Article category “Advertising”
The challenge of marketing to young people.
The credit for that truism up there belongs to Andrew Solomon of The New Yorker.
It raises some interesting considerations on market segmentation and the inherent marketing challenges. Many younger people can’t appreciate the typical subtleties or double-entendres of traditional marketing – those require experience. Hence, any marketing for any product targeting young people seems to do it with two left feet. No subtlety allowed.
Due to that same age limitation, marketing to the young must, by its very nature, also limit references to “things that came before.” If you’re marketing to people in the vicinity of late teens to early 20s, you’re limited by the fact that their points of reference will not run very deep. And that’s challenging. You have to capture the interest of people who may have highly limited interests.
Mountain Dew used to do it simply by showing young people having fun and drinking their product while having that fun. Simple association. Nothing that transparent is likely to work on people with a tad more experience. Actual product benefits have to be presented.
A breakthrough campaign that figured out how to talk to anyone.
The recent Dos Equis “The Most Interesting Man in the World” campaign has achieved an interesting crossover. It’s not only targeting younger people, the marketers also took the risk of using an “older” spokesperson to attract that younger audience.
That says something. It’s an admission that even young people with limited experience may admire someone who they know has far more experience. That shows more growth on the part of marketing people than on the part of their youthful target audience since it hasn’t was always been so – marketing had yet to make the leap.
The campaign is also notable for its tongue-in-cheek presentation. That’s marketers admitting to themselves that younger people have the smarts to “get it.”
And beyond whether or not Dos Equis is trying to specifically attract young people, it’s effectively taking on Corona without presenting a single benefit or product claim. That, too, is notable. The campaign is merely fun and … interesting. The takeaway is “the really cool people are drinking Dos Equis.”
The magic of humor.
Humor is at the heart of the Dos Equis campaign. And it works because humor is ageless. If something is truly funny, or even merely amusing, it’s likely that nearly all employable age groups will understand it. That means it can cut across market segments in a way that little else can.
In 1980 there was a 7-Eleven commercial targeting serious coffee drinkers that managed to cut across all age groups – because of humor. “Fred” starts out the day like Wolfman until he gets some coffee in him. 7-Eleven wanted to attract people to their stores for coffee, but they didn’t discuss whether or not their coffee was good, or better, or anything. They skipped all the comparisons and went right to why we drink coffee, with humor.
It was talked about and laughed about nearly as much as the 1984 Wendy’s “Where’s the beef?” commercial. They both look quite dated today. But they were both effective at making their points, with humor.
However, humor can cut both ways. Alka Seltzer produced several extremely high-scoring commercials that ultimately back-fired. Absolutely everyone who saw them talked about them, remembered them and even quoted them, which is the holy grail of advertising. But, surprisingly, sales of Alka Seltzer fell. Research revealed that the target audience (regular and potential Alka Seltzer users) were a tad sensitive and didn’t care to be made fun of on TV.
So even humor has to be used with caution. Because marketing isn’t always an exact science.
Yeah, branding is not really brand new.
Some marketing folk talk about “branding” as if it’s something new. But even the most cursory look will tell you that branding is merely a repackaging of the classic ad agency “USP” process – Unique Selling Proposition.
USP was developed by Rosser Reeves at Ted Bates & Company in the 1940s – about 75 years ago as of this writing.
Not long after it’s introduction, USP became the standard by which all advertising and marketing agencies would judge themselves and their work. It introduced such breakthrough questions as:
- Are you selling the benefits?
- Are you making empty claims?
- Why should people care?
Little things like that. Things that shook up the world of advertising.
Every ad agency eventually created its own nomenclature for the USP process, but it was all thanks to Rosser Reeves. And so is “branding.” Even Mad Men used his ideas.
Welcome to internal and external audiences.
What branding brings to the table that is somewhat new is the concept of companies having internal and external audiences.
What does that mean? You have to market to your own troops before you market to the world at large. This means creating an awareness of your marketing and branding efforts, and an esprit de corps within your firm while pushing the message out.
Some proselytizers will go so far as to encourage companies and their staffs to “live the brand.” I wouldn’t go that far. Because I took my father’s life advice to heart: “We work to live. We don’t live to work.”
It takes good input to have good output.
One of the most important lessons contemporary marketing folk could benefit from learning is that you can’t just make stuff up.
Branding has to be based on real, factual differentiation. That takes work. That takes digging. But it’s important stuff.
Too many branding buckaroos skip right over that part because they never had the training.
In Reality In Advertising, Rosser Reeves defined USP in three parts:
- Each advertisement must make a proposition to the consumer – not just words, product puffery, or show-window advertising. Each advertisement must say to each reader: “Buy this product, for this specific benefit.”
- The proposition must be one the competition cannot or does not offer. It must be unique – either in the brand or in a claim the rest of that particular advertising area does not make.
- The proposition must be strong enough to move the masses, i.e., attract new customers as well as potential customers.
Focus on your differentiation.
You may have a service that’s identical to all similar services, but maybe you do it just slightly faster. Speed becomes your USP.
You may have a me-too product that looks indistinguishable from all the similar-looking products, but maybe you build it just slightly better and longer-lasting. Durability becomes your USP.
It’s the job of marketing folk to get to that element of their branding campaigns. Shooting from the hip or pulling any old idea out of a hat does not qualify.
Tag lines are not optional.
A tag line is the heart of any brand. Headlines come and go. Vision and mission statements are useful when you can’t fall asleep. But to know what an enterprise’s brand is really about, look at their tag line.
That’s something that “branding” folk too often overlook.
A tag line is also a commitment. It’s an embodiment of your identity that should be around for a while. It’s a statement of what you offer and what a customer can expect.
One of my favorites from many years back was the classic FedEx tag, “When it absolutely, positively has to be there overnight.” [Ally & Gargano, 1982] That really established their brand.
Only tag lines will consistently appear in ads, commercials, on stationery, at trade shows … and they can endure even as campaigns evolve, and headlines come and go.
The bottom line is that tag lines are the hook for all the marketing you do. Choose one carefully because you don’t want to be changing it every six months. You’ll only confuse and lose your audience.
There are dozens of “super-brands” today – Coke, Kleenex, Xerox, FedEx, etc. What makes them super-brands? They don’t just define their product or service, they define their category.
It’s why we refer to Coke when we mean most any kind of soda, or Kleenex when we mean any kind of tissue, and Xerox when we mean any kind of photocopying. (It’s good to be a super-brand.)
While UPS is a huge company with a well-established brand, it still needs to distinguish itself from FedEx, because we, the people, have given FedEx a significant branding edge. We’ve made it common to say “FedEx it,” regardless of how we’re actually shipping a package.
That’s how FedEx became a super-brand. Lots of folks will say “overnight it,” but few will say “UPS it” – it just doesn’t have the same ring.
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Now you know enough to cause some serious damage. Go forth and brand.
P.S. If you missed Elements of branding, part one, just click the link.
Branding baby steps.
The idea of “branding” may sound formidable to many companies – a daunting new task for marketing to add to its plate. I can make it simple for you. A company’s brand is ultimately defined by three things:
- Competencies – what you do
- Standards – how you do it
- Style – how you relate to your target audience
These things need to be both defined and agreed upon before any creative work starts.
Once they are agreed upon, they need to be maintained with consistency across every form of communication – from e-mails to business cards, and from one-on-one conversations to a major marketing campaign. Without that consistency, there can be no brand.
To put it into simple steps, you need to determine:
- your message
- your target audience
- how your product or service benefits them
- what the competition is saying
- how you’re better or different.
And that, folks, is what branding is all about.
What we’re talking about when we talk about branding.
Branding has been the marketing buzzword du jour since the 1990s. However, too many people use it without understanding its true meaning … or origins.
In most cases, when people use the term branding, they’re really talking about USP – the Unique Selling Proposition. That concept was first presented to the advertising and ad agency client world in the 1940s by Rosser Reeves who worked at Ted Bates & Company, one of the largest ad agencies in the world.
USP changed how ad agencies approached the business of advertising, as well as how ads themselves were created from then on.
The USP (which every agency claimed to have created …) was about finding and focusing on the unique benefit of the product or service that the client and agency were advertising.
Once USP took hold, you could no longer just claim, “XYZ is the better detergent,” you had to say “why XYZ is the better detergent.”
The big bang.
USP changed everything, and even helped ad agencies develop their reason for being. Advertising became a process, with specific, scientific steps.
Clients seldom could come up with a USP on their own. Agencies, through diligence and in-depth research, could. The whole idea was to get to the point of differentiation that could be perceived as a benefit by consumers and customers. If there was more than one, all the better.
(Remember “Wonder Bread builds strong bodies 12 ways?” Or Purdue’s “It takes a tough man to make a tender chicken?”)
The Chivas story.
The introduction of Chivas Regal to the U.S. is a classic example of USP.
Chivas was, when all was said and done, another blended, 12-year-old whiskey from Scotland, like Johnnie Walker Black Label. (Nothing like a single malt.)
The story goes that the agency of record at the time had trouble developing a true USP, so they finally suggested pricing it higher than other blended, 12-year-old whiskeys and using “it costs more but it’s worth it” as the basis of their campaign.
Luxury, indulgence, prestige. Bang. There’s your USP.
That, folks, is how Chivas came to be perceived as “a really fine whiskey” – it was positioning based on a pricing strategy. Remarkably, that top-shelf image still holds today.
The safe car?
Similarly, Volvo became perceived as “the safe car” even though it never was the safest. (That distinction could likely have gone to Saab or Mercedes.)
Volvo’s agency product positioning became a self-fulfilling prophecy through pure luck – or at least nothing the agency could have controlled.
It was hardly a sexy car when it first came to America, so calling it “the safe car” created a distinct niche. (Good USP.)
However, by positioning Volvo as “the safe car,” Scali, McCabe, Sloves unwittingly made it the choice of people who already drove safely. Soon, insurance companies were rating Volvos as “safe cars” because of their low accident records … which was not really about the car, but rather about how its owners drove.
Marketing magic had happened. Before “branding” even existed. (Some years later, the Ford Taurus took that “safe car” position because that’s what older, more cautious drivers were choosing.)
The branding differentiation.
The point? Branding is not something completely new and different, as too many folks believe. It builds on and expands the concept of USP. What branding has added to that proposition is essentially, “consistently say the same thing to all people all the time.”
What does that actually mean? That a company or organization must recognize that they have internal as well as external audiences. Whatever the USP is, it must be stated first to the internal audience (your entire staff) so that everyone is passing on the very same message to the external audience (your target market).
It may not sound like a big deal when you break it down, but it has value. I’ve seen more than one company roll out an advertising campaign or promotion without letting the troops know it was coming. What do you get when that happens? People answering the phones and saying, “huh?” Not good.
The consistency dictum.
Branding also dictates that everything – from business cards, to stationery, to signs, to advertising campaigns – be identical. And that raises the game somewhat that was started with USP. Every message (according to branding gurus) that comes out of an organization, in any way, needs to look the same and sound the same. That, in a nutshell, is branding.
(The really good agencies have always recommended that as well, and even produced style guides for their clients. Branding simply makes it a rule.)
I’ve always thought that “branding” was created by someone who decided they needed a new tool to compete with ad agencies. There are certainly some smart and sensible ideas behind the branding concept, but it’s not enough – on its own – to build the kinds of great campaigns that USP has consistently brought us.
Think Volkswagen, Absolut, Nike, Apple, FedEx, BMW. The marketing for those and many, many more breakthrough brands were all based on the concept of USP.
Bottom line: branding is the cart, not the horse. You have to start with a USP in order to end up with truly effective branding.
Pen to paper, not mouse to screen.
Art supply stores were crucial components of the marketing industry. Ad agencies single-handedly kept them alive ordering heavy-weight drawing pads in all sizes and all types (from vellum to tissue) along with the drawing pens and markers used to design ads and produce comps.
After folding back the black cover of one of those pristine, virginal pads, a typical art director would uncap either a Pentel bamboo-tipped pen or a design marker, and begin drawing.
The incredibly black ink was dramatic on the blank page, and unlike anything that could be produced with a ball-point pen.
We’ve traded the grid system for freedom.
Know what’s different about working with a computer? The blank page.
For example, before computers – during the gasoline crisis of 1980 – an art director and copywriter who worked on the Volkswagen account had an idea over lunch, drew it on a napkin (so the story goes) and the client insisted that it be produced exactly as it was drawn:
That ad was produced by Doyle Dane Bernbach, New York. The art director was Charles Piccirillo and the copywriter was Robert Levenson. It was a 1980 award-winning ad.
The freedom of pen to paper is a rather large trade-off in our time. Grid systems are necessary for us to play nicely with pixels, but they deny us the flexibility of art. What do I mean? Do you think Michelangelo could have designed the Sistine Chapel on a computer screen?
Beyond having to interact with pixels, we also hold a mouse or drag our fingers on a pad instead of using a brush or pen. And that, ladies and gentlemen, changes everything. Manipulating pictures and paintings that already exist bears no relationship to their creation.
What’s GUI got to do with it?
Way back in 1977, researchers at the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center designed the first GUI application. Those Xerox researchers had designed the interface before they designed the application itself … so it didn’t yet work well enough for Xerox to make use of it.
However, Steve Jobs had visited the Palo Alto Research Center and he’d seen the Xerox GUI system. He eventually hired several of the original Xerox GUI designers to work at Apple. Their first product was the Apple Lisa … which was not exactly successful. But in 1984 they introduced the Apple Macintosh. The rest is history … including how IBM copied the GUI interface.
All PC-based GUI applications copied the Macintosh, which had introduced the first menu, icons and point-and-click, mouse-driven commands. The Macintosh was the first computer system that limited us entirely to contextual answers. That meant, after we’d made a selection via a mouse-based menu, the resulting menu limited our subsequent actions. (Oops, let’s just back on out of there …)
It also forced our hands off the keyboard (boy, do I miss WordPerfect …) and introduced Carpal tunnel syndrome into everyday language.
Touch-pads and touch-screens seem to be replacing the mouse, which is just fine with me since that device has left me with some permanent hand-pain issues. (Hey, I’m a writer – I spend nearly every day, all day, at a computer.)
These days I frequently find myself missing my old Royal Quiet DeLuxe portable typewriter. My dad had bought me one, used, when I was 11 or 12, so I could type school papers. (Gorgeous, isn’t it?)
To spend your marketing dollars wisely, you need wise marketers.
People who are experienced, knowledgeable and self-confident will tell clients when something they ask for is not a good idea … from a positioning, identity or branding point of view. It’s important to listen to those people. They know what so many clients don’t: you don’t create marketing for yourself. Whether you like something is not always relevant. What matters most is whether your target audience likes it.
Business is usually about profitability. Running an ad campaign or building a Web site that pleases you but does nothing for your target audience is not good marketing. The goal of marketing is to produce results.
To do that, marketers who know their stuff slice and dice the target audience by asking tough questions: How does your product or offering solve a specific need for your target audience? How do your benefits and claims set you apart from the competition? Is your marketing message relevant to your audience’s concerns? What moves the needle for your target audience? How do you know when your marketing is working?
“Hello, is this the party to whom I am speaking?”
Do you know who you’re trying to attract with your marketing? Do you know if it’s working?
Business owners and managers are increasingly counting on technologists to create their only channel to their potential target audiences. Their one and only broadcast message.
They may end up with Web sites that look nice and work well … and so often say so little.
Marketing – real marketing – is much more than that. Technologists often work from the point of view that they’re in a shouting match. That can lead to a “me-too” Web site. The core messages are too often taken from key competitors.
When done correctly, though, effective marketing convincingly conveys relevant, compelling and distinct benefit messages to your true target audience.
Talk to your audience, not yourself.
Understanding your target audience is a key requirement for successful marketing.
One of the first things we learn as writers is that we don’t write for ourselves – we write for our target audience. So we have to cut what will bore them and only keep what will touch them where they live.
Running an ad campaign or building a Web site that pleases you but does nothing for your target audience is pretty much the opposite of a sound marketing approach.
Marketing is both an art and a science, and its ultimate goal is to produce results. To do that, marketing professionals focus on the problems that the target audience wants solved. Then they address those solutions as benefits. And it’s especially effective when those benefits answer your target audience’s key concerns.
Write for them, not yourself.
Copywriters learn fairly early that they need to follow the advice of William Faulkner: “In writing, you must kill all your darlings.”
Writers who fall in love with what they’ve written, and are unwilling to change it – even after being told that it’s not relevant – would be better off keeping a journal.
Writing is communication. If your objective is to communicate with a potential target audience, you’d better know what they find interesting … and what they don’t.
It takes good input to have good output.
That’s the first secret. Here’s the second: understand your target audience.
It’s not enough to become familiar with the product or service we’ve been hired to promote – we must also understand who wants or needs the product or service, and why. We can’t possibly write convincingly if we don’t know that. (That’s a hint – if you’re working with somebody who doesn’t bother to learn about your target audience, you could be working with the wrong somebody.)
It takes work. Being able to craft sentences that sparkle like perfectly-cut diamonds is only half of the six-pack you’ll need for this picnic. You have to know the target audience even better than they know themselves. You have to know how to reach their emotional hot-buttons. You have to know how to get them thinking and talking about your client’s product or service. No matter how dull.
Ever wait for a bus?
When I was 13 and waiting for a bus, I kept stepping off the curb to see if the bus was coming. After a while, I started to feel silly doing that. Then it dawned on me that in some way I was thinking I could make the bus come more quickly by looking hard for it.
My 13-year-old mind came to the conclusion that I couldn’t perform magic and the bus would come when it comes. So I stepped back, sat on the bench and calmly waited.
That change in thinking was truly freeing. I didn’t have to “do” anything. I simply had to accept that the bus would come.
About 12 years later, when I began working on Madison Ave., it dawned on me that what we were most often selling was “hopes and dreams” … and belief in magic. Get this or that product or service and your life will be better.
If we didn’t believe in magic, marketing probably wouldn’t work very well.
Are we what we want?
The magic we believe in is that we can be different if we get different things (or go to different places). We believe we can change. And we believe “things” we buy can bring about those changes, and at the same time improve our lives.
That last one was tricky. “We believe we can improve our lives with things.”
There’s no doubt that our lives can nearly always be improved. However, there’s also little doubt that we don’t really improve our lives with “things.”
I’m probably reminding you of a bumper sticker: “The best things in life aren’t things.”
Yes, a better, newer car is nice. So are better, newer appliances. And better, newer places to live.
But after owning any of those things for a while, we realize that there will always be newer, better things. And it’s literally impossible to always have the latest and greatest.
We work because we want.
I know … revolutionary thoughts for a marketing professional. They don’t serve the gods of capitalism.
But can’t we be both consumers and pursuers of true, inner happiness.
I am by no means saying that not having the option to have “things” will make us happier. (That didn’t work out so well for the communist countries.)
I’m simply talking about what actually makes marketing work.
We can decide we need a new car, but then we have to decide what kind we want. That’s when imagining, wishing and searching begin.
Perhaps it’s our millennium’s version of hunting and gathering. Our ancestors knew they needed food, but they may have wanted big game over what was easy. Maybe wanting is in our genes?
Can marketing create wanting?
Our job, in marketing, is to touch people where they live – to reach their emotions. In order to touch people’s emotions – because that’s what good copy does – we have to know a great deal about language in order to be able to use the precise language that will get us there.
Most often, that language is about “wanting.” Wanting can be a hair’s breadth away from needing, but usually beats out needing. In more ways than one, we are what we want.
We work, we get money, we spend our money on what we want, then we have to go back to work to get more money.
While we’re making other plans …
Not everything that we want, of course, has to do with “things.” Wanting is frequently based on practical demands. When we get married, we often need to move … and buy things.
When we have children, we may have to move (again), and buy more things. Such as a different car, along with all the other things that are in fact necessities (rather than “things”) for our children.
So, in those instances, “wanting” becomes much more closely aligned with “needing,” except that the decisions we make on which crib, stroller, car seat, etc., etc., once again opens us up to marketing, along with word-of-mouth, which is often repeating marketing.
In other words, it’s seldom as simple as merely buying a stroller. We usually buy the one “we want.” And the one we want is usually the one with the best marketing and the best reputation … which are often the very same thing.
(For the longest time, Volvo was marketed as “the safe car,” which transformed into “a fact.” Soon, it seemed irresponsible to not own a Volvo if one had a family. And insurance statistics backed that up – Volvos were less often involved in fatal crashes. But … was that because Volvo was the safest car or because people who chose to drive safely bought Volvos?)
Wanting is like falling in love, again and again.
For some folks, “wanting” is like an addiction. It may be what keeps them on track at their jobs. But it’s also what keeps us on the treadmill.
Falling in love can feel like magic. And wanting brings a little bit of that same kind of magic.
I remember looking through magazines and newspapers while commuting and being less interested in reading articles than in looking for things I might want. A Burberry coat. A Brooks Brothers suit. A Rolex.
The boredom and tedium of work, commuting to work, living our lives according to work calendars – all of that makes us want some sort of reward beyond the pay check. And half the reward can be in the searching for what we want.
Bingo. Enter marketing and advertising to help you along.
The Web has set marketing back 150 years.
One of the side-effects of the World Wide Web is a plethora of do-it-yourself advertising that often looks as unsophisticated as the earliest days of advertising. Professionalism has been swallowed up by amateurism.
How did that happen? Because Web sites and online messaging are largely created by technologists. They’ve replaced trained, experienced copywriters and art directors.
That, of course, has been made possible by inexperienced clients who have come to believe that a Web site or “mobile messaging” is an end unto itself. (Just get online and the world will beat a path to your door … ) That’s how Web designers and coders have – despite themselves – taken up the pole position of marketing.
Business owners and managers, who often barely have a concept of what marketing should be (justifiably, since that’s not the business they’re in) count on technologists to create their one and only channel to their potential target audiences. Their one and only broadcast message. The proof is in the pudding. They end up with Web sites that look nice, work well … and so often say little.
Marketing – real marketing – is much more than that. Technologists think they’re in a shouting match, which is what “me-too” Web sites amount to. When done correctly, though, effective marketing convincingly conveys relevant, compelling benefit messages to your true target audience.
And effective marketing is also often remarkably memorable, especially when it’s done with humor and cleverness, or when it touches our deepest emotions. (Just think about those commercials that everyone shares online.) That has nothing to do with coding, apps or plugins.
What’s missing from nearly all marketing today.
For any communication to be effective, it must be compelling. To be compelling, it must be relevant to the true target audience. To be compelling, relevant and successful, your communication must be on strategy. And to be on strategy, your messages must clearly convey the benefits or solutions that matter most to your specific target audience.
That takes digging, lots of it. That takes the kind of know-how ad agencies developed over decades. That takes knowing how to uncover what a target audience cares most about … and how a client’s product or service answers those needs.
The key objective of marketing is to stand out from the competition – with relevance and believability. How do you achieve that? By asking the right questions. Such as:
- What’s the key audience for your product or service?
- What matters most to them?
- What’s your key benefit?
- Who’s the competition?
- What’s their track record?
- What’s different about your offering?
- What will it take to win?
The answers to those and the market-defining, follow-up, drill-down questions are the building blocks for a rock-solid strategy. Without one, it’s impossible to achieve marketing success.
With a solid strategy to build on, marketing professionals can create the kind of messaging that’s compelling, relevant and memorable for your target audience.
And that is the only way to get your message through. When it’s both compelling and relevant, it will be memorable. (And getting a compelling and relevant message through is way more important than eye candy.)
Marketing always has one goal: to increase your market share by enhancing the perception of your product or service within your target audience.
That requires a singular, clear, coherent, incredibly relevant message.
The bottom line: creating marketing is easy; creating communications that clearly separate you from the competition isn’t.
We’re professionals, and consultants.
I looked for it because I’ve been thinking about the increasing financial challenges of being a professional writer. It’s bad enough that the Internet has opened competition to the world. (And good luck with that.) In addition to that … or because of it, the attitude of clients has dramatically shifted to cost over quality, and it shows. The same thing happened to professional photographers when “stock” came into being.
One incident early in my career stands out as a harbinger of things to come. It was during my first Madison Ave. job as a junior copywriter, at Warwick, Welsh & Miller, an agency that came into being thanks to Seagram’s, the liquor company. Supposedly, Paul Warwick and Samuel Bronfman, the Canadian founder and owner of Seagram’s, were buddies. Mr. Bronfman advised Mr. Warwick that when Prohibition ended in the U.S., branded whiskey would be a big deal. So the agency was founded. And Seagram’s (with V.O., 7-Crown and Crown Royal, etc.) got a big jump on the competition.
One of the very best things about working at that agency was that it was also in The Seagram’s Building, a breathtaking work of Manhattan architecture designed and built by Mies van der Rohe. Warwick, Welsh & Miller was, of course, the agency of record for Seagram’s, along with Parker Brothers, the giant board game company that produced, among many others, Monopoly.
You want to pay us how much?
One day, the entire creative department was sent a memo from the creative director that said Parker Brothers was looking for new board game ideas … and if an idea we submitted was chosen we’d get $50.
I chewed on this for a while then finally went into the creative director’s office to ask, “If they produce a new board game, they stand to make millions, don’t they?” He answered, “Probably. So?” I responded, “We’re supposed to provide an idea that could produce millions for fifty bucks?”
He looked at me as if I had just landed from Mars and after a moment said, “Well, you don’t have to submit an idea.” That was not the answer I was hoping for. But it turned that variations on that answer would be the same for lots of questions that came up over the years. “They” want our finest creativity. But “they” want to pay as little as possible for it.
Hardly any company or business in existence would be profitable without writers. Writers polish a company’s image, promote its products and services, help them rise above the competition … and make gazillions. Yet, we are paid like sharecroppers. And sometimes, as Harlan Ellison so eloquently points out, they don’t want to pay us anything at all.
Writers produce annual reports that help companies sell stock … and make millions. Writers create ads that help companies sell products and services … and make millions. Writers produce scripts that help companies produce movies and TV shows … and make millions.
Think your lawyer, plumber or dentist will work on spec?
If you’re a fan of books, movies, TV shows, and great journalism, then you’re a fan of great writing. But you likely have no idea how much the creators of your favorite books or shows make. Or the fact that writers are often asked to work for free.
We’re consultants and we bill for our time, just like lawyers and other professionals. Yet we’re often asked to do things for no pay, or little pay, and we’re even expected to be happy merely for receiving “exposure.”
Exposure doesn’t pay the rent, or the dentist, or the mechanic, or the painter, or the plumber … none of whom would ever agree to work on spec, let alone anything less than their standard rate of pay.
In 2008, Lynn Wasnak wrote an article for Writers Market titled How Much Should I Charge? In that article, she wrote that advertising copywriting had a high rate of $150 per hour, and a low rate of $35 per hour, with an average of $83 per hour. Catalog copywriting was only slightly lower with a high of $150 per hour, a low of $25 per hour, and an average of $71 per hour. (Are you under-charging?)
Annual reports pay slightly better at $180 per hour at the higher levels, $45 per hour at the lower, and $92 per hour on average. Speech writing/editing for individuals or corporations was at $167 per hour on the high end, $35 per hour on the low end and $90 per hour on average. (Are you under-charging?)
The same article also appeared in Writers Digest. Both covered typical rates for many more kinds of writing and editing than I’ve mentioned here. And if you’re in Canada, you have the benefit of a national professional organization that publishes up-to-date rates: Writers.CA.
You’re a professional. Charge like one.
Ours is a solo occupation, so we often don’t know what others are charging, let alone what the going rates are, and can therefore be cheated. Being aware of the going rates – and being able to point to them – is beneficial for all of us. Otherwise we’ll be expected to provide our highly trained, thoroughly professional services for less than folks who are required to ask, “Would you like fries with that?”
Here’s my version of rather serious joke: A writer is contacted by a new client who needs an ad. The writer gets the input then goes off to create the ad. He does a rough draft, then a full first draft, then edits that, then polishes that, then puts it away for a few days. Then he takes it out and looks it over and finds more things to trim, rewrite and polish. Finally, after two weeks he contacts the client to let him know the ad is ready. The client looks it over and says, “That’s not very much copy. How long did it take you to write that?” The writer responds, “About 25 years.”
P.S. If you happen to watch the classic 1944 film Laura, you’ll hear the fictional magazine writer, Waldo Lydecker, referring to getting 50 cents per word for his articles. Good luck getting that today … 70 years later.
Guess what: our calendar is only 431 years old.
While most people using the Western/Gregorian calendar might understandably assume that our calendar is now 2,014 years old, that just ain’t so. It is in fact (as of this writing) only 431 years old, having been brought into existence in 1582 to mark the precise celebration of Easter.
Our calendar is called the Gregorian calendar because it was introduced by Pope Gregory XIII via a papal bull – a decree – signed on February 24, 1582. It was several centuries before it was adopted throughout the western world.
Pope Gregory XIII’s motivation for his reform was that the Roman Julian calendar (which had preceded it) placed the time between vernal equinoxes (a “year,” or a full rotation around the sun) at 365.25 days, when in fact it is roughly 11 minutes shorter per year. (Extremely cool math for 1582, eh?)
With the aid of Jesuit priest/astronomer Christopher Clavius (who built on the work of Aloysius Lilius/Luigi Lilio) it was determined that the 11-minute error added up to about three days every four centuries. That resulted (back in Pope Gregory XIII’s day) in the equinox occurring on March 11, and moving earlier and earlier in the Julian calendar.
You know why that irked Pope Gregory, right? The date for celebrating Easter wasn’t at all reliable. And Easter is the single most important date for the Roman Catholic Church. Yes, they wanted to peg the new calendar to the date of birth for Jesus, but that’s quite an iffy thing. No one was really certain of the year and most scholars agree that his likely birth month was actually March. But early Christians hid their celebration on December 25th (or thereabouts) when pagan festivities were already in play for the winter solstice.
Pope Gregory XIII et al calculated Easter, by the way, using the Hebrew calendar to accurately fix the date of “the last supper,” which was in fact a Passover meal that Jesus was attending with his fellow Jewish disciples. Pope Gregory XIII wanted to be sure that Easter was being celebrated on the correct date, year in and year out, so the date of “the last supper” was the starting point for the development of his new calendar.
Today, of course, we think of the calendar as a business tool rather than a way to keep track of religious events. And commerce was the main reason the Gregorian calendar was ultimately adopted. But it’s worth remembering that its origins were entirely based on setting the correct dates for religious celebrations.
Think about this: anybody who uses a computer, anywhere in the world, inevitably is following the Gregorian calendar.
Is it New Year’s everywhere?
2014 will no doubt see further globalization take hold. Our clothing, computers and customer service (alas …) can come from anywhere in the world. Our economy is clearly affected by global events and our export markets can be countries that not long ago did not even appear on our maps.
Brazil, for example, has taken a monster lead on the global stage, having moved ahead of Great Britain in 2011. So, too have Russia, India and China moved up. (Investors call them the BRIC nations and place “emerging markets” investments there.) Portugal, Italy Greece and Spain now worry the rest of the world when their economies teeter, and teeter they do.
So, bearing all that in mind, does January 1 have the same significance to all inhabitants of planet earth? How about to the Chinese or Indians? Or those who continue to follow the Hebraic and Islamic calendars, both of which are based on lunar rather than solar cycles? For the Chinese, 2013 was 4711 (or 4651 depending on their epoch starting point) and the Chinese year 4712 begins on Jan. 31, 2014.
For those following the Hebrew calendar, 2013 was 5773 and 5774. And for those using the Islamic calendar, 2013 was 1434 and 1435. India has as many calendars as it has religions, though in 1957 they settled on the Indian national calendar (Saka) to align themselves with the Gregorian calendar.
The diversity of global populations is one of the reasons that New Year’s celebrations have always struck me as a tad odd. First of all, Father Time is winning, whichever calendar you use. Every new year means that everyone is a year older. Not sure about cheering that. And, as you can tell from the preceding paragraph, the yearly cycle is hardly celebrated (or measured) the same way by all people on earth.
Perhaps some of the old Roman and pagan superstitions lurk in our Bacchanalian New Year’s celebrations. Perhaps we truly think that we and the world will be magically different when the ball drops and the calendar changes.
What do we measure when we measure time?
Clocks, watches, calendars … do they measure actual time, or the experience of the passage of time?
It seems that we “mark time” rather than inhabit it. We tick off the time we’ve used and we look forward to some future calendar event, which might be a religious holiday or vacation, and which will only arrive after we’ve marked off the appropriate amount of time.
But time, according to Albert Einstein, was an indication of our relationship to space and gravity – how fast and how far we were able to move through space. And, in a way, that’s what we’re actually measuring when we say “day, week, month and year.” A day is the spinning of the earth on its axis (creating the illusion of sun-up, sun-down). A year is the time it takes for our earth to orbit the sun completely – an elliptical journey that takes us closer to and farther from the sun, creating our seasons.
Bearing that in mind, it’s possible to see that days and years are in reality markers of time/space travel, while other calendar-based measurements are an artificial construct that in fact simply measure the passage of time as it relates to us. In other words, what we think of as time is highly subjective.
Einstein and Paul Langevin addressed that “relativity” with a theory of time (one of my favorites) that has come to be called the “twins paradox.” It goes like this: one twin leaves the earth traveling at the speed of light and returns seven years later; the other twin stays behind. For the traveling twin, only seven years have passed, so he has only aged by seven years. But for his brother, back on earth, several decades have passed and he is now elderly. How can this be? (For a practical demonstration, watch the Jodi Foster film “Contact,” from a story by Carl Sagan.)
It’s all relative.
The point is that time is not as fixed as we think it is … or as our Gregorian calendar would have us believe. In fact, time is entirely relative. So we do not measure time objectively, but rather subjectively, based on our experience of time on our planet and the calendar we’re using.
We subjectively say, “one year has passed,” “our child is two years old,” “we have a doctor’s appointment next Monday.” All of these are important, yet create a slightly false or inaccurate sense of time, an imposed sense of time, one that doesn’t matter to or affect the movement of the planets around our star, which is what calendars theoretically measure.
Think of it this way: if we were still using the Julian calendar, we’d experience time differently. The same goes if we were using lunar calendars – New Year’s day would come more often. Which is why I just can’t help remembering that the calendar we’ve all agreed to use isn’t even 500 years old, and that it has a back-dated, highly subjective starting point.
In fact, the new year did not always begin on January 1 for everyone everywhere. It depended entirely on which calendar was being used. What we now call New Year’s day is a relatively recent innovation, and an entirely subjective event.
Happy New Calendar.
New Year’s used to be celebrated on days such as the vernal or autumnal equinox – days when you can actually feel something new is coming. That’s what Stravinsky’s “The Rite of Spring” was all about.
No one can deny that our lives are run by calendars. They determine when we go to work and when we rest. They determine when we play and when we pray. They determine when we’re paid, and even how much. And all of that works because we all agree to it. Do we have a choice? Not really. But I’m certain if you asked any number of people what their favorite day is, the most frequent answer would be whatever day they consider the sabbath.
And all of that is why I’m not big on New Year’s resolutions. But, hey, knock yourself out.
New Year’s is supposed to be about new beginnings. January 1 strikes me as a very poor date for that. What it really means is that we’re celebrating a calendar event rather than a cyclical, natural event. It seems to come down to celebrating Happy New Calendar. I suppose that makes as much sense as anything else.
This just in: The world almost had a 13-month calendar
That’s what it takes for movies to work.
Without our granting movie-makers “suspension of disbelief,” we could hardly enjoy the moment when it seems that the bad guy has gotten away alone on a plane, but suddenly hears some ticking and searches for the source of the sound. He finds the bomb that the hero has planted on the plane, looks somewhat surprised, then … cut to the hero and his pals on the ground looking into the sky as the plane with the bad guy on board explodes in a very satisfying ball of flames, sparks and smoke.
We never ask, “What about the camera crew that filmed the bad guy in his last few seconds? Or the director and lighting people? Weren’t they on the plane when it blew up?”
We don’t ask because we want the story-teller to tell us a story. Because we enjoy being entertained. So we agree to suspend our disbelief for the duration of the entertainment. And we do it most often for movies since they are the most popular contemporary medium for story-telling. (If you loved the movie, read the book.)
Of course, we do it with books, too. Melville’s Moby Dick starts off as a first-person narrative – “Call me Ishmael.” – but as soon as our narrator is aboard the Pequod, he melts into the background. The first-person narrative becomes an omniscient voice, invisible, yet all-seeing, even reporting what’s inside other characters’ heads. Suspension of disbelief at work.
We’ve been doing it since long before Samuel Taylor Coleridge formally named the phenomenon of our willingness to suspend belief in 1817. It has been thus since our earliest ancestors sat around campfires, wearing animal skins, being enchanted by stories of particularly good hunts by someone who was particularly good at telling those kinds of stories – the primordial story-teller.
Not so in marketing.
In our business, we face the most cynical critics and doubters. Advertising may be story-telling, but it’s not always entertainment. (That’s the best kind of advertising, by the way, the entertaining kind, since we’ll all pay attention if it’s fun.)
Just like stories, ads have a beginning, a middle and an end. Except in ads it’s typically the setup (the problem), the solution (how a product or service solves the problem) and the close (the call to action.)
How is it that everyone approaches our stories with such skepticism while swallowing movie story lines hook, line and sinker? Yep, the answer is simple: entertainment. We happily set aside skepticism to enjoy a good movie.
No doubt if aliens landed and we offered to take them to the movies, they’d be somewhat stunned by our ability to accept all the cuts, dissolves, jumps in action and melodramatic, manipulative sound tracks. They’d likely view us with pity, consider us “children,” and wonder how on earth (so to speak) we could possibly run an entire planet.
We want to be entertained.
Is it some mass psychosis? Or simply an agreement en masse to accept the premise of a three-dimensional world on a two-dimensional screen?
The smarter ad folk made the leap some time ago to applying story-telling methods to commercials. The great ones, that ones that broke new ground, stick in our minds: “Time to make the donuts.” “I can’t believe I ate the whole thing.” “Where’s the beef?” “Bud Weis Er.” “Volkswagen: the Force” “¡Yo quiero Taco Bell!”
We remember them, and we talk about them. Almost as much as movies. [Interesting side-note: Alka-Seltzer’s “I can’t believe I ate the whole thing” TV campaign was one of the highest-scoring in advertising history, yet sales plummeted. What happened? Chronic users thought they were being made fun of.]
Are entertaining ads and commercials sugar-coating the pill … or effective marketing? In the final analysis, our objective is to be memorable – or, to be more precise, to make our client’s product or service be the one that the target audience remembers. David Ogilvy and others called this “placing a burr in the consumer’s mind” and warned against creating ads that left people “remembering the burr, but not the sales proposition.” [e.g., Alka-Seltzer]
Tricky, isn’t it. We need to entertain to be memorable, but we also need to make sure that what’s remembered is our client’s brand. (It really is something that only professionals can do.)
Super Bowl commercials, like “Volkswagen: the Force,” are the exception to the rule. Those commercials are as much about people remembering the commercial as they are about creating broader awareness for the brand. And in fact competition is so fierce for inclusion in that most coveted of TV placements that it’s not enough to have the dough, you have to have the goods in your ad as well. After all, lots of people tune in just to watch those commercials. Imagine that.
What we learn in meetings.
Relatively early in my advertising career I was in a meeting with a client, an art director and an account executive. (No, that’s not a set up for a bar joke.) The art director and I presented the creative work for a year-long campaign, and then the account executive presented the total costs.
“Five hundred thousand dollars?” the client wailed. “I could hire ten sales people for that!”
The account executive shot right back, “Yes, you could. But how many prospects could each of those ten sales people get in front of in a whole year? One hundred? Two hundred?” I was listening as intently as the client. “This campaign will be seen by at least ten thousand people from day one and that number will grow exponentially with each exposure in your media plan.”
I was very impressed. No defensiveness about justifying the costs of advertising. No back-pedaling on what we’d presented. No offers of scaling things back. Just the facts. And the facts were enough. I’d learned a big lesson: how advertising can be more effective than feet on the street. (And, by the way, the bigger the budget the less resistance we usually encountered. Million-dollar TV buys were treated like “just another day at the office” by the big boys.)
I had learned the concepts of advertising: why ads we need to be attention-getting; why we write intriguing headlines that pull readers through the copy; why we need a pay-off at the end. But I hadn’t been exposed to the gritty facts of how to sell a campaign, or how clients sometimes look at marketing as a choice between spending money on ads versus sales people and trade shows until I started going to presentations.
I also learned, along the way, that advertising sets the stage for the sales team. If a member of the target audience saw an ad and then asked for a sales call, you had a very warm lead as opposed to an ice cube.
What we learn from each other.
These were not lessons I’d been taught along the way to becoming a copywriter. I learned them in meetings, the same way the clients learned what a good ad agency could bring to the table. Every meeting taught me something new about the client’s perspective and the purpose of advertising, as well as the smarts of the people I worked with. (People in ad agencies are some of the smartest I’ve ever met.)
I also learned how account executives could be crucial to the creative process – from making sure the creative team had all the input it needed to making sure the media plan fit the overall objectives. In some agencies, there was a cold war between creative departments and their account teams. The account teams in those agencies were treated like messengers and order takers. In the agencies where I worked account executives were as crucial to the process of achieving clients’ objectives as copy and art were. We’d even invite account executives into our offices to show them rough concepts and get feedback.
The job of creative teams is to “blue sky” ideas. We get the creative brief and the marketing strategy, then we take off. We look at what the competition is saying then we push the envelope as far as possible. It’s the job of the account team to bring us back down to earth – if necessary. As long as our work was on strategy and achieved the marketing goal, they were fine. But if the work was off-target in any way, they pointed that out. It was often incredibly helpful.
What we learn from clients.
I was part of an agency team that was invited by a client – a computer networking products wholesaler – to meet with one of his primary manufacturers. The very large, northern California maker of hubs, routers and switches (one of the top three) had set up all-day presentations of upcoming products for our mutual client. At the end of each presentation, the client asked the engineers one or both of these questions: “How will this work with the current products in the field?” or “How will this work with the last new product we were shown?” To a man, each engineer answered, “Not really sure. That’s not our department.”
The client, who rarely showed what he was thinking, finally erupted at the end of that day: “How the heck are we supposed to sell this stuff if you can’t explain to us how all the pieces work together?”
That was another incredibly valuable lesson: the client’s pre-advertising perspective. Typically, the client would present us with the products we’d be promoting and he would tell us a cohesive story about how those products made specific improvements in network performance or reliability. Clearly, our client didn’t merely invent those benefit stories – they came from the manufacturers of the products he was wholesaling. If the manufacturer hadn’t figured out how to tell a cohesive product story, our client’s sales people wouldn’t have one … and neither would we.
What we learn along the way.
Good clients ask good questions. Good ad agencies have good answers. Really good ad agencies truthfully say when they don’t have an answer and promise the client they’ll research it and come back with answers. Seeing that in action taught me that the popular truism that “all ads are b.s.” was not, in fact, based in fact. Good clients provide real benefit stories to their agencies. If they don’t know how to do that, good ad agencies know how to draw out those benefit stories in order to differentiate the client’s product or service. That was often my job, as copywriter. (It takes good input to have good output.)
As we move up the ladder in ad agencies, we become the people who answer client questions. What we learn along the way prepares us to have real answers based in fact. Because it’s our turn in the hot seat when the client asks, “Why will this work better than that?” we have to be ready with answers. That’s another critical thing we learn along the way: you don’t just prepare creative work for clients, you prepare to be challenged on the work you present.
And when we move on to becoming independents, then we have to have all the answers to all the questions. “What’s the best media for us?” “Why is an ad better than a brochure?” “Why isn’t our current brochure good enough?” “Why do we have to run ads more than once?”
I was taught quite a bit along the way. That’s why I have most of the answers to most of my clients’ questions.
The marketing automat.
With the introduction of the Mac (January 24, 1984), art direction and design changed forever. This was as big a change to civilization as the introduction of firearms. Suddenly, anyone with a Mac had a slew of tools for creating marketing and promotional materials that used to be the exclusive domain of designers and art directors.
But, to the trained eye, their work was always obvious. They were locked into a grid system, and it showed. (You can see evidence of that in this Web site, too.) The computer could only do its work within specific parameters. A blank page wasn’t really blank – it had to have defined column widths, borders and other elements that gave everything the computers produced a certain sameness.
Then something else happened. Anyone with a Mac (and not long after, anyone with a PC and the right software) could claim to be “a designer.” The automat had come to marketing and advertising. When Web sites entered the landscape – bringing design full-circle, from being created on computers to being delivered on computers – developers, coders and programmers were saying, “hey, I can do this, too.”
But they all quickly learned that technology and software could only take them so far. To be “creative” means to create something out of nothing, something captivating, fascinating, compelling. At multiple points in the creative process, one’s judgement is the critical element, not CSS (cascading style sheets), plugins, widgets or themes – those are merely the tools in the toolbox.
Our brains are the sexy thing. And our creative judgement is what sets us (writers, art directors and designers) apart from everyone else.
“Hey, I can do that.”
We are indeed in a brave new world where “design” has morphed into “build,” and “build” means software rather than the trained and educated aesthetics of true architecture.
My background is advertising. I’m a writer – not a designer or developer. But 80-90% of the business I get these days is Web sites. I need to work with designers to create those Web sites, because design is a critical element when creating a Web site. Anything “creative” needs a concept and a concept is something quite apart from “a build,” it’s a marriage of design and copy – images and words blended in such a way that a particular feeling is conveyed.
Let me say that again: a concept is a marriage of art and copy – graphics and words – to deliver a message. That goes for movies, brochures, ads, billboards … and Web sites.
The Web is strewn with ill-conceived bastard children of techies who have no clue about “design.”
(There, I’ve said it. And, yes, I feel better.)
What’s the point of all this “creative” work that we do if not to pass on a message? The message is not only key, it’s critical. It’s the reason we’re paid to do what we do. It’s why clients and corporations want marketing materials and Web sites. They want to get the message out.
So, what happens when bad or entirely missing creative judgement comes into play? The message is obscured, or perhaps buried. People – especially the target audience – may miss the message entirely. Then what? Why was the work done? Why was the money spent?
Let the buyer beware.
Sadly, this is where things get tricky. How do clients know they’ve chosen the right creative team? They often don’t until the work is done. This is no different than discovering we’ve chosen the wrong doctor. In both cases one might go through considerable physical pain and even agony before realizing that the person one has chosen has neither the skills nor the know-how to truly help us.
The best advice I can offer is: “look at the work produced by the people you’re considering and ask for references.” That’s the same approach we’d use when selecting an attorney – have they done the kind of work we need done? What’s their track record? What do their previous clients say? And creative services professionals are consultants, just like lawyers and physicians. The same rules apply, in how you choose them and pay them.
Even though technology seems to have made “amateurism” the new “creative,” don’t be fooled. Just because someone produced a YouTube video doesn’t mean they’re a film-maker. And just because someone may have produced a Web site it doesn’t mean that they’re a designer, a real designer. Our instantaneous, ubiquitous displays of amateurism have engendered the “heck, I can do this stuff” attitude. So it comes down, again, to the centuries-old caveat emptor warning – let the buyer beware.
All of this comes back to our media-centric existence. The Mac, back in 1984, led inevitably to smart-phones that have also contributed to the absurd belief that anyone can be a photographer or movie-maker. Somehow we’ve gone from a society that dreaded being invited to someone’s home to view vacation slides and films to a society that can’t get enough of watching other people’s boorish attempts at movie-making.
What it all says is that we are in an age of rampant amateurism. And I have no idea when it will change or get better. The Web is growing exponentially along with the tools we use to create messaging. Everything is in flux. It’s up to brand and marketing managers to protect their marketing by choosing true professionals. And I fervently hope that they do.
Marketing dollars predict the economy.
Few economic barometers are more accurate than marketing expenditures. During every downturn, ad agencies and independent creative consultants suffer the most. That’s because marketing and advertising budgets are the first to get cut when profits are down.
And that, in the long-run, is the worst thing that any business can do. If your competition has pulled the plug on advertising, wouldn’t that be the best time to promote and establish your brand? You can’t get bigger bang for your buck than when the competition has left the field.
But back to the topic. Nothing is as sensitive to economic conditions as marketing dollars. As soon as there’s any kind of downturn, marketing budgets are cut. It happens so often because so many companies wrongly view marketing as an optional, rather than an on-going, business expense.
Politics undermine marketing dollars.
Marketing and advertising are the life-blood of a capitalist economy. They’re how companies survive and thrive. They’re how jobs are created and how we make money flow. But they stop when the economy stops the flow of money.
During various Republican administrations, dating back dozens of years, “trickle-down economics” was the big catch phrase. It never worked. Because the wealthy seemed to believe that it would mean watching their wealth trickling away. (So short-sighted.)
The second President Bush gutted the incredibly healthy economy he inherited from President Clinton and the economy still hasn’t recovered. (Don’t get pissy – it’s a historical fact. Biggest surplus in history turned into the biggest deficit … and, no, that surplus was not thanks to Republicans. Not.)
Ever since President Obama took office in 2008, Republicans have blocked everything they possibly could that might have turned things around … and then had the gall to blame Democrats for a sluggish economy. All one has to do is look at voting records and filibusters to see who’s helping and who’s obstructing. It’s right there.
Our current state of affairs can actually be traced to California’s first actor-turned-governor. According to the Congressional Budget Office, from the time Ronald Reagan became president through 2007, income at the top 1% (adjusted for inflation) increased by 281%. Compare that to the paltry 25% increase for the middle 20% of Americans during the same 26-year period.
As mentioned above, when President Bush took office in 2001, he was handed a huge surplus by President Clinton. Bush claimed he was giving that surplus back to the American people. But guess who it actually went to … that top 1%, not to the country as a whole. Bush (Texas’ gift to the world) added more than $3 trillion to the national debt over the last decade. The result? The wealthy continue to count their money while average Americans continue to hope for some. That’s politics.
How we got into this mess.
The Reagan administration (those wonderful folks who brought us “Reaganomics”) is most closely associated with “trickle-down economics” even though the concept was around for decades before. Paul Krugman,* the Nobel prize-winning economist, wrote in The New York Times (during the second Bush years) about the runaway inequality that began under Reagan and continued under George W. Bush: “When the structure of the U.S. economy had to compete worldwide without policies respecting workers is where one should look to understand what’s wrong with today’s economy. That began under Reagan and Reagan alone. And Bush has driven that point of view to the limit and mortgaged the future for the benefit of a few in the process.”
Since the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, the U.S. tax system has never been the same. So-called “supply side economics” – the promise that if we drastically cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans they will create jobs – simply didn’t work. It may have looked good on paper, but it never made it into reality. Another Republican, the first President Bush, George H. W. Bush, perceptively called supply side economics “voodoo economics” and talked about its weaknesses.
Here’s what supply side economics ultimately achieved: the wealthy took their tax cuts, but instead of creating jobs in the U.S. they took advantage of weak trade policies and created jobs in other countries – China, India and Pakistan. Why? To make even more profits. For every union worker in the U.S. looking for $20 dollars per hour there were people in other countries willing to do the same work for $1.
Those Americans who owned stock in those off-shoring companies were thrilled. Profits were higher than ever before. They simply never looked down to see that they had shot themselves in both feet.
What Reagan’s own say.
David Stockman, director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan, wrote in a 2010 article titled Four Deformations of the Apocalypse: “The day of national reckoning has arrived. We will not have a conventional business recovery now, but rather a long hangover of debt liquidation and downsizing. Under these circumstances, it’s a pity that the modern Republican Party offers the American people an irrelevant platform of recycled Keynesianism when the old approach – balanced budgets, sound money and financial discipline – is needed more than ever.”
Currently, while U.S. companies continue to pay criminally low wages in developing countries, seeking obscene profits by avoiding paying American workers, bonuses at those companies for C-level staff are reaching record highs. It’s so obvious what would happen if those jobs were brought back to the U.S.: workers would invest their pay back into our economy. Those short-sighted, profit-centric companies not only benefit from cheap labor while hurting the U.S. economy, they also use Republican-written tax codes to add even more profits. And they actually receive tax cuts for creating jobs in other countries. (See comment above re: shooting oneself in both feet.)
Too bad it’s turned into “us” vs. “them.”
President Obama has stated he wants to end tax cuts for companies that ship jobs overseas and instead give those tax breaks to companies that create jobs in America. (The Republicans are howling. Can you hear it?)
After President Bush took office in 2001 and handed more than $3 trillion in tax cuts to his buddies, he also took us to war in two countries, Afghanistan and Iraq. The U.S. spent trillions of dollars in Iraq (which, of course, had nothing to do with 9/11) while private companies such as Halliburton reaped profits. In addition to thousands of American and Iraqi lives lost, the U.S. taxpayer had to pay the cost of both wars. That’s you and me. While jobs were scarce, the economy sucked and marketing dollars were scarcer and scarcer.
President Obama is on-track with his campaign promises to bring home troops. But if a Republican takes over the White House in the near future, they’ve made it clear that they will happily go to war with Iran. As of now, the majority of American people have spoken and made it clear that we don’t want to start another war, because the cost in both dollars and human life is just too great.
Tax breaks for the wealthy made us broke.
During the Reagan administration, the wealthy saw their tax rates drop from 70% to 28% within eight years and union workers found themselves without jobs. When the ill-advised Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 was signed into law, banks found it far easier to do business … and hurt the American people in the process. Allowing big banks to merge and set their own interest rates was a rare gift. The banks and Wall Street found it far easier to make money while we, the American people, struggled.
With tax cuts and deregulation on the move, Reagan tripled the national debt, raiding the Social Security trust fund in an attempt to cover up the massive loses. As the years went on, Wall Street reform was never seriously on the table. When the economy started to pick up again in the 1990s, President Clinton raised taxes on the most wealthy, bringing in the revenue needed for the government to function. Then, in November of 1999, with a Republican-controlled House and Senate, President Clinton buckled and agreed to repeal the Glass-Steagall act that had helped keep big banks from overtaking the markets.
Less than a decade later the economy collapsed. Too much power had been left in the hands of too few. In 2010, President Obama signed the “Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act” into law. It helped consumers and began putting financial responsibility back on the big banks. The bank bail-out of 2008 angered the American people. The Wall Street reform bill put an end to future tax-payer bailouts of big banks. The passage of that bill was a start, but we need to do much more to get back to where we need to be.
Me, me, me? Or, us, us, us?
Do you like well-maintained roads kept in drivable condition? How about being able to dial 9-1-1 for police and fire protection, or an ambulance? Good public schools? Decent hospitals? Rapid emergency services? A postal service? Those are just some of the services supported by taxes. There’s a reason we pay them – taxes keep society running. Taxes keep us safe and on an even keel. (In more enlightened societies, taxes also mean no worrying about healthcare of any kind, or education, or retirement … wish I spoke Danish.)
If the Republicans have their way, they’ll cut all taxes and then blame the bankrupt government for not providing basic services … even though they know full well that it’s their greed and selfishness that’s the root cause. All those southern states crying for secession? Guess what would happen to them when they suddenly have no federal funds of any kind for any of the basic services they now take for granted.
Getting an economic balance back is the only way the economy can get back on track. Making everything about taxes is about as wrong-headed as one could be. The issue isn’t taxes, it’s people. It’s about the country. It’s about our ability to function and do the things we’re good at. It’s about having marketing dollars to spend again so that capitalism can do what it does best: provide healthy competition among competitive offerings and let the best product or service win.
(*Krugman also won the Prince of Asturias Awards, the John Bates Clark Medal, and the H. C. Recktenwald Prize in Economics.)
Tag lines tell us who you are.
Thought I’d start the first post of 2013 with one of the first principles of truly good advertising campaigns: truly good tag lines.
Lots of people think of them as an after-thought. Not me. I’m always thinking about tag lines from the first moment I start thinking about a campaign or Web site.
Headlines come and go. Tag lines hang in there through campaigns and often for years after. Headlines are a flash in the pan. Tag lines have to sum up who you are, what you offer and how you think … sometimes in as little as two words.
For example, “Think different.” (TBWA\Chiat\Day, 1997-2002.) Even though it’s been one of the most enduring tag lines of the past two decades, I’ve always been bothered by its flagrant abuse of grammar. (see Grammar matters.) Despite that intentional flaw, one has to admit that those two words (in combination with the Apple logo) have truly defined Apple since the 90s. (Yes, it’s been that long.) Even though they moved on from that tag line way back in 2002.
Copywriters, not clients.
Tag lines are also one of the most important things ad agencies bring to the party. Take military recruitment ads – perhaps the most tag line-dependent campaigns in existence. All those ultra-inspiring, “sign me up” tag lines (“Be all that you can be.” “It’s not a job. It’s an adventure.” “The few, the proud, the Marines.” “We’re looking for a few good men.”) were written by (ta-da!) copywriters, not the Army, Navy or Marines.
The same is, of course, true for every attention-getting and easy to remember tag.
What happens when clients come up with their own tag lines? Take a look at Mezzetta, a California company that makes our favorite stuffed olives, jalapeños, dill pickles, etc. Their tag line? “Don’t Forgetta Mezzetta.” (Are you reminded of the Marx Brothers? I’m reminded of the Marx Brothers.)
A tag line defines the brand.
Brand names tell us the rudimentary facts about a company or corporation: we know that Melitta makes stuff for making coffee; we know that Chevrolet makes cars and trucks, and we know that McDonald’s sells fast food. Those are the simple facts.
Add a tagline and you add an emotional message that makes those brands stand out and stick in our memories. Tag lines take the brand up a notch. (Did they cover this in Mad Men? I can’t remember.)
When Chevrolet wanted to convince people that they built really tough, reliable trucks, they did it with a tag line: “Like a rock.” (Campbell-Ewald, 1992-2004.)
When Avis wanted to take on Hertz, the number one car rental company, they did it with a tag line: “We try harder.” (Doyle Dane Bernbach, 1962-2012.)
When FedEx wanted to put its name on the map as an overnight delivery service (a breakthrough concept at the time) they did with a tag line: “When it absolutely, positively has to be there overnight.” (Ally & Gargano, 1978-1983.)
When AT&T wanted to humanize the monolithic communications company that was euphemistically called Ma Bell (since they owned and controlled everything in U.S. telecom) they did it with a tag line: “Reach out and touch someone.” (N.W. Ayer, 1979-1983.)
When GE wanted to humanize its massive research, electronics and appliance manufacturing company, that did it with a tag line: “We bring good things to life.” (BBDO, 1979-2003.)
In my opinion, none of those companies would have become what they are without those tag lines. That’s why I call them crucial. Think about this: each of those tag lines accompanied hundreds of headlines through the years. Who remembers the headlines?
Great tag lines through time.
Many of these tag lines are classics, not even used any more. But we remember them. People even borrow them to use for our own purposes. Because they’re so often so pithy and convey so much, folks find they can’t help themselves. (“Betcha can’t eat just one.” – Young & Rubicam, 1963.)
Naturally, you know that none of those companies came up with those classic tag lines. It was their brilliant ad agencies … or to be fully precise, the brilliant creative department folk at their ad agencies.
Here’s a Wikiquote list of “slogans” and a Web site that lists the results of a survey trying to list the 100 Most Influential Taglines Since 1948. (FYI, can’t stand the term “slogan.” Only folks who haven’t worked in ad agencies would use that term. Almost as bad as “jingle.”)
That list of 100 includes tag lines chosen from a field of 400 candidates. Not a list I would have put together. For example, I can’t believe the UPS “What can Brown do for you?” was actually nominated in place of their short-lived and far superior (IMHO) previous tag: “Moving at the speed of business.” (Ammirati Puris Lintas, 1995-2002)
But that’s show biz.
What are we talking about when we talk about marketing?
The meaning of “marketing” seems to become more and more confused every day. Social media hasn’t helped: mere opinions are stated as fact. (Hey, don’t give me that look. I’ve been working in advertising and marketing for more than 30 years. No mere opinions here …)
Marketing titles have also blurred the lines between marketing and sales. “Marketing Director” has come to mean nothing in particular, and everything in general – both sales and marketing in some cases, so that both the roles and functions have become confused. Pure marketing has always been about communication.
But what you’ll see in all the articles and online “marketing groups” is something disturbingly obvious: mystification and misunderstanding of the true purpose of marketing.
Marketing has always been about communication. For communication to work, it must be on strategy. That strategy must be arrived at before materials are created, and it must be communicated through compelling messaging. To be compelling, the marketing communication must be relevant to the true target audience.
If your message isn’t clear, it won’t get through.
Marketing has been pummeled as a topic. It’s even been turned into a pseudo-science. Shills are selling the secrets to marketing. Get-rich-quick gurus will gleefully guide you to wealth and happiness. Webinars promise you’ll learn everything you need to know about marketing in 90 minutes. (Ha.)
Ever wonder, “if their stuff is so good and so effective, why do they need to sell us their baloney?”
But no matter how complicated we get about it, when you boil marketing down to the bones, it will always come down to: what are you saying, and to whom.
To achieve clarity in marketing, you have to be crystal clear about what you’re communicating, and to whom. It’s not enough to generate messages. You have to know that you’re sending the right message to the right audience. You have to know – with complete certainty – what your true target audience cares most about.
No matter what you’re trying convey – no matter how complex or arcane – effective marketing requires effective communication.
1) understanding and clarifying your key message/benefit
2) understanding and clarifying your true target audience
3) defining your key competitive differentiators
4) understanding the messaging of your closest competitors
5) clearly communicating your key benefits/differentiators to your true target audience.
(Hey, this is good stuff, here. Are you getting this?)
If you’re not sure who your target audience is, you’d better find out.
Marketing only works when it’s properly targeted. Example: you’re watching a particularly bad TV show and you begin to wonder, “who watches this stuff?” The answer will appear in the next round of commercials when you’ll find out who the real target audience is. (Sometimes that’s embarrassing.) What you’re selling may have great value to a particular audience, but they need to know that you’re speaking to them.
Here’s the scary part: it’s not enough to build the ideal widget; you need to know if there’s a market out there for that new, improved product. That’s what business plans are all about. They involve research into a particular marketplace and the potential for a new item or service in that finite arena.
True marketing has always been about getting people to march into stores or pick up their phones. Today, of course, it’s more and more often about getting people onto specific Web sites. That’s not as easy to do as it sounds. If your target’s already online, then your home page is a click away, right? But, if you’re wasting their time, they won’t waste a second clicking away.
If your targets are in a car and hear a commercial, or sitting in doctor’s offices and see an ad, they’ll have to care enough to remember your Web address. Tricky. You have to give your true target audience a real reason to visit your Web site. Motivate them and they will remember your Web address.
Marketing creates awareness. Sales seals the deal.
Sales and marketing are inextricably, symbiotically connected. The ultimate job of marketing is to support sales. And the ultimate job of sales is to execute on the promise of marketing. Marketing is about driving awareness and interest. Sales is about closing the deal. They’re connected, but distinct. They need each other, but cannot do each other’s jobs.
The bottom line is that marketing is a sales aid, not a sales tool. Think of it as a support system to help bring customers and sales people together.
Marketing is also at the core of branding – it’s how we create crucial awareness about a product or service within a specific targeted audience. It’s about defining the benefits of your product or service and how best to communicate those benefits.
Marketing creates the tools that support sales. If the tools are not working, sales has to let marketing know and, together, you have to redesign those tools to end up with communication that does work.
If either marketing or sales gets the idea that they’re running the show, someone in charge needs to sit them down, straighten them out and then turn them loose to try it again.
The L.A. I grew up in is gone. Los Angeles gave me my start in P.R. and marketing. From working in the record business at Capitol and RCA Records, to pursuing a new advertising career with UCLA extension classes in marketing, my career was formed there.
While at the record companies, I worked with the major movie studios whenever movie soundtracks required it. I got to know Hollywood pretty well. And, in many ways, Hollywood defined L.A.
I just returned from a short trip to L.A., visiting some friends I grew up with, and little was the same. First, the number of cars on the road was daunting, making it extremely difficult to get anywhere at all times. It’s certainly logical that it would be that bad since the state of California has more people living in it than the entire population of Canada … and that’s only using the official census.
More than 40 million people now live in California. And around 17 million of them are in Los Angeles. That’s one factor that has changed the character of the city. Another that’s related is the Phoenix effect: L.A. now has high humidity. When that many people are living and working in a place, running air conditioners, watering lawns, filling pools, etc., the environment has to change. The formerly dry desert environment now feels like San Francisco when the fog rolls in. Damp.
I left L.A. about 30 years ago. It’s shocking how different it has become … and how much like some of the sci-fi visions of a future Los Angeles. It’s not full-tilt Blade Runner yet, but clearly minorities and immigrants are everywhere, so the city’s accent has changed.
As a result, I’d have a hard time advising someone in Los Angeles how to manage a marketing campaign. Target marketing requires having a clear picture of audience demographics. That’s a tough call in L.A. And one of the friends I met with (who left for England when I left for New York City) said that there’s now clearly a separation between “the haves and have-nots.”
New York City has always been a melting pot. That, in many ways, has been what defined New York. Now I have to wonder if Los Angeles is heading the same way. When I left L.A., there were clear target markets: glitzy Hollywood style, upscale (or conspicuous consumption) Beverly Hills style, coastal living style, and “the valley.” Those distinctions seem to have melded and reformed while possibly being displaced by “inner city.”
According to the 2010 census, New York City has just over eight million people living there. That number swells every day with commuters, but they leave at the end of the day. Compare that to the 17 million in Los Angeles – and that’s only the official tally. That could mean 20 million or more people are there. And they never leave.
So I can only guess that marketing in L.A. is a process of “self-elimination.” You put out the message for your product or service and let the right people for your target audience find you. But even so, the level of “noise” and “clutter” that marketing has to break through seemed overwhelming.
I used to think I missed L.A. What I missed was the memories of an L.A. that is no more. What’s there now is a marketing nightmare.
Are we what we buy?
I find myself more and more frequently coming back to the remarkable visions of Philip K Dick, a science fiction author who transcended his genre. He died in 1982 at 53, long before the release of the eight major motion pictures based on his fiction. In both Blade Runner (based on Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?) and, even more so, The Minority Report, highly personalized and targeted marketing plays a significant and sinister role.
Dick foresaw a future – nearly our present – where incessant messaging became a prominent aspect of “modern” life. Now it seems his visions, like those of Jules Verne and H. G. Wells, are becoming fact. A recent NY Times article describes the use of analytics to do “predictive marketing.” [NY Times February 16, 2012, “How Companies Learn Your Secrets.”]
Based on tracking our online purchases, posts and comments (and, yes, that information is available to those who want it) companies like Target can now “target” specific life events and send marketing materials to us based on those analytics. The in-depth NY Times article focuses on “the holy grail of marketing: new parents.” The concept is that when life-changing events occur – such as having a baby – shopping habits can suddenly change and consumers (us) are up for grabs.
Haven’t I seen you here before?
Apparently we (the generalized, averaged “we”) shop habitually – according to set habits that are hard to break. But during busy, disorienting times in our lives we apparently don’t care anymore where we buy certain things, just that we can get them as easily as possible. Target, and other mega-stores, hope that by tapping into our consciousness at those times, we’ll decide that we can keep on going back for other things we might not habitually buy there.
This is not merely theoretical: it’s now a proven fact. However, it is a tad insidious, and Target doesn’t want us to know they’re doing it. Once they got the gist of the NY Times writer’s intentions and subject matter, they shut down communications and prevented him from visiting their offices.
That’s because, according to the article, what they’re doing will only work if they don’t alert expectant moms and their families that they are doing it. If that happens, the fecal matter hits the air rotation device.
The article mentions one very pissed off dad storming into his local Target, demanding to see the manager, then thrusting coupons for Pampers, etc., into the poor, confused person’s hands. The man angrily said his daughter, the recipient of said coupons, was still in high school and was not pregnant. However, when the distraught manager (who had no clue about the corporate program) phoned the man a few days later to apologize again, the father sheepishly said he owed the manager an apology – he had recently learned that his young daughter was indeed pregnant.
Yes, we are being watched.
So, how did Target know when the girl’s own dad didn’t? Online postings and patterns. We are – as Philip K. Dick predicted we would be – being watched. And the people watching are looking for specific patterns and indicators in order to sell us stuff.
I don’t know about you but I’m mostly casual and often incautious when posting online. I assume I’m among friends. When we’re on forums and online groups, we respond in the moment and move on. I don’t usually think about those tweets or forum posts for any longer than it takes to type them. And I’ll bet it’s the same for you.
So are we really only what those rapid-fire posts and updates say about use? Obviously, no, we’re not, any more than Chief John Anderton was what his fellow cops thought he was when he was set up. But it seems it’s enough for desperate marketing departments.
There are, of course, more standard ways to slice and dice audiences, such as motor vehicle registration. It’s reasonably possible to predict who a person is, down to gender and age, based on the vehicle that’s registered. For example, the owner of a Kawasaki Ninja motorcycle (euphemistically called a rice burner or a crotch rocket) can reliably be predicted to be a male, between 17 and 24. Certain Buicks and Toyotas can reliably predict age groups, and with the addition of car color, possibly gender. But then there’s the name on the registration. That helps.
Another method is magazine subscriptions. If you want to find a certain audience, traditional methods have been fairly reliable for a number of years. But things are changing, rapidly – both how marketing is being done as well as to whom.
Is marketing evolving or devolving?
This is a bigger deal than it may sound like. It’s not just about Target and it’s not just about selling us stuff. We may not end up running for our lives like the characters in Philip K. Dick stories, but a whole lot more about us will be available to way more people than we ever thought possible, thanks to this tracking trend.
It’s one thing to have broad-based demographics for magazines and TV shows that tell us where to place marketing dollars based on the media content, and quite another to send coupons and offers that are just a little too close for comfort, just a little too personal.
Demographics are based on the population at large, not specific individuals. And they’re typically made up of generalized data. Tracking, on the other hand, is all about us, up close and personal. Do we really want that?
The newly developed practice of “predictive analytics” (… yep, The Minority Report, again) isn’t just about understanding consumers’ shopping habits – it’s about figuring out what’s going on in our lives, and our personal habits, in order to more efficiently market to us, specifically, individually.
As stated in the New York Times article, predictive analytics is “the science of habit formation … a major field of research in neurology and psychology departments at hundreds of major medical centers and universities, as well as inside extremely well financed corporate labs.”
Feeling manipulated, yet? Feeling invaded? It will only get worse. Statisticians, scientists and mathematicians have been increasingly in demand at places like Target, Walmart and Amazon.
It’s déjà vu all over again.
There apparently are positive applications of predictive analytics and the studies of habit formation, such as turning around sports teams, improving safety records at manufacturing plants and the ability to diet effectively. But there are also those nasty, “marketing from the dark side” applications.
Am I over-reacting? Well, is this really only about selling us paper towels and laundry soap? I don’t know. We’ve come a long way in limiting the intrusiveness of advertising, perhaps too far. So “they” are fighting back. They’re having a much harder time reaching us via television and radio, or a near-impossible time. And our online reading has been eroding print media at an alarming rate.
It’s been a symbiotic relationship for nearly ten decades. Commercial magazines and newspapers, as well as radio and TV shows, still are unable to exist without advertising dollars. That’s always been the case. But our ability to zap commercials, listen to anything but radio and selectively read what we want online has precipitated tectonic changes in target marketing. Many companies are grasping at the straws of SEO and social media, but find those still-developing alternatives fall far short.
So, they’re constantly working on new tools to achieve sales quotas. As technology advances, so do marketing techniques. We can now be tracked merely by having cell phones, and GPS devices in our cars. Potential employers can see everything we’ve posted online, should they choose to. Do we really want everything we do, say and buy, as well as everywhere we go tracked at all times in the name of marketing?
Sadly, our new lifestyles based on interacting with an online world means that we may lose the great journalists for whom doing in-depth, investigative reporting paid off. Not only is the pay for providing content on Web sites abysmally bad (see my posts about content mills), the newspapers that they wrote for are disappearing.
Of course, everyone knows that television journalism has already been replaced with infotainment. It’s all about ratings, just like sitcoms, not informing the public or the journalistic integrity of Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite. Ever since the O. J. Simpson televised car chase, news has become a spectator sport.
Privacy is less and less so every day.
Our private lives used to be private. Period. No hazy edges to it. We apparently have given that up for the freedom, ease and flexibility of the Internet. As soon as we began spending so much of our time online, privacy stopped being black and white. We have to proactively tell the sites we visit and the search engines we use to not hold onto our data.
The newly developing practice of “predictive analytics” couldn’t achieve anything if it had no data to analyze. Everything we do is being tracked to create that data. GPS. Credit card purchases. Online ordering. And forums. We provide the data.
Will all this tracking become merely white noise to us? Will we simply stop noticing and carry on as if it doesn’t matter?
As of this writing, Google’s privacy policies are making a lot of news. Their purpose in tracking where we go online, which videos we watch, which businesses we visit, and even just plain searches, is not as invasive as it might sound. For the time being, they aggregate data rather than drill down to specific individuals the way Target and others are doing. Their objective is to have data to sell, not our actual e-mail addresses or other personal information. But who knows what the future holds?
Data mining is the gold rush of this era. In a way, we haven’t left “them” any choice. We’ve circumvented the standard marketing options of television, radio and print ads. Pretty much all that’s left of the classic media buy era is outdoor board. And we’ve all learned to not even notice those.
So what’s seemingly free – all that stuff we do online – does have a cost, which we pretty much suspected all along. What they want us from us in exchange for our time online is to know where we go, how long we stay there, what we buy, how often we buy it … and whether or not we’re their target market. So far it’s about selling stuff. Someday soon, though, as Dick foresaw, it could become about a whole lot more.
Our calendar is barely 430 years old.
Any marketing person with training and experience begins any assignment by looking at context and environment – perspective. I can’t help approaching New Year’s that way. While we may think our calendar is now 2,012 years old, it is in fact (as of this writing) only 429 years old, and was created not to mark the passing of 365 days of our revolution around the sun, but rather to know when to celebrate Easter.
As you likely know, the calendar we use is the Gregorian calendar, also called the Western or Christian calendar because it’s based on significant dates in the Christian bible. It was introduced by Pope Gregory XIII via a papal bull, a decree, signed on February 24, 1582, and took several centuries to be adopted throughout the western world. The motivation for the Gregorian reform was that the Roman Julian calendar placed the time between vernal equinoxes (a year) at 365.25 days, when in fact it is roughly 11 minutes shorter per year. (Pretty cool stuff for 1582, huh?)
That 11-minute error added up to about three days every four centuries, which resulted (back in Pope Gregory XIII’s day) in the equinox occurring on March 11, and moving earlier and earlier in the Julian calendar. You know what that meant, right? The date for celebrating Easter wasn’t reliable. And Easter is the single most important date for the Roman Catholic Church.
Easter, by the way, was calculated using the Hebrew calendar to accurately fix the date of “the last supper,” which was in fact a Passover meal that Jesus was attending with his disciples. Pope Gregory XIII wanted to be sure that Easter was being celebrated on the correct date, year in and year out, so the date of the last supper was the starting point for the development of his new calendar.
Today, of course, we think of the calendar as a business tool rather than a way to keep track of religious events. And commerce was the main reason the Gregorian calendar was slowly adopted over time through much of the world. But it’s worth remembering that its origins were entirely based on religious celebrations.
Think about this: anybody who uses a computer, anywhere in the world, inevitably is following the Gregorian calendar.
Is it New Year’s everywhere?
2012 may well be the year that globalization truly takes hold. We, in the U.S., have come to grips with the fact that we are no longer an island unto ourselves, dictating “what comes next.” Our clothing, computers and customer service (sadly) can come from anywhere in the world … and usually do. Our economy is clearly affected by global events and our export markets can be countries that not long ago did not even appear on our maps. Brazil has taken a monster lead on the global stage, moving ahead of Great Britain in 2011. So, too have Russia, India and China moved up. (Investors call them the BRIC nations and place “emerging markets” investments there.)
So, bearing that in mind, does January 1 have the same significance to all inhabitants of planet earth? How about to the Chinese or Indians? Or those who follow the Hebraic and Islamic calendars, which were both based on lunar rather than solar cycles? For the Chinese, 2011 was 4708 (or 4648 depending on their epoch starting point). For those following the Hebrew calendar, 2011 was 5771. And for those using the Islamic calendar, 2011 was 1433. India has as many calendars as it has religions, though in 1957 they settled on the Indian national calendar (Saka) to align themselves with the Gregorian calendar.
That diversity of global populations is one of the reasons that New Year’s celebrations have always struck me as a tad odd. First of all, Father Time is winning, whichever calendar you use. Every new year means that we’re all a year older. And the yearly cycle is hardly celebrated the same way by all people on earth. Perhaps some of the old Roman superstitions lurk in our Bacchanalian New Year’s celebrations. Perhaps we truly think that we and the world will be magically different when the ball drops and the calendar changes.
What do we measure when we measure time?
Clocks, watches, calendars … do they measure actual time, or the experience of the passage of time? It seems that we “mark time” rather than inhabit it. We tick off the time we’ve used, or lost. And we look forward to the next calendar event, such as a religious holiday or vacation, which will only arrive after we’ve marked off the appropriate amount of time.
But time, according to Albert Einstein, was an indication of our relationship to space and gravity – how fast and how far we were able to move through space. And, in a way, that’s what we measure when we say “day, week, month and year.” A day is the spinning of the earth on its axis (creating the illusion of sun up, sun down). A year is the time it takes for our earth to orbit the sun completely – an elliptical journey that takes us closer to and farther from the sun, creating our seasons. Days and years are actual markers of time/space travel, while other calendar-based measurements are an artificial construct that in fact measure simply the passage of time as it relates to us.
Einstein and Paul Langevin addressed that “relativity” with a theory of time that has come to be called the “twins paradox.” One twin leaves the earth traveling at the speed of light and returns; the other twin stays behind. For the traveling twin, only seven years have passed, so he has only aged by seven years, but for his brother back on earth several decades have passed and he is now elderly. How can this be? (For a practical demonstration, watch the Jodi Foster film “Contact,” from a story by Carl Sagan.)
It’s all relative.
My point? Time is not as fixed as we think it is, or as our Gregorian calendar would have us believe. In fact, time is entirely relative. So we do not measure time objectively, but rather subjectively, based on our experience of time on our planet and the calendar we’re using. We subjectively say, “one year has passed,” “our child is two years old,” “we have a doctor’s appointment next Monday.” All of these are important, yet create a slightly false or inaccurate sense of time, an imposed sense of time, one that doesn’t matter to or affect the movement of the planets around our star.
Think of it this way: if we were still using the Julian calendar, we’d experience time differently. The same goes if we were using lunar calendars. Which is why I just can’t help remembering that the actual calendar we use isn’t even 500 years old, and that it has a back-dated, subjective starting point.
In fact, the new year did not always begin on January 1 for everyone everywhere. It depended entirely on which calendar was being used. What we now call New Year’s day is a very recent innovation, and an entirely subjective event. New Year’s used to be celebrated on days such as the vernal or autumnal equinox – days when you can actually feel something new is coming.
New Year’s resolution? Nah, thanks anyway.
This just in: The world almost had a 13-month calendar
Notice that headline didn’t say “you should get what you want?” The difference is not as subtle as it may seem. If I give you what you want even when I know it’s not what you need, I’m simply laying down and letting you roll over me. That’s not helpful, and it’s not professional.
When it comes to marketing, the client is not always right. Sometimes the client needs significant guidance to avoid major marketing mis-steps. This topic is often discussed among professional marketers: do you give clients what they want, or what they need?
It’s your business. But it’s our job.
No one knows your business better than you do, certainly not us marketing folk. So you wouldn’t and shouldn’t accept it if we started telling you how to do what you do. You probably feel that way about nearly every other profession and professional – they know more about their business than others. Let them do their job.
So what happens to clients when they start spending marketing dollars? Why does it sometimes turn into “it’s my money, give me what I want”?
If you think people who fold and do your marketing exactly the way you want are treating you properly, you may be stepping into a trap. They’re not doing you any favors when they don’t stand up to you if your ideas are off the mark. You’d be far better off with designers, writers and agency folk who have the gumption to say, “we can try it your way, but we’d like to also show you how we’d rather do it, and here are the reasons why …”
To spend your marketing dollars wisely, you need wise marketers.
People who are experienced, knowledgeable and self-confident will tell clients when something they want is not a good idea from a positioning, identity or branding point of view. It’s important to listen to them. They know what so many clients don’t: you don’t create marketing for yourself. Whether you like something is hardly as beneficial as whether your target audience likes it.
Business is business. And that means it’s about profitability. Running an ad campaign or building a Web site that pleases you but does nothing for your target audience is not a good marketing approach. Marketing is both an art and a science, and its ultimate goal is to produce results. To do that, marketers slice and dice the target audience by asking tough questions: How does your product or offering solve a specific need for your target audience? How do your benefits and claims set you apart from the competition? Is your marketing message relevant to your audience’s concerns? What moves the needle for your target audience? How do you know when your marketing is working?
Sometimes the client is right.
I had a marketing professor who liked to say, “a good idea doesn’t care where it comes from.” He meant, get your ego out of the way and solve the challenge with whatever works. Sometimes clients do have good solutions for their marketing challenges. And a true professional will see that and acknowledge it. If your ideas are better than mine when it comes to your marketing, then it would be very wrong to ignore them just because they came from you. That’s tough for some people to do because they’re convinced that if all the ideas don’t come from them, they’re not “adding value.”
But there is no hard and fast rule that only the marketing folk you hire can come up with the best marketing ideas. If you have good ones, they should be used. So here’s where things get fuzzy. How do you know whether your idea is really a good one or whether your marketers are merely rolling over? That comes down to your relationship. If you know each other and trust each other, it’s not going to be a problem. I’ve often had clients improve on my ideas. And I’m happy when they do, because the end product is better for both us. It’s a better piece of marketing for them, and it’s a better sample for me.
Ultimately, we’re a team. We’re all trying to achieve a common goal. If your ideas are a mistake, it’s my duty to say so, and hopefully you’ll understand why. If your ideas are an improvement, then it’s my duty to use them … even if you are the client.