Why Do Fashion Ads All Look Alike?

As Christmas approaches and gift giving is on our mind, I've been paying a little more attention to the perfume, cosmetic and jewelry ads that dominate all the women's fashion magazines.  You know the ads I'm talking about.  The ones that feature the world's highest priced models (or major Hollywood stars) photographed by the world's most expensive photographers advertising the world's most overpriced women's products.

These ads follow a different school of thought about marketing and brand positioning than all of us non-fashion marketers have been trained to believe in.  The main thing that always strikes me is that in the world of fashion marketing, it is OK for your ads to look the same (practically identical) to your competition's ads.  It's not only OK, it seems to be a requirement.

Is this simply something that's just accepted dogma in the world of fashion marketing or is it something that they know for a fact actually works for them?

Before writing this entry, I opened up the December issue of Vogue to find some examples of what I mean.  Spread before me are perfume ads from Estee Lauder, Dior, Dolce Gabbana and Versace.  These ads have virtually identical layouts.  I really mean IDENTICAL.  Not only are the layouts all the same, but none of the ads have anything remotely approaching "an idea."  Each ad is "pretty face (come hither look) , big bottle, logo."  No headlines, no copy, no ideas.  

In any other marketing category (with the possible exception of automotive where almost all of the print ads look like the same art director put them together, too) having a print campaign that was identical to a competitor's campaign would be considered a problem.  Not in the world of fashion.  I wonder why.

Don't the same laws of marketing apply to these products?  Isn't it just as important to stand out in the world of fashion and have a unique identity that differentiates your brand from those you compete with?  Isn't it just as important to have a campaign concept with an idea behind it? A pretty super model simply isn't an idea.  

I think most fashion marketers are guilty of assuming that just because their super model and their perfume bottle is different from the competition's super model and bottle that consumers will see the difference between the brands.  

Maybe women who read the fashion magazines religiously understand and appreciate the subtle brand differentiation that is in these ads.  However, my hunch is that they don't and that most fashion marketers are kidding themselves.  I recommend that they wake up and smell the perfume. What they're doing now strikes me as marketing insanity.

 

Chicago Tribune Files for Bankruptcy - Why Are Newspapers in Trouble?

I may be "old school" but I have to have my morning newspaper.  Wherever I've lived, I've subscribed to the local paper, The New York Times and The Wall St. Journal.  When I travel, I love to pick up USA Today.  But I'm apparently unusual.  Newspapers are quickly losing readers and advertisers.  The current recession is making matters worse as most advertisers are cutting back.  Yesterday, the Chicago Tribune made news by filing for bankruptcy.  

There are many younger Americans who now find newspapers irrelevant and hopelessly old fashioned.  They consume their news digitally.  They can get the news they want (and only what they want) on their PDAs immediately when the news is happening.   Why should they buy a printed newspaper that is out of the date and behind on breaking news events the minute it's printed?  Besides, that old printed thing has all sorts of stuff in it that they're not interested in reading, including most of the ads.  And, on top of everything else, newspapers create waste and they aren't as environmentally friendly as other ways to get the news.

With both technological and environmental trends solidly against them, are newspapers doomed?  Maybe.  What should marketing sanity look like to today's struggling newspapers?  What should they be doing?  If you were in charge of one, what would you be doing?

Job 1:  Hold on to your current subscribers.  Are newspapers reaching out to their readers with special offers, services and new product features that will preserve their loyalty?  Or are they milking their customer base?  Is sending that monthly or quarterly bill the only time they communicate?

Job 2:  Product development.  What can newspapers do to become relevant to the digital generation?  Are they developing and testing new ideas with a sense of urgency?  Are they trying to find ways to become Purple Cows (see my earlier blog on this topic).  Or are they resigned to having lost this audience forever?

Job 3:  Diversification and alliances.  The engine of every newspaper is news gathering and reporting.  These are assets that are valuable and unique.  How can these assets be fully leveraged with other businesses that need and value the content and information that is being created?  Similarly, how can newspapers do a better job of bundling the advertising impressions they deliver by partnering with other media?  What unique advertiser synergies can be created?

I think that the newspaper business has been too insular for too long.  Insular industries only hire from within.  The old ways are accepted as gospel.  "Experience" is more valuable than innovation.  New people with fresh ideas aren't recruited.  New ideas aren't developed and those that are have difficulty taking root and gaining advocacy.  These industries become inbred which is one short step away from becoming extinct.  The auto industry has certainly been guilty of this and I suspect the newspaper business is similarly guilty. 

Learn a lesson from these industries that are now struggling so mightily to survive.  Routinely recruit new people from outside the company and outside your industry.  They will come with fresh new ideas that are needed in every company.  Listen.  Test.  Implement.  Change.  Don't ever become satisfied with the status quo.  

Selling vs Service. Does Your Company Need an Attitude Adjustment?

Do you work for a company where there is intense pressure to sell?  

These kind of companies typically demonstrate an overriding executive level fixation on financial performance instead of customer service.  Financial success is driven by two things: growing revenues and cutting costs.  When these tasks become the overwhelming fixation of senior executives, your company may be in need of a serious attitude adjustment.  When executives create a corporate culture where there is this intense pressure to sell in order to sustain revenue growth,  they are almost certainly also creating a corporate culture where customer service takes a back seat.

When companies lose focus on customer service and only look upon their customers as an entity that you sell things to, it's a problem.  They've lost sight of why customers are doing business with them in the first place and they're on the road to ruin.   These companies need to undergo a major attitude adjustment from Selling to Service.  Here's why. 

No one likes to be sold.  Not in their personal life and not in a business context either.  When you sense that you are "being sold", what happens?  Your barriers go up and the skeptical listening center of your brain goes into full gear.  We instinctively don't trust someone who is trying to sell us something.  It's takes hard work and artful salesmanship to overcome those barriers and actually sell anything.

On the other hand, everyone likes to be helped.  It's why you're greeted in a store with "How can I help you, today?"  When was the last time anyone greeted you with "What can I sell you today?"  When we think someone is trying to help us, our barriers disappear and we usually experience gratitude rather than skepticism.  Over time, gratitude grows into trust.  And trust creates customers for life.  This seems like a total no-brainer to me.  Why would any company want potential customers to feel skeptical (ie- always be in selling mode) when they can choose to make them feel grateful and trustful (ie- by being in service mode)?  

If your company is always stuck in selling mode, it needs an attitude adjustment.  The primary focus of any company should be on service as opposed to selling.  If the executives are only looking at sales metrics and not service metrics, something is wrong.  When you're successful at service, sales follow.  When you stink at customer service, you will soon stink at sales, too.