We’d rather see you for regular mammograms than regular chemotherapy.
Versus
One of the best cancer centers in the Mid-West.
Let’s turn the tables on cancer and have more lines like ‘I Kicked Cancer’s Ass’. Photo by kind permission of Linda Bowman who you see above.
Both lines were presented to a marketer whose brief read: ‘the best hospital for cancer care.’
But we’re not talking famous hospitals like the Cleveland Clinic, the Mayo Clinic or Indiana University Hospital.
His hospital wasn’t among widely known cancer care facilities.
Still, he went for the second headline because he said, for him, it hit the nail on the head.
It encapsulated everything his hospital hoped to be.
Yes, there’s a necessity for regular mammograms, he granted, but the headline that pressed the case for that was ominous.
He said it could scare his target audience.
So he ticked a box and eagerly moved on to the next business of the day.
That was a content assignment for his hospital’s biggest revenue maker, the heart and vascular unit. That held the greatest opportunity for profitability.
This story, related at a seminar last year, points up one fact.
An important ingredient for creating effective content can be ‘worry’.
There are more than a few marketing solutions to a brief. But why skirt the fact you have a frightening subject in cancer.
The best cancer headline still sticks with me after a ridiculously long time. I’m thinking it goes back 20-odd years or so.
It might have been done by the Martin Agency.
You have cancer. Let’s start by removing that lump in your throat.
Healthcare marketers aren’t ‘Gatoraded’ on the field like a triumphant football coach. They’re not drenched in victory that way.
But maybe they should be if they can choose a headline that can save a life.
Where did phony applause come from? Quite possibly Emperor Nero. He hired thousands to applaud and cheer his speeches.
It’s was a live-from-Moscow performance beamed in to local cinemas.
Special only begins to describe it.
It might have been on screen but that didn’t stop us wanting to applaud like mad.
As you’d guess, Bolshoi performances are not without rapturous applause.
But it wasn’t always that way
In moments of uncertainty a company founded in 1776 hired claquers.
That’s French for an organized body of professional applauders. They’re paid for their efforts.
In 16thcentury France, playwrights called on claquers.
They bought blocks of tickets to give away on the promise that there would be applause enough to sway the critics and attract audiences.
But phony applause wasn’t the only trick, you had specialists.
Rieurs, laughers, were paid to laugh loudly at punch lines.
Pleureurs, criers, were paid to sob into their handkerchiefs in moments of despair.
You also had Bisseurs. They were paid to shout ‘Bis Bis’, a request for an encore.
You might say there was as much of a performance in the audience as there was on stage.
There’s something of a digital version of this these days with video click farms.
From New York Magazine, Max Read gives us this with a link:
On some platforms, video views and app downloads can be forged in lucrative industrial counterfeiting operations. If you want a picture of what the Inversion lookslike, find a video of a click farm: hundreds of individual smartphones, arranged in rows on shelves or racks in professional-looking offices, each watching the same video or downloading the same app.
No shrug of indifference to that, is there?
Phony views and sham data … maybe it’s why P&G’s Marc Pritchard pulled back from social media.
He cut $200m in 2017.
Video click farms are enough to turn us all into pleurers … with proper tears, of course.
But for many there’s a more pressing issue. The state of content and commercials.
Too many content efforts feel drab against the promise of something bright and appealing.
Equally, for many commercials nobody’s wishing they were a split second longer than they are.
Too many of them are non-starters compared to spots from Snickers, Geico and Old Spice.
Small wonder then that trust in advertising has dropped to a record low of 25%.
This comes from Unilever CMO Keith Weed, https://bit.ly/2RrR8lA.
Of course it’s easy enough to be a pessimist, but it’s not as if we can’t apply a little reason.
Many believe we need to improve creative work.
Among the many are Google and Apple.
They’re built on creativity; their TV spots brand with an emotional intelligence.
Their commercials have an ability to put feelings into people.
More marketers could do with that.
Maybe they should stop taking advice from themselves and read something about the power of ideas and branding.
Because to motivate people you need more than algorithms.
After all, what use is gee-whiz technology if what’s delivered is crap messaging.
Nobody’s about to applaud crap messaging, are they?
David Abbott created advertising that people loved. See his work for The Economist, Volvo, Chivas Regal, Sainsbury’s and an account executive recruitment ad for Doyle Dane Bernbach.
It seems anxiety over creative work is set to enter a fresh, new phase of grumbling.
The worry is we treat technology like gold and ideas like scrap iron.
There’s a grievance for you.
More to that, industry professionals who aim for better creative work are stewing over the fact too many ads deserve to be ignored.
The same is true for content in all its forms.
Much of it requires improvement just to reach the mediocre level.
Small wonder then that advertising is often snubbed/ignored/rebuffed/ridiculed.
Well, nobody wants to put up with guff, do they?
Proof of that is ad blocker usage; it surged 30% in 2016 alone.
As a marketer, here’s a question.
You’re an ad blocker, aren’t you? It turns out most are.
So how do you get through to people?
Wouldn’t it be an idea to view technology as just one part of the process?
The other part is to create ads and content that have the power to stop people with wit charm and reasoned persuasion.
Why not start by making creative brilliance compulsory so ads don’t come across as a blunt instrument.
Why not stop taking advice from tech companies who wouldn’t know the difference between drab, wearily familiar ad speak and a teacup.
That teacup jibe may be a bit much, but ask yourself … do tech companies have a real and abiding interest in looking after your customers and prospects? Probably not.
With that ‘not’ response comes a question: without ideas imaginative enough to stop people, what hope do you have of converting them?
As someone who probably knew more about imaginative thinking than even Bill Bernbach, David Abbott valued ideas. They were key.
He worried about boring content and had doubts digital technology alone could be effective.
‘Shit delivered at the speed of light is still shit’ … that was his take on it.
Happily the last chapter on all this has yet to be written.
As David Abbott might have said, there’s sense in combining amazing digital technology with creative work that has value.
That way you’re more likely to stop customers and leave anxiety to those who deserve it most.
Sergio Zyman, Chief Marketing Officer for Coca-Cola in the 90s.
The head-on collision of ad agencies and clients has been written up more than a few times.
You don’t need me to tell you there’s moaning on both sides.
The unease puts you in mind of McGregor vs Mayweather.
From marketers we hear agencies aren’t responsive to change, they haven’t diversified and they’re overstaffed with management types.
They gripe about ad fraud and whinge about agencies that charge like the proverbial wounded bull.
Moreover, marketers say agencies aren’t knowledgeable about business, agility is iffy and agency holding companies are focused more on quarterly returns for investors than on shaping the future for brands.
What’s all that if not bruising.
But it’s not as bruising as hearing the agency model is broken, that’s it’s dead.
From the other side, agency people say marketers are sidetracked chasing the latest tech.
We hear ad managers think tactics are everything. They’re wedded to fix-its, not strategy.
We hear the importance of brand purpose is overstated and digital technologies are seen as solutions rather than platforms to deliver content.
We hear fee cuts are a threat to agency viability.
We hear bureaucracies reign and those in Procurement lack marketing vision.
Equally, it’s said too many ad managers don’t know a creative idea when they see one and their briefs carry all the inspiration of an empty bookshelf.
Right enough there’s a rift, agencies and clients aren’t exactly chums.
Maybe we need an advertising and marketing version of Julian Assange to get to the bottom of it.
Only joking on that account but until we see something positive it’s the work that suffers.
We have to put up with drab content and ads that are wearily familiar.
You wouldn’t be wrong to call them advertising chloroform.
So, what’s the cure?
It might be an idea to quash the infighting and begin improving strategies and creative work.
Maybe more sales-focused marketers are required.
We’re thinking of CMOs like Sergio Zyman who was at Coca-Cola in the 90s.
When everyone thought you couldn’t sell more Coke — the market was saturated — he rose to the occasion.
Zyman increased sales by 50% worldwide over five years.
With that, the stock price went stratospheric. It quadrupled.
Where are the marketers now who are as shrewd, gritty and unwavering?
How about creative work?
Axe the conflict with clients and agencies might have a better chance to produce ads like this one for the Economist.
Can ads can be something the public welcomes? This interactive billboard for the Economist is hope for that.
By putting a premium on engagement it’s winning the battle against creative boredom .
Not surprisingly the public loved it. You heard about it in pub conversations.
Work at this level changes the way ads are viewed, doesn’t it?
Instead of an intrusion, a billboard becomes a memorable part of your day.
There’s a turnaround for you.
Time spent studying great stuff, like the Economist, should blanket marketers and agencies with discomfort.
Discomfort about all the dreary efforts produced these days.
But maybe more agencies and marketers will rise above the bickering and do something about it.
PS. Sir Martin Sorrell exits.
Just read about it in an article by Tom Doctoroff. Don’t miss it: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/after-sir-martin-sorrell-reckoning-tom-doctoroff/
Docotoroff has a good point: ad agencies should be more than producers of low-end TV spots and print ads … the ones that do little to make brands less anonymous. Doctoroff says agencies should regain their value as a source of ideas. Because to improve and enlarge a brand they are the only place to attract both creative and strategic minds.
Some may quibble with that as there’s a case for say, the creative talent in Dyson’s in-house team. They’re strong.
But you can say the best agencies are active and imaginative in their approach – hugely so. They work to counter fixed outlooks. They go beyond conventional solutions in dealing with recurring problems. They question accepted thinking, they’re not just reactors, they have the creative ability to position a brand well beyond the reach of competitors. And they operate with an autonomy that’s rare in a corporate environment; they often give you a more searching view of your brand outside the four walls of your boardroom.
As you no doubt know, bowing, Ojigi (お辞儀), plays a strong role in Japanese culture.
A plane pushes back from the gate, backing into the taxi area.
It stops so the tug can be unhitched from the nose wheel.
Nine ground crew line up shoulder to shoulder facing passengers gazing from the windows.
As one, they bow deeply to the passengers.
It’s only then the plane trundles away to the runway.
In another little scene a man enters a jewelry shop.
He takes a few minutes to view gold necklaces in an illuminated glass case.
He doesn’t buy, but on his way out he is respectfully escorted to the street by a sales assistant.
On the sidewalk the sales assistant bows deeply and thanks the browser for taking the time to look.
You’ve probably guessed this is Japan.
It’s a little different from say, Zales Diamond Store in Manhattan or Best Buy in West Hollywood.
In our part of the world we say the customer is always right.
But the Japanese say, Okyaku-sama wa kami-sama desu.
It translates as the customer is God.
More to that, instead of the word ‘customer’ the Japanese opt for ‘guest’ as it connotes deeper respect.
We’ll never be culturally akin to the Japanese in Manhattan or West Hollywood but maybe we can do better in looking after our ‘guests’ and in managing CRM.
At a time when too many marketers believe algorithms are the silver bullet, (how can that be correct?), an effective way ahead might be to concentrate harder on customers.
Maybe we should start creating more memorable customer experiences.
After all, isn’t that how to bring your ‘guests’ back and back?
Without repeat business it could be you who’ll have to bow.
Bow to the superiority of competitors who streak past you.
PS. Let’s hear from you. How are you treating customers like guests? If you’re at Ritz Carlton, no need to answer. Everyone knows you have a lock on going above and beyond.
Pilots are planners. In a cruise they’re often discussing emergencies that are improbable … but possible.
For long-haul flights like Dallas-Sydney or New York-Johannesburg the pilots take on a special focus.
While in cruise mode they discuss emergencies that are improbable … but possible.
Like engine fires, sudden decompression or turbulence that could lead to a critical situation.
You don’t just fly the plane, it seems, you make the best use of flight time by planning for possible dramas.
So the captain and first officer put together emergency scenarios.
They pinpoint alternative airports.
They judge the suitability of those airports with respect to the kind of difficulties that could arise.
Call them Darwinian in this respect.
They’re planning to put the plane down safely, no matter what.
How about marketers these days, how Darwinian are they?
Fair question as there’s turbulence when it comes to digital.
According to Cnet only 38% of traffic on the web is human.
Marketing Week says only 9% of digital ads are viewed for more than a second.
They go on to say the vast majority of digital advertising is not being viewed at all.
The research firm, Lumen, found that only 4% of ads received more than 2 seconds of engagement.
Marketing Week sums up the problem with this thought …
Many marketers are still failing to apply effectiveness techniques learned from print, direct response and out-of-home to new channels.
They’ve forgotten how to sell.
Well, amazing technology is our genie, but what use is it if your messaging is little more than tripe.
Tripe may be harsh but one thing’s clear …
Too much creative work needs to improve if only to reach the dull level.
More to fraudulent web traffic, Business Insider predicted it would double in 2017.
They went on to say …
According to a new study commissioned by WPP the amount of global advertising revenue wasted on fraudulent traffic, or clicks automatically generated by bots could reach $16.4 billion.
Maybe this is why Procter & Gamble’s Marc Pritchard pulled back from digital.
You might say he’s not unlike long-haul pilots scoping out alternative airfields for a safe landing.
Because when you’re the world’s biggest advertiser — or any advertiser, for that matter — the last thing you need is an engine fire.
