It’s always good to keep an email short.
But it doesn’t help when one of your sentences (or 20%) is this:
“A content strategy, supported by a well defined and implemented “publishing” process, is the key to unlocking the full potential of lead management and sales enablement initiatives.”
Though I’ll take that over this any day:
“That damage is an element of the tort of negligence is not in doubt: actionable injury completes the cause of action, so that time begins to run for limitation purposes only from the moment it occurs.”
I seem to have picked two disciplines which are just full of meaningless waffle.
Answering a question as a lawyer is like playing soccer. Figure out the frame of reference; stay on the pitch; work out which way you’re going and then get to the goal – getting past all exceptions and defences.
Sales is more like cricket. You pitch. When they hit back you make sure that whatever direction they go in, you’re there too and you bring it back to the same spot. Repeat until they’re out.
And marketing? Well, that’s a whole different ball game.
Filed under: 1 | Tags: District 9, facebook, integrated marketing, marketing, Sony, The Matrix
I find myself in a very unique position on this lazy holiday afternoon, refreshing a Facebook page over and over again.
No, I’m not stalking the guest list for tonight’s party…I’m trying to re-find an ad after being too trigger happy with the ‘close’ button.
There are few banner ads we actually respond to, but in a recession it’s a pretty good bet that there will be people looking for jobs. It grabs your attention.
Then you look at the picture. And the text. It becomes pretty clear that it’s not a real job. It doesn’t pretend to be something it’s not.
But the idea of a job involving ‘non-humans’ sounds a bit quirky, and you wonder what on earth it could be. It captures your interest.
So yes, I clicked. And not surprisingly, it’s part of an integrated online campaign for a new movie, District 9.
They seem to have avoided the Facebook page/news feed/Twitter combination which is apparently standard now-a-days, opting for an interactive, media-heavy network of three sites.
The first, linked from the ad, is the ‘Multi-National United’ site with job postings, overviews of a mysterious company and a countdown headed ‘20 years in the making’. The other two sites explore different aspects of the movie’s plot.
Integrated marketing is difficult because each part has to tell its own story while still linking into a whole. The Matrix is a great example. The movie was one part, but the story was also built up through secret sites, codebreaking, games and other artistic works based on the same philsophy and alternate reality.
In this case, all they need to do to sell the movie is create enough interest that when you see the name District 9 outside a cinema one lazy afternoon you’ll think ‘hey…why not’.
–
Being always on the lookout for more facebook ads to bring you, I will of course be on the lookout on my upcoming birthday, as I hear advertisers can now target ads specifically to the lucky facebook users. You’ve been warned.
**May not be actual text or pictures, graphic the property of Sony. No humans or non-humans were harmed in the making of this picture.
Filed under: 1 | Tags: branding, CSR, employer branding, gen y, Generation Y, marketing, recruitment
PR is lovely. It allows companies to make newsflashes of ‘insight’ into topics ‘we have little to no understanding of’ (ie. Gen Y**) and promote themselves in the process.
Recent example: Morgan Stanley’s report by a 15 year old intern on why teenagers don’t use Twitter.
Let’s just ignore the fact that I’ve seen umpteen posts saying exactly the same thing from ‘Gen Y’ blogs. I think a more sensational headline might have been ‘15 year old interns handling affairs of global financial management company’.
Like I said, PR is lovely.
This brings me to my original question: does Gen Y really look for CSR when choosing an employer?
…because according to headlines from several large companies, this is a key requirement tabled by ‘Gen Y’ in interviews.
Is this really true or just a marketing stunt?
- It allows the company to grab a headline
- It makes students think that if everyone else is aware of it maybe they should be too
- A further 250 words can be devoted to the company’s CSR efforts
[Let us note at this point that just because a story has been used for marketing purposes, it is not necessarily made up - the Morgan Stanley case demonstrates this.]
However, as a blanket statement, I don’t think you can say that ‘Gen Y’ feels CSR is important in an employer.
Rants on the general nature of the term ‘Gen Y’ aside, at the moment those just graduating or in junior roles are mostly just glad to GET a job. Many will not have the option to ‘choose’ their employer, and they will rank pay and job description higher than CSR in importance. It only comes into play where all else is equal. (Not that it’s so black and white – it’s usually that we like the brand more from the impression we get.)
This is something we’ve seen from before the GFC, though. Unethical corporate behaviour can be a disincentive, but proactive CSR strategies mostly only aid HR in forming company culture.
Not to say that CSR is not important – as a generation we are more aware of environmental issues hearing about a brand doing ‘good things’ can leave us with a better feeling.
But from talking to a variety of people, there is only a select group to whom CSR is very important. They’re generally highly educated, grew up with volunteer work or come from a religious educational background. Caring about issues like sustainability or human rights often coincides with a dedication to studies and long-term results. If they form part of your target market for candidates then your employer brand will benefit from an extensive CSR program.
Me personally? I wouldn’t feel comfortable working for an unethical employer and would much prefer to go for a job where I have the opportunity to continue making an impact on causes I believe in. Quite a few friends are the same. But I know we’re definitely not the majority.
**Irony fully intended.
Filed under: 1 | Tags: art, Design, film, marketing, SAFC, South Australian Film Corporation
The South Australian Film Corporation wants to revolutionise film.
The Australian film industry, unlike the American and Indian behemoths, does not churn out mega-productions. ['Australia' doesn't count.]
What Australian film offers is a completely different product; arthouse dramas, gritty portrayals of suburban life and a voice for Indigenous stories. So why are we using the same distribution models?
I went to a presentation by the CEO of the SAFC a few weeks ago. They’re trying to encourage more low to mid level budget film-makers to come to South Australia. For emerging artists it’s a cheaper location with no sacrifice on scenery.
But there’s no point having great films being produced if they’re consistently battling the norms of distribution and performing under budget.
The current model is one you’d be familiar with. Films make most of their revenues in the first week of showings, and a failure to make it big or receive good reviews within that time mean that it’s doomed. This means key factors of success are; the budget for pre-release promotion, the reputations of the actors/director and most of all the distribution. They need to be reaching as many theatres as possible at convenient times.
Indie films rarely have any of the three.
They rely on word of mouth, reviews and awards to build their reputation. They suffer from not having the budget to be shown at regular times in larger cinemas, which means that they do not register in the mass consciousness unless they win awards. Even if they do manage a win at Cannes, the inconvenience is enough to put off all but the most enthusiastic.
I’d love to be able to watch more indie movies…but they are never available when I want to see them. Trying to find a time to see ‘Samson and Delilah’ was difficult, and it’s been deemed a moderate success.
So please, it is time for a new film distribution model. With Bigpond movies starting to introduce home movie viewing and broadband access picking up over the next few years, they need to ‘capture the long tail’ and look beyond the norm that movies need to be seen in a theatre. Release indie films online, gain audiences and save money.
It’s a big step. But surely the example of Youtube shows it can work.
Filed under: 1 | Tags: beauty, FMCG, L'Oreal, marketing, mascara, Maybelline, Revlon
So, you thought the toothpaste people were evil for making you consume more by making the hole in the tube bigger?
As an addict, I say this with regret, but…
Mascara is really one of the biggest marketing cons of all time.
Does it really make your lashes ‘10x larger, 10x bigger’ with ‘longer lasting lift’?
[Oh wait...I've heard that somewhere else before...]
Let’s be absolutely honest, girls and boys. All that mascara does is coat eyelashes with coloured stuff. The darker colour makes lashes more noticeable, particularly the tips which are too thin to be seen normally. Add a coat of gloop and you have instant volume.
It’s like putting spraypaint on a spiderweb. It doesn’t *actually* have any effect on the lashes.
[Trivia: One of the first successful mascara products was essentially coal dust mixed with Vaseline.]
Not to say that there’s no product differentiation; you still have to worry about factors like clumping, smudging, how well it holds shape and whether the brush gives smooth coverage.
Pretty much all the rest of the claims are made up.
My favourite con is the double-ended mascara with a white ‘primer’ and black ‘mascara’.
It stands to reason that if you give your eyelashes two coats of mascara they’ll look thicker. Less women get these kind of results, mostly because they can’t be bothered.
‘Primer’ solves this. You might notice that it’s always white. This is so that once you’ve applied it you need to apply about twice as much product so that you don’t look like a freak who has black and white eyelashes.
So it DOES make your eyelashes look thicker…because you’ve applied about three times the usual amount of product.
The pure evil in this is that it looks like you’re getting more per stick thing and being charged accordingly. But no. On comparison of my mascaras, the normal tube contains 6.2mLs, compared to 3.5mLs each of primer and mascara (which will be used twice as quickly).
But no matter. We’ll continue buying it, because it promises us a better way of life…and if we just keep thinking that, it will.
Filed under: 1 | Tags: marketing, product development, Viktor & Rolf, Viktor*Ro
My love affair with Viktor&Rolf marketing continues. Apart from one thing…
…but first, the background. Their perfume ‘Flowerbomb’ first caught my attention because of a friend enamoured with the product description.
Just as the gentlemen of old might romance a pretty maiden with words of love, all of V&R’s perfumes come with a description so luscious they would make any girl swoon.
So, fresh from my mailbox, a letter which rates as approximately standard:
“As a privileged guest of the Secret Service, Viktor & Rolf allow you to preview their new jewel: Petite Flowerbomb.
Explore this mini-grenade by gently removing the pin and allowing the power of Flowerbomb to release in a daunting blast. Petite Flowerbomb is a small powerful weapon that will transform your life.
Charm, seduction and success, all the powers of Flowerbomb are reunited in this mini-talisman. A thousand precious flowers to keep with you in order to celebrate life as a utopia.
And if you succumb to Petite Flowerbomb, do not forget to enter the code that you can find at the bottom of your bottle’s pack as you’ll then be subject to the exclusive attention of Viktor & Rolf.
VIKTOR & ROLF
SECRET SERVICE”
This leads me to expect:
- some resemblance to the original Flowerbomb bottle, but more intricate – therein lies the charm of miniatures
- something compact
- a continuation of the grenade concept
Something odd about the product development here…because here’s the bottle they came up with:
I find it a lot less inspiring; a departure from the original unique Flowerbomb concept to a bottle which is more…dare I say, generic.
I’m well aware of the Apple effect – a trend towards simpler, sleeker design. Perhaps in a recession they feel they will be better off with a smaller (more affordable) size which does not seem so opulent, but that could be a sacrifice of the brand…
If that’s not the aim, it makes you wonder what new ground they’re hoping to cover in the market, especially when they already have a miniature version of Flowerbomb:
So…either there’s something weird going in the product development department or the communication just isn’t making it clear what the difference is.
Viktor&Rolf, tell me why I should buy this. Make me want to splash out…
Filed under: 1 | Tags: advertising, branding, brands, Braun, Duracell, FMCG, Gillette, marketing, P&G, Pringles, social media, Tide, Vicks
P&G has made big waves in the social media community with their first foray – after letting everybody else test the water they’ve waded into the fray by inviting the best and brightest to their offices with the task of selling as many Tide tshirts as they can.
Plenty of buzz, rounded off nicely by donating proceeds of the exercise to charity.
My question is…why did they choose Tide?
…it can’t be just so they could use the phrase ‘Loads of Hope’. Or I hope not.
(You will find quite a few books about Tide and the way it changed P&G history, most of which have exploited the wealth of phrases included the word ‘tide’. You’ve been warned.)
Now I’m not saying it was a bad choice but for a company with such a wide array of brands and evidently a strategic outlook you have to wonder…why did they choose this one?
After all, P&G isn’t exactly short of brands to work with. I’ve even heard P&G speakers claim that the company invented branding as we know it. There’s big – and highly marketable – names like these:
A couple of thoughts on why they might have chosen Tide…
- Laundry powder has a wide appeal, is suitable to all markets and unoffensive - it’s not like it’s Tampax.
- The product doesn’t generate its own hype – so it’s neutral ground to test the effectiveness of social media.
- Youth, the demographic most associated with social media, is less picky about their laundry powder. (If they buy it at all.)
- Tide has been a key brand in P&G’s history – they might want to use it to open a new chapter.
- Let’s face it…a Tide pun lifts up even the worst news.
- It’s not a bad logo for the face of a charity campaign. Not unlike Obama’s campaign logo.
- The tees are apparently ‘cool/hip/retro‘ – is this the next ‘make poverty history’ band?
But surely they considered using other brands? I mean…
- For the same reasons as above, Tide is a key brand in the portfolio and there’s a lot to lose.
- Buzz around laundry powder? Laundry powder? It’s a tough sell. Are you going to get a good feel for what social media can do by limiting yourself?
- When your proceeds go to disaster relief, ‘Tide’ might not be what they want to hear…
- There have been other Tide tshirts already on sale (for much cheaper) and the style it evokes has a niche appeal.
- Surely another brand like Pringles would be just as effective – if not more.
All of these could affect the effectiveness of the exercise, given the aims of investigating social media and figuring out who’s best at it.
So why did they pick Tide?
[I guess, more simply...the Tide brand manager could have been the one to come up with the project.]
Filed under: 1 | Tags: AdAge, behavioral targeting, behavioural targeting, Forrester Research, gen y, Generation Y, Google, marketing
Why yes, you might be.
Just watched AdAge’s video segment on Emily Riley from Forrester Research’s recent speech addressing Gen Y and behavioural targeting.
They propose:
- forming an op-out database for those who do not want to be behaviourally targeted – ie. they want their healthcare data to be ignored but are okay with their retail data being studied
- creating a website where ‘Gen Y’ can post their wants (ie. a car) and receive advertising for those wants based on their information (ie. they’re a fan of BMW on Facebook)
I have number of objections:
- STOP taking ‘Gen Y’ as a singular marketing demographic. Generally young people are more switched-on technologically, but that doesn’t mean everyone has the same preferences about how they interact with that technology – that’s like saying all adults buy the same food because they’re more kitchen-savvy.
(I will admit I have a bias against the term but ‘Gen Y’ is used FAR too much these days.) - When it comes to consumers being able to ‘opt-out’ of having their info in a database, it’s a bit like communism: it might work in someone’s head as an idea, but it will never work in practice.
People are less likely to bother to opt-out, or may not even know how – it’s a phenomenon they propose to exploit.
I suspect the FTC will object to it because of this.
Previously, people ‘opting out’ of telemarketing databases – ‘no telemarketing’ or ‘do not call’ lists – have found themselves part of a new database for all those organisations not bound by the ‘do not call’ list. Someone will try to find a way to get hold of their information, because technically a whole behavioural segment would be excluded if you didn’t have it.
Of course, the speech brushes over this to talk about behavioural targeting. - …and behavioural targeting will be controversial. But let’s look purely at effectiveness.
It actually limits the consumer to their previous choices.
You’re trying to predict the next point on the graph by extrapolating the previous ones.
Well, if you want to talk about Gen Y traits…youth throughout the ages have demonstrated higher risk-taking traits. They want something new, something off the radar – not something served up to them.
To implement this assumes that all brands would be able to advertise.
To have a limited choice would be too generic and take away the joy of search – half the fun is the feeling that you’ve discovered something before everyone else has. (That’s contributed to the success of a little company you might know called Google.)
Sure, they can still search on their own, but the more they find something they prefer by looking outside of your behaviourally-targeted advertising the less they’ll see value in using the service in the future.
Trading on information is probably Facebook’s best chance at actually making money since the realisation that the most successful advertising involving Facebook has been through apps, which are free to create.
But most people will feel a slight discomfort about having someone else own their information. It’s one thing to post it to share with your friends and another thing to have it being sold to corporations.
Take a leaf from Google’s philosophy… Don’t be evil.
