40-somethings know that the term jumped the shark was coined after an episode of Happy Days when Fonzie overcame his fear of sharks by jumping over one while water skiing. The series was pretty much over from that point on. A lot of times TV shows jump the shark when a couple has a baby (Mad About You), a new character is added (Cousin Oliver on the Brady Bunch) or a couple hook up (Tony and Angela on Who's the Boss). Bad decisions that ruin a good thing.

When a TV show and an advertiser hook up during the show is it possible that either one or both can jump the shark? I believe that it's true. Every time an advertiser gets in bed with a TV show the potential is there. Trading Spaces jumped the shark when Paige Davis—reading from a script—told the red team to clean up their newly designed room with Swiffer mops and Bounty. The show would hit us over the head with a product demo then cut to a 5 second close-up of the logo on the package conveniently placed on the counter. Talk about buzz-kill.

Advertisers are buying into the idea that consumers aren't watching TV commercials, that the DVR is killing the medium. Maybe this is sorta true, but I think that what they are doing now—sponsorship inside of a TV show—is killing their brand and ruining the show at the same time. As a consumer and creative director, I am conflicted. I can't blame brands for trying to reach consumers. And I can't blame networks for trying to replace income from less commercial revenue. But as a consumer, I hate it. Most of time it comes off as fake and obnoxious. Is that the right message that brands want to send?

Reality TV is now Brand Advertising TV.

Last night, on Bravo TV's Top Chef, Padma told the cheftestants "Get into your Highlanders, we are going on a field trip." We then see 3 Toyota Highlanders rolling down the road and park behind each other. Close up on car logo. Ugh. I'd rather see more cooking. Then, Padma tells us and the cheftestants that the block party cooking challenge is sponsored by mealstogether.com. What? Who? Luckily Kyle/TheBookPolice, a blogger, did the research for me. Mealstogether.com is owned by Clorox. Clorox owns KC Masterpiece, Hidden Valley and Kingsford charcoal. Oh, that's what all the endless close-ups on the labels were for — product pimping. And at the website — a cross promotion with Top Chef. Don't get me started on all of the cuts to Wholefoods products this year. OK I get it. Who is writing and directing the show? The producers, salespeople, advertisers? All the suits. No one creative.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. 

I am ranting about this because my beloved Apple is killing their brand during Amercian Idol. Apple has the best advertising on TV. Period. I have never seen product demonstration ads better than the iPhone spots. Or anything hipper than the iPod commercials. Loved the Mac and PC guys. And I think I have every word of "New Soul" song featured in the new Macbook Air commercial memorized. It plays during Idol and everywhere else on the TV.

Last week Ryan Seacrest "borrowed" an iPhone from a girl in the audience who just happened to have one in her hand. He then pretended to demonstrate — the screen was black — how easy it is to use an iPhone to download a Idol's song from iTunes. Behind him a video showed a close up (someone else) touching an iPhone. Bad, bad product demonstration. Last night we saw a five minute video about how the Idols record their songs that are available on iTunes. One used the iPod to learn her song. Cut to iPod while she talked about her iPod. One downloads other Idols' songs. Cut to iTunes Website while she talked about iTunes. Cut to Idol working on the laptop. And so on and so on. A 5 minute lame commercial disguised as a behind-the-scenes package on the contestants. Shame on Fox. Shame on Apple. And I can't believe Steve Jobs approves of this.

Advertisers beware. People are starting to rant. Read the ew.com TV Watch recaps and the reader comments. Bloggers and consumers are talking negatively and complaining about the endless promotions during TV shows. Think twice before hooking up on TV. Has the Apple brand jumped the shark because it's in bed with Idol? Can you think of any other Brands that have jumped the shark because of TV show tie-ins?

Posted by Nancy Carle at 03:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBacks (0)

I was recently reading a Mediapost article by Tameka Kee about how so much creative these days, both online and offline, is ineffective.  While Tameka also argued that some agencies are doing a very nice job producing compelling, highly effective ads and content, I think it is worth focusing a bit more on what isn't working - and why. 

In my opinion, you can blame your creative if you are absolutely sure that your contact plan is optimal.  Otherwise, how do you know that certain elements of your plan, such as target audience selection, media placement, timing or day-parting, channel mix, and a host of other elements, are perfectly planned?  How do you know if the consumer insights fed to your creative team were accurate and useful?  My guess is that you don't always know, so don't be so quick to point the finger when an execution or campaign is not successful. 

Recently, I was playing basketball and a fellow co-worker went down with a serious knee injury (actually, a combination of serious knee injuries!).  When I was in the office the next day and Googled terms such as "torn patella tendon" and "fractured tibia," I was directed to content areas on About.com and WebMD to learn more about these knee injuries.  I usually only pay attention to online display ads when they are highly relevant and eye-catching, but for some reason I was really in-tune with the banners served up to me on these sites each time I refreshed.  I kept a running tally of the ads I saw on About.com: 

1. Mio DigiWalker C230 GPS at Radio Shack
2. Verizon High Speed Internet for $12.99/month
3. Verizon Camera Phone
4. University of Phoenix
5. Saturn Astra
6. Classmates.com (included Boston copy in the ad, but listed Mesa High School as a local high school)
7. AT&T LG Camera Phone
8. Claritin

Other than the Classmates.com ad, not one of these ads seemed to be geo-targeted.  And, as noted above, it was quite transparent to see mention of Mesa High School in a Boston-based ad.  As for the Verizon High Speed Internet banner, I clicked on it to see if Verizon even had service where I worked or lived.  Nope.  In fact, I eventually ended up at what seemed to be a broken page on the site after entering my zip code.  Nice job Verizon!

Alternatively, I thought that maybe I was being served some of these ads within an online ad network due to my surfing behavior and profile points.  What perplexed me though, was if these advertisers considered my visitation to sites such as Boston.com, Yahoo! Mail, and ESPN.com, as well as marketing and media properties, reason enough to serve me ads for Claritin or cell phones.  Maybe something in my web surfing behavior suggested that these ads were behaviorally targeted, but I didn't see a connection.  Or, maybe I'm in the target demographic for these brands.  Again, not sure. 

What I do know is that most people researching the knee issues I was learning about probably would be more receptive to ads that are much more contextually relevant.  An advertiser promoting a product for knee pain relief or a geo-targeted ad representing a local clinic specializing in knee injuries would likely be much more well-received.  The better the relevance, the less impactful or effective the creative needs to be.  However, combine the two elements and you have a highly compelling combination.

This is a pretty basic example, but it illustrates how creative is only one piece of the puzzle.  In fact, some of the ads had nicely designed creative with well-written copy.  They just weren't targeted.  So, while some accountability can be placed on creative directors, designers, copywriters, and developers for the so-called bad creative, the ultimate success of creative, and, more importantly, an overall campaign, is becoming increasingly dependent on good target insight information provided by account planning or media strategy folks, and, subsequently, pinpoint media placement.

Understanding how the target, whether it is a single segment or multiple segments, consumes information and media, where they do it, how often they do it, and how effective certain channels are at breaking through all of the clutter they are exposed to, should drive much more relevant and specific creative development efforts.

Many firms do an excellent job at strategic planning and developing consumer insights, but simply handing the information off to your creative team often leads to a disconnect.  The most original, effective, and targeted efforts these days are developed when there is upfront, cross-functional brainstorming and collaboration between creative, media, strategy, account management, and any other departments that touch the brand.

While we are all hired to handle certain responsibilities within our agencies and for our clients, it would be arrogant to think that our fellow employees do not have value to add in our specific realms of expertise.  My recommendation is to stop blaming creative for everything that goes wrong and begin to work collaboratively so that planning and creative concepting/ development operate in tandem.

The combination of your contact plan and creative will undoubtedly improve and you can stop blaming your creative team for everything. Believe me, they will appreciate it!

Posted by Doug Ellinger at 06:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The other day on my way home from work, I heard a sponsorship message on the local NPR station from a financial consulting firm claiming to help companies with "dynamic needs." Maybe it was just because I'd had a long day or because my blood sugar was low, but it really annoyed me. What exactly is a "dynamic" need? Can a need really be "marked by usually continuous and productive activity or change"? (Merriam-Webster's definition.) What the sponsor meant - I think - was that they could help companies with constantly changing needs. But instead of just saying that, they threw in the much less precise "dynamic."

Now, admittedly, the word "dynamic" is sexier and more, well, dynamic than "constantly changing." But it's also one of the most overused words in B2B marketing and, as such, has almost lost its meaning entirely. The same could be said for "innovative," "cutting-edge" and "forward-thinking." (If a company really is all of these things, I always wonder, shouldn't it be able to think of a more original way to describe itself?)

Of course, my frustration in this area is hardly novel. People have been complaining about marketing clichés for as long as there has been marketing. ("By golly, if I read about one more of these 'new and improved' snake oil tonics, I'm going to bust my buttons!") What starts as fresh is doomed to become over-used and stale, and will ultimately ring hollow.

A couple years back, Jonathan Kranz actually posted a frequency report of what he terms "gobbledygook" in business press releases - words and phrases like "next generation," "robust," and "groundbreaking." (Surprisingly, "dynamic" isn't on his list.)

I'm not suggesting that words like these can or should be avoided completely. But they should be employed with caution, and used with precision -- not sprinkled into copy just because they sound "snappy." In most cases, simple, straightforward language snaps best of all. 

Posted by Jane Roper at 09:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

The Boston Business Journal is part of my required reading. I look for it every Friday and I've always gone cover to cover by the following Monday. It does a great job reporting across all the key industries, it is civically minded, the writers are well informed, the writing is lively, and largely spot on.

But I take a lot of heat from my people at PARTNERS+simons for not providing illustrative information to the BBJ so we can be included appropriately in the annual list of the "Area's Largest Advertising Firms." A few clients have even wondered about this -- which is a bit more awkward, frankly.

For those ART+Science blog readers who may be unfamiliar with the list, agencies submit "2007 Massachusetts billings" and the number of "Massachusetts employees" among other data points having to do with business breakdown by media and by discipline. But a close look at the list reveals that there is something very squirrelly afoot, that there is a lack of integrity in the information that some of these agencies present about themselves.

For example, the agency listed at #3 claims $2.6 million in billings per employee, the #4 agency claims $4.7 million and #5 claims a whopping $8.6 million, but the poor shop that's ranked #6 reports only $1.2 million per employee. Are these agencies in the same industry? No amount of analysis of the breakdown by media or discipline can satisfactorily explain the astonishing differences.

Instead of presenting some visibility into the relative scale of the region's advertising agencies, the list says more about the hyperbole some agencies invoke on their own behalf. I am sure there are some truthful numbers, and I have a general idea whose those are. And in a more intimate setting, I'd point out where the truth is on leave.

My strategy? I don't play, and I don't feel left out.

Posted by Tom Simons at 04:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

When it comes to technology there are two types of marketers. The brand marketers who communicate an aspirational vision that establishes their company as a category thought-leader while connecting with prospects. And the demand generation marketers, who feast on the pain points of prospects to convert them into leads and ultimately sales.

The reality of the situation is that it's tough to be aspirational when constantly yelling fire in the theater. It's equally as difficult to drive action while preaching what a wonderful place the world is. No wonder there's been many a rumble within technology marketing teams.

What is more important, connecting or converting?

BOTH

Your brand communications, even though striking an aspirational tone, need to also give a reason for your prospects to take action. No action means no revenue. That eventually leads to a visit from your CFO and another round of the very fun game of tourniquet budgeting.

Your demand generation communications need to pay attention to the brand impression they leave behind, especially, to the other 98% who didn't convert. Ignore this and miss the opportunity to set the stage for future sales. You can also suffer from a lower sales conversion as opportunities can fizzle late in the process if your message doesn't resonate with the senior level decision makers who actually own the budget.

So how can you connect AND convert?

You can begin with you brand communications. For instance, it's fine if your messaging strikes an aspirational tone, and it even makes sense to have a thought-leadership offer that continues this positive messaging. However, your contact plan should include additional touches to move them from awareness to consideration. This should include probing for pain, as well as follow-ups with solutions that will solve it.

And with your demand generation communications, it's important that you infuse the brand into all of these efforts. For EMC, to tie in with its brand positioning, Where Information Lives, we developed a global demand generation campaign where the word Information was the hero – always manipulated in some way to address audience pain points. This demand generation platform was rolled out around the world, building brand while generating demand at the same time.

So aspirational pain might sound like an oxymoron. Nonetheless it represents a roadmap to brand and demand marketing nirvana.

Posted by Doug Fox at 11:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Tylenol's current "Feel better" campaign is an intriguing new direction in healthcare advertising - one that we can learn from as fellow marketers. Not only is it a totally different tone for Tylenol as a brand, it's also a different take on the challenge of securing both the headaches and hearts of consumers.

One of the campaign's core tenets is providing people with simple tips to lead healthier lives. For example, how better posture can help you avoid headaches. Or how a warm bath can lower a baby's fever. In essence, they're telling us how to avoid Tylenol, which on first glance seems pretty foolhardy.

Imagine Dunkin' Donuts advertising how a good night's rest will keep us from needing coffee. It's not going to happen. Besides, "America runs on 8 hours of sleep" isn't nearly as catchy of a tagline.

Yet Tylenol's campaign works. Created by Deutsch New York, it rings true on a human level, reminding us that, yes, we get sick. Yes, we are fragile. Yet there are simple ways to address these issues—and feel better. And if that doesn't work, maybe Tylenol will. It's a subtle soft sell that strikes the right balance.

 
Even the design is friendly and welcoming, as if the ads are just notes left for you across the media landscape, signed "Feel better, Tylenol." It's a great tagline, especially on the heels of their "Stop. Think. Tylenol" campaign, which was clinical and cold.

I actually worked on a pitch for Tylenol in 2004 while I was at Hill, Holliday. We lost, but when the "Stop. Think." campaign came out, I was shocked. Our ideas connected on a personal, emotional level. Clinical just felt wrong. Apparently Tylenol agreed, albeit four years later. Lesson learned.

The "Feel better" campaign seems so commonsensical, which is probably why it feels so different. Not to sound like a brand ambassador, but it just makes me feel better about Tylenol. AdGabber agrees, while also taking a closer look at the Tylenol TV spot's focus on the realities of aging.

Striking that right chord in an extremely crowded and competitive healthcare marketplace isn't easy. You may disagree that Tylenol actually achieves it, but you have to admit how big of a struggle it can be sometimes. Frankly, it's enough to give you a headache. Hmmm, that gives me an idea…

Posted by Matt Fishbein at 08:16 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

There are so many negative stories in the news right now. Sub prime lending crisis. Home values crashing. Foreclosures up. Jobs falling. Oil soaring. Dollar down. Food costs rising. February retail sales drop. Recession.
 
What's a brand to do during uncertain economic times like these? Predictably, cutting the marketing budget is a first line of defense. But clever marketers realize, and history demonstrates, that this is a mistake. After all, with your not-so-clever competitors cutting budgets this can be a better time for your brand to stand out from the crowd and grab more attention.

Since repetition is key to making your brand more memorable, altering your brand's promise to reflect the changing economy doesn't seem like a good idea. However, adjusting messaging to show customers and prospects that you understand their situation, essentially dialing up the brand’s empathy attribute, can help forge a better emotional connection with audiences.
 
On 3.13.08 at 11am ET, there were 506,000 Google results for "brands during recession."  So why not add this one  to the list? You may want to check out the brand debate at brandchannel.com. I also like David Murphy's blog on "Building brand value during a recession."

Posted by Todd Baird at 05:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Pharmaceutical companies in America spend the majority of their marketing dollars on sales reps, sales materials and free samples of drugs for the doctors' offices.  However, less than a third of all sales-visits result in an interaction with the doctor, and those that do, on average, last for less than 30 seconds.  This means that conversations that do happen are less and less meaningful to the doctor and end up more as a delivery of free stuff.

One effective way that sales reps do get to meet with doctors is with a "free lunch." While some see this as a conflict of interest , others see it as a highly beneficial method for sales reps and doctors to discuss the current drug details, research and other important information.

Since these meetings do happen, pharmaceutical companies should take advantage of these opportunities to provide doctors with truly educational tools that will help them in their interaction with patients.  Yes, an update on the product label to show the current marketing message, or comparison with competition is fine, but something more substantial and meaningful will go a lot further. 

And, while materials produced by pharmaceutical companies are generally biased, with the purpose to sell, it is possible to develop highly educational materials for patients that provide a lot of very good and very helpful information.

Sales reps need to be trained to understand the current consumer marketing campaigns and tie-ins with physician marketing pieces, so they can help doctors understand what patients are hearing and what they will ask.

When reps are not able to meet with doctors they often leave branded brochures and tchotchkes such as mouse pads, pens, pads of paper, medical models, tissue boxes, etc.  These can be a great way to keep the name of a product top-of-mind with the doctor – assuming the doctor and his/her staff want them.  Some, such as educational models, can be very helpful for doctors.  But, tchotchkes can also cause problems.

In 2007, Johnson & Johnson's Scios unit was sent an FDA warning letter for inappropriate reminder labeling for distributing a Natracor heart failure drug mouse pad and pen to doctors' offices. In Duluth, Minnesota, at least one health system has now banned sales reps from providing tchotchkes to doctors altogether.  Even those that are educational.

But, I think the big question on tchotchkes is do doctors actually want them?  My general feeling is NO.  Doctors undoubtedly like pens, laser pointers and educational models, but most of the rest of the tchotchkes are just more stuff to clutter the closets and desk space.  So, most probably go into the trash rather quickly.

Staying focused on marketing materials that not only catch the attention of the doctor, but also help the doctor in their daily interaction with patients is the best approach.

What happens when doctors no longer feel they are getting value from the visits by the sales reps?  The doctors close their doors to reps,  which is not beneficial for anyone.  Doctors lose because they don't get updates on current drugs and information on new drugs.  Patients lose because the doctor may not have the most up-to-date information on drugs, studies, etc.  And pharmaceutical companies lose because they no longer have a relationship with the doctor.

Bottom Line:
It is the pharmaceutical company that has the power to make the relationship between sales reps and doctors work – or fail.  Sales reps should offer tools to the doctor that help them in their daily communication with patients.  This can include free samples, but should also include educational materials that help everyone understand everything they need to about their disease state.  Stay away from flashy marketing messages and focus on strong educational messages.  Marketing does not always need to sound and look like marketing.

Posted by Ed Feather at 09:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

OK, so it's hardly a secret that healthcare is in "challenging times."  The question is, are we faced with an insurmountable problem or the fact that we just haven't found the silver bullet?

On one hand, it's a gigantically tough nut to crack.  Premiums for family coverage have skyrocketed 78 percent since 2001, while wages have  gone up 19 percent. And telling you that "this may sting a bit" doesn't do much to prepare you for the pain. 

The much larger problem is that it's getting worse.  And though everyone from healthcare providers to hospitals to insurers are equally concerned about the trend, there's hardly agreement across the board about how to reverse it.  Or at least slow it down to sub-supersonic speeds.

To solve a challenge this daunting, it will very likely take more than one answer. One of the best we have, fyi, is information.  We know a huge amount about how people get sick, but more importantly, how to keep them from becoming ill in the first place.  And these days, an ounce of prevention could be worth about a million pounds of cure.

If the power of all the information from mountains of claims could be harnessed and packaged into wellness programs that people take to heart, we just might keep many of them from becoming patients.

Of course, getting folks to exercise regularly, eat their veggies and meditate is not going to wipe out diabetes, heart disease and cancer.  But it would definitely slow down the advance of these ailments to less than supersonic speeds, too.  And that's some information that could benefit us all.

You might consider incorporating some health information or programs into your marketing efforts. It could well benefit you.

Posted by Bruce Patteson at 08:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Money can't buy you love, but when it comes to channel marketing, sometimes it's expected to. Technology channel marketing organizations invest significant time and dollars making sure they have the right mix of product portfolio, certification, training support, and the icing on the cake – market development funds, rebate programs, and rewards for lead generation activities.

But if the channel has been trained to chase dollars, now hardware and software providers are learning the hard way that services, not products, are earning greater margin for the channel, as much as three times more according to some surveys. So how do you remain relevant to your channel partners, and ultimately, the customers they serve?

If there's one thing the increased emphasis on services has taught us, it's that tech customers are through buying boxes. It's not solely about the product but instead about what the product enables customers to do, whether converging multiple services on a single network, aligning packaged applications strategy to business drivers, improving mobility or securing enterprise network data and resources, among others. 

As technology marketers attempt to move "beyond the box," channel partners begin to play an even bigger role in creating solutions, as they’re on the front line listening to customers talk about their organizational pains and what they specifically need to achieve business goals. 

That's why today's channel marketers need to develop solutions and value propositions that move beyond the product by addressing specific vertical market needs or enterprise/SMB pain points that not only enable channel partners to bundle products and services, but allow them to become more entrenched in the very issues driving technology adoption and purchase. The marketing support and programs behind these channel efforts are vital for success because they set the stage for how solutions are positioned and delivered to customers.

So what if you're still pushing product through the channel?

One of two things will happen. Either a channel partner will continue to sell products, albeit fewer and fewer as customers pursue alternatives that can deliver solutions. Or your channel will respond to customer needs by cobbling together a solution of their own, one that doesn't necessarily represent your brand and the value it brings. The lesson? Create marketing programs that help channel partners effectively position and support application-centric solutions or they'll create them on their own (or with your competition).

Sure, channels make selling more efficient and reduce the cost-to-serve for certain customers, but they're also the face of your brand to the majority of the market, which means the success of your channel partners is vital to your own success. When it comes to selling and marketing, many technology organizations have a mixed view of the channel – they're part family, part customer and part hired gun. But the most successful channel marketing programs think of them simply as partners.  

So money might not be able to buy you love, but the right channel marketing programs may be able to buy you something even more valuable – sustained channel loyalty and customer relevance.  

Posted by Jennifer O'Connell at 02:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)