Google is perhaps one of the greatest market research tools ever. Want to find out when someone or something peaks the interest of the market- go to Google labs and look at Google trends. Find out when searches peak for what term.
The two major areas where search engines still aren’t very useful are by location and by time, but Google trends is one of the early tools to be able to show us time and place.
Imagine being able to track buzz by market when launching a new campaign- without having to do expensive research- look at the search for Crispin Porter + Bogusky- and see that winning a major account and winning major awards- create a bump in search.
Want to see if a new campaign started an increase in interest?
Here is the link to Google trends for the word “Pontiac”- remember they ran a campaign asking customers to google them? Well, it seems labor issues and plant closings are more likely to push search than ads asking people to Google you:
This only works for terms with huge search numbers- trying it on my name results in an error message saying not enough search volume to display graphs- and search Chiat Day- gives a graph- with no data points- but does give location stats.
Tools like this will become increasingly relevant to agency compensation structures- if your campaign doesn’t increase search, or site traffic- it’s not doing its job.
When we first wrote about the Chiat/Day produced Apple “get a mac” ads- I was comparing them to the Burger King Manthem- and viewing them from an efficiency standpoint.
Reading this article in the LA Times, we find out that Apple has at least 25 of these in the can- and I can guarantee they all cost less than the one BK Manthem spot produced by Crispin Porter & Bogusky.
There have been seven spots so far with Long playing the slacker-hip Mac guy to John Hodgman’s nerdy PC guy and there are almost 20 more in the can, guaranteeing that what is currently the hottest campaign on TV can last as long as the heat does.
So- in the day of one off ideas, fire for effect TV spots- with huge budgets- and very little actual selling going on- this Apple campaign is a standout- every spot hammers home a message of why Apple is cool, hip and reliable- while the PC isn’t.
The simple production values have caused a slew of spoofs- as a quick search of YouTube will show- but, if nothing else- that validates the concept as buzzworthy.
The question remains for other marketers- if two guys, in front of a white background- joshing each other for :30 can build sales- why have you spent so much with special effects, crazy stunts, exotic locales, etc?
If you had to sell your products or services with two guys in front of a white screen- what would they say?
Ad agencies aren’t playgrounds for big kids with oversized egos. At least not ours, and hopefully not yours.
Sure, we may not wear a suit and tie into the office every day (never confuse fashion with brainpower- Albert Einstein reportedly owned 7 identical black suits and wore them in rotation) and our offices may look cooler than yours- but, advertising is serious business.
Screwing up advertising can kill a business- if you have any doubt- look at what the SuperBowl spot for the shoe retailer “Just for feet” accomplished (if you haven’t heard of “Just for feet” it’s because they went out of business soon after. There is a reason to test ads and do research- but that is another subject- with its pros and cons.
This spot has been removed from youtube, This is the only place I can find it: Just for Feet Kenya mission or temporarily
Agency.com thought they’d try to be hip by releasing a video on You Tube (above) about their process to prep for a pitch to Subway. They thought it would be a “viral”- meaning it would be passed around and watched- and that they would be uber cool- except, they ended up looking like kids with oversized egos on a playground.
Yes, the video is getting watched, yes, I’m writing about it, and no, it’s not worth all of this attention- other than as an example of how not to prepare for a pitch- or what to bring. It’s mostly getting watched by other ad types- and then mocked.
There was on comment that I thought needed to be shared- from someone who calls themselves “Pitch Consultant” (we have a list of advertising agency review consultants on our site if you happen to be looking for one) sharing some insight into what to look for in an agency search- and what to avoid:
Here is yet another example where stupid ad agency people, who obviously were in the middle-lower Bell curve in school, seem to think enthusiasm is more important than intelligence.Is there an insight into how the interactive medium can add value to the physical offering in a way that will build frequency and loyalty, increase check size and same-store sales? A analysis of potential challenges the brand is having on a store-to-store up to national level? Any demonstration that the people at Agency.com understand the fast-food business operationally? How money is made? The role of communications channels? Anything that the clients, who have undoubtedly spent many more hours in different stores, might not have heard before?
Nope. Just a bunch of idiots who walked down the street in midtown Manhattan, stole jobs from entry-level service workers for a day, insulted passers-by, and otherwise did NOTHING to indicate any potential for being anything other than wacky asshole hipsters who condescend to the brand, those that work there, and those who eat there, and certainly aren’t there to make Subway a more successful business. The sad part is that they seem incapable of the shame they should feel.
A ‘passionate’ moron is still a moron. Hire some smart people, Agency. They cost a little more, but you don’t have to buy as many sandwiches or resort to pathetic crap like this.
This is one of the reasons you shouldn’t expect instant results from an ad agency- it takes time to learn your business and your customers. Great advertising solutions don’t typically come on the first campaign, they come later. Wieden + Kennedy didn’t come up with “just do it” for Nike until they had been the agency for a number of years.
Agencies need to fully understand your brand DNA to make a meaningful campaign- or have a radically different approach to communicating with the marketplace. If you are wondering why Crispin Porter + Bogusky keeps hitting home runs, it’s often because they find an exploitable niche that hasn’t been spoken to, and capitalizes on the opening. Hence Mini owners were asked to think of their cars as a personal escape tool with “let’s motor” and Burger King is now the place for the “Meathead” male, aged 18-25 who is most likely to eat fast food 4-5 times per week.
One of the main problems with the Subway account is that the client is splitting up the duties between differnt agencies. Online is just another medium, and if your agency can’t supply the complete message delivery package you should consider another agency.
Subway has been notoriously hard on their ad agencies, with many lawsuits between the franchises and the franchise holder. It’s doubtful that there is an environment for a mutually beneficial relationship between an agency and this client no matter how smart the agency is.
After years of growth, Subway is facing it’s first serious national competition from Quizno’s and others. And while Subway has made great strides in variety of offerings and has become more competitive in hot subs, they have a long way to go when it comes to making their brand relevant.
Could the right agency help contribute to Subway’s success in the market? Absolutely.
Would they come up with the solution in a few days, over subs as portrayed by the people at Agency.com in their video- absolutely not.
I’m not sure if Agency.com was paid to pitch the account- but, there is a lot to be said for “you get what you pay for” and spec campaigns from agencies invited to pitch are the last way you should pick your agency or your strategy.
Our first question to clients is always “what makes you the most money” and how do we maximize that. If you are interested in what the rest of the questions are- call us.
It’s not just advertising that makes the work from Crispin Porter Bogusky interesting- it’s the sites that go with the ads. Not always the best from a search engine standpoint- but always fun.
Here is a partial list from their site of microsites to support campaigns. Almost every ad you see from them has some kind of website to go along with the ad. These links give you insight into the thinking behind each site. CP+B microsites
Our stud intern, Jeff Swartz is now in the ranks of quoted ad critics- all from the Blog we require our interns to keep. Jeff’s favorite topic is beer ads- and his comments about the “Men of the square table” campaign for Miller Lite got him quoted in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
Then there’s blogger Jeff Swartz, a Dayton, Ohio, college student whose age and gender land him squarely in Miller Lite’s targeted demographic.
“The commercials are funny and effective,” said Swartz, 21, who’s pursuing a career in advertising. He posted an item about the campaign on his Web log, www.swartzonmedia.wordpress.com, after repeatedly hearing friends quote lines from the TV spots.
Although Jeff didn’t know it when he wrote about it- it’s another campaign by Crispin Porter + Bogusky. Once again there is a website to go along withi it: www.manlaws.com that allows the consumer to write their own manlaws.
While some critics have questioned the selection of the men at the table- Jeff has his own opionon:
Swartz, the University of Dayton student, said the ads stand out in a crowded advertising landscape. He also said critics of the ads are off base when they claim Burt Reynolds, 70, is too old to be relevant for 20-something beer drinkers.
“People my age know who Burt Reynolds is,” Swartz said. “Our moms had crushes on him, and stuff. He’s a man’s man, and that’s what (Miller) is going for.”
And so far- he’s already got a call from Miller marketing guy trying to get him to switch brews (Jeff prefers Bud light).
At this point there are 27,990 Man Laws on the site- which says to us, it’s doing the job:connecting drinkers with Miller Lite in a way that isn’t “advertising.” Other beer companies should take note: no chicks wrestling in the mud- no “drink this beer- get a babe” etc.
We were also huge fan’s of Crispin’s “Twin Label Technology” campaign for Molson which actually made the beer packaging more valuable than the beer. No matter how you look at either campaign- Crispin shows insight into connecting with beer drinkers- including- our intern Jeff.
So the client looks at the proposed budget for the TV spot- and swallows hard. Those are big numbers- especially on the FX (effects) – green screen, miniatures, models etc- big cast- and then- they see- almost as much cash to make a “Making of the spot” documentary- and the clients says “Over my dead body.” So the agency account exec whips out a pistolo, shoots the CMO and off they go to make the spot- plus the documentary- which by the way- is only available online (not even on the clients site- click image on right to view in a new window)- and you have what Ad Age calls the most liked spot of the month: The Burger King Stackers spot- made by the hottest shop on the planet: Crispin Porter + Bogusky.
So- was this little documentary a wasteful indulgence? Not if it gets people to sit through 3.5 minutes of entertainment featuring your brand.
Would this have happened on a conventional compensation plan- where no media is bought to run this bit of agency extravagance- no. Would the brand have the buzz that BK is enjoying now? No. Is there hope for other fast food feeders to still own a piece of the “Meat head” market segment of men, aged 18-25 who are likely to eat fast food 3+ times per week? Not if you play it safe, and worry about offending some segment of the market. I can just hear a brand manager at P&G worrying about offending small people with this spot. Hence, P&G hasn’t been able to master the buzz machine of the Internet.
There is a burning question on my mind about Crispin’s Internet delivery strategy:
Are they purposefully avoiding putting work onto the client site so that it doesn’t seem to be delivered by the client (as a sort of distancing mechanism) and forgoing the measurement tools from the site stats-
-or-
is it that they don’t care about utilizing the information that can be gleaned from having the customer on their own server- watching where they go- and what they do?
To someone who believes in the power of webstats to provide insight into customers minds- the first option seems reckless. However, if the focus is on velocity of concepts- which seems to be a key to Crispin work (the factory concept)- measurement doesn’t matter- until they have a client that is actually selling online (like Gateway- who didn’t listen to their advice to streamline their product lines).
Either or- how a client justifies the expense of these can only be by one method- have sales increased – and word on the street is that Burger King is seeing results at the registers. Was it worth the extra money- absolutely, would most clients spend the extra money- no.
What do you think? Is Crispin missing out on opportunity to connect with customers by using Google video to distribute content instead of their own site?
