbated when you’re a young person working at a large company with so many layers of management you can’t even get close to the room where strategic decisions are being made.  Is there any way to avoid the perception of being just another balloon inflator?

One way is to refuse to act and think like a low-level functionary.  Your weekly to-do list may be full of mundane tasks, but that doesn’t mean you have to think mundane thoughts.  If you can imagine being in the CEO’s shoes for an hour or so each day, you can probably also imagine having to handle some of the high-level jobs that come his or her way.

As you’re sitting in your imaginary Oval Office, envision that you or someone from your department walks through the door and sits down in one of the presidential guest chairs.  What kinds of things could you have that person do to make your job easier?  Or better?

Probably the most strategic issue that connects entry level marcom practitioners and C-Suite executives is branding.  I’m not talking about logo design or graphic identity systems here.  Or even snappy slogans.

The question you, the entry level person might ask You, the imaginary CEO, is “if we could associate our brand with one attribute, what would that be?”  What is the one thing that would be most valuable to our company if we could convince our most important customers and prospects to concede that we are leaders in that?”

This sounds like an easy question, and sometimes it is.  But usually it’s a very difficult question, and it’s not likely to be the first thing that pops into your mind.

When GE’s Jeff Immelt took over from Jack Welch in 2000, he decided the attribute had to be “innovation.”  General Electric was the company of Thomas Edison, and yet it was not known at that time as an innovative company.  So the attribute decision was made quickly and imperially.

Sometimes the key attribute is plucked from the bowels of a research report.  Miller Electric discovered how passionate their welding equipment customers were about discovering ways to do better welding jobs.  So they became the “applied welding” people, disseminating hundreds of stories about how to do every conceivable welding job better.

Sometimes the attribute is found in the middle of a voluminous marketing analysis.  When SAS Institute founder Jim Goodnight saw the phrase “the power to know” in such a document, he shrieked, “That’s us.  That’s what we do — our software gives our customers the power to know.”  And with every passing year, the crush of Big Data makes SAS software even more indispensable.

Powerful brands create an expectation that helps customers understand why they like you better than other choices they might have.  The expectation needs to be specific and appropriate to your company’s capabilities and strengths.  It can’t be vague or puffy.

If your products are manufactured better, with higher quality materials and lower failure rates, go ahead and pursue a “high quality” brand expectation.  But if you’re no better than the rest, or somewhat worse, don’t go down that path.  You’ll never earn the high quality position.

If your products are easier to use, “user friendly” may be a better way to drive home the connection than hammering away with individual technology benefits, although I’m sure the technology benefits will  reinforce the user-friendly brand positioning.

It is very important to consider the claims your competitors make.  If certain expectations are already taken by them, steer clear.  Otherwise you risk sounding like a me-too.

Young people can think about brand expectations just like grizzled veterans.  You can think about things that are part of your DNA and company culture, and things that would be easy to claim.  You can probably also identify things that would sound hollow if you tried to claim them for yourselves.

One thing’s for sure, if you spend a significant part of your time thinking and talking about important, strategic issues, you won’t be regarded as someone who puts air in the balloons.

Action! What Action?

One of the most perplexing developments in B2B communications over the past several decades concerns something we refer to as the “call to action.”  The perplexing development is that most ads today don’t have one.

In devising the call to action, you ask yourself, “what do we want the reader (or viewer) to do as a result of seeing our ad?”  When I started in this business, it was the first thing you considered.  Today, it scarcely receives a moment’s notice.

Our advertising forefathers must be spinning in their graves.  One of the earliest books on our profession, titled “Scientific Advertising” by famed copywriter Claude Hopkins (published in 1923), was primarily about ways to optimize results from ad placements.  Hopkins’ view was that advertising practitioners were like scientists, changing formulas to create the ultimate best result.  A pinch more of this, a touch less of that, and voilà – the recipe for success is created.

Of course, the media options were pretty simple in 1923, but Hopkins advocated some fairly sophisticated techniques, such as split runs with optional headlines and visuals exposed to different segments of a publication’s circulation.

Another famous ad pioneer, David Ogilvy, started his career in research and was fascinated to observe which approaches worked better as he tried to figure out why.  Marion Harper, former chairman of McCann-Erickson who created the first large ad agency network, Interpublic, rose to fame through that agency’s research department. Harper earned his spurs by creating metrics and defining characteristics for successful ads versus less successful ones.

The point of this is that early ads actually had a point.  They were designed to achieve a specific result, and the better they were at doing that, the more successful they were judged to be.  Today, it seems like running the ad is the point, and “log on to our website” is the only suggested action the reader is required to take.

Many years ago, I was privileged to speak at a Direct Marketing Association annual conference and take part in several of their seminars.  You learn very quickly about the importance of “the offer” in direct marketing.  They prioritize it.  They maximize it. They obsess over it.  Of all the possible enticements you could dangle in front of prospective buyers, what is the most likely to produce the desired result?  That’s what direct marketers want to hit you with, right between the eyes.  Nothing left to chance.

Think how much better B2B advertising would be if we did that, too.  Instead of just saying  “we’re the best,” we could present compelling reasons why prospects should truly believe that.  What a concept!

No more ads that show the “full product line” without mention of why your line might have something extra to offer.  No more borrowed interest headlines and visuals that imply you’re faster (race cars) or more reliable (sleep better tonight), or more multi-purpose (swiss army knives), or more innovative (light bulbs).

Instead of all that, we’d have to write a specific statement about why we think you should select us, and then come up with a visual concept to stop you from turning the page or scrolling down too quickly.

In my opinion, effective advertising should start with the end result in mind.  Decide what action you’d like your prospective buyers to take, and then work back from there. The ad you end up with will probably be a lot different than the one you thought you were going to create.

The Best Client Ever

Having worked in the advertising business now for 40+ years, I’ve seen all kinds of clients – good ones, bad ones, generous ones, cheap ones.  Every type, really.  Most veteran agency people can give you a list of attributes that set the good clients apart from the pack.  In my opinion, here are a few characteristics that stand out.

1.  The ability to provide good branding direction.

Since branding is about building expectations, every marcom discussion should start with the question, “What expectation would you like to establish?”  If you could wave a magic wand and have customers and prospective customers expect something good from you, what would it be?

This is not as easy as it might sound, because customers are not stupid and neither are they lazy.  If your desired expectation is to “be the best,” you’re probably going to have to work a bit harder in describing what would constitute the best and why.

Sometimes they want products that last a long time.  Sometimes they want things that are easy to operate.  Or economical to operate.  Or safe.  If you push this discussion, you could probably develop a long list of things that might cause a customer to name you “the best.”

Unfortunately, in the ever-shifting world of branding, you usually only get one attribute because that’s all customers can remember and play back to you. If you try to make your brand stand for too much, you most likely will end up with an unfocused brand that stands for very little.

A good client will understand this and have an intuitive sense of what the most appropriate brand attribute for his or her product/company should be.  “We want our brand to be synonymous with _________.”  Whatever that is.

2.  Can identify the most important messages.

This is almost a lost art, because when I ask clients to name the five most important things we need to say this year, it’s obvious they haven’t spent much time thinking about it.  This is the long version of the elevator pitch.  If you have the undivided attention of an important customer for the next thirty minutes, what would you say to them that would make a difference?

Again, this is harder than it sounds because customers are not stupid.  If you say something naïve like, “we have the best people,” they will probably say they hear that from everyone.

Your messages have to be compelling.  If your “people” are considered a strength, what about them makes a difference?  Are they given more training?  Are they empowered to act quickly on client complaints?  Do you have more people with certain types of degrees?  Give us a reason to accept that your people are better in some way.

3.  Sets the bar high for agency performance.

Too many times, clients do the opposite.  They say things like, “Let’s not spend a lot of money on this,” or “Can we do something like you did for the XYZ tradeshow?” even though most of your important customers were there and will recognize the warmed over effort.

The worst clients are the ones who try to write headlines or copy for you, because they think you can’t do anything good on your own.  And it’s probably true that many agencies never learn enough about their client’s products and technologies to be creative at an advanced level.  Shame on us.

I love it when clients say, “Delight and amaze me!”  It makes you work all the harder to come up with something great.

4. Can provide good feedback on creative concept proposals.

“I don’t like it,” is not enough.  We can’t make it better with feedback like that.

You need to be more specific.  It’s too bold or not bold enough.  It puts too much emphasis on XYZ.  It doesn’t mention the such-n-such.  One of our competitors did something similar (and then find a copy to see how similar it really is).

“We said we wanted to associate our brand with so-and-so – I don’t think this does it.”  It’s okay to challenge the agency to make a case for how their proposed creative approach is consistent with the previously agreed upon branding strategy.  A good client can step back from the idea itself and talk about it objectively without getting personal.

A good client will also be putting himself/herself in the shoes of customers who are receiving the message.  How will they respond?  Will it reach them on an emotional level?  On an intellectual level?  Will it motivate them to take the desired action?

A good client is not afraid of bold, edgy concepts because that’s often required to break through the clutter.  A good client is willing to take risks.

5. Will fight to keep good ideas from getting watered down.

There’s always one person in every meeting who, with the noblest intentions, suggests that some key aspect of a concept be eliminated because it’s likely to offend someone.  Or they will want to change a distinctive, unexpected term to one that’s more common – again because they fear that people will misunderstand.

A good client will politely brush these well-intended suggestions aside and go with the full-strength concepts.  I’ve always wondered if Altoids mints would have been as successful if someone had changed “Curiously strong” to “Really strong.”

A good client will either defend the edgy concepts up the corporate ladder, or simply tell the higher ups it’s a marcom call and they should trust the marketing instincts of their chosen team.

A good client will not just allow you to do outstanding work, a good client will insist on it.  You will come to regard that client as “The Best Client Ever.”

The lost art of headlines

I’m not exactly sure when it happened, but sometime in the last ten years or so it apparently became unnecessary to write proper headlines for trade publication ads.

Now, when you flip through any issue of any major b-to-b magazine, you mostly find ads with large, bold-faced words at the top, but they don’t express a complete thought or make any attempt to engage the reader in a dialogue of any sort.

For example, here’s one from Schlumberger, one of our leading energy suppliers: “Making Knowledge Work.”  (I guess, like many other things, it must have been laid off recently.)

Here’s a similar incomplete thought from a leading geophysical company: “Knowledge Empowers.”  If it was really empowered, I’m thinking it would probably find a job to do or a problem to solve.

In a construction industry magazine, I discovered: “When service counts, count on us.”  I’m pretty sure service always counts, but it’s good to know that this particular safety solutions company will be able to come through in the clutch.  Well, they didn’t actually say they would come through or provide any reasons why you should count on them, but we’ve got to give them credit for something, huh?

Why is it that creators of b-to-b ads today find it acceptable to write ads that look good, but fail to stop the reader with a powerful selling proposition?  Isn’t that the main purpose of an ad?  Are we so busy cranking out marcom stuff that we don’t have time to worry about engaging the reader’s full attention?  Maybe we just don’t think it’s necessary anymore.

When I talk with publication publishers and sales reps about this sorry situation, they shake their head knowingly, but seem to accept it as inevitable.  Holy Crap!  It’s not inevitable, and it’s a trend that needs to be reversed immediately.

Advertisers who run lame ads without audience-engaging headlines are not likely to get much of any response to those ads.  Will they blame themselves for the low response?  No, they will probably blame the publication.  In fact, many b-to-b marketers these days are moving away from print media because “nobody reads that stuff anymore.”

I’m sure attention-challenged youngsters struggle with print, but in my humble opinion, if a publisher can offer a tightly defined audience of readers with similar needs, that’s a communications bonanza.  You will, however, have to make an effort to actually communicate!  You can’t just list your name and insert a picture of your product and expect customers to fill in the rest.

Like everybody else, customers are super busy these days.  They don’t have time to do your job for you.  They want to know which product or service will do the best job solving their problem for the money they have to spend.  If you can answer that question compellingly, you win the grand prize!

When a new issue of a trade magazine arrives on my desk, I sometimes like to kick back and imagine myself as a buyer of products and services.  The “noise” level is incredibly high.  The claims (if any) are very similar.  Do any ads stand out?  Is anyone making their case for my business persuasively?

Unfortunately, the answer all too often is no.  But occasionally, a few good ones leap out.

In a recent issue I discovered an excellent ad for Emerson flowmeters that stands out.  The headline is: “Every single flowmeter I calibrate interrupts my process.  There must be a way to verify meters without putting my plant and people at risk.”  Indeed there is, it’s called Micro Motion Smart Meter Verification.

Sometimes an engaging headline is simply provocative.  One recent Halliburton ad said, “Residue-free fluid provides better fracturing results than guar-based fluid systems.”  Considering the industry’s gone crazy for guar, that’s what you call a poser.

And it never hurts to combine a good headline with powerful graphics like the new ad series from Carhartt work shirts.  The headline, “The shirt you have to wear now comes in the shirt you want to wear” is nicely paired with a gripping, emotional photo of two guys working at a gritty construction jobsite.

I bet many of the lame headlines we read in trade magazines come from non-advertising client types who had the so-called great idea that morning on the way to work.  It takes guts and skill to sidestep those mandates and come up with something better – something that rings true.

It takes real backbone to smile, look ‘em in the eye and say “maybe” but they know you’re not likely to run with their fluffy idea anytime soon.

When you’ve had a chance to look behind the curtain to see how good advertising is created, you quickly find out that ideas are easy.  It takes dozens of them to find several with real potential.  You have to push beyond the obvious to develop one that can break through the clutter.

But that’s what our job calls for.  That’s why we do what we do.  And that’s why we make the big bucks.  Okay, I’m dreaming again.

Gangster Expectations

NOTE:  This entry was written for David Falloure’s Brands In History blog (brandsinhistory.blogspot.com)

Expectations are funny, so I’m always amused when some local retailer proudly proclaims he or she will “Exceed your expectations!”  How does he know what my expectations are?

When you enter into a retail buying experience, many times your expectations are negative.  You expect to wait a long time.  You expect to be ignored.  You expect the sales person to have a crappy attitude.

If they exceed that expectation, it would only be by making you wait even longer than you thought you were going to wait.  Or by treating you even worse than you expected to be treated.

Since the primary purpose of branding is to create a focused expectation, we need to be aware that the brand expectations we generate are often negative.  Customers perceive us to be arrogant.  Or expensive.  Or hard to deal with.

And so it is with many historic figures.  Imagine that you have been freshly hired to handle public relations for the famed Chicago mobster Al Capone.  (Even though it has been 65 years since his death, many of us still have strong, and negative perceptions of him to this day.)

If Mr. Capone was to suddenly rise from the dead, is there anything we could do to help improve his image?

Well, in hindsight, that Valentine’s Day Massacre thing didn’t go over too well, so we might suggest a less violent way to settle our differences with Bugsy Moran’s top lieutenants.   And those messy restaurant scenes when innocent women and children are splattered with submachine gun fire – not easy to put positive spin on that.

Discretion is probably what we’re striving for here, Al.  Handle your disagreements in a less noticeable way.  Try to stay off the front page if at all possible.

Surprisingly, in Capone’s early years, he tried to gain social respectability by making donations to various charitable organizations, becoming known briefly as a modern day Robin Hood (stealing from the booze runners and giving to the less fortunate).  He made “contributions” to many politicians and elected officials, and attended their public functions until it became dangerous for him to do so.

But painting a picture of Al Capone as a public spirited, all-round good guy is probably too much of a reach for most people to accept.  There are all those “incidents” to explain.

Maybe we could find a way to make his tough guy image work for him.  Like Frank Perdue, for example.  “It takes a tough man to make a tender chicken.”  Or Dodge Trucks – they’re Ram Tough.  We could encourage him to buy some Dodge truck franchises and go on TV as the tough guy spokesperson.

Then whenever one of those little incidents come up, people would just say, “oh, that’s just tough guy Al being a little rambunctious.“

It’s conceivable that Al Capone, if he had been able to soften and shape his image to be a little more socially acceptable and a little less threatening, might not have become the Public Enemy Number One target of Eliot Ness and his Untouchables team.  After many years of all-out effort, they never convicted him of any crime you might associate with a vicious mobster of his stature.  Tax evasion – that’s what he went down for.

He was so menacing, they threw the book at him and only got a 12-year conviction. Not an extremely long sentence considering Capone’s violent track record.  If he had received a more reasonable sentence, (and not experienced a little syphilis problem in his later life) Capone might have served his prison time and returned to the family business without missing more than a step or two.

Too bad he didn’t have branding experts like us to help him out, huh?

Requirements of marketing

Now that my career as a marketer has entered its fifth decade, I feel entitled, without being totally presumptuous, to offer a few observations about this vaguely defined profession we endeavor to practice.

Sadly, I must report I have worked with far more marketing managers who struggle to understand the job requirements than ones who do. Many of these strugglers were engineers or technically trained managers who just happened to be in the wrong place the day marketing responsibilities were handed out.  The conventional wisdom at companies like that is it’s more important to be knowledgeable about the products than it is to be knowledgeable about marketing.

And I suppose there’s some truth in that, but the best marketing manager clients are ones who at least make some effort to master the finer aspects of marketing.  Here are a few tips to move the needle in that direction.

1.  Think like a customer

Customers are not sitting there waiting for your advertising messages or marketing promotions to come flying by.  Nor are they waiting with eager anticipation for your PowerPoint presentations.  They have many other things on their mind, and many other priorities.

It’s really important for you to think about things that will make a difference with them.  What can you say that will be compelling or ring true?  What can you say that shows you’re someone they need to pay attention to?

If you communicate “difference making” things on a consistent basis, you will create a focused “expectation” that leads to a desire for them to do business with you and your company.  It’s the essence of branding.

2.  Concentrate on the most important stuff

It’s not necessary to promote all your products, nor is it necessary to list every feature and benefit.  In fact, if you do that, the important points get lost.

Good marketing people can screen out superfluous information and emphasize the salient points.  This not only applies to what you say, but also what you say it about.  You need to be acutely aware of which products and services should carry the marketing banner for maximum revenues and profits.  (The non-promoted stuff usually tags along as part of the overall package anyway.)

3.  Put it in perspective

The best marketing managers can not only tell customers what they need to know, but they can also tell them how that compares with things they might be hearing from competitors.  Remember, customers are busy, hassled and have too many priorities to spend much time putting your information in perspective.  They’re just trying to make good decisions.

Anything you can do to expedite that process will be greatly appreciated.  That’s why I like side-by-side product feature comparison sheets and white papers that list the “five most important factors” in choosing an XYZ product or service.  You’re just trying to be helpful, right?

4.  Have a thoughtful budget

Budgeting is pretty much a lost art.  Either a company is too lazy to have one, or it’s based on something that has nothing to do with the tasks at hand.  The only realistic budget is one that is prepared with a specific list of activities in mind.  We’ve decided that these are the things that need to be done, and here’s what it’s going to cost.

You can start out with a budgeting goal, i.e. it needs to fit in this revenue scenario, but you should also be prepared to adjust your budget once an agreed upon list of strategies has been approved.

The worst budgets are ones that try to do too much with too little.  It’s a self-fulfilling prophesy, if you want to look small, do things in a small way.  On the other hand, if you want to look like a leader who knows how to do things right, you might have to spend a little more money to do that.

5.  Think outside the box

I know this is a cliché, but for many technically oriented marketing managers, thinking outside the box is a real challenge.  It makes them extremely uncomfortable.  They don’t like it.

And yet, when these managers stop to recall things that really caught their eye or stuck in their brain, it was usually something way beyond the “normal” approach.  One easy exercise is to pick up the latest issue of an industry trade publication and analyze the ad messages that are being conveyed.  This goes back to my first point about thinking like a customer, but do any of the ad messages strike you as being significant?  Does any marketing offer stand out?  What about “calls to action”?  How much of it is just noise?

Thinking outside the box is not just for creative advertising concepts either.  The most creative message might have to do with an innovative pricing scheme.  Or a new distribution strategy.  Or a product packaging idea.

When you think about it, risk-taking is a common thread in breakthrough marketing.  If you’re not taking any risks, maybe you should ask yourself why.  And if you really are pushing the envelope, congratulations!   You have moved to the head of the marketing class.

The Branding Wisdom of Steve Jobs

Walter Isaacson’s biography of Steve Jobs is a delightful read – not just for the amazing anecdotes, but also for the business wisdom provided.  If you want a recipe for building a strong brand, this book has lots to offer.  For example:

>  Choosing a good name

Jobs’ company could have been called Matrix or Executek, but he wanted something fun, spirited, and not intimidating.  They picked Apple because it was friendly and simple.  When combined with “Computer” it formed an amusing disjuncture.  It forced your brain to think about it a second longer.

>  Imputing value

Mike Markkula, Apple’s first investor and outside manager influence, proposed three marketing fundamentals: Empathy, Focus and the need to Impute.  Empathize with (understand) your customer, focus on what you choose to do and do it well, and impute the value of what you do to the outside world.   Impute is an awkward way to say that image counts.  If people think you’re better, you are.  Jobs made these core principles of his company and never wavered.

>  Imputing begins with packaging

Jobs was way ahead of his time with product packaging.  For the Macintosh, he chose a full-color design and changed it fifty times to make it look better.  The packaging was going to be thrown in the trash as soon as the product was removed, but Jobs wanted to make a statement: product design begins with elegant packaging.  I still can’t bring myself to throw away the box my iPhone came in.  It’s so nifty, I made a place for it on the shelf by my desk.  (Can’t explain why, except I like it.)

>  Working with talented people

From his selection of Regis McKenna to launch the Apple II to his insistence of bringing back Lee Clow and the Chiat/Day team in 1997 for the iMac introduction, Jobs insisted on working with the best. He swallowed his pride and approved the one logo legendary graphic designer Paul Rand gave him for NeXt (Rand refused to change it for Jobs or give him options).  McKenna suggested the maxim, “Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication” on the first Apple II brochure, and it became the defining precept of Jobs’ design philosophy.

>  Trusting your gut

The Apple board was appalled when Jobs previewed the “1984” TV spot for them in 1983.  They told him to cancel the Super Bowl media buy and fire the agency.  Jobs and the Chiat/Day went ahead and ran the ad anyway.  The rest is advertising history.  When Jobs was asked about doing market research, his response was that customers don’t know what they want until we show them.  And he was right.  In 2001, portable music players “sucked,” so Jobs directed his iPod team to design one that didn’t.

>  Delighting customers with design

The list of Apple innovations is almost endless.  Graphical user interfaces.  Changeable typefaces.  Wheels and buttons that look cool and eliminate extra steps. Iconic ear “buds.” Gorilla glass instead of plastic.  Phones that answer questions.  Remember what personal computers looked like before the iMac?  They were putty gray, not a rainbow of vivid colors.

It’s no wonder that Jobs didn’t believe in market research, because much of what he was pursuing wasn’t evident even to him – until he and his team figured it out.  (They did know that “complicated and clunky” was definitely NOT what they wanted.)

>  Using persistence

It was not easy getting Steve Jobs on board with something, and he was very quick to make a decision about whether he liked it or not.  But it was possible to win him over with persistence.  At first, he hated the name iMac.  Later he said he didn’t hate it, but he was hoping for something better.  Ultimately, he warmed up to it and it’s a good thing, because we probably wouldn’t have iPod, iPad or iPhone either if he had killed iMac.

>  Creating end-to-end user interfaces

Because of his insistence on perfection, Jobs couldn’t conceive the possibility of Apple products running with other people’s hardware, or software that hadn’t been thoroughly vetted by his team.  He knew customers were incapable of indentifying the root cause of an unsatisfactory experience – but they definitely knew one when it smacked them in the face.  This “closed system” mentality put him at odds with his hacker roots and even his co-founding partner, Steve Wozniak.  But he knew instinctively it had to be that way.

>  Redefining the customer retail experience

Other computer companies had tried retail stores, but they didn’t see the possibilities that Steve Jobs did.  From the eye-popping store designs to super helpful and knowledgeable sales associates, everything about the Apple Store experience is better.  They even have a Genius Bar with honest-to-goodness geniuses to answer every question.  When I went for my iPad orientation, an elderly couple sat next to me and were treated with the utmost respect and patience by the young Apple staffer.  We all got something out of that session, and it was free.

Jobs liked to say he operated at the intersection of “humanities” and “science.”  He saw the similarities between artists and engineers, even looked for people that embodied both to be on his Apple teams.  It helps explain why the Apple brand has come to stand for awe-inspiring products.  They push with all their being to design great products, and we stand in line to buy them.

The result is one of the world’s strongest brands from the world’s most valuable company.

The marriage imperative

A recent article in TIME Magazine shows the national marriage rate in America has hit an all-time low. The percentage of married young adults (25-34) has dropped from 80% in the mid-60s to less than 45% in 2009.  For the first time in our history as a country, we now have more single adult women (18+) than married.

I think this trend carries over into business, too.  Companies seem less willing these days to contractually commit to suppliers, choosing instead to operate on a project-basis, rotating business among several anxious bidders.

Is this really wise?  Is “keeping your options open” the best way to get maximum value for your money?

Well, maybe in the world of off-the-shelf products produced to generally established specifications, but I assure you it doesn’t work for professional services like advertising. Here are five reasons why.

1.  Advertising is a collaborative, team-oriented business

The best work comes when client and agency work together as one.  There should be no secrets.  Both parties should know the good, bad and ugly.  They should know the strengths and weaknesses.  They should know the competition.  They should know the short-term and long-term issues.  And they should know the important messages from the not-so-important ones.

The more we know, the more creative we can be.  In my experience, real creativity comes from a deep, fundamental understanding of the subject matter, not some sudden, magical moment of inspiration.

2.  Value should be measured in results generated

Most veteran ad people know you can’t produce great advertising for clients that won’t let you.  And while it sounds crazy that clients would limit the impact of advertising programs they commission, it happens every day.  Turnaround time is inadequate.  Budgets are artificially low.  Project direction is superficial or off-target.  Those three things (time, money and direction) largely determine the results of any communications effort.  Even the most talented agency practitioners can tell you about efforts that fell short for one or all of those reasons.

It costs the same to run a really lame ad as it does a great one.  The difference is in what happens after the ad runs.  Were people motivated to ask for information?  Did they take some action to identify themselves to you?  And importantly, in the world of branding, did the prospective buyer’s expectation of your company’s products and services change?

The more agency and client work together closely and continuously, the more unlikely  it will be that results are sacrificed by limitations in time, money or direction.  (It’s like a husband trying to put one over on his wife – if it’s important, she will call him on it every time.)

3.  Accountability is impossible when efforts are divided

When one supplier handles the media advertising, another produces the tradeshow graphics and the in-house group does the collateral materials, how can you hold anyone responsible for final results?

Not only is continuity of creative approach difficult under these circumstances, you also eliminate the possibility that someone working on one piece of the assignment will have an inspired idea for how to handle another part.  It’s hard to think outside the box when your box is so tightly drawn.

And it’s impossible to hold people accountable when they haven’t been given that responsibility.

4.  It has nothing to do with saving money

In-house ad departments are increasingly popular these days with business-to-business companies, but not for the reasons you might imagine.  Most non-advertising managers who approve these arrangements are convinced they save money and get better results with dedicated individuals who truly understand the product and service technologies.

And while there are undoubtedly cases where that actually happens, it’s just as likely the costs are higher and results less.  The primary reason has to do with overhead costs – they’re the same for in-house and outside agencies.  Salaries, benefits, equipment, training, etc. are the same.  I can even make the case that outside agencies pay less because creative people prefer the working environment and opportunity to pad their portfolios with better stuff.

Finding good people is an on-going challenge for in-house and outside agencies alike.  If you’ve got a good team assembled, savor the moment.

5.  Keeping the team together is a shared responsibility

Clients like to think they have no obligation to help outside suppliers forecast staffing needs, but they do.  When they run a huge campaign through the agency in the first quarter and then little or nothing the rest of the year, what impact does that have on agency staffing and profitability?  Could they do that with an in-house group?

No, the in-house group will find ways to stay busy year-round.  And you should want your outside agency partner to do the same so they can keep a talented team together to serve your communication needs.  It doesn’t have to be exactly level, month-to-month, because agencies have other clients and can take up some of the slack with variation in their work load.  But the enlightened client is one that plans a steady flow of work through the agency year-round.

There are many myths in advertising and marketing, but the concept of agency-client relationship as a marriage is still as valid today as it was when I started in this business 40 years ago.  The institution of marriage may be trending down, but the need for clients and agencies to work together as one has never been greater.

Creating focused expectations

I’ve been thinking about brand personalities lately, especially ones for b-to-b companies. It’s really the essence of branding, because personalities lead to expectations and expectations lead to preference (or, in the case of a negative expectation, lack of preference). We have the opportunity to build a focused expectation with every ad we place, every web page we design and every tradeshow display we erect.

 Unfortunately, many b-to-b companies have yet to pick up on this.

With most b-to-b advertisers, creative responsibility is pushed as far down in the company as possible, although marketing and sales managers still enjoy dabbling in the process. It’s like an exciting hobby, except they get paid to do it. The result is that advertising for Division A rarely conveys the same look and feel as ads for Division B or C.  Because of this, customers fail to receive a focused impression of the company’s image. And that’s a serious mistake.

Caterpillar’s “One Voice” program is a great example of how to overcome this problem. You won’t find any dainty Caterpillar ads because daintiness doesn’t fit the Caterpillar voice. You won’t find any funny ones either, nor will you see eye-popping computer effects.

It’s not that Caterpillar doesn’t have a sense of humor or that their graphic designers don’t like special computer effects, but that they make conscious decisions not to use these techniques because they feel building a consistent personality for their brand is more important. Each ad reminds customers and prospective customers what they can expect from Caterpillar: strong, reliable products backed by serious, competent people.

IBM used to stand for business machines – boxes with complex computer stuff inside. But just about the time that personal computers started looking pretty much alike to computer buyers, IBM changed its image to that of a company that could help us do more with our boxes — like hook them up in huge networks, integrate enterprise software solutions and mine data for better decision-making. Our expectations of IBM have changed as a result.

I’m old enough to remember drilling for oil with truck-mounted drilling rigs that were essentially designed for shallow-depth water wells. You can’t do that anymore. Now you go down more than a mile just to get to the ocean floor and you drill several more miles before you reach pay dirt, assuming your geophysical information is correct.

That’s why Schlumberger, a leader in seismic and geophysical data services based in Houston, makes each and every one of its ads in oil-industry publications convey a serious, technologically advanced image. Its body copy is full of high-tech phrases like “microresistivity imaging” and “deep-water cementing for zonal isolation.” Layouts are always similar with the Schlumberger logo in white on a reflex blue background (which gives magazine production managers the heebie-jeebies, I’m told).

Schlumberger’s customers risk hundreds of millions of dollars on these subsea projects and the asset managers they’re trying to reach are not likely to settle for second-best. So in their world, either you look like the one-and-only right choice, or you’re no choice at all.

Having a deadly serious brand personality isn’t always the way to go, of course. New Pig Corp. based in Tipton, PA has built a $100 million business in spill-containment products by taking just the opposite approach. When you call the toll-free number (800-HOT-HOGS) or get ready to select something from their “Pigalog” of more than 5,000 leak and spill control products, you’re probably already smiling. New Pig has happily built a loyal, predictable customer base that shares a messy, disgusting problem: industrial seepage. And they’re smiling all the way to the bank.

So you see there are many ways to skin this cat, and there’s not any one right way to do it. .

If you’re going to spend the time and money to develop a brand image program, make sure you consider the personality aspects of it. Because your brand personality tells people what they can expect from you, and if they expect something good, you’re on the way to making a sale.

 

From Brand Hate to Brand Love

I just finished reading an article in FAST COMPANY about Ticketmaster, the World’s Most Hated Brand (July/August, 2011).  And while that distinction is debatable, CEO Nathan Hubbard didn’t disagree with it very much.  It seems that years of slow service and inflexible systems have generated strong consumer dislike for Ticketmaster.

“If Ticketmaster were a person,” one person tweeted, “I’d kick it in the f**king face.”  And other stuff like that.

When you think about it, there are many hated brands out there.  Who doesn’t have a horror story about the cable company or your wireless provider? 

Banks are a popular subject of hatred these days, thanks to our multi-trillion dollar stimulus program that made them healthy and able to pay themselves huge bonuses again – while they turn their backs on small business owners who desperately need investment funds to expand and create jobs.  I’m amused by Ally Bank’s ad campaign parodying abusive bank practices while they pretend to be different.  Efforts like that usually only remind viewers how all banks are abhorrent.

Some brand hatred scenarios are temporary or limited to small segments of the population.  I was recently surprised how many well-educated, financially successful people in my inner-city neighborhood rose as one to register their hatred for Wal-Mart when the retailing giant announced plans to locate a store not too far away.

And it’s easy for an otherwise respected company to become the subject of passionate, vitriolic loud and ugly protest when it makes an environmental false step.  You don’t want to get the tree-huggers riled up.

So what should you do when you find your brand love turning into brand hate?  Here are a few suggestions to help steer the ship back into safe harbor.

1.  Quantify the problem

Do some basic research to find out how widespread the problems are, and hopefully identify the key issues.  Don’t assume from anecdotal information that you know how deeply rooted the consumer issues are.  Look for underlying causes and segment your study so you can determine if the problems are widespread or limited to certain groups.

If there are multiple problems, prioritize them and determine which ones need attention first.

2.  Develop solutions

In some cases the solutions are obvious.  You make a slow process faster.  You give the buyer more options before they buy.  You provide “insurance” if the buyer decides to back out.

For bigger issues, like those related to the environment, you provide facts that help people understand the whole picture.  You make sure they know about things you are doing to minimize the impact or improve the quality of life for those affected.

Wal-Mart is dealing with their urban penetration problem with some creative new strategies involving smaller footprint stores with more attractive facades.  From the 195,000 square foot Super Center behemoth, to the 42,000 SF Neighborhood Markets and the newer 15,000 SF “Marketside” concept stores emphasizing fresh foods, Wal-Mart is attempting to serve inner-city customers with smaller stores that stand out less obtrusively.

In other cases where the issues are more complex and solutions less obvious, you invite interested parties to participate in the discussion.  You establish forums for open debate and sharing of ideas.  You become transparent.

3.  Spread the word

Once you’ve identified the problems and started the process of developing solutions, you get the word out that changes are underway.  Everyone knew that’s what BP was doing after the Deepwater Horizon disaster, but there’s no denying their television commercials helped soften the blow of negative opinion along the Gulf coast.

Social media has given millions of Twitter and Facebook users a platform to vent their unhappiness, but it also offers the opportunity to spread the news about service and facility improvements.

The worst thing a brand owner can do when faced with mounting negative attitudes is ignore the complaints.  The old saying, “Their perception is your reality” applies more now than ever.  If customers think you have a problem, you do.  And the sooner you start fixing it, the better.