August 07, 2008
Consumers or Marketers... Who's Responsible for Advertisements
Seth Godin asks: are consumers responsible for bringing about the marketing and advertising we see on TV, radio and in magazines and newspapers?
His answer is yes, partially. We would agree.
The argument is simple: if consumers didn't respond to the marketing and advertising by buying the products and services promoted in them, those very advertisements would go away - because if the companies kept paying to run them they'd go out of business.
So you can conclude that much of the advertising you see or hear airing for any period of time is likely pretty effective in generating some kind of profitable business result. That means it is a reflection of what grabs people's interest.
"I've maintained for years that marketing is so powerful that marketers have to take responsibility for the choices they make. And they do. But what about us? What about the New York Times reporter who writes an entire column about the cheap grill he bought at Home Depot--he's upset that it didn't come with better service... At some level, isn't he getting what he paid for? And when consumers so often choose the cheapest possible tickets for air travel, aren't we arguing for a lousy product? When I go back to a convenient B2B vendor even though they treated me poorly last time, aren't I complicit in rewarding that attitude?" - Seth Godin
Seth rightly points out that this does not mean marketers are not responsible for the choices they make. They are. For example, if the product isn't really that good, the marketer resorts to lies to sell it. In the long run, that business won't be around. In the short run the marketer may make money, but it essentially amounts to stealing.
Don't like ads you see or hear? Don't blame the marketers. Marketers are not making ads for their own entertainment. They are making ads that sell more of a product or service because that is what a responsibility that comes with their job.
You could say that the making of advertisements is truly democratic, and that consumers simply cast a vote with each one of their dollars.
July 31, 2008
Pop This Pill with Your Morning Coffee and Have Another Doughnut
Here's some good news for Krispy Kreme's stock price.
The Associated Press is reporting about a new pill that shows you can get the benefits of exercise without working out. It's "a couch potato's dream".
Here are a couple of soundbites from the article:
"Sedentary mice that took the drug for four weeks burned more calories and had less fat than untreated mice. And when tested on a treadmill, they could run about 44 percent farther and 23 percent longer than untreated mice."
"We have exercise in a pill," said Ron Evans, an author of the study. "With no exercise, you can take a drug and chemically mimic it."
Now we can eat even more and exercise even less... one step further on our way to a blissful existence.
July 30, 2008
Is Political Advertising Strategy: "May the Best Liar Win"?
I was reading an article during lunch today about the ad strategy of one of the candidates for President.
I'm generally drawn to any article on advertising strategy and I was excited to hear how the best and brightest in the political arena are maneuvering for the top prize of Mr. President.
The article talks about the claims made in two recent political ads and how effective these ads have been for one candidate's campaign due both to the claims and to how many free airings of these ads have occurred.
Then I came to a line in the article that said
"Both claims were nonsense, as plenty of objective observers have noted."
Suddenly I realized what, exactly, these "best and brightest" are the best and brightest at... It's not exactly the sort of advertising strategy I had in mind. From the article:
The New York Times called this"a public relations coup that allowed him to show his toughest campaign advertisement of the year--one widely panned as misleading--to millions of people, largely free, through television news media hungry for political news with arresting visual imagery."
You'll note I'm leaving out references to candidate names here because the point of this post isn't to say one candidate is better than the other. While the examples cited here pertain to one candidate, the reality is that neither candidate - nor any politician for that matter - would, under scrutiny, be found free of misleading statements in their advertising.
Since this can't be good for our political system, and therefore for our country as a whole, we might ask why it is allowed to continue. One look at factcheck.org, which claims to be an independent source, appears to show that nearly every ad is misleading, including ads by both political candidates.
By way of reminder, it's against the federal (and state) law for businesses to make false or misleading claims in advertising. To put it bluntly, you aren't allowed to lie in order to sell your product or service. You have to tell the truth. If you don't, the Federal Trade Commission has a division called the Bureau of Consumer Protection that will come after you and make you pay a lot of money - in both defense of yourself as well as in punishment and restitution to the consumers adversely affected by the lies or misleading statements in your advertising.
"The Bureau of Consumer Protection works to protect consumers against unfair, deceptive, or fraudulent practices in the marketplace."
Unless these unfair, deceptive, or fraudulent practices committed against consumers (citizens) are undertaken by someone who wants to be President of the United States.
As we are all aware, laws are put in place by the government, specifically the members of the Senate and the President. Isn't it interesting that the same people who make the laws against false and misleading advertising are the same people who are exempt from the laws against false and misleading advertising.
So, politicians running for office aren't held to the same standard as us regular people who run businesses - also known as citizens. Yes, you are allowed to lie in advertising in order to get people to elect you President of the United States, but you aren't allowed to lie to sell more Coca-Cola, Tide detergent, or Subway sandwiches.
Now, you may ask: is this a big deal? Don't businesses spend far more money and therefore do far more damage than politicians when they lie in advertising?
That depends, on perhaps two things. One, do you think the decision about who will be President of the United States is more important or less important than the decision to go to Subway for lunch? Second, in just seven months of 2008, total spending on political and issue ads stands today at $655 Million. Johnson & Johnson, by contrast, spent about $700 million world-wide across all of its global brands during the first six months of 2007. In short: these are pretty big advertising numbers and if they are spent behind deceptive ads, they will have a significant impact. There is a reason why the government outlaws false and deceptive advertisements... they are very influential. People believe what they hear and see in advertisements.
Let's hope, as unlikely as it is, that for the sake of our country people apply some scrutiny to what they see in political advertisements and make the effort to check the claims made in them this season. Otherwise the race for President will be largely determined by which candidate's advertising strategists can come up with the most influentially misleading ads. Probably not the best criteria for electing someone President of the United States.
And, frankly, can't the United States of America do better than this?
July 23, 2008
PowerPoint is Out, Napkins are In
This video of a Google ad exec highlights a few interesting points:
1. The traditional one-way business presentations using large PowerPoint decks are out. They are replaced by simple, stick-figure drawings done on napkins in real-time, as an interactive dialogue with a customer or client.
2. Although this Google executive has ditched PowerPoint and rediscovered the more simpler approach of napkin-and-stick-figures, he hasn't re-discovered his ability to speak without stringing together business buzzwords ad nauseum.
3. You can glimpse a bit about Google's ambitions and their take on the future of advertising.
July 21, 2008
More For Our Ben Zander Series
Not too long ago we wrote a series of blogs based on the keynote speaker of the Response Expo event we attended in San Diego in May.
Thanks to Mark RamseyI recently found out about a video of Mr. Zander on the awesome site TedTalks. For those of you who'd like to be directly inspired, here is the video of his talk in full view. He actually refers to the radio industry early on in his talk.
"The conductor doesn't make a sound....his job is to awaken possibility in other people."
We are all conductors - at the very least we are conductors of our lives, of our relationships, of our words.
"Who am I being that my players eyes aren't shining?"
Subscribe via RSS The Power of Persuasion, Robert Levine
Influence: Science & Practice, Cialdini
Words That Work, Frank Lutz
My Life in Advertising and Scientific Advertising, Claude C. Hopkins
Or Your Money Back, Alvin Eicoff
Being Direct, Lester Wunderman
Radio Blog