How Mad Men is doing it wrong.
August 26, 2008
Imagine this for a second.
You’re producing a very successful television show. You have a loyal following. You can’t open a magazine or newspaper, or read a blog, without seeing a pile of praise heaped on your show. Popularity is rising. Everyone is jumping on the bandwagon.
You’ve helped create something that’s difficult to make: a critically acclaimed television show that is receiving tons of public attention.
Everything’s looking good.
Now imagine that a group of fans hops on the Internet and starts emulating the characters in the show. They are true to the nuances of the program. They are gaining quite a following on their own, in fact, leading those who love the show to become even more involved during the six days in between new episodes. They are promoting your product in a fresh, original way.
Why would you sabotage that?
I’m not sure. Let’s ask the creators of Mad Men.
It’s no question that Mad Men, the AMC drama about advertising life at fictional 60s shop Sterling Cooper, has gained a big following. So it’s no surprise that, given this era of global online marketing, someone was bound to take the Mad Men idea and make it better. And they did – on Twitter, of all places. (What is Twitter? Watch this video.)
What this group has done is take the personalities of the main characters from Mad Men and created a series of online avatars. Acting out the parts. Furthering the behind the scenes identities of the characters. Being as completely true to the original concept as possible. Go ahead – ask them questions. They’ll answer in the way you’d expect the character to answer.
The only problem: they’re not AMC employees. Just fans. And now, AMC is forcing Twitter to suspend these accounts (via VentureBeat) due to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).
I understand copyrights, and I get that AMC thinks they’re protecting their intellectual property. But this is fan fiction. This is like telling a group of Star Trek fans that they can no longer dress up as their favorite characters. Because that’s exactly what this is – it’s a group of fans dressing up, using an Internet avatar instead of a pair of pointed ears.
Even more, this is a golden opportunity; to create a cult following, to promote the television show in new ways. Don’t suspend them – heck, HIRE THEM. Give them a stipend to keep the banter up. Use them to your advantage. I’d guarantee that almost every one of them would accept some kind of payment for doing something they loved doing for free.
Because even though it isn’t an official series of accounts, the Mad Men doppelgangers are more than just fictitious slander magnets. They are an extension of the characters that many of us have grown to love. Fans of Mad Men get it. Those who aren’t fans are intrigued. Awareness is rising.
And for AMC, apparently, this is a bad thing. As if they don’t realize the public relations dream this could turn into to.
The goal in today’s marketing world is to be embraced by those who follow you. To be allowed into the precious circle of permission marketing. To gain feedback from those who know your product best. Business models are based on taking free publicity and working with it, not against it. Consumer generated content. Letting the people speak freely, feel comfortable and, in turn, become loyal.
In other words – before you rush to grab the lawyers, take a chance. See if the road bumps in your path can actually help you before tearing them down.
Read it out loud
July 25, 2008
Here’s a word of advice. Make sure you read your television and radio spot out loud.
Be extra careful. Because sometimes, things get by.
For example, whenever I hear Southwest Airlines commercials on the radio, I’m always confused. The fast paced nature of the spots and the quick radio read always garbles their new tagline. And I’m left wondering why Southwest would end every spot with “Please Don’t Fly With Us.”
(For the record, it’s “Fees Don’t Fly With Us.” A nice line, but poorly executed for radio.)
But that’s not nearly as bad as the most recent True North TV spot.
Seriously, was this a joke by a copywriter that no one caught? Was it a bet that made it past production?
Yeah. Nut Snacks. Maybe my mind’s in the gutter, but I can’t help but snicker every time I hear it. And I wonder how many people involved with the account, from production to placement, finally realized the error.
Read it out loud. Carefully. Then, have someone else read it. Out loud.
Lest you find yourself defending an extraordinary nut snack.
Faith in Sue
July 12, 2008
I went to Faith, SD, for a South Dakota Humanities Council meeting this weekend. They’re currently promoting the return of Sue, the most complete tyrannosaurus rex fossil ever found.
It’s a big deal for a little town. Fewer than 500 people call Faith “home.” And, due to their location in the northwest corner of the state, two hours from anywhere, it’s doubtful that many more people will call it “home” as the population shifts. It’s west of Pierre, north of Rapid City. It’s a beautiful drive, actually, highlighted with rolling hills and bluffs and, thanks to the heavy rain we’ve received, lush with vegetation.
Sue is a replica. Not the real dinosaur. They don’t disclose this. I guess they don’t need to.
Sue is impressive, but she’s just as impressive as any full skeleton fossil. For instance, the mammoth pits in Hot Springs. Or the dinosaurs on display at the School of Mines.
Sue is the only attraction in Faith, SD. It cost, reportedly, nearly $100 thousand dollars to bring it to town.
And, it’s reportedly not making that money up.
The entire display is fascinating. But is it worth it? Does this truly bring a new wrinkle to Faith? Will people veer off of their path to drive two hours out of their way (yes, that’s four hours total) to see a dinosaur? Especially in a dinosaur-heavy area of the country, where fossils are distributed throughout the state, scattered in nearly every direction.
It’s a neat homecoming. It’s a great exhibit. But it’s probably not going to pay off.
But let’s look at it this way. There’s a good chance at the beginning of this post you hadn’t ever heard of Faith. And I will guess that you’ve never even thought of going to Faith. Not in your wildest dreams.
Now? You’ve heard of it. You know what makes it famous. You might even travel to go see it. The seed has been planted. Because if you never ask for people to come see you, no one ever will.
Mistaken identity
June 13, 2008
I love Guinness ads. The combination of the traditional Guinness glass and the contrast of dark beer/white foam makes for a striking image. It’s an icon that’s recognizable to anyone who has come in contact with the beer, like the Budweiser bow-tie logo or a Stella Artois glass.
I especially enjoy these ads, where a concert has been illuminated in the shape of a Guinness glass, filled with a pulsing mob that represents the rolling thunder of the beer’s patented post-pour brewing process.
Click to enlarge
Pretty neat visual.
What?
Wait. What are you saying?
Oh. How embarrassing. My bad.
Apparently, this is a Heineken ad. Heineken. Not Guinness.
Hmm…
Looks like this is another lesson in being careful what image you portray with your ads. I wonder how many people see this Heineken ad and say, “Yeah, a Guinness WOULD taste pretty good right now.”
Whistling Dixie
June 3, 2008
I noticed the weirdest thing the other day while I was watching television.
Someone had taken all of the Dixie commercials and replaced them with something completely different.
Now, when I say different, I mean to say that, while they were still showing Dixie commercials, they certainly weren’t the Dixie commercials I had grown up with.
You know the ones: Make Life Easy! Throw Away! No More Clean-up! No More Germs! Dixie promised a life of ease and convenience, of victimless consumerism and trash collection. The only thing you hurt was the pride of those who didn’t have the same foresight as you, who looked on in agony as your life’s schedule miraculously cleared up, while theirs was still tethered to the yoke of washing dishes!
Now?
The trend toward green products has placed disposable plates and cups in the same realm as oil spills and burning tires.
So let’s switch the spin, for a little bit.
This is the only version I could find on YouTube, pardon the poor quality.
Now, Dixie cups give you back your identity. You are no longer a woman washing dishes – you are a caring mother. You are one step closer to raising children who will make the right decisions. That’s what throwing away your dishes (instead of spending a crucial 15 minutes washing) will do for you.
On one hand, I applaud them for reinventing the brand, even if it means combating the onslaught of mainly beneficial Go Green messaging.
On the other, the pandering to Them Cute Kids seems so forced and non-genuine. It’s a play to every parent’s fear of not caring enough about his or her children. “I will no longer be defined by the number of dishes I wash!” she claims. Who said you were in the first place?
Of course, I already feel guilty enough when I throw away when I throw away a paper plate. So take it for what you will.
In Defense of Corporate Media’s Marketing…just this once
May 21, 2008
Is web 2.0 actually dividing us?
The Internet has provided us with an open market of ideas, contacts and experiences from around the globe. Or at least the opportunity to find them. But what was that saying about a horse to water?
Now, I love the idea of a global village. But there is a roadblock. It’s called “the constitutive other.”
Here’s one fine example of that being exploited. According to polls on voting habits and approval/disapproval ratings of incumbent representatives, Americas political rift has been splitting exponentially within the past few years.
Many scholars, media minds, politicos and culture watchers speculate that this fissure’s break really hit its speed with the establishment of the Fox News Channel. My argument to that would be perhaps NPR, or to a lesser degree, CNN were there first. The differences are political leanings and the tenacity at which they lean. But, before any of that there were AM radio pundits.
TV. Radio. That’s the old media. The new media is a wild stomping ground of opinions from the left, right and center (and some seemingly from outer space.) But how many people peruse the spectrum? Apparently, very few. As a Stanford study points out, the vast majority of people who follow old and new media get their news from few sources. Those sources being of one political bent or another. Furthermore, it seems that the bigger the issue, the more the source adherence.
So, who is to blame for people only wanting to hear one side of the story? Is it the corporations that own the media peddlers? I suppose one could say that, and many do.
But looking a little deeper points out why media venues go political. It makes marketing sense. So let’s string up the marketers!
Wait, one step deeper - if people weren’t buying, no one would sell. So, who do we direct our ire towards?
Ourselves, I guess. Dammit.
People like to hear what is within their view of the world.
Web 2.0, 3.0, etc, has a lot of promise ahead. It could be a road to a digital shangri-la. Now we just have to master our own nature.
If nothing else, we at least we have factcheck.org to help us sort things out.
A return to “simple”
April 25, 2008
The newest Sony ad is out.
I’m reminded of the Sony Bravia campaign – a campaign that started with one of my favorites: “Balls,” a simple and stunning spot that combined the childlike exuberance of colorful high-bounce balls with the passion of Jose Gonzales’s “Heartbeats.”
Sony followed the spot up with “Paint,” where a series of buildings were covered in paint in a brash, carnival-like setting. The feeling was still there, but it seemed like something was missing. Then, “Rabbits,” featuring claymation bunnies and the predictable “She’s a Rainbow” by the Rolling Stones.
The original Sony Bravia spot was beautiful. It made you stop and think about the majesty and sheer size of color, of the possibilities and promises.
It was subdued. It was simple. It needed no extra machinery, no special effects, no overwrought and “we can do it bigger” premonitions. It was organic, relying only on elasticity and gravity, two forces that acted as if they were Creative Director on the spot itself.
It showed you something great. Something you wish you could do. The music matched perfectly, instilling a sense of hope and beauty.
Since then, the spots have drifted further away from the point – that color is beauty, and that it’s a force to be reckoned with. Maybe they jumped the shark at the beginning, leaving everything to pale in the wake of beauty. Either way, it seems now that color is just a stepping-stone to their next overdone feat.
The foam in this new Sony commercial might be overdone as well. But it’s overdone in the right way – a way that bring back a feeling of wonder. The emotion is back again. The wonder. The beauty.
I guess this is just a long way of saying, “I’m glad they’ve gotten back to simple.”
A jagged little “brand”
June 4, 2007
Post Haste will be up and running again, soon. Just let me get out from under my pile.
Until then, I bring you the new logo for the London 2012 Olympics.
A world wide spotlight. A huge event that will bring millions into the city. The freakin’ Olympics, right? And this…THIS is the best they could come up with? This looks like it’s representing the 1994 Olympics.
It looks a little dated, is all I’m saying.
Of course, who am I to criticize - I couldn’t create a logo if my job depended on it. That’s not really the point. Aside from this logo being ugly, my beef is that the London 2012 Committee keeps calling this logo a “brand.”
From the London 2012 website:
The new London 2012 brand was designed by Wolff Ollins. The design brief was for an emblem that represented the four key ‘brand pillars’ of access, participation, stimulation and inspiration, culminating in the brand vision of ‘Everyone’s Games’.
A brand can’t be created out of thin air, like a headline or logo. A brand is the result of years of experience and the feelings and thoughts of your customer. A brand can be influenced by a logo, but it isn’t the logo itself.
Coke didn’t create a brand by using white script on a red background. Coke created a brand by offering a fun experience in every aspect of the product — from the bottle shape to the commercials to the taste itself. They painstakingly crafted a set of feelings from years of experience and carefully-tweaked messages. And even then, Coke doesn’t own the brand. Its customers will change it whenever they see fit.
The consumer decides what a company’s brand is. It’s that company’s job to lead them in the right direction and give them something TO brand.
If they try to create the brand for the consumer, the consumer won’t respond. Simply put, the consumer doesn’t want to be told what to think.
Is a brand based on what the consumer thinks?
Or is it based on what the company wants the consumer to think?
Now better tasting!
April 12, 2007
Our cereal is making a strange claim.
We just bought a box of Honeycomb cereal. Kraft foods has placed a new label on the front – Now Better Tasting!
Wait. Says who?
Who has decided that Honeycomb is truly “better tasting” than it used to be? What research have they done to back up this claim? What changes did they make?
I’m sure verbiage like this sells cereal all the time. The cereal industry has conducted plenty of focus groups on what to say and how to product their cereal.
So maybe I’m a cynic when I say, “If it’s better tasting now, what was wrong with it before?”
“Why wasn’t it the best it could be previously? And how did you quantify a subjective claim?”
So, with these questions in mind, I decided to ask. I went to kraft.com and sent an e-mail:
I have recently purchased a box of Honeycomb cereal. The box says “Now Better Tasting!” right on the front.
My question is this — how can you quantify “better tasting?” What research or changes were made to make Honeycomb “better tasting?” How can you account for personal taste on a cereal box?
I’m just a concerned customer wondering how accurate your cereal’s claims are.
Thanks,
Corey Vilhauer
Let’s see what they say. I want to know how they can make such an unquantifiable claim – to become so subjective in saying the cereal is now “better tasting.” It can’t be proven. I might not like it at all now.
Let’s see if this was an empty marketing ploy or a true-to-life statistic.
—
And the response from Kraft…
Hi Corey,
Thank you for visiting www.kraft.com/responsibility
Our policy is to be sure all advertising claims are supportable, neither false nor misleading.
Our Market Research Department conducts studies among representative groups of consumers. For nutritional claims, we make claims only after a thorough scientific analysis of the respective products involved.
We draft conclusions from studies that reflect consumers’ opinions on a national basis.
When appropriate, advertising is developed from studies. We take great care in the exact wording and overall impression of our advertising.
All advertising claims are reviewed before approval is given.
We base all of our advertising on this procedure; that is why we feel we may justifiably make such a claim.
If you haven’t done so already, please add our site to your favorites and visit us again soon!
Kim McMiller
Associate Director, Consumer Relations
In other words, this was the act of a study group. Common practice, yes. Truth (or accuracy, more specifically) in advertising, barely.
Simply put - don’t tell your customers if something tastes better. Let them figure it out for themselves. Advertise a great new taste. Promote a new recipe. Challenge the customer to try the cereal. But don’t make the judgment for them – regardless of what your study group says.
You can’t fake personal
April 11, 2007
Yesterday I received a card from my bank. On the front was the bank’s logo. Inside, hastily scribbled with handwriting like a 10-year old was the following message:
Corey – Thanks for banking with us!
- Staff
And that was it.
I know why I received this card. My bank, a major regional bank with branches all over South Dakota, North Dakota and Minnesota, wants to look homier. More personable. People want their banks to know who they are. They don’t want to be another number, another ledger on the bankroll of Wells Fargo or US Bank.
So my bank sent me a personalized card.
Except it didn’t feel personal – it felt scripted and hollow.
First of all, my card reeked of assembly line scribbling. The words were the same as every other card that had come before. There was no mention of the accounts I held, or any recent activity, or anything that would separate my card from anyone else’s. There was no personalized aspect to it at all, aside from the name.
Second of all, the name was wrong. My wife Kerrie shares this account with me. Her name should have been on this card as well. Another strike – they couldn’t even bother to get the account names correct.
It all reminds me of the Vice President of a company I used to work at. As managers, we were required to give our team members birthday cards to show the company cared. I took great pains to make these cards personal – to give something more than the shallow scribbles that were the minimum required.
However, the Vice President (who was in charge of sending out the manager’s cards) would simply write “Happy Birthday on the 24th” and sign his name. He would send out every card at the beginning of the month, regardless of the birth date, leading to me getting my birthday card nearly three weeks before my birthday even occurred. They were assembly line products. There was no feeling in them whatsoever aside from “I’ve got to get this done.”
Sure. I know. My bank has a lot of cards to write. They have a lot of people to connect to. That’s not the point. The point is making it look like there’s no other customer but the one you’re writing to. There’s no one else in then entire world that the bank would rather talk to, cash checks from and start savings accounts for.
If a business is going to try to play the personal slant, they’d better be ready to take the extra steps needed to ensure the message gets across. Don’t just pull the customer’s name from a list – know the customer. Have ads that connect to the customer, not ads that tell the customer what the bank should be.
Try as you may, if someone can’t be personal, they’ll never seem personal.
The simple fact is: you can’t fake personal.