Does Viewership Equal Buyership

Over the last two shows we've talked a lot about the relevance of TV ads. And it always comes back to the fact that TV is still the dominant media and so it's still the most reliable way to reach the biggest audiences.

But in an email discussion with Mitch Joel after this past week's show, I started to wonder, "Does audience size even matter anymore?"

Think about it. Even though the recent Nielsen three-screen report shows that TV is still getting the most eyeballs and that co-viewing (surfing and viewing at the same time) is hot, does that mean that TV is still an effective way to reach folks? Some might argue that co-viewing says that less ads during the program and more ads online would be a smarter strategy, because that's where the audience is interacting.

Then there's the study by Xyte Research that we covered in episode 107. If we can believe the data, the disproportionate level of "word people" in advertising, coupled with the demands of messaging blocked into 30 second increments, makes it near impossible for ad professionals to communicate effectively to the bulk of our audience via TV ad units.

And of course there's also a point brought up by Eamon Boyle from The Martin Agency. In episode 61 (here's the specific clip from a Fast Takes episode), Eamon pointed out that his research was revealing that most of a typical media buy is completely wasted unless the ad unit is run at the beginning of a show. People just aren't paying attention to ads during the middle of a program.

There's only one conclusion I can draw from all of this: mass market TV advertising simply doesn't work as advertised.

The Flawed Promise

The promise of TV is that if you want your message to reach the widest possible audience, you need a national broadcast TV buy. And big brand successes are held up as proof that it works. Trouble is, these successes don't happen in a vacuum. Given that budgets are nearly limitless at this level, success is not being achieved via TV, but with ubiquity. The message of the biggest brands is everywhere, so of course the TV buy is "working." The name is already recognizable. The message and promise have already been communicated. The TV ad is just there to cement that recognition or expand that promise. But in most cases the ad unit itself is not achieving anything except providing an entertainment and providing a reminder.

But take away that scale of ubiquity and the TV ad does very little. Because the audience can't digest enough in those 30 seconds to truly understand that brand and make any decision worth making. So it doesn't matter how big your audience is. A brand-building ad in a vacuum is quickly forgotten. The challenger brand would do better to either be aggressive on offer and forget the brand (Denny's free breakfast, anyone?) or plow the money into much more targeted efforts like search marketing or beefing up more interactive experiences that encourage engagement with the brand online or in person.

We in advertising need to come to grips with the fact that people don't understand what we say — they understand what they experience. So the more we give them experiences with our brand, the more they will care about what we say. 

And let me be clear that this is not an anti-TV rant. But TV advertising's role needs to be re-imagined with an understanding of how brands are really built. They aren't built en masse. They are built one customer experience at a time.

We Are Not The Entertainment

I've always had one simple, guiding rule in evaluating creative effectiveness:

Make the idea about what you're selling.

You'd think that would be a given. We're in marketing, after all. We're selling stuff. But time and again I would get concepts on my desk that were highly creative, very much attention getting, but did not pay off the connection to the product or service until the last panel. 

As an art director friend of mine used to say, "That's a long way to go for a roast beef sandwich."

In advertising we are often victims of a common misconception: We think of ads as entertainment. And that's a problem, because almost no one else does.

Please take note that I didn't say, "We think ads can be entertaining." Nor did I say, "We think ads are funny." Ads can be entertaining and funny, and lots of people can like your TV spot or mail package or web site for its entertainment value. But where we can go wrong is when we start thinking of the ad as the entertainment itself.

Think how many marketing pieces or commercials you see or hear that are beautifully created, story-telling vehicles, yet have only the flimsiest connection to the products being sold. (I don't need to name names — if you're in the business, you know plenty of examples.) Sure, they can be captivating visually and the stories can be heartwarming, but as we talked about during episode 107 of The BeanCast, people generally aren't paying close enough attention anyway. So it's likely that no matter how interesting your ad is, if the idea isn't somehow centered around your product or core promise of your service, your audience isn't making a lasting memory connection between your ad and your product. 

I'm all for better, more entertaining ads, but this penchant for wanting to be the entertainment, rather than be the sponsor of the entertainment, is making too many ads lose focus. It may be more difficult to maintain entertainment value when making an ad's basic premise center around the product being sold, but ultimately it's a better stewardship of the client's dollar. 

It takes very talented people to write a sitcom on network TV. And I love people who can create fabulous works of art. I have the deepest respect for people who can generate entertaining or thought-provoking work like that. But advertising is a different animal and, in many ways, can be much more complicated. So please, let's agree to just stop settling on the ad with the funniest punchline. Let's at least try to work toward an ad that captivates people more toward your product than your idea.

And I totally expect that people will disagree on this, so I invite the debate. But please at least take time to think about this before you respond. I'm advocating for more creative ads, not less. I just think our creativity often needs to work a little harder for the brand it represents. I'd love your thoughts.

Why Wawa Gets It Right

Gottahava Wawa!

Before I start this, complete disclosure: I do not work with Wawa Food Markets

, but I am a HUGE devotee of their concept. I grew up in Philly during their rise, and to this day I can barely resist the urge to pass one by while driving. From the food, to the product offering to the in-store experience, they have always captured my heart.

So given all that, it's no surprise that I became a Facebook fan of the brand. What is a surprise, is to find out that this mid-Atlantic convenience store chain does social media every bit as enthusiastically and effectively as they deliver custom-built hoagies.

I could wax poetic on everything they are doing right, or pick holes in the places they are lacking, but really that wouldn't be very social of me. So instead, I encourage you to check out their Facebook page and see for yourself what's going on there.

Sure you'll find lots of posts and pictures from events, discount announcements and coupon offers, and a world of other activity from the brand. But ignore that. Look at the rest of the page. It is literally FILLED with user activity. People comment on almost every post. Folks share their own pictures from events. People offer suggestions and ideas. It's literally the holy grail of social media — it's a community. 

For a convenience store chain!

If anything proves that social media can be effect for just about any brand, Wawa's effort certainly makes a good case.

Now clearly there is more at play here than just a Facebook effort. The brand has created a promise that is carried out in everything they do, from products to store to advertising. They built loyalty before they ever dreamed of social media. But kudos to them for recognizing Facebook as an optimal way for them to interact with their customers and allow that devotion to be made public. 

And if the brand is listening, I would gladly accept a special delivery of a roast beef hoagie with white american, extra mayo, lettuce, tomato, oregano, salt and pepper, and banana peppers, with some TastyKake lemon pies for dessert.

Be Useful

What would happen if you people stopped cold calling and started being useful for a change?

I was sending an email to a prospect recently when it struck how different what I do is from what I receive in my inbox or get over my phone. You know the drill:

ME: Hello, this is Bob Knorpp

THEM: Hello? Is this Mr. Bob Krop.

ME: I already said this is Bob KNORPP

THEM: Oh, hello Mr. North. Do you have a few minutes to talk...

ME: *CLICK*

There's nothing quite like a cold call to say, "I have no interest in knowing anything about you until you say you're willing to spend money with me."

But how different that call becomes when it works like this:

ME: Hello, this is Bob Knorpp

THEM: Hi, Mr. Knorpp, this Tim Dunst. I'm so glad I reached you. I do a lot of competitive research on the digital space, since my company sells email analytics. And I came across a story that has a lot to do with podcasting's role in marketing. Not sure you'd be interested, but I'd love to pass along the link.

ME: I'm not really in the market for email analytics at the moment.

THEM: That's okay. I figure if I can help you now, maybe when you do need something you'll call. But seriously, there's nothing attached to this. Just thought you'd be interested.

ME: Okay then, sure. I'll take a look at the link. Here's my email.

I don't need to point out all the advantages here, do I? Research on me, interest creation, relationship building — this approach does it all. And no, he didn't get the sale. But how many cold calls are immediate sales? What he got was almost as good. He planted the seeds of relationship and moved me quickly out of the cold call wasteland into the qualified prospect arena.

Which all brings me to my real question: Why doesn't marketing do more of this across the board?

We have the ability to get that granular with our targeting if we want to. Not always, but we can at least incorporate it somewhere in the plan. And we have the ability to message individuals more personally — at the very least we can bucket them in groups and make the message relevant to their psychographics in equal proportion to their demographics. And we have the creativity to make our offers on long-lead sales more about usefulness to needs today, rather than just pushing for a signed contract.

I've said it many times before — go for the little "Yes." Give them something they can say yes to today and then keep them on the yes trail. That's how marketing delivers better leads to sales and how sales delivers signed contracts to accounting. It all starts with how useful you are to me today.

Creativity Vs. Formula

I've been stewing on a question Ben Kunz posed on Twitter last week: If advertising works, why don't marketers simply replay old media plans and ad creative?

As would be expected, the question generated some lively debate about the role of creativity and the need for "freshness" in advertising. Many great points were made about how the mind needs to be "surprised" to pay attention and that new and unexpected communications are required to shock the audience into embracing your message.

I agree with much of what was said. Running the same plan and the same targeting and the same creative year in and year out is bound to generate diminishing returns over time for most businesses. That's why adjectives like "nimble" and "agile" are always being applied to business today. You need to respond to a constantly changing market with messaging and placement that is meeting your customer's needs.

But is this always true?

The Roto-Rooter Factor

As we were debating all this, suddenly a jingle came into my head:

Roto-Rooter, that's the name,
And away go troubles down the drain.
Roto-Rooter!

If you played the link, it's absolutely clear that they've been running a version of the same jingle for 50 years. The plan is simple too. It's usually an ad buy that runs during weekend or late-night programming. Nothing changes here. And presumably it's been very effective.

The point is that change and freshness in our marketing is not always appreciated by the consumer, nor is it always necessary. Using Roto-Rooter as an example, we see a service that you may use (hopefully) not more than once or twice in a lifetime. There's no need to "shock" a customer into paying attention so you're top of mind the next time they go to the store. You don't need to come up with fancy promotions and funny ads that they can mentally reference when they see your beer in the display case. What you need is that jingle, so ingrained in the minds of individuals, that when the one time in a customer's life rolls around where hair balls have backed up the main drain from the house they will think of nothing but that song and call a Roto-Rooter plumber.

A Balancing Act

Agencies and their clients tend to evaluate their stature and effectiveness by the level of creativity they bring to the table. It's all about the "next big idea" and forward thinking rules the day. But the best agencies know that behind the scenes there is a constant balancing act between what must stay consistent and what needs to be refreshed. A solid brand requires some things remain familiar. Whether it's a logo, a tone of voice, a tagline or a cute character, a brand depends on this equity being built over time. 

Where some agencies and their clients get off track, however, is when the pressure to be "new" outweighs the need to establish consistency. Some products and service simply demand endless repetition. Think of all the different ad campaigns churned out in the pest control space over the last few years. They've had robots and superheros and talking walls. Now try to match the ads to the brands. I don't know about you, but the only name that comes to mind is Terminix, because their name says, "Terminates" and "Termites." I can't tell you which ad is theirs for certain. 

Now some might say that my lack of differentiation is because the ads in this space aren't good. I would disagree, though. The ads have all be excellent. It's the audience attention that is lacking. We simply don't like to think about pests until we need help with getting rid of pests. So no matter how creative the ad is, we simply aren't paying that much attention to the message.

So looping back, this is a perfect example where repetition would serve better. Sure, it gets old and boring and will probably be mocked. It certainly won't win awards or secure that next marketing post at a bigger brand. But it would work. Because repetition here would solidify a name in the customer's mind so that the next time they need you, they will think of you first. 

And this doesn't just apply to small, local market services like plumbers and exterminators. This is also why car spots always end on a shot of the face plate or why McDonald's always has the golden arches on a field of red. It all comes down to finding that right balance between the "new" and the "familiar."

So my question for you today: Have you found the right balance in your marketing? If not, then it's time to re-evaluate and make sure your message is not sacrificing brand equity for a white washing of creative self-satisfaction.

The Simple SEO Tricks We Forget

I know I'm supposed to ask for inbound links. I know that it's important to search engine optimization to have lots of inbound links. And I've been pretty good about asking for inbound links. But while attending Lee Odden's session at theMarketingProfs B2B Forum, I was reminded that there's something else we all could be doing.

Are you getting anchor text juice along with your link?

This is why I am not an SEO expert. It's also why I value them and recommend them to my clientele. I've been simply asking for links, when I could be:

• Making it easier on folks by giving full code that just needs to be dropped into a post
• Providing specific keywords in that code that could make the inbound relevant
• Double the benefit to my site with each inbound
  

Here's what we're talking about. Instead of asking for just a link, like !"http://beancast.us"!, consider providing the following:

!<a href="http://beancast.us">The BeanCast | The Best Marketing Podcast Anywhere</a>!

By doing this, you get both the link and the anchor text you are trying to optimize so that the search engines sees you not only getting an inbound link, but also someone specifically linking with reference to your keywords. Brilliantly simple and I feel foolish for not remembering to do this.

And that's just the half of it. It also makes for a great way to enhance links to useful content you provide on third-party sites like YouTube. Say you're offering a typical YouTube embedding code. The video would get the view, but your actual site gains no benefit. But now you add a link and anchor text to it and suddenly everything changes.

For example:

!<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/EnBoltbzQns&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/EnBoltbzQns&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object><br><a href="http://beancast.us">For more content from The BeanCast Marketing Podcast, click here.</a>!

You'll notice I tacked on a link and anchor text below the YouTube embedding code. Now that video they embed will also include a link back to me as the creator of that video and be optimized with keywords.

It's always the simple things, isn't it. Thanks, Lee, for the reminder. Now I will go wash the egg off my face.

What Are We Measuring?

There's been a push recently to "hold social marketing's feet to the fire," and in many ways I agree. It's time for the discipline to grow up and start being guided by clear objectives and definable results. However, as we do this I think it's important that we develop metrics that are suitable to the medium.

I've been telling a story recently that I heard while at the Russ Reid Food Bank Development Conference. One of their clients (I won't say who) was continually irritated at their NPR buy. By all measures it was a catastrophe. There was next to no response and it cost a fortune. By every metric she had at her disposal, the program simply didn't work. But every time she killed the buy, EVERY OTHER PROGRAM WENT DOWN. 

I agree that social marketing needs to be accountable, but I often worry about us destroying it with old-school tactics and evaluating it with old-school measurement. 

We need to look not just at the sales social can directly bring us, but also how it enhances sales on a 
secondary basis. 

We need to be doing more than measuring the program. We need to be measuring the path a customer takes throughout his or her life cycle. Otherwise, just like the NPR example, we could be killing the one thing that makes people pay attention to our real selling efforts down the road.

My thanks to Elizabeth A. McCaffrey for bringing up this discussion over on Linked In. You can find the thread here.

What Social Tools Can't Tell You

Conversation monitoring tools are really pretty amazing. If you load them up with the right keywords, they can tell you everything that's being talked about regarding those subjects. And the best tools will even pipeline those conversations to the appropriate people within your organization for response.

But that's where the effectiveness of these tools end.

No matter how good your monitoring tools are, no matter how many alerts they provide and no matter how effectively they funnel tasks for action, the actual choices about how, when and even if an interaction is warranted comes down to the flawed impressions of a person or group of people. The best tools can help a bit with evaluating, but in the end the decision how to act is human. And finding a balance here is both crucial and troublesome.

I was struck by this balance this morning when The BeanCast marketing podcast was mentioned in a comment to a post. My usual mode is to thank a blogger for mentioning the show. But in this case, the blogger had accidentally forgotten to mention me in his list and a reader had reminded him of my show. The blogger in turn replied back saying that he had forgotten to list the program and that he loved our show. 

But as I was getting ready to respond, I realized that my work had already been done by a listener. People were having a conversation about my show. That's what I want. 

I love when people plug the show and I always try to turn that into a conversation, but people were already having the kind of conversation I coveted. My involvement would have been superfluous — possibly even damaging to that conversation. So I stopped myself and just enjoyed the moment.

Too many brands still use monitoring as a magic trick. I've complained about this before. Responding has become almost a badge of honor that says, "We get it!" But when people are already conversing and you interrupt them, that doesn't say you get anything. Sometimes it just says that you're rude. At least that's what MY parents told me.

Nestle found this out the hard way recently. Many more brands will find this out soon as well — and tools won't show you the way. Only wisdom, experience and training can offer these kinds of insights. So when you set up your tasking priorities for conversation monitoring, also be thinking about who you are tasking to respond, right along side what you are asking them to respond to. Because social is still about people and relationships, and the rules of real-life social engagement still apply in a digital setting.

The Unmeasurable Asset

On the last episode of The BeanCast, we got into a discussion about the power and lasting value of a brand. And something that I believe Ben Kunz said really resonated with me:

We underestimate the memory of consumers.

Marketers are constantly under pressure to evolve, and inside organizations there is usually a stream of comments that say the "look" is getting old and that the "brand" needs a refresh. But maybe this isn't the point. Or to clarify, maybe this is just more confusion between promotion and brand. Promotions need updating. Brands usually don't. Because even an old brand represents the connection to the consumer's memory and that connection lasts much longer than we think — for good or bad. (As Bill Green pointed out, people remember Enron too.)

But for me the real meat on this issue started occurring in the comments of the show notes for this episode. Some great points were made by Howie Goldfarb regarding the role of CMOs and the pressures they face.

During that conversation, Howie pointed out that CFOs hate the CMO role because they can't accurately measure performance. It all comes down to aggregate sales in the end, so a CMO is credited or blamed for a number that many times isn't even his or her direct responsibility. So is it any wonder that CMO tenures are so short?

Why Sales Can Be A Poor Measure for Marketing

That's when I posited that maybe CMOs are too beholden to the measurement of sales. Certainly we all are rewarded or penalized based on financial performance, but blaming marketing for a sales shortfall perpetuates more confusion about what a CMOs primary responsibility should be. Sales numbers are the responsibility of the sales department. Marketing's job is to preserve and nurture buyer interest and brand equity. When those objectives are confused, we wind up with brands that communicate financial objectives, rather than an interest in long-term relationships. This can generate sales in the short term, but over the long-haul people remember that your brand doesn't care. Or worse, it confuses them to the point that they no longer know who you really are.

The brand is the most valuable asset a company has and it's often viewed as nothing more than an ad campaign. Yet consider CompUSA and Circuit City. Their ad campaigns did nothing to save them, but their brands remained valuable enough to rebirth in new hands and become successful once again. Or consider the rebranding of Mr. Pibb as "Pibb Xtra." People refused to even call it by the new name and continued to order it as "Mr. Pibb," until finally they had to change back to the original name.

Brand memory lasts much longer in the consumer's mind than we give credit. Isn't that insight worth something to your organization? And shouldn't we find better ways to evaluate the person charged with protecting and preserving this asset?

I'd love to hear some opinions about this. How should the performance of a CMO be evaluated? Is it really important to distinguish what marketing does as opposed to what sales does? Should the two be more closely aligned or separated further? Have at it.

Belief Before Benefits?

I've been challenged by a debate I'm having with John Wall via email regarding a new book by Simon Sinek, called Start With Why: How Great Leaders Inspire Everyone To Take Action.

The basic premise of the book challenges the accepted wisdom of business, and that much I like. The premise presented is quite intoxicating. Mr. Sinek promotes the idea that "Why" is more important than "How" or "What" to a brand. To quote the description on Amazon:

"Any organization can explain what it does; some can explain how they do it; but very few can clearly articulate why. WHY is not money or profit — those are always results. WHY does your organization exist? WHY does it do the things it does? WHY do customers really buy from one company or another? WHY are people loyal to some leaders, but not others?

Starting with WHY works in big business and small business, in the nonprofit world and in politics. Those who start with WHY never manipulate, they inspire. And the people who follow them don't do so because they have to; they follow because they want to."

Sounds great to me. And I totally see it. People are inspired not by making a widget, but the reason you made the widget in the first place. People like the story of the couple who started a dog treat company to help other dogs avoid the dental problems of their own dog much more than the fact that the treat cleans teeth.

For me, though, the disconnect in Sinek's argument is when he moves from inspiration to marketing. As a leadership concept and even a brand driver, I agree with him. But when he says (as he did on a recent episode of Marketing Over Coffee) that brands need to move away from talking about features and benefits and begin starting with "why" you should believe, warning bells go off.

Clearly he's right that brands who start with features and benefits as a driver can often end up creating commodities, not unique brands. No matter how unique your features and benefits are, they are assailable and eventually can be challenged or even copied. However, it's also equally clear that ignoring features and benefits in a brand is where many brands experience a disconnect with reality. 

Gatorade is the poster-child of this, with their whole G Campaign. That's a campaign purely based on the "Why." It's also been a failure because it doesn't really say anything about the product. 

There are always exceptions to every rule and I realize for every Gatorade example I can throw out, there's an Apple to foil me. But we need to use common sense when it comes to ideas like Sinek's "why." I'm sure even Mr. Sinek himself would agree that pure branding has it's place, but consumers still sometimes need to understand what it does and how it works before they decide why they should buy it.