Not that I'm intending to make this a self-promotional AMA blog, but we conducted a survey of job seekers in the AMA Job Board two months ago that found a similar sentiment, but with a rougher application than the one Lisa suggests.
(Note: I manage the AMA's Web site and Job Board).
In summary, "what have you done for us lately?" means companies are wondering why they need a high-salary strategic executive full time. The top level talent comes in on a short term role to develop the product launch plan. Then the barely-out-of-college kid executes the plan in a paint-by-numbers fashion.
It's not the career path many marketers expected or prepared for.
I am a marketing/advertising coordinator for a medical journal and would like to know about classes/seminars on marketing and advertising online mostly.
Sue: Assuming you mean education you can get online regarding marketing and advertising (as opposed to information on advertising and marketing via the Web, such as online job banks), I would point you in the direction of the library of Web seminars that the AMA has banked at the MarketingPower.com site. If you go to the main Web site, on the left-hand side there's the "AMA Webcast" option; click on that for a list of topic areas, and the options drill down from there.
Also, have you joined any or several of the AMA's Shared Interest Group listservs? They're pretty active and often act as virtual advice-giving sessions for marketers with a question.
As for other sources of information, considering your employer, I'd consider consulting the Society of National Association Publications and/or Society of Scholarly Publishing for some information directly related to your set of advantages, challenges and work politics. Even if your journal isn't published by a non-profit, you'll likely get some specific advice from these corners (tho you may have to be a member to get it).
And, finally, wherever you're based, I suggest checking out whatever might be available regarding regular meetings of local marketing/advertising organizations (particularly AMA, of course). Online marketing/advertising is a regular program topic and you'll certain meet other people who have the same challenges and some advice.
I agree. There is no such thing as customer service. Some of the things that have happened or been said to me over the past few years have been outrageous and I can't believe people would treat anyone that way, let alone a customer.
i'm of the mind that one of the charateristics of being a customer is having choice. when we have no choice or alternative, i'm not sure we're customers of public sector entities. as customers, the way we hold those we do business with accountable is by being to withholding our business. when we deal with public sector entities, village governments, schools, IRS, etc.. we have little or no choice and we have no significant way of holding them accountable by witholding our business. there is little or no reason for public sector entities to deal w/ citizens as though we are really "customers". we aren't. we are paying for their goods and services whether we like them, approve of them or use them.
I think it is wrong to accuse Bostonians of over-reacting. In this day & age, it is good to hear that residents are aware of their surroundings and of the quick response of law enforcement. Hanging unidentified electrical boxes near public transit it just plain thoughtless.
A good friend of mine told me about this incident before I had heard the reports. He immediately informed me of the time and channel of Aqua Teen Hunger Force because he just "had to see what this show is about." This ad campaign was moronic and horribly organized. But it has been said that there's no such thing as bad press. I guess there's no such thing as bad advertising.
I would say there is a clear distinction between the two and a strong need for marketers to be able to separate them.
Segmentation is based on statistical data (men, age 30-40, who drink coffee before 10am).
Stereotyping is based on a common characteristic shared by a majority -- perhaps a characteristic of a segment (men who drink coffee before 10am are happy people).
Being called a 'suit' is a stereotype, in my opinion. In our society, "suits" are usually those who have the appearance of having some sort of unconfirmed power (the employees all asked, "who are the suits?")
I've never heard of a regular Joe (or Jan) being called a suit just because they wear a suit or sit at a desk all day.
Lisa - Perhaps it's the rainy day in Georgia, but I'm having difficulty taking the leap from a TV commercial that might have been politically incorrect to a stealth campaign that was poorly planned. Seems like comparing apples to oranges or cartoons to cars.
You're right, but I have to wonder: Isn't a common characteristic shared by a majority (such as men who drink coffee before 10 a.m. are happy people) worthwhile psychographic data? If not, then what sort of psychographic data are marketers really looking for ... and how valuable is it?
I do not think that these are new skill sets, just the evolution and modernization of existing practices. Previously businesses interacted with consumers solely through print and radio; with the widespread adoption and availability of the internet, you now have companies creating blogs and podcasts. Instead of the company acting as the sole advocate of their brand, you now have social media and citizen marketers spreading the message (good or bad) about your products. The education and principals involved are not changing, just the distance from the marketer to the consumer and the time involved for content to become public. However, where does this leave the “old-school” marketers and what is their place in the industry? I think the onus is placed on the “old-school” marketers to not only become aware of and welcome this shift in the industry, but to also learn from and look to the “new-school” marketers within their organization and industry who are on the frontlines of these changes. Although, this is, a two-way street and the “new-school” marketers must continue to look to their “old-school” peers, as no matter what enhancements technology has brought us, the principles are still the same.
A different approach to this question is that marketers need to grasp new tech opportunities (i.e.: online social, video, etc.), understand how they can work both for and against a brand, and then help to educate business leaders.
One of my clients is a large dot-com in the tech arena. The C-levels have no clue as to what RSS is, what a blog is, etc. That's just sad for an online company -- and they aren't alone.
For us to push new ideas to these clients isn't possible until we first educate them on these new opportunities.
Lastly, online marketing isn't measured in the same way that a billboard or a radio ad is measured. It's going to be important that old-schoolers get a grip on just how precise online marketing measurement can be when executed properly. If they don't get it, but their clients (or bosses) do, they're toast.
Those C-levels better understand quickly that this is not just a shift in the way marketing is done but a wholesale shift in marketing altogether. It's irrevocable. It's just surprising that so many marketers still have not discovered - let alone accepted - this shift.
Toby: It may be raining in Georgia but surely it was the snow that got to me. My comparison was meant to be more in the ways the two companies reacted to the circumstances--one, Cartoon Network, overreacted, in my opinion, but one executive stepped forward and put a face on the situation, and took responsibility. GM, on the other hand, issued a release through a spokesman, but made no effort to humanize the company while in a defensive position. As consumers come to expect more interactivity, more interpersonalization, with all the elements in their lives --- companies, brands, each other, marketers --- I believe they will reject that sort of traditional corporate stand-off-ishness with greater and greater prejudice. GM needs to figure out what time it is.
I agree with Deborah, in part. Yes, the graphic choices for logos and signage are important. It's what draws the eye, and entices buyers/shoppers to take a second look. But the larger issue, especially for Forth & Towne, is exactly what Deborah points out: they never found their niche--and for a very good reason. They never had one. The fact that they wanted to appeal to a diverse audience is exactly the opposite of a niche market strategy. So, in a sense, they were working against themselves.
Graphics, colors, font style are all important (you have only one chance to make a first impression) but there has to be something more to convert that attracted shopper into a customer. There has to be a consistent, compelling message; a reason to buy. The shopper has to feel that "this is the place where I'll find what I need." And that applies for nearly every category you can think of--even B to B categories. This is what keeps advertising and marketing professionals in business.
As far as Target's business goes, I know they've lost mine (what little they had to begin with). It's those same ads that have driven me from Target. I think they're pretentious and rather unapproachable ... but that's just me.
I think the caveman commercials are great. They are a dry humor that only fans of Curb your enthusiasm or Seinfeld seem to find funny. I hope its lasts and can if as mentioned by another blogger they go with a similar format.
Not much longer I hope, enough is enough. I've seen too many 'cave man' ads. Maybe one was okay, but I don't think it should have evolved into a series! I would rather see the talking Gecko.
depends on the writing. If it's really good (remember Seinfeld), it could be a big hit. However, just looking at the tv ads, I don't give it high marks.
The caveman premise is comical and plays into the whole tolerance issue in America. I don’t think there’s any better foundation for comedy than that that allows us to laugh at ourselves, without being offensive to a particular ethnic group! The writers for this show will have an abundance of material to work with and the show will last as long as they’re successful at identifying the social parallels while maintaining the neutrality a caveman lends.
I really am missing the concept all together - I know it is supposed to be "so easy a caveman could do it" but if the caveman is living like modern man than what is the point? Hope they are gone soon...
Even if it is reminiscent of Seinfeld, I don't think it will work. Seinfeld worked because we could all associate ourselves with the characters at one time or another. I think trhis will only work if the comic premise focuses on steretyping and bigotry, more like All in the Family.
A lot of people I know feel the same way. It seems you can't go in Target without buying a lot of shiny things that you don't really need, but they're presented so well in the store it just can't be helped. It's fun to go there, but I think the ads could capture that a little better. They do seem a little pretentious, as the previous commenter said.
The Caveman commercials are aimed at men aged late teens to mid thirties. I, being the target group, think the commercials are hilarious. My wife, not being the target group, thinks they're dumb. The commercials will be around for as long as its target group wants more, not a second longer.
Do Not Mail Opt-Out Law would be fair to everyone.
The proposed recent "Do not mail" is an Opt-Out law. Only those not desiring advertising mail need opt-out. Anyone desiring advertising mail can do nothing - and continue to receive it. Why deny those wishing to avoid advertising mail the power to do so?
I do not consider handling unwanted advertising placed against my will on my personal property to be a civic obligation!
The US Supreme Court said in the Rowan case in 1970, ““In today's [1970] complex society we are inescapably captive audiences for many purposes, but a sufficient measure of individual autonomy must survive to permit every householder to exercise control over unwanted mail. To make the householder the exclusive and final judge of what will cross his threshold undoubtedly has the effect of impeding the flow of ideas, information, and arguments that, ideally, he should receive and consider. Today's merchandising methods, the plethora of mass mailings subsidized by low postal rates, and the growth of the sale of large mailing lists as an industry in itself have changed the mailman from a carrier of primarily private communications, as he was in a more leisurely day, and have made him an adjunct of the mass mailer who sends unsolicited and often unwanted mail into every home. It places no strain on the doctrine of judicial notice to observe that whether measured by pieces or pounds, Everyman's mail today is made up overwhelmingly of material he did not seek from persons he does not know. And all too often it is matter he finds offensive.”
Furthermore, the Supreme Court said, “the mailer's right to communicate is circumscribed only by an affirmative act of the addressee giving notice that he wishes no further mailings from that mailer.
To hold less would tend to license a form of trespass and would make hardly more sense than to say that a radio or television viewer may not twist the dial to cut off an offensive or boring communication and thus bar its entering his home. Nothing in the Constitution compels us to listen to or view any unwanted communication, whatever its merit; we see no basis for according the printed word or pictures a different or more preferred status because they are sent by mail.”
We need a nationwide “Do Not Mail” law to create a one-stop, convenient place for homeowners to give senders the aforementioned affirmative notice that we do not want certain kinds of mail sent to our homes.
If the US Postal Service would abide by its own rule, each homeowner could easily stop junk mail from getting into their mailbox by putting a written notice on their mailbox expressing their preference.
The US Postal Services practices are supposed to be according to the Domestic Mail Manual (DMM). The DMM contains provision 508.1.1.2 that says, “Refusal at Delivery: The addressee may refuse to accept a mailpiece when it is offered for delivery.” I interpret this rule to mean that if a homeowner wants to refuse an unwanted mailpiece (i.e. junk mail), the homeowner can do so when the mailpiece is offered for delivery. More to the point – refuse it before it is put into the mailbox!
In practical application, since the postal carrier comes to homes at different times each day, the homeowner cannot be waiting at the mailbox to dialogue with the mail carrier about each mailpiece. The only realistic way to interpret 508.1.1.2 therefore is that the homeowner should post a notice on the mailbox telling the postal carrier about the homeowner’s preference. The notice to the postal service must be specific and unambiguous. For instance, a homeowner should certainly be able to write, “No mail that is not addressed to the Jones” because that does not require the postal carrier to make a subjective judgment. On the other hand, it would not be acceptable to write “no junk mail” because the definition of “junk mail” is subjective and the mail carrier cannot decide.
Unfortunately, the US Postal Service has written to me that they will NOT honor a notice refusing mail, not matter how specifically it is worded, because the postal carrier does not have time to sort through the mail at my mailbox to pick out the pieces that are not addressed to me. Therefore, the US Postal Service is passing their sorting and disposing task onto me by putting all the mail they want into my mailbox, even though this seemingly violates 508.1.1.2.
Since the U.S. Postal Service will not abide by 508.1.1.2, homeowners need to stop unwanted mail at the source (i.e. by blocking the sender from sending it). We need a nationwide “Do Not Mail” law to create a one-stop, convenient place for homeowners to give senders notice that we do not want certain kinds of mail sent to our homes.
Nobody likes "junk mail," but one person's junk is another one's treasure. Given the anti-spam laws and the no-call lists, what's a marketer to do? If they ban all direct mail, it would be restraint of trade, violation of freedom of speech, and several other important tenets of American freedom and commerce--and this from a card-carrying liberal!
I would hope that, if Congress were foolish enough to pass some kind of "no-junk-mail" law, there would be law suits up the wazoo. If it ever came before the Supreme Court, I would hope it would be nullified.
Legislature cannot even stop e-mail spamming which is a far more devious and destructive form of marketing than direct mail.
Direct Mail is already being "filtered". It cost money to direct mail. Spamming direct mail to people with little or no interest in the product or service just ruins the overall return on investment of the marketer and will have it's own consequences.
The load E-Mail spamming puts on the system is far more destructive. Force e-mailers to pay 5 cents per mail recipient and watch the spam drop 90% or more. Then perhaps the hostility will drop about direct mail once people get less clutter in their marketing lives.
I think its about the brand, but also about the experience that each one creates at the time when it's been drunk. Maybe in a concert, probably on a birthday's party, or when someone met the love of his life. Whatever is the situation it has to be present the brand in that particular experience.
I agree! We need to market healthy eating to our children, but to OURSELVES as parents as well. We are trying to figure out the source of the childhood obesity epidemic, but one big factor is clear and in the mirror. Currently, 78.2 percent of men aged 40 to 59 in the U.S. are overweight or obese. Since children model their behaviors after, and learn from their parents, why would there NOT be a childhood obesity epidemic!
Lynne Eldridge M.D.
Author, "Avoiding Cancer One Day At A Time, practical advice for preventing cancer" http://www.avoidcancernow.com
Green. Never cared for the term because it conjurs up images of tree-hugging environmentalism--obviously an image I would not want associated with my firm.
I happen to disagree with you about the term "Solutions." Many software companies that provide both software AND (professional/consulting) services find this word an excellent description of what they do for clients. The word "software/product" is too limiting, as is "Services". Solutions fits perfectly and is widely understood among the client market.
The fact that there is no SIC code for this category is more a function of the fact that the SIC codes have been out of date for at least 50 years.
Good response on the solutions point Dana. The root of the matter is more a combination of laziness and deceit. Marketers (this is a generalization so don’t take it personal) have contributed to the increase in cynicism in our society about marketing messages.
Blogs, wikis, and the My Spaces of the world are popular in part because the messages of capitalism’s institutions are viewed as self-serving and at times corrupt. Thanks Enron and WMD.
As marketers continue to use the asterisk in their promotions, (*see really really small print just to make sure you understand that after my happy words are done you are going to get hosed) more individuals will disregard everything marketers say.
So unique solutions are so mundane it really doesn’t matter anyway. The school of marketers that will prevail in this decade are those that allow all sides of an issue, product, service (er yes and solutions) to be discussed. Honesty and candor will be rewarded. Those marketers and CEOs that attempt to hide behind the cloak of vague rhetoric (lies) will be found on the miscellaneous pile.
I discuss these issues on the Marketing Edge podcast, www.providentpartners.net/blog especially the interview with Nomi Prins author of the book Jacked. Once you get to the blog, just search Prins in the Podzinger box to the left.
I’m also interested in interviewing other marketers or business professors on this topic of honesty in marketing. You can email me at amaruggi@providentpartners.net Yes, I am an AMA member in the Minnesota chapter.
I must say I agreed with you all the way. Wiki is something I use for curiosity and nothing else. Its like an animal in the zoo. I look at it, I even pay atention at details but I know its not the wild animal in the jungle.
I couldn't agree more about the overuse of the word "solutions". The word makes my skin crawl every time I hear it or read it in an advertisement. While the word is applicable for a small minority of companies, such as computer software/consulting companies as previously mentioned, it is vague and holds no meaning for most companies that like to jump on the bandwagon of marketing buzz words. The fact is, unless a company who provides "Technology Solutions" provides every conceivable solution to every conceivable technological need, then the word is useless fluff and says nothing about the products/services provided.
What are kids eating today that we weren't eating 30 years ago? Are more processed foods containing partially hydrogenated something and high fructose corn syrups? What are kids playing that we weren't 30 years ago? Kick the can, Buck Buck, street Nerf football? Or XBox 360? Did Proposition 2 1/2 put the kabosh on any after school sports programs and more activity? I don't know where to put the blame, but I do know there is a LOT we can do to overcome it.
It comes down to parents. It seems that too many of them do not take the time to deal with their children. I see it with my stepchildren. We are working too much. I know I am.
Corporations should develop - not abuse or treat as charities - the poor of the world. Taking advantage of 'low labor'markets or giving away computers to the poor of the world is not a solution to global poverty. CSR when used to market products to people who clearly cannot afford them because those same companies are paying them $5 a month for slave labor is the worst form of abuse.
Educate, develop and integrate poor people into the economic machine called corporate globalization and perhaps it will be embraced ...and hopefully it will begin to make a difference in giving people the opportunity to rise above abject poverty and corporate slavery.
Michael - Your point is well taken; there is no question that marketers ignore "the bottom of the pyramid" -- a term referring to the huge market represented by the world's poor (see C.K. Prahalad and Gary Hamel's 2004 book, "The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid"). It seems that one of the effects of globalization is to make the millions who've existed on the margins of markets, much more central to them. This issue is not merely one of selling to the world's poor, but recognizing a radically changed economic model coming to the fore - one where the poor have new access and an ability to participate in global economic activity, like never before. So with new economic viability (thanks to game changers like micro-finance and outsourcing, etc.), we're seeing a sea-change in countries like India and China, where a variety of factors have come together to create huge surges in economic growth where previously there was, well, poverty.
Here in the U.S. the green movement is mostly a middle and upper-class phenomenon because it's linked to lifestyle and lifestyle marketing. But marketers need to see beyond such trendiness and become aware of a shift that’s much more profound: the understanding by many - including the poor- that there are more environmentally safe and above all cheaper ways for people to do things like light and heat their homes or power their vehicles.
The CSR movement is about a new logic - a new model for conducting business. As soon as marketers understand that the draw for consumers is not just environmental and social correctness but rather the excitement of using business innovation and technology to solve basic problems such as our dependence on expensive and destructive energy resources, to improve healthcare and cure disease, to make home-ownership possible for more people (thanks to the use of new, cost-effective building materials and solar power), etc., etc.
The poor and struggling lower-middle class in this country as well as others around the world will increasingly be the beneficiaries of CSR and green innovation - and this of course represents a potential bonanza for those marketers who catch the wave early.
Posted by:
Christopher Foss, SVP Corporate Social Responsibility, Lippe Taylor Brand Communications Inc. |
April 26, 2007 9:25 AM
THis is great information -- and very timely, too. As marketers, we should be paying attention to the Hispanic marketplace. It is growing by leaps and bounds, and while the Latino mobile video market may be small today, I'll bet it will be HUGE soon.
Thanks!
Yes. We're seeing it too esp with the advent of tools like 'personal analytics' where Sales folks can send out email blasts and track response rates (all without Marketing! :O )
For example, I heard a pitch from SalesGenius.com and their whole spiel is exactly about empowering Sales and making fewer, more qualified calls. Sounds more than a little bit interesting.
“Based on intuition OR rather on pure data and analysis?” – This is a perfect example of black-and-white, ei-ther-or, binary thinking. Such thinking is a bane of marketing. (See, e.g., “Counter-Intuitive Marketing” by Kevin Clancy.)
The answer is BOTH: analysis AND intuition.
The best guidance to innovations is supplied by Akio Morita, a wizard of successful innovations: “Carefully watch how people live, get an intuitive sense as to what they might want and then go with it. Don’t do market re-search!”
As to data, there is much talk about them. But WHAT data in particular are supposed to help one in innova-tions? Data supplied by formal questionnaire-based survey? Or insights supplied by one’s search for the most im-portant marketing questions, such as:
How do people buy products in this category?
How do they use it?
What are the selling points in this situation?
What are the most typical objections?
Are there some prejudices concerned with this category?
Dozens of client-oriented questions.
To answer them one needs marketing thinking.
In my book “Marketing Thinking” (available at Amazon.com) there is a section on faulty reasoning and dogmatism prevailing in marketing, or rather pseudo-marketing.
Some excepts:
“A practical marketer should be aware of one hazardous thing: in an ocean of products and companies, you can find cases of whatever, including mutually excluding ones…
A curse of pseudo-marketing is its dogmatism. Theodore Levitt: “The problem with the marketing concept is a persistent tendency toward rigidity. It gets dogmatized, interpreted into constantly narrower and inflexible pre-scriptions. This is dangerous because of marketing’s centrality in shaping the purposes, strategies, and tactics of the entire organization.”
Marketing dogmas have various origins. But practically all of them are based on a misunderstanding of the Client: his values, his behavior, his resources, his buying procedures, and his decision-making.
One way of shaping a new dogma is elevating something specific to the general, making a rule out of an ex-ception. In the marketing literature, there are hundreds of statements that claim universality, which in fact only re-fer to a specific situation and do not work in other cases…
Many dogmas come from black-and-white, either-or, binary thinking. One example is so-called emotional marketing, which considers that all buying decisions are guided exclusively by emotions.
Some dogmas are pure invention, wishful thinking, or pseudo-science fiction. Ruefully, there are many such pieces in MBA courses…
Sadly enough, it is a reason behind the acclaim lavished on the now popular books of “immutable” laws of whatever.”
The rudder is the intuitive guide while data confirms and process. Neither should exist alone. Data should confir and build the judgement arising from the gut feel process. We are all consomers and do experience at a visceral level emotional responses that are somewhat common to all people. The data will assist our accuracy through demographic knowledge and reaction to syntax and word choice. The talent arises from the intuitive component when guided by clarity and objective balance. Be willing to test responses repeatedly in order to identify micro trends in your niche. Intuitive talent is the power force driven by accumulative nuance identification.
If you look at the functions of a Marketing Group and a Web Group, I think the similarities (and the confusion) lie in the online medium, and not the charters of the organizations. Web groups publish and maintain a web presence; Marketers try to drive demand and feed leads to sales. The web group always leverages the online channel; a Marketer will leverage integrated channels to achieve her goal. I think that because Marketing leverages the online channel, this has web teams wondering where their job ends and Marketing's begins. And I think the driving motivator behind the confusion is that each of these groups want to align themselves closely to sales and justify their impact on the sales channel.
I experienced this first-hand recently during a web site consolidation project (one company had acquired multiple smaller companies and a cohesive web presence was needed). The web team talked about leads-to-sales. The Marketers talked about leads-to-sales. Who's right? If Marketing runs an online campaign and somebody fills out an online form, does the web team get credit for this? Does your operations team take credit for telemarketing calls because they own your phone network?
In an ideal world it wouldn't matter, because each team is part of the same company. But when budgets factor in it does matter.
Taking a Marketers perspective, a primary goal of Marketing is demand generation through relationships and interactions with customers and propects. Because tracking has improved, its easier to get close to closed-loop and attribute Marketing efforts to sales (my experience is in B2B). That's powerful stuff, and something a Web team can't match with web analytics alone. Its understandable they would want to be seen as contributing to sales. But if your organizations are split into two divisions, Marketing has claim on demand generation, especially if they own the marketing contact data, create and track the campaigns (online and offline), and manage adword buys and syndication.
This brings to mind the marathon runner who boasted about the benefits of whole milk and drank it all the time including before races; if you remember this story, you might recall that he died of a heart attack in the middle of a race. The fact is, too much of anything is bad for you, even water. We shouldn't be promoting eating, drinking, or doing any one thing more than any other - instead we should be promoting balance and moderation. Of course, this isn't how to increase sales for one particular product that one particular company is producing. But should it just be about the money? Or should it be about improving our way and quality of life? I think what we're talking about is responsible marketing. Back to the milk though - if you're going to drink it, drink organic. Plus, considering all the people who are lactose intolerant (more than admit it) or who are otherwise allergic, is it truly a healthier alternative to other beverages? It really depends on what the alternatives are and what you are already consuming in your diet.
I totally agree . . .well stated. And, by the way, the TV spots with the poor Mom having to dress up as a taco as a second job to support her kids text messaging habits is also odd. VZW has always led with the positive aspects of their network, service, etc. Why the negative approach (broken kneecaps, having to dress up as a taco) all of a sudden?
To say that milk is healthy is irresponsible. Cow's milk was never meant for human consumption - that's why we see so much lactose intollerance. That's the body's way of saying, "don't consume this, it's not good for you." That aside, consider the hormones and anitbiotics poor dairy cows are pumped full of to overproduce milk. You could drink only organic, but you're only solving half the problem. Why not drink soy milk? Soy milk is better for the body and better for the environment.
You know, I've seen that taco commercial ... oh, I don't know how many times ... and I never put it together as a VZW spot until you mentioned it. I've been too distracted by the costume (and the fact that it's poor mom out there schlepping for text-messaging money and not dad, or perhaps those spoiled kids who are running up the VZW bill and appear perfectly capable of holding down part-time jobs of their own). Talk about getting away from the brand message!
Just one note on soy milk - if you're going to consume soy, make sure it's organic as the conventional beans tend to get covered in pesticides/herbicides. Also, as a caution to any pregnant women, soy affects your hormone levels and has been shown to affect the development of the fetus - particularly in the early brain development stages. Soy will also affect a normal woman's hormones. Again, moderation is the key. If every day you're drinking soy milk, eating soy cheese and soy burgers, soy protein bars, etc. and then add the soy additives already in other foods, you're probably consuming too much soy.
Read Seth Godin's book "Purple Cow" in which he says his family became bored in the countryside looking at ll the same kinds of cows, however, if they saw a purple cow...
Johnny Depp as Jack Sparrow.
Corona in July ... or better yet, January; Corona OWNS summer.
Baby Phat clothes --- talk about celebrating *curves.*
Dove's Campaign for Real Beauty
Tar-zhay
Tim Gunn
India (the country)
Avril Lavigne
Virgin Atlantic
For that matter, Richard Branson
Barack Obama
Salon e-magazine
"Going green"
I am the Director of Marketing for a Brand Protection company, Sekuworks. We provide product and services to protect brands against counterfeiting.
As much of this protection happens to the packaging, I am interested to know at what point in the package/label design does protecting it against copying take place? Does it happen at the point of design or at the point of production? Or, does it happen at all?
I am a fan of great design that jumps off of the shelf and wonder if consideration is ever given at the very start of the design process.
It seems to me that if anti-counterfeiting were a part of the overall design, the brand owner would have the benefit of protecting against counterfeiting while communicating to the consumer that they care about the consumer's health and well being by taking steps to authenticate their products and therefore deliver the brand's promise by delivering the geniune product.
This approach would also ensure maintaining the integrity of the design rather than having to retrofit an anti-counterfeiting device later.
How is it possible that it's all the rage to want to invest in China one moment, and continue to claim that their moral compass is pointed in the wrong direction? Anyone who has spent time working in corporate China knows one fact: there is no leadership whatsoever in the financial and business future in the government of China.
The Sleeping Dragon has been asleep for a long time, and nothing suggests that will change.
But are you looking to win hearts, or wallets? China will continue to grow as a gigantic market, while it continues to act like Asia's answer to Frank Sinatra.
In the end, China has, does, and will always continue to do it China's Way.
Well, I don't really enjoy those offensive bilboards which do not always reach ROI. I prefer when brands try to set up a true link with their consumers. Street marketing can be then an alternative : see the link bellow about Ikea - this famous brand tried to improve our everyday life by a stange strategy in the streets of New York in May 2006: http://www.culture-buzz.com/actu_buzz/ikea_ama_c_liore_votre_quotidienaeuro_et_vous_le_montre_article648.html
You are correct but it can be therapeutic for people. Blogs are basically an online diary. I'm not sure about LG's campaign. One question I have is does this fit for its target market? Does it target market blog? It sounds a bit boring to me. (the topic)
A concept so fraught with the potential for both humor and peril that it hurts to think about it. And I agree with RJ - if the employer is this cheap will they be offering virtual raises, too?
I am a reporter at Newsweek,and am interested in doing a story about how companies can branch out to the masses, in the midst of this green hoopla. This, so far, is some of the more thoughtful commentary on the issue I have found on the web thus far. Please respond to me at jemimahnoonoo@newsweek.com if you would like to share your insights on this important topic.
Many of my clients are in real estate and development in Las Vegas and we are also having to come up with many unique ideas to entice buyers and renters not only in the residential market but also the commercial market.
I love hearing about creative ways to get potential buyers to tour a property, but let's not forget about staging...getting them to stay in a home longer creates an emotional connection with the home! To learn more, visit http://activerain.com/groups/StageItForward, or www.roomsthatwork.com.
There are systems that guarantee the consistent application of marketing analysis. They are called Business Processes. I think the problem is that BPM has not fully integrated in the Marketing function yet.
The software is fairly easy to design and as long as management holds staff to using it (hint - managing some functions by metrics maybe?) then you will see more consistent results, no matter which employee is running the numbers.
I have been using the sprint wireless mobile services for more then 5 years now.As a loyal customer to sprint i could say that this was not the right decision because there job is to provide proper customer service . if there are any in efficient customer service consultants or un trained customers service consultants its obvious that customers has to call again and again to solve there wireless mobile problems.
I have been using the sprint wireless mobile services for more then 5 years now.As a loyal customer to sprint i could say that this was not the right decision because there job is to provide proper customer service . if there are any in efficient customer service consultants or un trained customers service consultants its obvious that customers has to call again and again to solve there wireless mobile problems.
Sure, the number of widgets China sells to the U.S. may pale in comparison to the rest of their global sales, but there's a larger issue here. We may not be their largest trade partner, but we're undoubtedly their biggest media partner. What makes news here, makes news elsewhere. CNN International is being watched in Dubai. USA Today is being read in Brussels. And not just by expatriate Americans, either.
In short, their PR problem with the US is their PR problem with the world. And they would be well-advised not to ignore it.
We and the world had our chance 20 years ago and did not take it. China learned everything from that moment--when they slaughtered 3,000 Chinese in the Tien Ah Men Square Massacre. Tanks and heavy machine guns against their own unarmed students.
What did we do in response? Gave them a permanent seat on the UN Security Council and Most Favored Nation trade status.
China doesn't need a crisis management course; WE do.
A S Prisant, COO, Prism Ltd., Barcelona
I'm not sure China really cares...yet. The business ethics issue is still terra nova for China - and the US lecturing China on business ethics is a bit like giving the fox carte blanche in the henhouse. PR problems are often an adjunct to ethics conundrums - just ask any US coal-mining concern, or any Enron or WorldCom investor.
China's economy is analogous to the US economy of the 1880s, which was rife with robber barons and pretty much devoid of ethics. The problem for China is that a screw-up in the current century makes headlines instantaneously - I wonder how Andrew Carnegie and Jay Gould would have fared in a similar media environment.
Chinese enterprise will learn the way all enterprise learns from its mistakes - by taking a hit in the bottom line. It's incredibly hard to avoid buying Chinese, but I think enough US and European consumers are looking at how to do that - vox wallet is a loud voice indeed. It will be interesting to watch the student absorb the lesson.
Doesn't seem like much of a PR problem as we all keep buying their 'cheap' stuff. The old adage applies -- 'actions speak louder than words'. Until we stop buying their products and can by reasonably priced US products I don't think their PR 'problem' is a real problem.
Well, China has already had PR problem for a long time, or I should say, its image on the world stage has never been improved much. So, it is not a crisis, it is a long term problem.
And the government will never notice how serious the problem is unless they get punishment. US is, by far, the second largest trade partner and largest export market of China. It definitely rings a bell to the Chinese government if US stop importing or restricting import from China.
However, the critical point is, will the US government be willing to do so? It will inevitablely hurt the business relationship between the two countries and damage the profit of many American companies.
Moreover, the food and drug safty issue has been in China for years, but little recognized by the outside world until recently it starts threatening the food safty in the US. Instead of trying to exert pressure from outside (US, the world), maybe we should try to change it from inside--the Chinese people. As to my knowledge, in mainland China, few Chinese people realize how bad their living situation--polluted air, contaminated water and ill quality products,is, and they have little power to change it. While they should be the one, who be impowered and make changes to their own country. This, nontheless requires help from the outside world, including the US. Media, will be the most powerful weapon.
In sum, what I try to say is, China is not the only one to blame in these food safty issues, though definitely the one that needs to improve. After all, in any relationship, both sides contribute.
MarketingSherpa just published a case study on this topic last week,
How Microsite & Video Lift Consumer Leads 13.54% for Home Builder. The study describes how a microsite featuring a virtual home consultant is producing results for Wilshire Homes. They are really taking full advantage of the fact that the Internet is now the starting point for home searches.
It seems that Sprint could turn these annoyances into a potential learning experience, not only for Sprint and its employees, but its customers as well. Talk about an easy and quick way to build a meaningful FAQ!
After reading your replies, I sensed a serious lapse in reality. Some of you even suggest eliminating trade with China altogether. First, how does one plan to "restrict" trade with China. Would we set up a conference at the W with all the kings men and sign a piece of paper? How realistic is it to lobby Congress to impose restrictions when China is a major partner, not just in trade, but in many other aspects of international affairs.
Secondly, let's not forget China is a communist nation, and it's people communist. It's easy for us to sit at our desk and blog about China's poor conditions, but what can a population do under the scrutiny and oppression of the party?
However, I agree with all of you that we can use the power of our media to, for once, create a positive change.
Earthcomber works on my Iphone and my old Nokia--equally well. I like it better than Mobio because it has more stuff in its guts and because it is available on every cell phone out there. And it's free, dude. That works in my world.
No, the marketing was fine. It was a failure of the product. They failed to mention that the battery needed to be replaced every year, which also does not come cheap. It's a shame that the interface was designed so well, but the rest of the plan wasn't.
-They shouldn't have released it without a better battery... at a minimum they could have been more upfront about the issue.
-The phone should be available on multiple networks. (at least two so people feel they have the choice)
In our opinion, the marketing was too hip for the audience that can afford such a device.
Like the iPod, kids dig it; not the business crowd who are more in-tune with the likes of a Treo or Palm.
The push was more music and entertainment than productivity. That message appeals to kids and teens. The average kid can't afford $500 and their parents aren't about to dish it out.
Failure? I don't think so. Ok, so they didn't sell a bazillion after launch, but it is a paradigm shift in phones and they are expensive. The technology they used for the screen to zoom in and out is the leading edge. They are in the early stages of exploring this for computers. The GUI interface and navigation is intuitive and very easy to use. Apple's market position is 'easy'. In fact, so easy, they won't bog you down with pages and pages of manuals on how to user their products.
Why only AT&T? It is an exclusive. Just like the RAZR was when it was introduced. After a period of time, it may be opened up. I understand the real sticking point when Apple was negotiating with carriers was the level of control they wanted over the customer experience. For example, iTunes is the only way to activate the phone. Have you seen Motorola, Samsung, Palm, Blackberry, etc. want to control the customer experience at that level? Not even close.
So, is it worth the dough? I bought one for my wife, and I can say it was worth every penny. She was a bit intimidated by technology and loves it. We were recently on vacation and wanted to know seafood restaurants close by for dinner. Pull out the iPhone, find the restaurants, give the one we wanted a call by just tapping the number on the screen. I have the Palm running on the 3G network and it couldn't do it as fast and easy as the iPhone.
Did AT&T loose? I don't think so. My wife didn't have a data plan before the iPhone. Now she does at $30/month. Assume 100K other existing customers in the same situation and that is $3MM gross incremental revenue per month.
The phone is not a business phone because Apple will not allow them to be on business accounts. Once Apple opens that up and businesses running Exchange Server open the imap capabilities of exchange, they can get into that market. I would have bought one for my business phone in a minute if I could have. While not the cheapest phone, it is the best I have seen.
In my opinion, it's not the iPhone that is limiting sales, but the poor quality of the AT&T network -- widely acknowledged as one of the worst.
Apple's "4P" marketing mistake had to do with "place" -- their decision to sign a 5-year exclusive deal with AT&T. They put all their eggs in one basket (for a princely sum) and the market is telling them they blew it.
I think it does boil down to marketing. While the battery life may be a problem, the real problem of lackluster sales goes back to not focusing the marketing to fit the target. The iPhone is clearly a teen-20 something product but with a price that many can't afford. I do think apple did a great job of generating the buzz they wanted, unfortunately, too few of their target audience can afford $500+ for a phone.
While a contract was indeed signed for 5 years on the iPhone, there is nothing stopping Apple from developing other phones and bringing them to market. I suspect that Apple was very careful in the wording of their agreement to allow other phones to come to market. I suspect that we'll see more phones from Apple and we'll see that value (and the hindrance to the market) of that ATT contract diminish.
Entertaining I will give you, effective, I think not. Unfortunately, all too often creative ideas are produced solely for creative's sake. Rarely is the work well branded. What does this ad tell you about the Nationwide brand? Would you switch to Nationwide from, say, Allstate after seeing this ad? The subservient chicken may have created buzz and gotten millions of hits, but it doesn't build the Burger King brand. Neither does this Nationwide effort. Effective communication needs to emanate from the essence of a brand. If not, it's limited to building short-term awareness, but won't build a brand over time.
As a member of CoreBrand, a corporate brand consulting company, I’m constantly aware of changes in brands, whether those changes are for the better or for the worse. I believe that “role models” like Lindsey Lohan, Paris Hilton, and in some respects, even people like Tom Cruise can hurt the movie industry with their tabloid personalities. By giving the general population visions of drunk and disorderly behavior, or unusual and excessive actions and beliefs, the general populace is inclined not to see movies associated with those celebrities. Sponsors and financial backers for movies starred by such celebrities are understandably hurt by these ridiculous actions by celebrities.
I wouldn’t be surprised in the least if certain film companies don’t hire high profile celebrities that find themselves constantly in the media for poor behavior and actions. It’s not worth the money to invest in a celebrity that might be in jail within a week’s time. The same can be said for sports teams. If a player is found to be using illegal substances or engaging in illegal or questionable activities, it not only hurts the team’s performance on the field, and in the media, it hurts the team by losing fans. A sport, like movies, is nothing without a fan base.
It is up to those fans, the general populace at large to make clear statements as to what they will and will not accept as behavior becoming a sports player or movie star. It is up to us to ensure that only the appropriate actors, actresses, and sports figures represent our film industry, and sports teams in the media.
I would personally refrain from working with an actor, actress, or sports figure if they acted unbecoming of their position and in regards to the law. Their actions would not only reflect on them, but those they work for. And it is the ones that employ these high risk actors, actre
Comments
Hey, thanks, I really appreciate it!
Craig
Posted by: Craig Newmark | July 27, 2006 7:20 PM
Not that I'm intending to make this a self-promotional AMA blog, but we conducted a survey of job seekers in the AMA Job Board two months ago that found a similar sentiment, but with a rougher application than the one Lisa suggests.
(Note: I manage the AMA's Web site and Job Board).
In summary, "what have you done for us lately?" means companies are wondering why they need a high-salary strategic executive full time. The top level talent comes in on a short term role to develop the product launch plan. Then the barely-out-of-college kid executes the plan in a paint-by-numbers fashion.
It's not the career path many marketers expected or prepared for.
A short article on the survey can be found at Splintering of the Marketing Career Path (http://www.marketingpower.com/content98632.php).
Posted by: James Heckman | August 4, 2006 1:45 AM
I am a marketing/advertising coordinator for a medical journal and would like to know about classes/seminars on marketing and advertising online mostly.
Thanks very much
Posted by: Sue | January 31, 2007 7:22 PM
Sue: Assuming you mean education you can get online regarding marketing and advertising (as opposed to information on advertising and marketing via the Web, such as online job banks), I would point you in the direction of the library of Web seminars that the AMA has banked at the MarketingPower.com site. If you go to the main Web site, on the left-hand side there's the "AMA Webcast" option; click on that for a list of topic areas, and the options drill down from there.
Also, have you joined any or several of the AMA's Shared Interest Group listservs? They're pretty active and often act as virtual advice-giving sessions for marketers with a question.
As for other sources of information, considering your employer, I'd consider consulting the Society of National Association Publications and/or Society of Scholarly Publishing for some information directly related to your set of advantages, challenges and work politics. Even if your journal isn't published by a non-profit, you'll likely get some specific advice from these corners (tho you may have to be a member to get it).
And, finally, wherever you're based, I suggest checking out whatever might be available regarding regular meetings of local marketing/advertising organizations (particularly AMA, of course). Online marketing/advertising is a regular program topic and you'll certain meet other people who have the same challenges and some advice.
Good luck!
Lisa M. Keefe
Editor, Marketing News
Posted by: Lisa M. Keefe | January 31, 2007 9:24 PM
I agree. There is no such thing as customer service. Some of the things that have happened or been said to me over the past few years have been outrageous and I can't believe people would treat anyone that way, let alone a customer.
Posted by: Christer Osterling | February 2, 2007 8:59 PM
What about the stupid people in the city of Boston? It seems that none of the other major metropolitan areas had a problems with this promotion.
And yes, this type of publicity is perfectly suited to the ATHF demographic.
Posted by: Chris | February 5, 2007 3:12 PM
i'm of the mind that one of the charateristics of being a customer is having choice. when we have no choice or alternative, i'm not sure we're customers of public sector entities. as customers, the way we hold those we do business with accountable is by being to withholding our business. when we deal with public sector entities, village governments, schools, IRS, etc.. we have little or no choice and we have no significant way of holding them accountable by witholding our business. there is little or no reason for public sector entities to deal w/ citizens as though we are really "customers". we aren't. we are paying for their goods and services whether we like them, approve of them or use them.
Posted by: steve | February 6, 2007 2:48 PM
I think it is wrong to accuse Bostonians of over-reacting. In this day & age, it is good to hear that residents are aware of their surroundings and of the quick response of law enforcement. Hanging unidentified electrical boxes near public transit it just plain thoughtless.
Posted by: Lindsey | February 6, 2007 6:36 PM
A good friend of mine told me about this incident before I had heard the reports. He immediately informed me of the time and channel of Aqua Teen Hunger Force because he just "had to see what this show is about." This ad campaign was moronic and horribly organized. But it has been said that there's no such thing as bad press. I guess there's no such thing as bad advertising.
Posted by: Lauren Casteel | February 6, 2007 8:36 PM
I would say there is a clear distinction between the two and a strong need for marketers to be able to separate them.
Segmentation is based on statistical data (men, age 30-40, who drink coffee before 10am).
Stereotyping is based on a common characteristic shared by a majority -- perhaps a characteristic of a segment (men who drink coffee before 10am are happy people).
Being called a 'suit' is a stereotype, in my opinion. In our society, "suits" are usually those who have the appearance of having some sort of unconfirmed power (the employees all asked, "who are the suits?")
I've never heard of a regular Joe (or Jan) being called a suit just because they wear a suit or sit at a desk all day.
My $0.02.
Good blog... keep it up you buncha suits ;)
Posted by: Michael Turner | February 7, 2007 9:08 PM
Lisa - Perhaps it's the rainy day in Georgia, but I'm having difficulty taking the leap from a TV commercial that might have been politically incorrect to a stealth campaign that was poorly planned. Seems like comparing apples to oranges or cartoons to cars.
Posted by: Toby | February 13, 2007 10:02 PM
Michael:
You're right, but I have to wonder: Isn't a common characteristic shared by a majority (such as men who drink coffee before 10 a.m. are happy people) worthwhile psychographic data? If not, then what sort of psychographic data are marketers really looking for ... and how valuable is it?
Posted by: Michael | February 14, 2007 7:19 PM
I do not think that these are new skill sets, just the evolution and modernization of existing practices. Previously businesses interacted with consumers solely through print and radio; with the widespread adoption and availability of the internet, you now have companies creating blogs and podcasts. Instead of the company acting as the sole advocate of their brand, you now have social media and citizen marketers spreading the message (good or bad) about your products. The education and principals involved are not changing, just the distance from the marketer to the consumer and the time involved for content to become public. However, where does this leave the “old-school” marketers and what is their place in the industry? I think the onus is placed on the “old-school” marketers to not only become aware of and welcome this shift in the industry, but to also learn from and look to the “new-school” marketers within their organization and industry who are on the frontlines of these changes. Although, this is, a two-way street and the “new-school” marketers must continue to look to their “old-school” peers, as no matter what enhancements technology has brought us, the principles are still the same.
Posted by: Dan Berns | February 15, 2007 4:34 PM
A different approach to this question is that marketers need to grasp new tech opportunities (i.e.: online social, video, etc.), understand how they can work both for and against a brand, and then help to educate business leaders.
One of my clients is a large dot-com in the tech arena. The C-levels have no clue as to what RSS is, what a blog is, etc. That's just sad for an online company -- and they aren't alone.
For us to push new ideas to these clients isn't possible until we first educate them on these new opportunities.
Lastly, online marketing isn't measured in the same way that a billboard or a radio ad is measured. It's going to be important that old-schoolers get a grip on just how precise online marketing measurement can be when executed properly. If they don't get it, but their clients (or bosses) do, they're toast.
Posted by: Michael Turner | February 15, 2007 5:35 PM
Those C-levels better understand quickly that this is not just a shift in the way marketing is done but a wholesale shift in marketing altogether. It's irrevocable. It's just surprising that so many marketers still have not discovered - let alone accepted - this shift.
Posted by: Michael | February 16, 2007 4:48 PM
Toby: It may be raining in Georgia but surely it was the snow that got to me. My comparison was meant to be more in the ways the two companies reacted to the circumstances--one, Cartoon Network, overreacted, in my opinion, but one executive stepped forward and put a face on the situation, and took responsibility. GM, on the other hand, issued a release through a spokesman, but made no effort to humanize the company while in a defensive position. As consumers come to expect more interactivity, more interpersonalization, with all the elements in their lives --- companies, brands, each other, marketers --- I believe they will reject that sort of traditional corporate stand-off-ishness with greater and greater prejudice. GM needs to figure out what time it is.
Posted by: Lisa | February 19, 2007 10:50 PM
#1 Ignorance
A recent survey (also reported in Marketing News) by Market Tools, reported that nearly 80% of marketers have no clue what Web 2.0 is.
Even if the marketer is convinced of the value of Web 2.0 tools, convincing the management is whole another story.
Posted by: Mia Dand | March 1, 2007 11:54 PM
I agree with Deborah, in part. Yes, the graphic choices for logos and signage are important. It's what draws the eye, and entices buyers/shoppers to take a second look. But the larger issue, especially for Forth & Towne, is exactly what Deborah points out: they never found their niche--and for a very good reason. They never had one. The fact that they wanted to appeal to a diverse audience is exactly the opposite of a niche market strategy. So, in a sense, they were working against themselves.
Graphics, colors, font style are all important (you have only one chance to make a first impression) but there has to be something more to convert that attracted shopper into a customer. There has to be a consistent, compelling message; a reason to buy. The shopper has to feel that "this is the place where I'll find what I need." And that applies for nearly every category you can think of--even B to B categories. This is what keeps advertising and marketing professionals in business.
Posted by: Ann Middleman | March 6, 2007 5:45 PM
As far as Target's business goes, I know they've lost mine (what little they had to begin with). It's those same ads that have driven me from Target. I think they're pretentious and rather unapproachable ... but that's just me.
Posted by: Michael | March 12, 2007 6:57 PM
I think the caveman commercials are great. They are a dry humor that only fans of Curb your enthusiasm or Seinfeld seem to find funny. I hope its lasts and can if as mentioned by another blogger they go with a similar format.
Posted by: Andrew | March 13, 2007 11:28 AM
Not much longer I hope, enough is enough. I've seen too many 'cave man' ads. Maybe one was okay, but I don't think it should have evolved into a series! I would rather see the talking Gecko.
Posted by: Louise King | March 13, 2007 12:01 PM
The Cavemen show will succeed "IF" they follow in the Seinfeld format, a caveman show about nothing...
Posted by: JustGeri | March 13, 2007 12:42 PM
let's hope not for long
Posted by: marian | March 13, 2007 2:25 PM
seems to be pretty much dead already
Posted by: Wendy Harrington | March 13, 2007 2:38 PM
depends on the writing. If it's really good (remember Seinfeld), it could be a big hit. However, just looking at the tv ads, I don't give it high marks.
Posted by: Betty Crawford | March 13, 2007 3:07 PM
I prefer the lizardb, but the caveman can work with better scripts and more outlandish scenarios, bolder is better
Posted by: Paul Thompson | March 13, 2007 4:10 PM
The caveman premise is comical and plays into the whole tolerance issue in America. I don’t think there’s any better foundation for comedy than that that allows us to laugh at ourselves, without being offensive to a particular ethnic group! The writers for this show will have an abundance of material to work with and the show will last as long as they’re successful at identifying the social parallels while maintaining the neutrality a caveman lends.
Posted by: Thomas Green | March 13, 2007 4:19 PM
I really am missing the concept all together - I know it is supposed to be "so easy a caveman could do it" but if the caveman is living like modern man than what is the point? Hope they are gone soon...
Posted by: Darlene Byrne | March 13, 2007 4:42 PM
Even if it is reminiscent of Seinfeld, I don't think it will work. Seinfeld worked because we could all associate ourselves with the characters at one time or another. I think trhis will only work if the comic premise focuses on steretyping and bigotry, more like All in the Family.
Posted by: Mark R | March 13, 2007 4:46 PM
The first couple commercials were funny. But, this is funny for 30 seconds. A pilot TV show would last perhaps 45 seconds.
Posted by: Robin | March 15, 2007 5:05 PM
A lot of people I know feel the same way. It seems you can't go in Target without buying a lot of shiny things that you don't really need, but they're presented so well in the store it just can't be helped. It's fun to go there, but I think the ads could capture that a little better. They do seem a little pretentious, as the previous commenter said.
Posted by: 2chey | March 16, 2007 10:13 AM
The Caveman commercials are aimed at men aged late teens to mid thirties. I, being the target group, think the commercials are hilarious. My wife, not being the target group, thinks they're dumb. The commercials will be around for as long as its target group wants more, not a second longer.
Posted by: Doug | March 16, 2007 4:30 PM
Do Not Mail Opt-Out Law would be fair to everyone.
The proposed recent "Do not mail" is an Opt-Out law. Only those not desiring advertising mail need opt-out. Anyone desiring advertising mail can do nothing - and continue to receive it. Why deny those wishing to avoid advertising mail the power to do so?
I do not consider handling unwanted advertising placed against my will on my personal property to be a civic obligation!
The US Supreme Court said in the Rowan case in 1970, ““In today's [1970] complex society we are inescapably captive audiences for many purposes, but a sufficient measure of individual autonomy must survive to permit every householder to exercise control over unwanted mail. To make the householder the exclusive and final judge of what will cross his threshold undoubtedly has the effect of impeding the flow of ideas, information, and arguments that, ideally, he should receive and consider. Today's merchandising methods, the plethora of mass mailings subsidized by low postal rates, and the growth of the sale of large mailing lists as an industry in itself have changed the mailman from a carrier of primarily private communications, as he was in a more leisurely day, and have made him an adjunct of the mass mailer who sends unsolicited and often unwanted mail into every home. It places no strain on the doctrine of judicial notice to observe that whether measured by pieces or pounds, Everyman's mail today is made up overwhelmingly of material he did not seek from persons he does not know. And all too often it is matter he finds offensive.”
Furthermore, the Supreme Court said, “the mailer's right to communicate is circumscribed only by an affirmative act of the addressee giving notice that he wishes no further mailings from that mailer.
To hold less would tend to license a form of trespass and would make hardly more sense than to say that a radio or television viewer may not twist the dial to cut off an offensive or boring communication and thus bar its entering his home. Nothing in the Constitution compels us to listen to or view any unwanted communication, whatever its merit; we see no basis for according the printed word or pictures a different or more preferred status because they are sent by mail.”
We need a nationwide “Do Not Mail” law to create a one-stop, convenient place for homeowners to give senders the aforementioned affirmative notice that we do not want certain kinds of mail sent to our homes.
http://www.newdream.org/emails/ta19.html
Signed,
Ramsey A Fahel
Posted by: Ramsey Fahel | March 16, 2007 7:57 PM
US Postal Service won’t let you refuse mail.
If the US Postal Service would abide by its own rule, each homeowner could easily stop junk mail from getting into their mailbox by putting a written notice on their mailbox expressing their preference.
The US Postal Services practices are supposed to be according to the Domestic Mail Manual (DMM). The DMM contains provision 508.1.1.2 that says, “Refusal at Delivery: The addressee may refuse to accept a mailpiece when it is offered for delivery.” I interpret this rule to mean that if a homeowner wants to refuse an unwanted mailpiece (i.e. junk mail), the homeowner can do so when the mailpiece is offered for delivery. More to the point – refuse it before it is put into the mailbox!
In practical application, since the postal carrier comes to homes at different times each day, the homeowner cannot be waiting at the mailbox to dialogue with the mail carrier about each mailpiece. The only realistic way to interpret 508.1.1.2 therefore is that the homeowner should post a notice on the mailbox telling the postal carrier about the homeowner’s preference. The notice to the postal service must be specific and unambiguous. For instance, a homeowner should certainly be able to write, “No mail that is not addressed to the Jones” because that does not require the postal carrier to make a subjective judgment. On the other hand, it would not be acceptable to write “no junk mail” because the definition of “junk mail” is subjective and the mail carrier cannot decide.
Unfortunately, the US Postal Service has written to me that they will NOT honor a notice refusing mail, not matter how specifically it is worded, because the postal carrier does not have time to sort through the mail at my mailbox to pick out the pieces that are not addressed to me. Therefore, the US Postal Service is passing their sorting and disposing task onto me by putting all the mail they want into my mailbox, even though this seemingly violates 508.1.1.2.
Since the U.S. Postal Service will not abide by 508.1.1.2, homeowners need to stop unwanted mail at the source (i.e. by blocking the sender from sending it). We need a nationwide “Do Not Mail” law to create a one-stop, convenient place for homeowners to give senders notice that we do not want certain kinds of mail sent to our homes.
http://www.newdream.org/emails/ta19.html
Signed,
Ramsey A Fahel
Posted by: Ramsey Fahel | March 16, 2007 7:58 PM
The duck is lovely
Posted by: cui xizhen | March 18, 2007 12:23 PM
Nobody likes "junk mail," but one person's junk is another one's treasure. Given the anti-spam laws and the no-call lists, what's a marketer to do? If they ban all direct mail, it would be restraint of trade, violation of freedom of speech, and several other important tenets of American freedom and commerce--and this from a card-carrying liberal!
I would hope that, if Congress were foolish enough to pass some kind of "no-junk-mail" law, there would be law suits up the wazoo. If it ever came before the Supreme Court, I would hope it would be nullified.
Posted by: Ann Middleman | March 20, 2007 11:05 AM
"Do Not Mail" lists are idiotic.
Legislature cannot even stop e-mail spamming which is a far more devious and destructive form of marketing than direct mail.
Direct Mail is already being "filtered". It cost money to direct mail. Spamming direct mail to people with little or no interest in the product or service just ruins the overall return on investment of the marketer and will have it's own consequences.
The load E-Mail spamming puts on the system is far more destructive. Force e-mailers to pay 5 cents per mail recipient and watch the spam drop 90% or more. Then perhaps the hostility will drop about direct mail once people get less clutter in their marketing lives.
Posted by: Scott Hudson | March 20, 2007 4:05 PM
I think its about the brand, but also about the experience that each one creates at the time when it's been drunk. Maybe in a concert, probably on a birthday's party, or when someone met the love of his life. Whatever is the situation it has to be present the brand in that particular experience.
Posted by: Bernardo Osuna | March 27, 2007 11:04 AM
I agree! We need to market healthy eating to our children, but to OURSELVES as parents as well. We are trying to figure out the source of the childhood obesity epidemic, but one big factor is clear and in the mirror. Currently, 78.2 percent of men aged 40 to 59 in the U.S. are overweight or obese. Since children model their behaviors after, and learn from their parents, why would there NOT be a childhood obesity epidemic!
Lynne Eldridge M.D.
Author, "Avoiding Cancer One Day At A Time, practical advice for preventing cancer"
http://www.avoidcancernow.com
Posted by: Lynne Eldridge M.D. | March 30, 2007 5:58 PM
Preach it sister!
Posted by: Cassie | April 3, 2007 9:11 AM
Green. Never cared for the term because it conjurs up images of tree-hugging environmentalism--obviously an image I would not want associated with my firm.
Posted by: Quinn Mallory | April 3, 2007 9:17 AM
I happen to disagree with you about the term "Solutions." Many software companies that provide both software AND (professional/consulting) services find this word an excellent description of what they do for clients. The word "software/product" is too limiting, as is "Services". Solutions fits perfectly and is widely understood among the client market.
The fact that there is no SIC code for this category is more a function of the fact that the SIC codes have been out of date for at least 50 years.
Posted by: Dana Theus | April 9, 2007 4:03 PM
Good response on the solutions point Dana. The root of the matter is more a combination of laziness and deceit. Marketers (this is a generalization so don’t take it personal) have contributed to the increase in cynicism in our society about marketing messages.
Blogs, wikis, and the My Spaces of the world are popular in part because the messages of capitalism’s institutions are viewed as self-serving and at times corrupt. Thanks Enron and WMD.
As marketers continue to use the asterisk in their promotions, (*see really really small print just to make sure you understand that after my happy words are done you are going to get hosed) more individuals will disregard everything marketers say.
So unique solutions are so mundane it really doesn’t matter anyway. The school of marketers that will prevail in this decade are those that allow all sides of an issue, product, service (er yes and solutions) to be discussed. Honesty and candor will be rewarded. Those marketers and CEOs that attempt to hide behind the cloak of vague rhetoric (lies) will be found on the miscellaneous pile.
I discuss these issues on the Marketing Edge podcast, www.providentpartners.net/blog especially the interview with Nomi Prins author of the book Jacked. Once you get to the blog, just search Prins in the Podzinger box to the left.
I’m also interested in interviewing other marketers or business professors on this topic of honesty in marketing. You can email me at amaruggi@providentpartners.net Yes, I am an AMA member in the Minnesota chapter.
Posted by: Albert Maruggi | April 10, 2007 7:04 AM
I must say I agreed with you all the way. Wiki is something I use for curiosity and nothing else. Its like an animal in the zoo. I look at it, I even pay atention at details but I know its not the wild animal in the jungle.
Posted by: Nelson | April 11, 2007 3:58 AM
I couldn't agree more about the overuse of the word "solutions". The word makes my skin crawl every time I hear it or read it in an advertisement. While the word is applicable for a small minority of companies, such as computer software/consulting companies as previously mentioned, it is vague and holds no meaning for most companies that like to jump on the bandwagon of marketing buzz words. The fact is, unless a company who provides "Technology Solutions" provides every conceivable solution to every conceivable technological need, then the word is useless fluff and says nothing about the products/services provided.
Posted by: Brett | April 11, 2007 7:51 AM
I agree! Have you heard of any groups that are making waves in the industry? Do you think the idea of the Community is one that will stick?
Posted by: Kara Krouser | April 16, 2007 12:30 PM
What are kids eating today that we weren't eating 30 years ago? Are more processed foods containing partially hydrogenated something and high fructose corn syrups? What are kids playing that we weren't 30 years ago? Kick the can, Buck Buck, street Nerf football? Or XBox 360? Did Proposition 2 1/2 put the kabosh on any after school sports programs and more activity? I don't know where to put the blame, but I do know there is a LOT we can do to overcome it.
Posted by: Josh | April 17, 2007 2:56 PM
It comes down to parents. It seems that too many of them do not take the time to deal with their children. I see it with my stepchildren. We are working too much. I know I am.
Posted by: Michelle Contois | April 18, 2007 7:17 AM
Corporations should develop - not abuse or treat as charities - the poor of the world. Taking advantage of 'low labor'markets or giving away computers to the poor of the world is not a solution to global poverty. CSR when used to market products to people who clearly cannot afford them because those same companies are paying them $5 a month for slave labor is the worst form of abuse.
Educate, develop and integrate poor people into the economic machine called corporate globalization and perhaps it will be embraced ...and hopefully it will begin to make a difference in giving people the opportunity to rise above abject poverty and corporate slavery.
Posted by: Diane krandel | April 25, 2007 7:04 PM
Michael - Your point is well taken; there is no question that marketers ignore "the bottom of the pyramid" -- a term referring to the huge market represented by the world's poor (see C.K. Prahalad and Gary Hamel's 2004 book, "The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid"). It seems that one of the effects of globalization is to make the millions who've existed on the margins of markets, much more central to them. This issue is not merely one of selling to the world's poor, but recognizing a radically changed economic model coming to the fore - one where the poor have new access and an ability to participate in global economic activity, like never before. So with new economic viability (thanks to game changers like micro-finance and outsourcing, etc.), we're seeing a sea-change in countries like India and China, where a variety of factors have come together to create huge surges in economic growth where previously there was, well, poverty.
Here in the U.S. the green movement is mostly a middle and upper-class phenomenon because it's linked to lifestyle and lifestyle marketing. But marketers need to see beyond such trendiness and become aware of a shift that’s much more profound: the understanding by many - including the poor- that there are more environmentally safe and above all cheaper ways for people to do things like light and heat their homes or power their vehicles.
The CSR movement is about a new logic - a new model for conducting business. As soon as marketers understand that the draw for consumers is not just environmental and social correctness but rather the excitement of using business innovation and technology to solve basic problems such as our dependence on expensive and destructive energy resources, to improve healthcare and cure disease, to make home-ownership possible for more people (thanks to the use of new, cost-effective building materials and solar power), etc., etc.
The poor and struggling lower-middle class in this country as well as others around the world will increasingly be the beneficiaries of CSR and green innovation - and this of course represents a potential bonanza for those marketers who catch the wave early.
Posted by: Christopher Foss, SVP Corporate Social Responsibility, Lippe Taylor Brand Communications Inc. | April 26, 2007 9:25 AM
THis is great information -- and very timely, too. As marketers, we should be paying attention to the Hispanic marketplace. It is growing by leaps and bounds, and while the Latino mobile video market may be small today, I'll bet it will be HUGE soon.
Thanks!
Posted by: Nancy Arter | May 1, 2007 6:42 PM
Yes. We're seeing it too esp with the advent of tools like 'personal analytics' where Sales folks can send out email blasts and track response rates (all without Marketing! :O )
For example, I heard a pitch from SalesGenius.com and their whole spiel is exactly about empowering Sales and making fewer, more qualified calls. Sounds more than a little bit interesting.
Bob
Posted by: Bob Harris | May 3, 2007 8:20 PM
“Based on intuition OR rather on pure data and analysis?” – This is a perfect example of black-and-white, ei-ther-or, binary thinking. Such thinking is a bane of marketing. (See, e.g., “Counter-Intuitive Marketing” by Kevin Clancy.)
The answer is BOTH: analysis AND intuition.
The best guidance to innovations is supplied by Akio Morita, a wizard of successful innovations: “Carefully watch how people live, get an intuitive sense as to what they might want and then go with it. Don’t do market re-search!”
As to data, there is much talk about them. But WHAT data in particular are supposed to help one in innova-tions? Data supplied by formal questionnaire-based survey? Or insights supplied by one’s search for the most im-portant marketing questions, such as:
How do people buy products in this category?
How do they use it?
What are the selling points in this situation?
What are the most typical objections?
Are there some prejudices concerned with this category?
Dozens of client-oriented questions.
To answer them one needs marketing thinking.
In my book “Marketing Thinking” (available at Amazon.com) there is a section on faulty reasoning and dogmatism prevailing in marketing, or rather pseudo-marketing.
Some excepts:
“A practical marketer should be aware of one hazardous thing: in an ocean of products and companies, you can find cases of whatever, including mutually excluding ones…
A curse of pseudo-marketing is its dogmatism. Theodore Levitt: “The problem with the marketing concept is a persistent tendency toward rigidity. It gets dogmatized, interpreted into constantly narrower and inflexible pre-scriptions. This is dangerous because of marketing’s centrality in shaping the purposes, strategies, and tactics of the entire organization.”
Marketing dogmas have various origins. But practically all of them are based on a misunderstanding of the Client: his values, his behavior, his resources, his buying procedures, and his decision-making.
One way of shaping a new dogma is elevating something specific to the general, making a rule out of an ex-ception. In the marketing literature, there are hundreds of statements that claim universality, which in fact only re-fer to a specific situation and do not work in other cases…
Many dogmas come from black-and-white, either-or, binary thinking. One example is so-called emotional marketing, which considers that all buying decisions are guided exclusively by emotions.
Some dogmas are pure invention, wishful thinking, or pseudo-science fiction. Ruefully, there are many such pieces in MBA courses…
Sadly enough, it is a reason behind the acclaim lavished on the now popular books of “immutable” laws of whatever.”
Posted by: Alexander Repiev | May 8, 2007 12:14 AM
The rudder is the intuitive guide while data confirms and process. Neither should exist alone. Data should confir and build the judgement arising from the gut feel process. We are all consomers and do experience at a visceral level emotional responses that are somewhat common to all people. The data will assist our accuracy through demographic knowledge and reaction to syntax and word choice. The talent arises from the intuitive component when guided by clarity and objective balance. Be willing to test responses repeatedly in order to identify micro trends in your niche. Intuitive talent is the power force driven by accumulative nuance identification.
Posted by: Gerry | May 8, 2007 9:31 AM
If you look at the functions of a Marketing Group and a Web Group, I think the similarities (and the confusion) lie in the online medium, and not the charters of the organizations. Web groups publish and maintain a web presence; Marketers try to drive demand and feed leads to sales. The web group always leverages the online channel; a Marketer will leverage integrated channels to achieve her goal. I think that because Marketing leverages the online channel, this has web teams wondering where their job ends and Marketing's begins. And I think the driving motivator behind the confusion is that each of these groups want to align themselves closely to sales and justify their impact on the sales channel.
I experienced this first-hand recently during a web site consolidation project (one company had acquired multiple smaller companies and a cohesive web presence was needed). The web team talked about leads-to-sales. The Marketers talked about leads-to-sales. Who's right? If Marketing runs an online campaign and somebody fills out an online form, does the web team get credit for this? Does your operations team take credit for telemarketing calls because they own your phone network?
In an ideal world it wouldn't matter, because each team is part of the same company. But when budgets factor in it does matter.
Taking a Marketers perspective, a primary goal of Marketing is demand generation through relationships and interactions with customers and propects. Because tracking has improved, its easier to get close to closed-loop and attribute Marketing efforts to sales (my experience is in B2B). That's powerful stuff, and something a Web team can't match with web analytics alone. Its understandable they would want to be seen as contributing to sales. But if your organizations are split into two divisions, Marketing has claim on demand generation, especially if they own the marketing contact data, create and track the campaigns (online and offline), and manage adword buys and syndication.
Posted by: Mark Halliday | May 8, 2007 12:58 PM
This brings to mind the marathon runner who boasted about the benefits of whole milk and drank it all the time including before races; if you remember this story, you might recall that he died of a heart attack in the middle of a race. The fact is, too much of anything is bad for you, even water. We shouldn't be promoting eating, drinking, or doing any one thing more than any other - instead we should be promoting balance and moderation. Of course, this isn't how to increase sales for one particular product that one particular company is producing. But should it just be about the money? Or should it be about improving our way and quality of life? I think what we're talking about is responsible marketing. Back to the milk though - if you're going to drink it, drink organic. Plus, considering all the people who are lactose intolerant (more than admit it) or who are otherwise allergic, is it truly a healthier alternative to other beverages? It really depends on what the alternatives are and what you are already consuming in your diet.
Posted by: Simon | May 15, 2007 12:30 PM
I totally agree . . .well stated. And, by the way, the TV spots with the poor Mom having to dress up as a taco as a second job to support her kids text messaging habits is also odd. VZW has always led with the positive aspects of their network, service, etc. Why the negative approach (broken kneecaps, having to dress up as a taco) all of a sudden?
Posted by: Nancy Arter | May 17, 2007 9:29 AM
To say that milk is healthy is irresponsible. Cow's milk was never meant for human consumption - that's why we see so much lactose intollerance. That's the body's way of saying, "don't consume this, it's not good for you." That aside, consider the hormones and anitbiotics poor dairy cows are pumped full of to overproduce milk. You could drink only organic, but you're only solving half the problem. Why not drink soy milk? Soy milk is better for the body and better for the environment.
Posted by: Joyce | May 17, 2007 12:28 PM
Shampoo and conditioner bottles have great packaging. I typically can't resist going down that aisle when I'm in the pharmacy just to look at them.
Posted by: 2chey | May 18, 2007 8:48 AM
You know, I've seen that taco commercial ... oh, I don't know how many times ... and I never put it together as a VZW spot until you mentioned it. I've been too distracted by the costume (and the fact that it's poor mom out there schlepping for text-messaging money and not dad, or perhaps those spoiled kids who are running up the VZW bill and appear perfectly capable of holding down part-time jobs of their own). Talk about getting away from the brand message!
Posted by: Lisa M. Keefe | May 18, 2007 12:18 PM
Just one note on soy milk - if you're going to consume soy, make sure it's organic as the conventional beans tend to get covered in pesticides/herbicides. Also, as a caution to any pregnant women, soy affects your hormone levels and has been shown to affect the development of the fetus - particularly in the early brain development stages. Soy will also affect a normal woman's hormones. Again, moderation is the key. If every day you're drinking soy milk, eating soy cheese and soy burgers, soy protein bars, etc. and then add the soy additives already in other foods, you're probably consuming too much soy.
Posted by: Simon | May 18, 2007 12:31 PM
Read Seth Godin's book "Purple Cow" in which he says his family became bored in the countryside looking at ll the same kinds of cows, however, if they saw a purple cow...
Purple cows have the "it" factor.
Posted by: Jim Olsen | May 22, 2007 8:57 AM
Johnny Depp as Jack Sparrow.
Corona in July ... or better yet, January; Corona OWNS summer.
Baby Phat clothes --- talk about celebrating *curves.*
Dove's Campaign for Real Beauty
Tar-zhay
Tim Gunn
India (the country)
Avril Lavigne
Virgin Atlantic
For that matter, Richard Branson
Barack Obama
Salon e-magazine
"Going green"
Posted by: Lisa | May 22, 2007 9:51 PM
OBAMA: The Musical
Posted by: dave | May 22, 2007 10:47 PM
I am the Director of Marketing for a Brand Protection company, Sekuworks. We provide product and services to protect brands against counterfeiting.
As much of this protection happens to the packaging, I am interested to know at what point in the package/label design does protecting it against copying take place? Does it happen at the point of design or at the point of production? Or, does it happen at all?
I am a fan of great design that jumps off of the shelf and wonder if consideration is ever given at the very start of the design process.
It seems to me that if anti-counterfeiting were a part of the overall design, the brand owner would have the benefit of protecting against counterfeiting while communicating to the consumer that they care about the consumer's health and well being by taking steps to authenticate their products and therefore deliver the brand's promise by delivering the geniune product.
This approach would also ensure maintaining the integrity of the design rather than having to retrofit an anti-counterfeiting device later.
Any thoughts?
Posted by: Carol Klancar Glueck | May 24, 2007 11:51 AM
How is it possible that it's all the rage to want to invest in China one moment, and continue to claim that their moral compass is pointed in the wrong direction? Anyone who has spent time working in corporate China knows one fact: there is no leadership whatsoever in the financial and business future in the government of China.
The Sleeping Dragon has been asleep for a long time, and nothing suggests that will change.
But are you looking to win hearts, or wallets? China will continue to grow as a gigantic market, while it continues to act like Asia's answer to Frank Sinatra.
In the end, China has, does, and will always continue to do it China's Way.
Posted by: Kevin Glennon | May 25, 2007 12:40 AM
Well, I don't really enjoy those offensive bilboards which do not always reach ROI. I prefer when brands try to set up a true link with their consumers. Street marketing can be then an alternative : see the link bellow about Ikea - this famous brand tried to improve our everyday life by a stange strategy in the streets of New York in May 2006: http://www.culture-buzz.com/actu_buzz/ikea_ama_c_liore_votre_quotidienaeuro_et_vous_le_montre_article648.html
Posted by: Christelle | June 1, 2007 2:03 PM
You are correct but it can be therapeutic for people. Blogs are basically an online diary. I'm not sure about LG's campaign. One question I have is does this fit for its target market? Does it target market blog? It sounds a bit boring to me. (the topic)
Posted by: Michelle Contois | June 12, 2007 10:32 AM
Thanks for the tips.
Posted by: Sue | June 13, 2007 12:21 AM
Sprite should integrate these with bars across the country to get older people to drink spirits with their sprite.
Posted by: Steven | June 15, 2007 10:54 AM
Perhaps casting was reminded of a squirrel when Bob showed up with that rug on his head...
Posted by: Steve | June 20, 2007 9:50 AM
I can only think of one reason companies would do this.....they are cheap and unable to pay travel expenses to meet prospective employees!
Posted by: RJ | June 23, 2007 10:46 PM
A concept so fraught with the potential for both humor and peril that it hurts to think about it. And I agree with RJ - if the employer is this cheap will they be offering virtual raises, too?
Posted by: LTL | June 25, 2007 2:41 PM
I am a reporter at Newsweek,and am interested in doing a story about how companies can branch out to the masses, in the midst of this green hoopla. This, so far, is some of the more thoughtful commentary on the issue I have found on the web thus far. Please respond to me at jemimahnoonoo@newsweek.com if you would like to share your insights on this important topic.
Posted by: Jemimah Noonoo | June 29, 2007 12:52 PM
Many of my clients are in real estate and development in Las Vegas and we are also having to come up with many unique ideas to entice buyers and renters not only in the residential market but also the commercial market.
Posted by: Marnie Settle | July 6, 2007 11:40 AM
Completely inexplicable behavior for a public company CEO. In my book this guy has no business running a company and behaving so irresponsibly.
Posted by: Annon | July 11, 2007 7:40 PM
I love hearing about creative ways to get potential buyers to tour a property, but let's not forget about staging...getting them to stay in a home longer creates an emotional connection with the home! To learn more, visit http://activerain.com/groups/StageItForward, or www.roomsthatwork.com.
Posted by: Susan Smith | July 17, 2007 10:44 AM
There are systems that guarantee the consistent application of marketing analysis. They are called Business Processes. I think the problem is that BPM has not fully integrated in the Marketing function yet.
The software is fairly easy to design and as long as management holds staff to using it (hint - managing some functions by metrics maybe?) then you will see more consistent results, no matter which employee is running the numbers.
Posted by: Joseph Mello | July 18, 2007 12:44 PM
I have been using the sprint wireless mobile services for more then 5 years now.As a loyal customer to sprint i could say that this was not the right decision because there job is to provide proper customer service . if there are any in efficient customer service consultants or un trained customers service consultants its obvious that customers has to call again and again to solve there wireless mobile problems.
Posted by: mohammed m murtuza | July 19, 2007 4:31 PM
I have been using the sprint wireless mobile services for more then 5 years now.As a loyal customer to sprint i could say that this was not the right decision because there job is to provide proper customer service . if there are any in efficient customer service consultants or un trained customers service consultants its obvious that customers has to call again and again to solve there wireless mobile problems.
Posted by: mohammed m murtuza | July 19, 2007 4:32 PM
Sure, the number of widgets China sells to the U.S. may pale in comparison to the rest of their global sales, but there's a larger issue here. We may not be their largest trade partner, but we're undoubtedly their biggest media partner. What makes news here, makes news elsewhere. CNN International is being watched in Dubai. USA Today is being read in Brussels. And not just by expatriate Americans, either.
In short, their PR problem with the US is their PR problem with the world. And they would be well-advised not to ignore it.
Posted by: Rachel | July 20, 2007 11:01 AM
We and the world had our chance 20 years ago and did not take it. China learned everything from that moment--when they slaughtered 3,000 Chinese in the Tien Ah Men Square Massacre. Tanks and heavy machine guns against their own unarmed students.
What did we do in response? Gave them a permanent seat on the UN Security Council and Most Favored Nation trade status.
China doesn't need a crisis management course; WE do.
A S Prisant, COO, Prism Ltd., Barcelona
Posted by: Alexander S. Prisant | July 24, 2007 7:47 AM
I'm not sure China really cares...yet. The business ethics issue is still terra nova for China - and the US lecturing China on business ethics is a bit like giving the fox carte blanche in the henhouse. PR problems are often an adjunct to ethics conundrums - just ask any US coal-mining concern, or any Enron or WorldCom investor.
China's economy is analogous to the US economy of the 1880s, which was rife with robber barons and pretty much devoid of ethics. The problem for China is that a screw-up in the current century makes headlines instantaneously - I wonder how Andrew Carnegie and Jay Gould would have fared in a similar media environment.
Chinese enterprise will learn the way all enterprise learns from its mistakes - by taking a hit in the bottom line. It's incredibly hard to avoid buying Chinese, but I think enough US and European consumers are looking at how to do that - vox wallet is a loud voice indeed. It will be interesting to watch the student absorb the lesson.
Posted by: Casey Quinlan | July 24, 2007 9:14 AM
Doesn't seem like much of a PR problem as we all keep buying their 'cheap' stuff. The old adage applies -- 'actions speak louder than words'. Until we stop buying their products and can by reasonably priced US products I don't think their PR 'problem' is a real problem.
Posted by: Lisa Teore | July 24, 2007 10:33 AM
Well, China has already had PR problem for a long time, or I should say, its image on the world stage has never been improved much. So, it is not a crisis, it is a long term problem.
And the government will never notice how serious the problem is unless they get punishment. US is, by far, the second largest trade partner and largest export market of China. It definitely rings a bell to the Chinese government if US stop importing or restricting import from China.
However, the critical point is, will the US government be willing to do so? It will inevitablely hurt the business relationship between the two countries and damage the profit of many American companies.
Moreover, the food and drug safty issue has been in China for years, but little recognized by the outside world until recently it starts threatening the food safty in the US. Instead of trying to exert pressure from outside (US, the world), maybe we should try to change it from inside--the Chinese people. As to my knowledge, in mainland China, few Chinese people realize how bad their living situation--polluted air, contaminated water and ill quality products,is, and they have little power to change it. While they should be the one, who be impowered and make changes to their own country. This, nontheless requires help from the outside world, including the US. Media, will be the most powerful weapon.
In sum, what I try to say is, China is not the only one to blame in these food safty issues, though definitely the one that needs to improve. After all, in any relationship, both sides contribute.
Posted by: Anonymous | July 24, 2007 11:58 AM
maybe you are right
Posted by: yindaoyong | July 25, 2007 12:49 AM
MarketingSherpa just published a case study on this topic last week,
How Microsite & Video Lift Consumer Leads 13.54% for Home Builder. The study describes how a microsite featuring a virtual home consultant is producing results for Wilshire Homes. They are really taking full advantage of the fact that the Internet is now the starting point for home searches.
Posted by: Kelly McCormick | July 27, 2007 11:02 AM
It seems that Sprint could turn these annoyances into a potential learning experience, not only for Sprint and its employees, but its customers as well. Talk about an easy and quick way to build a meaningful FAQ!
Poor choice on Sprint's part.
Posted by: William Anderson | July 27, 2007 2:07 PM
After reading your replies, I sensed a serious lapse in reality. Some of you even suggest eliminating trade with China altogether. First, how does one plan to "restrict" trade with China. Would we set up a conference at the W with all the kings men and sign a piece of paper? How realistic is it to lobby Congress to impose restrictions when China is a major partner, not just in trade, but in many other aspects of international affairs.
Secondly, let's not forget China is a communist nation, and it's people communist. It's easy for us to sit at our desk and blog about China's poor conditions, but what can a population do under the scrutiny and oppression of the party?
However, I agree with all of you that we can use the power of our media to, for once, create a positive change.
Posted by: Josh Shaner | July 30, 2007 10:23 AM
It's one thing for us to punish the Chinese for its economic issues, but to cut or seriously restrict trade with China seems ludicrous.
Posted by: Josh Shaner | July 30, 2007 11:17 AM
Earthcomber works on my Iphone and my old Nokia--equally well. I like it better than Mobio because it has more stuff in its guts and because it is available on every cell phone out there. And it's free, dude. That works in my world.
Posted by: Tom M. | July 31, 2007 10:40 PM
I agree with you,Lisa
I worked for a HUGE NFP, that sold the general public on side (GOOD)and if you work for them that was another story.
NFP's are no different then FP's.
La Tanya
Posted by: La Tanya | August 7, 2007 11:48 AM
No, the marketing was fine. It was a failure of the product. They failed to mention that the battery needed to be replaced every year, which also does not come cheap. It's a shame that the interface was designed so well, but the rest of the plan wasn't.
-They shouldn't have released it without a better battery... at a minimum they could have been more upfront about the issue.
-The phone should be available on multiple networks. (at least two so people feel they have the choice)
Posted by: Kat | August 9, 2007 12:09 PM
In our opinion, the marketing was too hip for the audience that can afford such a device.
Like the iPod, kids dig it; not the business crowd who are more in-tune with the likes of a Treo or Palm.
The push was more music and entertainment than productivity. That message appeals to kids and teens. The average kid can't afford $500 and their parents aren't about to dish it out.
Posted by: Michael Turner | August 11, 2007 11:26 AM
Failure? I don't think so. Ok, so they didn't sell a bazillion after launch, but it is a paradigm shift in phones and they are expensive. The technology they used for the screen to zoom in and out is the leading edge. They are in the early stages of exploring this for computers. The GUI interface and navigation is intuitive and very easy to use. Apple's market position is 'easy'. In fact, so easy, they won't bog you down with pages and pages of manuals on how to user their products.
Why only AT&T? It is an exclusive. Just like the RAZR was when it was introduced. After a period of time, it may be opened up. I understand the real sticking point when Apple was negotiating with carriers was the level of control they wanted over the customer experience. For example, iTunes is the only way to activate the phone. Have you seen Motorola, Samsung, Palm, Blackberry, etc. want to control the customer experience at that level? Not even close.
So, is it worth the dough? I bought one for my wife, and I can say it was worth every penny. She was a bit intimidated by technology and loves it. We were recently on vacation and wanted to know seafood restaurants close by for dinner. Pull out the iPhone, find the restaurants, give the one we wanted a call by just tapping the number on the screen. I have the Palm running on the 3G network and it couldn't do it as fast and easy as the iPhone.
Did AT&T loose? I don't think so. My wife didn't have a data plan before the iPhone. Now she does at $30/month. Assume 100K other existing customers in the same situation and that is $3MM gross incremental revenue per month.
The phone is not a business phone because Apple will not allow them to be on business accounts. Once Apple opens that up and businesses running Exchange Server open the imap capabilities of exchange, they can get into that market. I would have bought one for my business phone in a minute if I could have. While not the cheapest phone, it is the best I have seen.
Posted by: Ed | August 13, 2007 9:22 PM
In my opinion, it's not the iPhone that is limiting sales, but the poor quality of the AT&T network -- widely acknowledged as one of the worst.
Apple's "4P" marketing mistake had to do with "place" -- their decision to sign a 5-year exclusive deal with AT&T. They put all their eggs in one basket (for a princely sum) and the market is telling them they blew it.
Posted by: Dave | August 14, 2007 7:57 AM
I think it does boil down to marketing. While the battery life may be a problem, the real problem of lackluster sales goes back to not focusing the marketing to fit the target. The iPhone is clearly a teen-20 something product but with a price that many can't afford. I do think apple did a great job of generating the buzz they wanted, unfortunately, too few of their target audience can afford $500+ for a phone.
Posted by: Ron Hayes | August 14, 2007 8:54 AM
While a contract was indeed signed for 5 years on the iPhone, there is nothing stopping Apple from developing other phones and bringing them to market. I suspect that Apple was very careful in the wording of their agreement to allow other phones to come to market. I suspect that we'll see more phones from Apple and we'll see that value (and the hindrance to the market) of that ATT contract diminish.
Posted by: Bill | August 15, 2007 12:30 PM
Entertaining I will give you, effective, I think not. Unfortunately, all too often creative ideas are produced solely for creative's sake. Rarely is the work well branded. What does this ad tell you about the Nationwide brand? Would you switch to Nationwide from, say, Allstate after seeing this ad? The subservient chicken may have created buzz and gotten millions of hits, but it doesn't build the Burger King brand. Neither does this Nationwide effort. Effective communication needs to emanate from the essence of a brand. If not, it's limited to building short-term awareness, but won't build a brand over time.
Posted by: Mike Mirkil | August 15, 2007 5:36 PM
As a member of CoreBrand, a corporate brand consulting company, I’m constantly aware of changes in brands, whether those changes are for the better or for the worse. I believe that “role models” like Lindsey Lohan, Paris Hilton, and in some respects, even people like Tom Cruise can hurt the movie industry with their tabloid personalities. By giving the general population visions of drunk and disorderly behavior, or unusual and excessive actions and beliefs, the general populace is inclined not to see movies associated with those celebrities. Sponsors and financial backers for movies starred by such celebrities are understandably hurt by these ridiculous actions by celebrities.
I wouldn’t be surprised in the least if certain film companies don’t hire high profile celebrities that find themselves constantly in the media for poor behavior and actions. It’s not worth the money to invest in a celebrity that might be in jail within a week’s time. The same can be said for sports teams. If a player is found to be using illegal substances or engaging in illegal or questionable activities, it not only hurts the team’s performance on the field, and in the media, it hurts the team by losing fans. A sport, like movies, is nothing without a fan base.
It is up to those fans, the general populace at large to make clear statements as to what they will and will not accept as behavior becoming a sports player or movie star. It is up to us to ensure that only the appropriate actors, actresses, and sports figures represent our film industry, and sports teams in the media.
I would personally refrain from working with an actor, actress, or sports figure if they acted unbecoming of their position and in regards to the law. Their actions would not only reflect on them, but those they work for. And it is the ones that employ these high risk actors, actre