Dear David Meerman Scott… I Disagree.

Posted: January 17, 2011 in Advertising, Library
Tags: , , , ,
0

The tone of this post is different than others… I’m a mad man.

By requirement, I am reading The New Rules of Marketing & PR by David Meerman Scott. If it weren’t for my desire to learn more about social media, I probably would have quit reading it by the end of the first chapter. While Scott may be a social media expert, his perception of advertising is biased, and quite frankly… repelling.

I should note that my bias for advertising is unique. I treat her as I treat my wife – with dignity. In his book, Scott describes the “old” ways of marketing and public relations (before social media) and bullets “old rules of marketing” as follows:

  • Marketing simply meant advertising.
  • Advertising needed to appeal to the masses.
  • Advertising relied on interrupting people to get them to pay attention to a message.
  • Advertising was one-way: company-to-consumer.
  • Advertising was exclusively about selling products.
  • Creativity was deemed the most important part of advertising.
  • It was more important for the ad agency to win advertising awards than for the client to win new customers.
  • Advertising and PR were different disciplines run by different people with separate goals, strategies and measurement criteria.

So, I ask you, my advertising companions – do you agree with Scott? I should first mention that I hate “rules;” it implies there is only one way. Lets go through this – point by point…

  1. Marketing simply meant advertising. I would argue that selling actually meant advertising. Many people fail to recognize that marketing is actually a newer term that acts as an umbrella term (see below). It wasn’t until the 70′s that “marketing” became important – we began focusing on the consumers and their needs. Prior to that? Production (how to produce more efficiently), the quality of the product, and selling. Marketing has never simply meant advertising. Perhaps he meant that advertising simply meant marketing. That would make more sense.
  2. Advertising needed to appeal to the masses. I think that if a business owner walked into an agency and said “I need my product to appeal to the masses” they would get a crooked stare. It’s just not feasible. Perhaps I am taking the term “masses” out of context. Back in the day, there weren’t a lot of options for advertising. The only way to reach people was with radio, newspapers and television. So, inherently, yes – advertising did appeal to the masses. I don’t think that it needed to – it just did.
  3. Advertising relied on interrupting people to get them to pay attention to a message. I’ll give Scott this point. Although, I really dislike the negative connotation.
  4. Advertising was one-way: company-to-consumer. Hard to argue with this one. It’s true. With social media, consumers are able to give feedback and feel more in control of their exposures.
  5. Advertising was exclusively about selling products. This really irritates me. It’s the word “exclusively” that gets my blood boiling. According to the Museum of Public Broadcast, Public Service Announcements (PSAs) began with the United States entry into WWII. In the late 60′s early 70′s, there was one anti-smoking PSA for every third tobacco advertisement. To say that advertising was exclusively anything is a biased and naive way of thinking.
  6. Creativity was deemed the most important part of advertising. This is also annoying. Scott is using a puffery technique. Classic. Yes, advertising is, and will continue to be an important part of advertising. The single most important thing to the success of an ad is garnering the attention of the target audience. To do that… it must be creative.
  7. It was more important for the ad agency to win advertising awards than for the client to win new customers. I don’t know if this is true. I do not have any sources that would agree or refute what Scott is saying. What is his source? (There isn’t one.)
  8. Advertising and PR were different disciplines run by different people with separate goals, strategies and measurement criteria. Mmm, to a degree, I agree with Scott. What I do not think Scott knows is that public relations was started by Edward Bernays. In fact, PR was first known as propaganda, but the term deemed negative because it was also used by Nazi Germany. Anyway, Bernays’s earliest client? The tobacco industry; his stunt is now considered legendary. In 1929, to convince women to take up smoking, he had a group of women in a parade smoking. The message was simple – to be powerful and independent – smoke. Cigarettes became known as “torches of freedom” for women. To say that they were always completely different is a little exaggerated, right? (Last note – did you know that advertising and public relations are taught in the same department at Michigan State University. Why is that?)

I also disagree with some of Scott’s “new rules” too. That will be another day.

I wish Scott had sources in his book. To be an expert requires well-rounded knowledge and research; even if the results go against the grain of your opinion. To Scott, who I respect as a social media strategist, I wish you would be more objective in your statements and “rules” about marketing and advertising.

Dear Rent-A-Center…

Posted: November 16, 2010 in Advertising, Advertising Methods, Advertising Theory, Library
Tags: , , , , , ,
2

Today I read “Sponsorship: From Management Ego Trip to Marketing Success” (Crimmins & Horn, 1996). The authors discuss corporate sponsorships with regards to consumer outcomes (i.e. – Is a sponsorship worth the money? When does it work?). I am not going to divulge into the article in great detail (though it is a good read). The authors suggest that “many sponsorships may indeed be little more than management ego trips wile others are dramatic successes.” This single line provided a possible explanation for my week-long pondering into the Hulk Hogan and Rent-A-Center (RAC) relationship. While the article did not discuss the effects of celebrity spokespeople, management ego may be a possible explanation.

Maybe you are not sure to what I am referring. Please click here to view the commercial.

While doing my research for this posting, I was stunned to find that three (THREE) agencies are working on this integrated marketing campaign. I was pleasantly surprised to find a press-release from Rent-A-Center about their new (at the time) spokesperson:

Hulk Hogan has stayed relevant because people like and respect what he stands for. That’s the affiliation we are leveraging for our current customers and target prospects.
Ann Davids, Senior Vice President and Chief Marketing Officer, Rent-A-Center

Here is my problem… This is not a good match. That should go without saying. It’s not like we’re talking about Hulk Hogan as a spokesperson for Spandex, Oakley, or Bow-Flex. Any of those products (brands) would make more sense than RAC. As for the explanation provided by Ann? It does nothing for me. In fact, I question her expertise and judgment. Is this her ego trip?

There is plentiful research about celebrity spokespeople that would say as I do – this is an awful idea for RAC. This will do nothing for the brand, and may even evoke negative thoughts of the brand from consumers. This happens because consumers have to work too hard to figure out the connection between the celebrity and the brand. I would direct Ann to research discussing The Match-Up Hypothesis (it’s used as a general guide for selecting celebrity spokespeople) for further information. There must be congruence for the relationship to be meaningful.

Celebrities as spokespeople can be very powerful when done correctly. They carry specific cultural meanings that are unique to their image. Endorsements are most powerful when the celebrity can transfer the cultural meanings they possess to the brand they endorse. Finally, consumers must be able to make the connection between both entities without question to avoid negative thought processing.

Final thought – celebrity spokespeople are not magical. These decisions must be grounded in theory to avoid ego trips and emotional decisions (perhaps Ann is a WWE fan?).

Prosthetic Ads – Too Specific?

Posted: October 13, 2010 in Advertising, Advertising Methods, Library
Tags: , , ,
0

Last year I started noticing some very specific, very target ads on my local airways for Prosthetic and Orthotic clinics. At first, I thought it was strange; then more clinics started advertising and it became even stranger. I took a little longer in between posts to do some industry research before I started questioning their reasoning for the ads. Here’s what I found – nothing. Well, not nothing, but nothing that helped to understand why there was so much advertising over the airways. I discovered that in the US, the industry is just over an $11B industry and experiences little growth each year. This is semi-surprising because I expected it to be a growing business as an effect of war. In fact, I was partly expecting this to be one of the reasons that maybe practitioners thought it necessary to advertise via the television. I could not find regional data about the amount of people with a prosthesis in the area, but it would be interesting to know. It would be even more interesting to talk to decision makers to find out why exactly they think they need television advertising for the incredibly specialized business.

I chose this example because it reflects what worries me most about advertising: Businesses without marketers, researchers, or advertisers think that television advertising is the only way to attract new clients. This worries me because it is simply not true. Sure, televisions ads naturally gain more attention, but it is not targeting the right audiences. The television is great for mass audiences, and quite frankly, I just do not see how Prosthetic and Orthotic clinics are aimed to the masses. It seems logical to me that patients requiring these types of specialized services are going to take recommendations from their primary doctors. I think that there is more a specialized approach than television… or billboards. If you are concerned that your business is throwing its money away after reading this – maybe I can help.

When Sex Doesn't Sell

Posted: October 6, 2010 in Advertising, Advertising Methods, Library
Tags: , , , , ,
0

My wife asked me today about the advertising practices behind the Ralph Lauren ads that had disfigured their models in several print ads (example below). Naturally, it was hard to answer without knowing the history of advertising in the fashion industry. But, it really got my wheels turning…

Especially if you follow the Freudian way of thinking, the “sex sells” statement is widely accepted. Ask someone outside of advertising what they know about the advertising practices, and it’s likely at least one person will say something about how sex sells. In my opinion, it’s actually an old-fashioned way of thinking. Back in the day (as they say), I argue that they didn’t know any better. Men made the money, brought it home, and had the ultimate say in what was spent and where. It makes sense that women were the center of the ad and treated as objects because men were the decision makers. In some ways, advertising has come a long way. Starting in the 50′s marketing theories started being developed because a researcher had linked purchasing decisions and psychology. Since then, we have learned other ways to market products and services based on theories in consumer behavior.

I would also argue that it’s not sex that sells, rather sex appeal. When stated that way, it suddenly seems to becomes more subjective. What is sex appeal? I would like to see the research that defines a universally accepted definition of sex appeal if it exists. Those who still think that sex sells, are thinking the same way that people thought before my grandmother’s birth. Sex appeal is subjective to each person and should be used with caution.

Some of you are thinking ahead – coming up with examples to prove me wrong as you read. I think of Axe as I write this. Personally, I’m not concerned with how other women think I smell (though, I never stink), and those guys don’t necessarily attract me to the brand either. Who is Axe actually speaking to? Me or my wife? It’s speaking to the young guys who are still “on the prowl” and want to be “cool” to fit in. It makes sense that Axe would use sex as a leverage for targeting teenage boys.

I’m not going to start preaching about ethics in advertising because that’s really another, quite hefty, topic. Here is what I will say – these kind of advertising practices have the potential of damaging brand image, and advertising as an industry. The message about used car commercials from yesterday applies here as well: the emotions evoked from the ad are translated directly to the brand that can really limit your customer base. Think outside the box – if sex appeal is the first option for a new campaign, I challenge you to dig deeper. Sex appeal is not the only way to have an attractive brand.

When Sex Doesn’t Sell

Posted: October 6, 2010 in Advertising, Advertising Methods, Library
Tags: , , , , ,
0

My wife asked me today about the advertising practices behind the Ralph Lauren ads that had disfigured their models in several print ads (example below). Naturally, it was hard to answer without knowing the history of advertising in the fashion industry. But, it really got my wheels turning…

Especially if you follow the Freudian way of thinking, the “sex sells” statement is widely accepted. Ask someone outside of advertising what they know about the advertising practices, and it’s likely at least one person will say something about how sex sells. In my opinion, it’s actually an old-fashioned way of thinking. Back in the day (as they say), I argue that they didn’t know any better. Men made the money, brought it home, and had the ultimate say in what was spent and where. It makes sense that women were the center of the ad and treated as objects because men were the decision makers. In some ways, advertising has come a long way. Starting in the 50′s marketing theories started being developed because a researcher had linked purchasing decisions and psychology. Since then, we have learned other ways to market products and services based on theories in consumer behavior.

I would also argue that it’s not sex that sells, rather sex appeal. When stated that way, it suddenly seems to becomes more subjective. What is sex appeal? I would like to see the research that defines a universally accepted definition of sex appeal if it exists. Those who still think that sex sells, are thinking the same way that people thought before my grandmother’s birth. Sex appeal is subjective to each person and should be used with caution.

Some of you are thinking ahead – coming up with examples to prove me wrong as you read. I think of Axe as I write this. Personally, I’m not concerned with how other women think I smell (though, I never stink), and those guys don’t necessarily attract me to the brand either. Who is Axe actually speaking to? Me or my wife? It’s speaking to the young guys who are still “on the prowl” and want to be “cool” to fit in. It makes sense that Axe would use sex as a leverage for targeting teenage boys.

I’m not going to start preaching about ethics in advertising because that’s really another, quite hefty, topic. Here is what I will say – these kind of advertising practices have the potential of damaging brand image, and advertising as an industry. The message about used car commercials from yesterday applies here as well: the emotions evoked from the ad are translated directly to the brand that can really limit your customer base. Think outside the box – if sex appeal is the first option for a new campaign, I challenge you to dig deeper. Sex appeal is not the only way to have an attractive brand.

Used car commercials: Where do I begin?

Posted: October 5, 2010 in Advertising, Advertising Methods, Advertising Theory, Library
Tags: , , ,
0

You know what I’m talking about, right? In Michigan, or at least in my area, it’s all about Rose City Motors and Sundance. They are the epitome of aggressive, obnoxious advertising that makes me cringe… Need an example? It’s my pleasure:

I really wish I could find a Sundance commercial (of course, for your viewing experience), but this example will do. These ads annoy most, but they also work. They will not win any awards for creativity, but they get customers into their businesses by simply annoying the rest of us. The hook in these ads rests in the idea that the spokespeople (in these cases the owners) are real people – they could be our neighbors. They are not dressed in suits and ties, and they are not well spoken (“vee-hickle”). They usually mention something about not having good credit and it being “no problem.” Of course, the idea here is that a “normal” person can speak to the lay person and really appeal to them.

The problem, however, is that the message from the advertising carries over to the product. There is actually quite a bit of literature on this, and researchers do not usually disagree on this point. So here, the ads are low budget, the owners are not very well spoken, and they typically talk about bad credit and saving money on used cars. That kind of message carries over the car. When we see a car came from Sundance (as recognizable by the stamp on the trunk), we may think negatively of the car, or the person driving that car. This has implications on not only the car dealers, but the manufacturers as well.

How could it be better? It would take a lot of work because a lot used car dealers follow this “strategy”. But, the first thing I would suggest would be to upgrade the equipment for filming commercials. We are in the 21st century, let’s get with the times! To cheapen your ads with outdated commercials ultimately cheapens your brand image and essentially your products.