If anyone thinks there is room for exaggeration in advertising anymore, think again.
Truth and authenticity are the true currency of branding in a web 2.0 world.
Back in 1999 some guys got together and wrote a little thing called the “Cluetrain Manifesto” which built a good foundation for future marketers. My favorite one of their theses is number 12:
the cluetrain manifesto
There are no secrets. The networked market knows more than companies do about their own products. And whether the news is good or bad, they tell everyone.
And thanks to web 2.0 and search engines, there is no escaping the scrutiny of not just the press, but hundreds or thousands of empowered web citizens.
If you need an example, look at the recently announced Mac clone being offered by a no-name company called Psytar and what happens when you try to pose as legit without building a credible reputation first:
The post opens the door, the comments nail it to the jam. Everything from real estate records to previous sites to business licenses- uncovered by netizens. If you thought political wonks were like rabid attack dogs going after raw meat, look at what the Macintosh Zealots do to a potential competitor for their beloved Apple.
The lesson to be learned is before making a bold move into a market, one must prove ones chops with a proper introduction to the big league. Introductions are more important than ever, with a gradual build to your “big idea.”
Had Psystar prepared the field by seeding key advocates and trusted sources within the Macintosh community before unveiling their game changing clone, they may have had a chance at being taken seriously. Now, they’ll be lucky to get any orders at all- and no chance at a second chance should something go wrong with any of the first units (if they ship).
Better mousetraps can’t be sprung without proper preparation, and poser brands don’t stand a chance at hiding behind any value proposition, until tested and proven.
Time will quickly tell if Psystar is a poser, but, until then, they’ve already dug themselves a pretty deep hole.
You know it costs big money to have three global superstars in an ad. Tiger Woods, Roger Federer, Thierry Henry all appear in this Gillette Phenom spot- and somehow, I’m wondering: is this the best way to sell a razor?
“The word is mine” from getting up in the morning and shaving with the most comfortable razor in the world? I’m sorry, but no one has ever come up to me and said “nice shave”- it’s not quite like pulling up in a Lamborghini.
Superstars, special effects, big budget to run it, yet no real reason that resonates with me, Joe Shaver, who looks at shaving as something I have to do for a few minutes daily. Why should I spend more on a “Phenom” razor? To support the big budget ad campaign? At some point, the reality sets in- no razor is going to let me play golf like Tiger, hit a tennis ball like Federer or play soccer like Thierry Henry. There is a total disconnect between superstars and shower time.
If you are reviewing advertising campaigns for your company and want a simple test of agency competence- ask if another product could be placed in your ad- and still work? If not, time to go back to the drawing board.
This ad could be for any razor- or soap- or even breakfast cereal and not miss a beat.
I bet Gillette could get a better ad without the three superstars, special effects, or glitzy graphics- by just doing a simple head to head comparison ad- if in fact their razor is really all that and a bag of chips.
Google doesn’t spend a lot on advertising, that’s what their competition does. Guess what? It doesn’t matter how much you spend if you are Yahoo, Microsoft or Ask.com, Google will continue to win.
But, kudos to Crispin Porter + Bogusky, they were able to bump Ask.com from a nobody to a better known nobody with their campaign (“Experience Instant Getification” and “The Algorithm”) more than any of the other also rans, up a whole one-tenth of a percentage point.
Guess Who Gained Search Share - Advertising Age - Digital
…scrappy little Ask was dropping millions on a high-profile, Crispin-designed ad campaign and telling everyone it had the best algorithm. So guess which company gained the most share in search this year. Yes, it was Google.
According to ComScore, Google’s share in January was 52.6%, and by October, the most recent month with available data, that number had climbed to 58.5%. Others peg its share as even bigger: Hitwise has it at 65.1% in November, up from 64.1% in January.
In the meantime, Yahoo, Microsoft and AOL all lost share, and Ask was the only gainer, up one-tenth of a percentage point. (It’s not very likely, but things still could turn around in November and December, as those returns aren’t in yet.)
“Google has really become the verb of search,” said James Lamberti, senior VP at ComScore. “It’s a combination of viral and branding power.”
Pepsi vs. Coke
“If you did the equivalent of the Pepsi Challenge and had a blind taste test of Google, Yahoo and Microsoft results, I don’t think people would find Yahoo’s results are necessarily bad,” said Ellen Siminoff, CEO of Efficient Frontier, a search-marketing-technology company. “But it comes down to branding. Google has done a heck of a job continuing to build its brand.”
Absolute search numbers tell a different story. According to ComScore, only one search engine, AOL, declined in terms of total queries. Yahoo gained 5%, Google gained 37%, Microsoft sites gained 15% and Ask gained 24%.
So should marketers be worried? As the search category — estimated at $8 billion in 2007 by Forrester — becomes an increasingly important part of a marketing plan, the seeming consumer consolidation with one player arguably gives Google more control over the search experience.
“Marketers sure would like for someone to give Google a run for its money,” Ms. Siminoff said. “There’s lots of emotional support behind Microsoft and Yahoo.” But, she said, “marketers aren’t spending on Google because Google’s a nice guy but because Google works for them.”
It’s worth noting that the share gains didn’t manifest themselves only in consumer search-engine use. They carried over into ad spending. Efficient Frontier, which has $400 million under its management, said more than 73% of that went to Google in October of this year, up from 62% two years ago.
Looking for innovation
Google is not a monopoly — yet — but luckily for paid-search marketers, even if it were, price inflation is less likely thanks to Google’s market-driven, auction-based pricing.
“Marketers just want to see the innovation,” Mr. Lamberti said. “That’s why there’s buzz around Ask.”…
So even though Google spends less, their brand delivers more. Sounds like serious marketing judo doesn’t it. Here is the lesson to learn, and it applies to all those who want to effectively use Google to drive business to their site: in a land of similar products the only differentiation that you can control as marketer is the user experience - and that is what you should focus your marketing efforts on.
It’s why Apple is the only personal computing company that stands apart from the crowd; why no other online retailer has the customer base of Amazon and why Google is the winner in search. The focus is on the customer experience as much as the actual product. Google could have delivered banner ads- but at the expense of slowing the delivery of results. Amazon could have advertised, but instead chose to spend that money on free shipping. No matter what Crispin Porter + Bogusky does for ask.com, the problem is that search now depends on critical mass and massive investment on technology to refine results- and no one can catch up with Google.
Now, more than ever, there is a science to advertising: deliver answers instead of ads, experiences instead of excess, and results instead of rhetoric. Everything can be tracked and measured either by clicks or by sales, so when looking at an ad agency to deliver customers via search, think twice about the creativity and look for the science behind the campaign. You’ve already found one agency that understands how to make this work or you wouldn’t be reading this.
Today I was at the farmers market and their were clowns/mimes there from Cirque Du Soleil doing advance work for the Saltimbanco show next week. Call it “street teams” or guerrilla marketing, it was refreshing to see a business go out and actively seek customers in their environment. Doesn’t happen much anymore. We’ve gotten lazy- trying to invite our message in by interrupting their entertainment with commercials, their landscape with billboards and their websites with ads.
But while I was shopping, I was listening to American Public Radio’s Marketplace on my iPhone, and heard a story of how Procter & Gamble invented the market for Crisco- and it reminded me why they are the marketing powerhouse- not just by dollars spent, but by long history of working hard to connect with consumers. Our current industry fixation with “Branded Content” is nothing more than a new name for the soap opera- a P&G invention.
Here is an excerpt of the podcast- and a link to the whole she-bang. Highly recommended short podcast:
Marketplace: Crisco: A marketing revolution
…Crisco maker Procter & Gamble was a pioneer in the emerging science of creating demand. Historian Susan Strasser says the Crisco experiment started in 1911, when the company was selling Ivory soap. Cottonseed oil was a key ingredient.
Susan Strasser: And they decided to develop a product that would use a lot more cottonseed oil, so that they could control that market, really.
P&G’s scientists came up with this white, fluffy substance. It sort of resembled lard, and yet had no taste and no smell. It wasn’t food, exactly, but the company would ask consumers to bake and fry with it. Thus began an American mass-marketing milestone.
Strasser: Originally, they tried to call it Crispo, but then they discovered that a cracker factory already had the trademark.
P&G hawked its new product as a “scientific discovery.” The company sent free samples to every grocer in America. They held Crisco teas — an early version of the focus group. P&G even niche-marketed the product as kosher to the Jewish community….
In the podcast they talked about how P&G educated the consumer in how to use their products- something that the web is incredibly useful for. Yet, how many company websites feature big how-to communities built around their product?
For instance, BMW motorcycles has an xplor area that’s focused on tips and tricks for sport touring - the segment of the market that they have a preferred position. How to pack your bike best, tips on GPS usage, and segments on where to go. However, it’s a members only site for BMW owners- you have to provide a vin number- and not open to the general public. Why not open the doors- so that potential customers can get a feel for what “joining the family” by buying BMW means?
Back to the Crisco story:
Marketing scholar David Stewart says P&G’s genius was not only giving people a convincing reason to try the product but training them to use it as well, with free cookbooks and recipes.
David Stewart: First of all, they focused on the health benefits — recognizing that this was a time we didn’t know about transfat and so forth. And then they taught people how to use it, they taught people how to cook. They gave them ideas. And between giving them a real benefit and information about how to use the product, they were able to get people to adopt it.
Crisco’s crowning achievement was creating demand for something nobody knew they wanted.
In today’s open information economy- putting your “recipes” behind a log-in is as silly as trying to charge for it. Would Google have been as successful if they had asked users to pay per search? Sounds absolutely stupid, doesn’t it? How about having to log in to use Google? Again, very silly.
To make friends with consumers today you have to be informative, useful, practical- and be able to demonstrate value. So, before you do an ad that is either hard sell- or entertaining- think first about what it does to enhance the customers life. The same way P&G introduced Crisco as the consumers friend: “Honestly, with a little Crisco in your frying pan, you can have supper on the table in a jiffy.”
We teach a seminar called Websitetology to try to educate clients on web 2.0. We also teach a fair number of other ad agencies (even the local competition) because, well, that’s the kind of people we are.
One of the things we stress is that if you aren’t on the first page of Google you don’t exist, and that content drives traffic. Build valuable content and they will come.
Unfortunately, it’s falling on mostly dead ears. Even huge advertisers like Apple, Burger King and BMW don’t seem to understand how to port their marketing to the web properly. It’s not about how your site looks, especially your “home page”- it’s about the content on every page: every page is home for someone- about something.
So- it was good to see new media bigwigs Avenue A/Razorfish do a study to confirm what we already knew- excerpts from the Ad Age article follow- with a short primer on what we know works on the web:
Garrick Schmitt was sitting in a meeting, listening to a client talk about the need to make its website “Web 2.0-compliant,” complete with tag clouds and profile pages. “Tag clouds?” thought Mr. Schmitt, VP-user experience at Avenue A/Razorfish. “Really?”…
The request seemed curious to him — do that many people really use tag clouds that a brand marketer’s website needed to incorporate them? Surprisingly, he couldn’t find the answer to that question. So he decided to find out. (more…)
Just ran across this, and thought, “imitation is the greatest form of flattery”
brand new: The wedding day
Michael Jager, one of the founders of the great design shop JDK, spoke about the need for brands to create emotion and devotion
“Brands to create emotion and devotion” sounds an awful lot alike with my Next Wave t-shirt I’m wearing today “Create Lust/ Evoke Trust.”
I’ve always been a fan of Jager DiPaola Kemp - especially the living logo concept they pioneered for Burton Snowboards, where the logo morphs as fast as fashion.
If you need an example, look at the recently announced Mac clone being offered by a no-name company called Psytar and what happens when you try to pose as legit without building a credible reputation first:
