Archive for the ‘Advertising Strategy’ Category
What does Love mean to brands?
Posted on: January 31, 2012
Love. What does it mean to brands? Often people give presentations about “brand love” and cite brands like Apple, or Starbucks, or Virgin. Guess what? No other brand is Apple, or Starbucks, or Virgin. and you cannot just go out and copy those brands. If I stood in front of you and presented a case study about Apple it would demonstrate the “concept of brand Love” What it would not do however is help you. Many in the audience would silently mutter to themselves about all the failings of their brand. “OUR brand is not Apple,” you’d think to yourself “and never will be.” And I am here to tell you that you are 100% correct. Showing you case studies of brands that people Love is a waste of your time. For “Love” is only half the story.
What people don’t tend to talk about is Devotion. Devotion, not Love is Read the rest of this entry »
And yet they still cannot seem to get the performance out them they expect. That is because they do not understand what they are buying. They are missing what is the value. They think it is a new technology, and it is NOT the technology.
Yahoo buys InterClick for $280 Million
MAGY (AOL, Yahoo, Microsoft and Google) keep buying Ad-Networks, and then the ad-network doesn’t pan out. And then they buy another one, and another. All of these ad-networks have some unique technology . And they keep scratching their heads how this ad-network that was making so much money, and so profitable just doesn’t seem to perform as well after they buy it. And they actually blame themselves; they didn’t “integrate” it properly.
And they all seem to miss what they are buying. And they continue to scratch their heads, and repeat this over and over.
Why? Because they are technology companies thinking that they are buying technology… and they are not.
They are buying a sales force, one that can sell. And then that sales force leaves because they just made “bank” and do not want to work for a bunch of also-rans in company X that bought them, under sales people who do not know how to sell, which is the reason they had to buy them in the first place.
And the star sales people leave, migrate to a new Ad Network which is “suddenly” the next great technology.
Quit thinking you are buying technology at ad networks, and do an end around and scoop up top sales staff instead. Give them a sick commission with golden handcuffs. It is a hell of a lot cheaper.
But alas, they are technology companies and seem to miss the obvious. It’s the people stupid.
ranty rant signing off…
The structure of the agency-client relationship is not designed to produce the best or the most work. It is designed to avoid mistakes. Over time, that is how agencies have structured themselves to serve clients. It makes sense. They do not get fired for inefficiency. They get fired for screwing up. Worse, Read the rest of this entry »
10 Reasons to LoveHate Google
Posted on: April 19, 2011
Such a strong word
It is a company that is loved, and yet surprisingly hated — if not despised — by some. It is the friend whose little strange habits and quirks we once cherished. But now they annoy and grate on our nerves. It is a company that we have held up as a shining beacon of hope — the giant killer. The company that could stand against Microsoft and the great evil empire.
But alas, the company is but the latest victim of the same pedestal on which we elevated Microsoft years before. Beware that pedestal, for it provides a perch that only looks downward. Sometimes when companies ascend to it, they start to believe they are separate, better versions of humans.
They start to believe their own hype; in that moment, they become lost.
There is a fine line between confidence and arrogance, between self-assuredness and hubris, and unfortunately Google is straddling that line. Why the perceptive shift in attitudes toward Google? What has the company done other than bring us fantastic tools? Tools, like Android, that have changed entire industries. Tools, like search, that have provided insight into the most remote corners of the world. Why is the simmering of discontent Read the rest of this entry »
Chrysler ran an ad on the Superbowl in 2011 for the Chrystler 200, that embodied their brand, repositioned it, and grittily carved out a niche. “Imported from Detroit.“ It was quite possibly one of the most brilliant stances taken by a car company, for reasons I will explain below. In disservice to that ad USA Today rated the Ads in the Superbowl based on a panel of viewers via second-by-second responses to ads during the game. The ranking for Chrysler 200? 44. Huh? It has be gnawing at me for weeks, so I finally decided to rant about it.
Let me explain…
Chrysler 200: Imported from Detroit
WARNING: If you are easily offended please do not read. And if you plan on chiding me for my rant after reading, I gave fair warning. So don’t blame me, blame your lack of being able to take direction. Read the rest of this entry »
There are hundreds of brands that continue to be stuck in the “old way” of thinking, pre-Web 2.0. Some survive because they didn’t jump on the next fad, and some perished because they did. Many brands are starting to get it, but for many it may be too late and Web 2.0 has passed them by. It’s time to take a look in the mirror and figure out why your company Read the rest of this entry »
So you just got the call from the potential client, or worse, the loser-merchant handling the pitch for them. Your agency didn’t win, “but thank you for participating.” As if this was a ring toss at a carnival. Throughout the process you fried your staff, lived in 5-Hour Energy increments, ticked off your spouse… yet again, spent more money than you should have and destroyed internal relationships; just face it, you’re a loser.
Well seriously, you didn’t win, so what else would I call you? Read the rest of this entry »
iAds will revolutionize online advertising, but are digital agencies up to the task?
Posted on: April 27, 2010
We have been struggling in online advertising for more than a decade, and although this new medium provided unfettered access to information, the desire was to continue the tradition established by traditional media – essentially making access to information remain relatively free.
Unfortunately, while the prospect of more individualized metrics enabled by the internet did come to fruition, it didn’t translate into better advertising. Instead it reduced it to the “quantitative” in such a droll fashion that the majority of online advertising became reduced to “pinch the monkey,” “squeeze the baby,” “click here,” “learn more,” and “please click this fracking banner so I can justify my existence!”
For years, I have railed against banner ads online, I have illuminated the barriers to digital as an impactful medium for advertising, and I have chided our entire industry for being the uncreative lepers of advertising, slinging drivel at consumers. We are a medium that is neither immersive, experiential, nor adored by consumers.
The internet is not a medium – devices that connect to it are the medium. The medium had always Read the rest of this entry »
I have been a vocal critic of the way most agencies are structured. However, many of the structural problems agencies face are a direct result of clients. Agencies have struggled for years to change the agency/client dynamic. They have actively experimented with ways to bring the client what they need, while still producing work that serves a higher purpose.
Chiat/Day and Crispin Porter + Bogusky have been changing the agency landscape structure for years by innovating, experimenting, tinkering, and attempting to produce the best work in a flawed environment. Unfortunately, most agencies are not that bold, and many of those ideas and structural changes have failed. This failure isn’t because they weren’t innovative, but like the nimbleness of an oil tanker, the clients’ inability to change — or the glacial pace at which they do change – has forced many agencies to survive in a structure that produces neither the best work nor the most profit.
Such is the issue with service-based industries; they are only as good as Read the rest of this entry »
Paid Search Traffic Share Down 26%
I almost do not know where to begin to debunk this story… for technically the story is accurate in the statement “The share of search traffic coming from paid listings is decreasing at the expense of organic traffic.” I love analysts… most of their ignorance comes from only having the “theory” and none of the “practice” of doing what they so analyze. They report the numbers, but none of the context. Yes, Paid Search “share” has declined as a part of overall search traffic. But why? Analysts tend to avoid the “why,” because they have no idea Read the rest of this entry »
