Are you a fan of those TV commercials that feature the CEO as the company's spokesperson?
Over the last few decades, there have been some notable marketing successes using this approach. The ones that come immediately to mind are Orville Redenbacher, Frank Perdue, and Dave Thomas (Wendy's). I think what made each of these campaigns work was that each spokesperson/CEO was an original. Quirky and believable and amusing. They were execs that didn't take themselves too seriously and they allowed their agencies to use them in light-hearted ways. Over time, they became rather endearing and that helped make us pay attention to their marketing messages.
In today's economic climate, CEOs are generally getting bad press. They're in the news either for laying people off, needing bail outs or posting poor results. I don't think that most Americans are predisposed to like CEOs right now, so it's a particularly dicey time to use one as the centerpiece of your marketing campaign.
Here are a few companies using their CEOs as their TV spokesman today and, without fail, I think these approaches are not working.
Sprint: We see the CEO (Dan Hesse) in dark, nearly black and white, spots as he casually strolls through various Manhattan settings and tells us how cool Sprint is and invites us to join him and his company on the mobile technology highway. Nothing charming or interesting or endearing about these spots. In fact, the CEO just comes across as an egotistical guy who seems to think he's persuasive and cool. Is anyone switching to Sprint based on this campaign? I doubt it.
Community Coffee: The young fourth generation CEO of his family tells us why Community Coffee is so good. The idea here seems to be "trust me. I'm so sincere. Buy my family's coffee." I always find myself wondering, "would this guy be the CEO if his great grandfather, grandfather and Dad hadn't just handed the company over to him?" A distracting thought that definitely gets in the way of me being persuading to buy the coffee.
Papa John's Pizza: The CEO has been their spokesperson for many years. He's always been very stiff on camera. Not a natural who looks like he actually enjoys being the spokesperson. I find the spots always awkward to watch and I'm always distracted by the poor acting ability of the CEO.
I've never been personally involved in a CEO As Spokesperson campaign, but I can imagine how awkward they must be to develop and produce. If it's the CEO's idea, how do you gracefully advise him/her against the idea and keep your job? If it's your idea and the CEO turns out to be an on-camera stiff, how do you persuade him/her to give up the newly found TV fame and return to being just the behind-the-desk CEO? Difficult issues and it's got to be hard for everyone involved to maintain objectivity and do the right thing.
My advice... unless you've got a Frank Perdue or an Orville Redenbacher as your CEO, develop your marketing campaigns without using your top dog as your talking head.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
B2B Technology Marketing Blunders That Bug Me
Blunder #1: B2B Web Sites That Fail to Communicate Clearly.
Have you ever visited a technology company's web site, studied the home page, browsed around a little and still had no idea what the company does/makes or why you should do business with them?
It happens to me all the time. I'm a smart guy, but I'm definitely not a technocrat. I want to understand the technology that I'm considering buying without being dazed, confused or intimidated by it.
Most technology companies are loaded with techno-geeks who all speak the unique language of that particular technology. It's often an impenetrable argot of acronyms and arcane language that only fellow geeks in that particular technology will understand. When these people are in charge of an important marketing tool, like the company's web site, bad things start to happen. While the technocrats can communicate with each other, they leave the majority of us in the dark. This is NOT communication. It's obfuscation. That's why it's a terrible marketing blunder to let technocrats be in charge of B2B company web sites. The only time it makes any sense is if the only people who will have anything to do with buying your techno-product or service are all fellow geeks. In my experience, this is almost never the case.
The art of brilliant marketing communication is to take a product or service that is potentially complex and confusing and present it so that it seems clear and relatively simple. Most IT-oriented people simply don't understand this basic truth. They embrace technological complexity and thrive on it. They think everyone shares their desire to dive deeply into the details. Apple is an example of a technology company that has mastered the art of brilliant and eloquently simple product communication. Apple is a rare and wonderful exception in the world of technology marketing.
A former colleague once told me "the confused mind says no." "No" is not a good word when it comes to marketing or selling. If you want to get more "yeses" let your marketing people translate your technology into language that will communicate rather than obfuscate.
Blunder #2: Wasting Money on B2B TV Advertising.
I am almost always puzzled when I see a B2B ad on TV. Why do some B2B companies think it's smart to invest millions of dollars reaching tens of millions of people who will never have anything to do with purchasing their product or service?
The creative people who work in advertising agencies love to develop and produce TV ads. But how does this ever make media sense when your target audience can be so precisely defined and reached directly with much more targeted communications? I have no logical explanation for this, but I have three remedies for this foolhardiness.
First, cut the marketing budget so that all temptation to spend lavishly and wastefully will be eliminated.
Second, measure the impact and effectiveness of what you're doing and force B2B TV ads to be completely and utterly justified by rigorous ROI analysis relative to other uses of those same marketing resources.
Third, hire more outside-the-box thinkers to lead your marketing teams. Throwing money at TV ads is about the least creative marketing idea that anyone can have these days.
Have you ever visited a technology company's web site, studied the home page, browsed around a little and still had no idea what the company does/makes or why you should do business with them?
It happens to me all the time. I'm a smart guy, but I'm definitely not a technocrat. I want to understand the technology that I'm considering buying without being dazed, confused or intimidated by it.
Most technology companies are loaded with techno-geeks who all speak the unique language of that particular technology. It's often an impenetrable argot of acronyms and arcane language that only fellow geeks in that particular technology will understand. When these people are in charge of an important marketing tool, like the company's web site, bad things start to happen. While the technocrats can communicate with each other, they leave the majority of us in the dark. This is NOT communication. It's obfuscation. That's why it's a terrible marketing blunder to let technocrats be in charge of B2B company web sites. The only time it makes any sense is if the only people who will have anything to do with buying your techno-product or service are all fellow geeks. In my experience, this is almost never the case.
The art of brilliant marketing communication is to take a product or service that is potentially complex and confusing and present it so that it seems clear and relatively simple. Most IT-oriented people simply don't understand this basic truth. They embrace technological complexity and thrive on it. They think everyone shares their desire to dive deeply into the details. Apple is an example of a technology company that has mastered the art of brilliant and eloquently simple product communication. Apple is a rare and wonderful exception in the world of technology marketing.
A former colleague once told me "the confused mind says no." "No" is not a good word when it comes to marketing or selling. If you want to get more "yeses" let your marketing people translate your technology into language that will communicate rather than obfuscate.
Blunder #2: Wasting Money on B2B TV Advertising.
I am almost always puzzled when I see a B2B ad on TV. Why do some B2B companies think it's smart to invest millions of dollars reaching tens of millions of people who will never have anything to do with purchasing their product or service?
The creative people who work in advertising agencies love to develop and produce TV ads. But how does this ever make media sense when your target audience can be so precisely defined and reached directly with much more targeted communications? I have no logical explanation for this, but I have three remedies for this foolhardiness.
First, cut the marketing budget so that all temptation to spend lavishly and wastefully will be eliminated.
Second, measure the impact and effectiveness of what you're doing and force B2B TV ads to be completely and utterly justified by rigorous ROI analysis relative to other uses of those same marketing resources.
Third, hire more outside-the-box thinkers to lead your marketing teams. Throwing money at TV ads is about the least creative marketing idea that anyone can have these days.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Following Up on Previous Blogs: Credit Card Companies, Budweiser and Dr Pepper
Hallelujah!
The Federal government has finally outlawed some of the most onerous practices of the credit card industry. I blogged (ranted) on these practices back on 11/18 and was thrilled to read yesterday that many of these practices will no longer be allowed. Starting in July 2010 (why we have to wait so long is beyond me), credit card companies will not be allowed to change the APR they are charging on existing balances. They will be allowed to raise your APR if you are late (more than 30 days) but this new APR can not be retroactively applied to existing balances. It will only apply to your new balances. WOW! Finally some fairness in financial marketing. Better late than never.
But wait a minute. How are the credit companies responding now that they have almost 18 months to get ready for this new fairer reality? You guessed it. They're going to shaft us as much as they can between now and then. Many have already started to raise their rates to squeeze their customers as hard as they can between now and when the new regulations go into effect. Boneheaded, short-sighted marketing thinking if you ask me.
Wouldn't it be cool if just one of these credit card companies finally wised up and took advantage of the situation to implement the new policies NOW - way ahead of the deadline? Imagine the marketing power of positioning your company as leading and embracing this change. It's a major opportunity for someone in the industry that has the guts to step forward and outdistance the competition. Will it happen? Probably not.
Moving on to the world of beverages......
In my blog on 11/25, I chastised Bud and Dr Pepper for wrong-headed communication strategies on two of their brands - specifically the "drinkability" strategy that Bud is trying to leverage and the "complex flavor/drink it slow" strategy that Dr Pepper is using.
Well, Bud is now on its third campaign trying to bring this weak "drinkability" strategy to life. I assume they've probably looked at dozens of others that have been rejected. What a titanic waste of time and money! Bud is normally an exceptionally savvy marketer, so this is out of character for them. I'm betting that we won't see a fourth iteration of this failed strategy and that something new will be with us by The Super Bowl, when Bud always seems to make a big splash with something new and wonderful.
Unfortunately, Dr Pepper shows no sign of wising up. The wrong-headed campaign that I want to comment on today is for Diet Dr Pepper. The gist of the strategy is that Diet Dr Pepper tastes too sweet to be called "Diet." Spots show a six pack marching down the candy aisle in a grocery store and being hailed by sugary treats as one their own. This strategy is wrong for two reasons. First "sweetness" is relative. What tastes sweet to me, may not taste sweet to you. Second, "sweetness" is not universally positive. I may like sweet things but you may not. What is "too sweet" to me is not going to be "too sweet" for you. Diet Coke broke diet soft drink tradition when it was launched over 25 years ago with a "Just for the Taste of it" brand positioning that was brilliant. It was the first "diet" soft drink that said nothing about dieting or calories in its advertising. It focussed on great taste and fun and refreshment. This Diet Dr Pepper advertising team needs to study the early work on Diet Coke. This "sweetness" strategy they're currently following is all wrong.
I predict that Bud will be back on track a lot sooner than Dr Pepper. The fact that Bud is moving from campaign to campaign shows that they know they have a problem. Dr Pepper seems oblivious.
The Federal government has finally outlawed some of the most onerous practices of the credit card industry. I blogged (ranted) on these practices back on 11/18 and was thrilled to read yesterday that many of these practices will no longer be allowed. Starting in July 2010 (why we have to wait so long is beyond me), credit card companies will not be allowed to change the APR they are charging on existing balances. They will be allowed to raise your APR if you are late (more than 30 days) but this new APR can not be retroactively applied to existing balances. It will only apply to your new balances. WOW! Finally some fairness in financial marketing. Better late than never.
But wait a minute. How are the credit companies responding now that they have almost 18 months to get ready for this new fairer reality? You guessed it. They're going to shaft us as much as they can between now and then. Many have already started to raise their rates to squeeze their customers as hard as they can between now and when the new regulations go into effect. Boneheaded, short-sighted marketing thinking if you ask me.
Wouldn't it be cool if just one of these credit card companies finally wised up and took advantage of the situation to implement the new policies NOW - way ahead of the deadline? Imagine the marketing power of positioning your company as leading and embracing this change. It's a major opportunity for someone in the industry that has the guts to step forward and outdistance the competition. Will it happen? Probably not.
Moving on to the world of beverages......
In my blog on 11/25, I chastised Bud and Dr Pepper for wrong-headed communication strategies on two of their brands - specifically the "drinkability" strategy that Bud is trying to leverage and the "complex flavor/drink it slow" strategy that Dr Pepper is using.
Well, Bud is now on its third campaign trying to bring this weak "drinkability" strategy to life. I assume they've probably looked at dozens of others that have been rejected. What a titanic waste of time and money! Bud is normally an exceptionally savvy marketer, so this is out of character for them. I'm betting that we won't see a fourth iteration of this failed strategy and that something new will be with us by The Super Bowl, when Bud always seems to make a big splash with something new and wonderful.
Unfortunately, Dr Pepper shows no sign of wising up. The wrong-headed campaign that I want to comment on today is for Diet Dr Pepper. The gist of the strategy is that Diet Dr Pepper tastes too sweet to be called "Diet." Spots show a six pack marching down the candy aisle in a grocery store and being hailed by sugary treats as one their own. This strategy is wrong for two reasons. First "sweetness" is relative. What tastes sweet to me, may not taste sweet to you. Second, "sweetness" is not universally positive. I may like sweet things but you may not. What is "too sweet" to me is not going to be "too sweet" for you. Diet Coke broke diet soft drink tradition when it was launched over 25 years ago with a "Just for the Taste of it" brand positioning that was brilliant. It was the first "diet" soft drink that said nothing about dieting or calories in its advertising. It focussed on great taste and fun and refreshment. This Diet Dr Pepper advertising team needs to study the early work on Diet Coke. This "sweetness" strategy they're currently following is all wrong.
I predict that Bud will be back on track a lot sooner than Dr Pepper. The fact that Bud is moving from campaign to campaign shows that they know they have a problem. Dr Pepper seems oblivious.
Monday, January 5, 2009
Geico: Hit, Hit, But Now a Whiff
Geico is an interesting advertiser to watch.
First, they created their Gecko campaign, which was a very memorable and distinctive way to capture attention, create brand recognition and get people to listen to Geico's marketing messages. Then, Geico topped themselves with the wildly successful Caveman campaign (Geico.com: So Simple a Caveman Could Do It). I don't think any other advertising campaign has ever been so successful that Hollywood made a sitcom out of it. Well-deserved congratulations are due to everyone at Geico and their agency for these two advertising home runs.
Unfortunately, Geico has just launched a third campaign that's a dud. It's focussed on how much money you can save with Geico. Not a bad message in this time of economic distress, but why did Geico think they needed a third campaign to deliver this message? Couldn't the Gecko or the Cavemen have communicated this message? Yet Geico went to the time and expense of creating a third campaign. Not only has this cost them time and money, but it has diminished their focus on two proven campaigns.
I'm sure the logic behind this move had something to do with Geico wanting to keep the other two campaigns' messages "pure" and feeling that they needed a new campaign to focus on what Geico must believe is a very important "value" message that's obviously extremely relevant right now.
I could ALMOST agree with this logic if Geico's third campaign weren't so poorly executed. It features a stack of money with some weird looking eyeball type of thing sitting on top of the pile of cash. This money/eyeball thing shows up unexpectedly to the background tune of "Who's Watching Me" and puzzles people (including viewers in my opinion) who wonder what the heck this stack of bills with the odd peepers is all about. That's when the Geico value message kicks in.
On the plus side, the new campaign has the same quirky brand personality of the other two Geico campaigns. However, it lacks the appeal and humanity of the Gecko and the Cavemen. As viewers, we LIKE the gecko and the cavemen. There is nothing to like about this odd stack of money with the creepy eyeballs. The casting of the spots is equally puzzling. The people in them aren't funny or amusing or even appealing. They're all kind of clueless, much like I have been every time I see one of these new ads.
No one hits a home run every time. Geico's ad and marketing people have certainly performed far better than most. They have two campaigns to be proud of. I think the "marketing sanity" thing to do would be to retire this new effort sooner rather than later. I hope Geico gives us more of their two powerhouse campaigns. More of the gecko! More cavemen!
I HOPE that this new effort does not signal that Geico is getting tired of their gecko or getting bored with their cavemen. They've got two thoroughbred campaigns. They ought to ride them until they drop. And both still look pretty darn fresh to me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
