What buying a house is teaching me about selling ads.

February 2, 2010 1 Comment

My wife and I are in the process of buying a house.  Which keeps presenting unexpected parallels with the process of making advertising.

We first started looking for a house a few months ago.  We established a brief and set ourselves a timeline. This process established the three drivers of the process.

  1. We needed some lawn for our kids to play on
  2. We needed to be close to their schools
  3. We had a few months in which to find the right house (and didn’t want to spend all our weekend time at Open Homes)

So pretty quickly we fell into a pattern. We’d spend a bit of time researching (or, rather more honestly, my wife would spend a bit of time researching while I watched golf on TV). We’d look at Property Press, a couple of websites, occasionally field a call from a proactive agent and maybe have three or four potential properties come our way each week.

And then we’d eliminate. We’d look for reasons why a potential house was wrong. Most commonly this would be the absence of lawn. Sometimes a slightly unexpected location. Or a potentially dubious construction technique. But our goal was to say no to anything that didn’t obviously meet the brief. And we found we were very good at saying no. Because we had a brief that set out what we should say no to.

But then something interesting happened.  The timeframe contracted.

We now have a degree of urgency. Not a blind panic, just a desire to get into our own house sooner. And with it, something fundamental changed.

Our process is still the same – the same publications, same websites, same agents, same potential pool of houses. But now we’ve started looking for reasons to include options rather than excluding them.

And so we saw two houses on the weekend that could be great. Neither meet the original brief we set in exactly the way we imagined it.  But they do both meet it.  We just had to see them, and seriously consider them, in order to appreciate that.  We haven’t changed our brief. We’ve just had our eyes opened to how it might be met.

One of the houses has almost no lawn. So it doesn’t meet the brief as written. But when you visit the house you appreciate that our brief is actually for a house where kids can gambol and be kids.  Which isn’t the same thing as having lawn.

Neither of the houses is in a location we anticipated.   But they both have a manageable proximity to school.  Manageable because there are other great things about them that reposition the importance of location.

So what changed is that our focus shifted from eliminating ‘what’s obviously wrong’ to investigating ‘what might be right’.

And I think there are two interesting parallels for the creative development process in this. One is the importance of timeframe in how you see an issue. The second is how you define the role of the brief.

The timeframe dictates the mindset

As when buying a house, an extended timeframe encourages clients to hold out for something better, or ‘more right’. It just seems obvious.  They’ve got the time and it would be irresponsible not to use it. So they look at options and keep wanting to explore. But to do this they have to focus on what’s wrong with each idea.

So I’m wondering whether there’s some science to planning when an idea gets presented?

I’m sure you could plot it on a bell curve. At the start of the process there’s a generous amount of time so a client has the luxury of rejection. So they’ll eliminate anything that doesn’t absolutely meet the brief. At the end of the process there’s so little time that they’re panicked and so seeking/dictating an idea that’s inarguably ‘right’.  So is there a sweetspot in the middle when a client is relaxed enough with the timeframe to be open to a new idea, but not so relaxed that their inclination is just to keep looking at more ideas?

What is the brief really for?

My brief said that lawn and location were paramount, but when tested it was a variation on those concepts that mattered. The important shift occurred when I stopped looking for reasons to exclude options and starting finding reasons to include them.

Which reinforces my belief that clients and agencies often still don’t agree on the role of the brief. Is it, as I suspect clients often view it, a document that defines what the right answer looks like? Or is it, as I suspect agencies more often view it, a document that asks a question that needs to be answered in the most interesting way? The former’s about eliminating wrong answers. The latter’s about embracing interesting answers.

So anyway, I’m pretty excited about potentially buying a house. Perhaps moreso because it isn’t exactly what I had in mind – it’s actually better than the house my brief might have dictated.

But now I’m kicking myself that I may have overlooked a potentially great house because I came across it at the wrong time. I’m also kicking myself when I think about the potentially great creative ideas that died because I presented them at a time when the client had the luxury of looking for reasons why they could be judged wrong, not yet the imperative of looking for reasons why they might be judged right.

Filed under Advertising, Marketing

The photo’s of a pilot cleaning his windscreen. But what do you see?

January 13, 2010 1 Comment

This is what I saw as I was boarding a Jetstar flight last week. There’s the pilot, perched in the window ledge, cleaning his windscreen with a cloth.

I’ve shown this photo to a few people and it’s interesting what people see.

I see a pilot who doesn’t take himself too seriously, making sure that nothing gets in the way of a good (by which I mean, safe) flight.

My friend sees an example of a shoddily prepared plane and a pilot having to perform embarrassing DIY maintenance just to get it off the ground.

Why do we see it so differently? Very simply because we each see what we expect to see.

I like Jetstar.  I’ve flown with them a few times and been impressed each time.  So I see the relaxed, down-to-earth attitude I expect to see.

My friend had flown with them once before, in Jetstar’s first couple of days as a fledgling airline experiencing more than its fair share of teething problems. So she sees the slip-shod performance of a second-rate airline that she expects to see.

Which is all very obvious but it does remind me of the conversation I’ve had with clients many times.

As an advertiser, you never start with a clean slate.  People always have a view of your brand.  And they interpret whatever you do based on that existing view.  Even if you’re a new brand people have a view of your category. And they interpret whatever you do based on their expectations of the category.

Which demonstrates what a difficult job being a Marketer really is.

Because those perspectives are so individual and people cling to them so tightly. No one likes to be wrong, so we look for what proves us right. Which makes it perfectly reasonable that a pilot cleaning a windscreen can be both a positive and negative reinforcement for the same brand.

And it also does a pretty good job of demonstrating how hard it is for marketers (and marketing) to change people’s perceptions.

Filed under Advertising, Marketing Tagged with

Noel Leeming, Harvey Norman, Bond & Bond. Please spend less on advertising.

January 12, 2010 2 Comments

I bought a new TV over the break.

I’d been thinking about it for ages but had caught myself in that trap of not being able to commit knowing that something thinner and more attractive would come along as soon as I did.  And while I was certainly looking forward to owning a new TV, I wasn’t really looking forward to the process to be endured in order to get one.  (Vaughn Davis wrote about his recent experience here, and I was expecting much the same.)

So I ventured into Noel Leeming in Newmarket with due sense of dread and trepidation.  But what a pleasant experience it was.  A smart, helpful, young man answered some questions, made some suggestions, sold some accessories and dispatched me with a lovely new TV. All in all, an enjoyable experience with an excellent outcome.

And then I opened the paper the following day and got hit by the barrage of advertising from Noel Leeming/Harvey Norman/Dick Smith et al.  All of it was entirely focused on telling me what I already know.  Because I know that they are all cheap. I know that they will all price match.  And I know (or at least I believe) that they all sell much the same stuff from much the same brands.

Which got me wondering about why every one of those retailers is putting so much focus on the area of the market where there’s no meaningful differentiation to be found.  There must have been $100k spent by the main players in the Saturday paper.  All to say the same thing.  In the same way.

Maybe I’m missing something obvious, but it does seem like one of those self-reinforcing arguments that marketers create. We believe that price is the primary driver (and I’m not for a moment suggesting it’s not very important) so we focus all our marketing on price. Then we ask people what matters to them, they say price, partly because it’s true but partly because it’s what all the marketing focuses on so it seems like it must be what matters. Which means we then focus all our marketing on price…..

But it’s ultimately undifferentiated.  If they’re all about price, and they’re all about price, then aren’t they all just spending a lot of money to create a very expensive ground zero?

In contrast, the experience I had was quite differentiated. The guy who sold me my TV had a great manner (which I know you can’t teach) and excellent product knowledge and sales skills (which I know you can).

So why wouldn’t they take some of the money they spend on non-differentiating retail advertising and spend it on a lot more very-differentiating staff training?  No all of it, obviously, but they could then spend some of what’s left on advertising that tells people about their focus on staff training, which would also be differentiating (bearing in mind that that advertising is likely be as effective as the retail advertising in keeping their store top-of-mind). And they could spend a decent chunk of it on Search.

So they’d still be in the ‘price’ game, but they’d be carving out a new service/experience game? Maybe?

I’m certainly not trotting out an argument for more ‘brand’ advertising here. That’s the last thing I believe is needed. And I’m not arguing for no retail advertising, as clearly it has a big role to play. It’s just that it can’t be the only thing that matters, and from the outside it looks like all the effort, and money, is going into a territory that’s ultimately a bit fruitless.

Filed under Advertising, Marketing Tagged with , , ,

Focus groups. Your neighbour’s opinion. And witches.

December 22, 2009 Leave a comment

I was sent this article from Advertising Age the other day. It revisits an issue everyone in our industry is painfully aware of – the puzzling tendency of clients to rely on focus groups to inform marketing decisions.

I sent the article to a friend (who happens to be a senior marketer) to see what she thought.   Her response was interesting.

I asked her whether it might be a little artificial to ask people to explain the rational motivation for a purchase decisions when those decisions are made without any great rational thought. She said that I was trying to make the process more complicated than it actually is and that most people are quite good at explaining why they make decisions.

I questioned her as to whether asking people with no experience whatsoever in design or communication to comment intelligently on important issues of design or communication might not be a bit optimistic.  She countered that ‘agency people’ only want to design stuff that other ‘agency people’ like and that talking to real people is a necessary reality check.

But the final comment she made was the most interesting.

She said ‘Marketers don’t buy shampoo.  My neighbour does.  So I thinks it’s useful to get my neighbour’s opinion’.

Which on the surface seems like a reasonable view to take. It’s ‘ordinary’ people who buy stuff, so the view of ‘ordinary’ people should be relevant.

But the argument falls over for a few reasons (the first two alluded to above).

Firstly, most purchase decisions are emotional. Research seeks to explain them rationally.  Hasn’t neurological science established that the two processes are entirely different?

Secondly, people who buy soap aren’t qualified to design packaging or advertising for soap, in the same way that people who attend rugby matches aren’t qualified to coach players or design stadia.

But I think there’s a bigger issue that I’ve always struggled to articulate.  I can’t understand why we put people we know nothing about in a room and unquestioningly give credence to their views on a very important subject (to us at least).  These are often people who, if we met them outside the confines of a meeting room, we would possibly think were less than, shall we say, credible.  The fact is we know nothing about their view of the world, but we put them in a research group and assume the capacity for sagacity.

Then I read this at the weekend.  It’s a summary of what, according to recent research, Australians believe in.

Amongst other things, 51% of Australians believe in angels – winged messengers of God sent to earth to perform specific tasks at His behest.  It also seems that 41% of Australians believe in astrology, maintaining that the position of various celestial bodies has a direct impact on your personality, the likely course of your life and, if you get right down to it, the entire future of humanity and our planet.  But my personal favourite is that 22% if Australians believe in witches, shadowy figures using sorcery and magic to demonise the unsuspecting.

So next time you use a focus group to provide an informed and rational ‘voice of the consumer’ on a significant marketing issue, bear in mind that of the six people in the room, three very likely believe that angels walk among us, at least two are concerned with the detrimental impact of Saturn journeying through their sign (but comforted by the Sun’s imminent presence in their compassion zone) and one person believes that a shadowy figure in an unfortunate hat is galvanising dark forces to challenge the natural order through the casting of spells and placing of curses.

But don’t let that impact your view of their credibility.  I’m sure their views on your advertising are completely logical and rational. They are, after all, your neighbours.

Filed under Advertising, Marketing, Research Tagged with ,

Social Media might just save Marketing. But not for the reason we think. (Re-post)

December 15, 2009 Leave a comment

Lots of coverage in the last couple of days of the Toyota Yaris/Saatchi & Saatchi drama from Australia that I wrote about in my last post.  Tim from Mumbrella does an excellent summary of the whole episode here.

So I re-read this old post. The events of the last couple of days certainly highlight the dangers alluded to pretty well.

All those who have bemoaned the status that Marketing is accorded in most large organisations should take heart.  Our saviour might well be upon us.

It will be enormously ironic if it proves to be true, but my bet is that social media may yet see Marketing invited back to the boardroom table.

Why? Because the boardroom table respects those things that can either deliver great success or cause great harm.  For years Marketing hasn’t seemed to deliver much potential for either. Most Boards were highly sceptical of what value marketing could deliver (certainly when compared to more operational functions). And, in a logical corollary, they didn’t really fear what damage could be done if Marketing got something wrong.

They also didn’t really buy the argument that Marketing ‘owned’ the consumer.  Either because they didn’t see the need for the consumer to be at the heart of their business, or, more likely, because they felt that some combination of sales, retail, corporate affairs etc was just as capable of representing the consumer view.

We in the broader Marketing fraternity have found this frustrating and not a little insulting.  We tried very hard to argue that we knew exactly what we were doing, ours being a professional, regimented discipline, with proven success factors delivering strong return.  But (with apologies for being both simplistic and judgemental) we tended to fall down when called on to prove this, betrayed by our meaningless language and superficial analysis.

Our panic has increased as we’ve confronted a new digital world. We’ve seen our audience wrenched away, our traditional creative strengths made less relevant and, most frighteningly of all, the rise of social media with its democratisation of opinion, free sharing of points of view and returning of power to the people.

But this is actually what might save us.  Because social media is dangerous.  It has a power that every Board should be afraid of.  Its ability to galvanise people is remarkable, and its ability to galvanise people around an issue that can threaten any business needs to be respected.

And at the same time social media represents enormous opportunity, for it galvanises people around a positive issue just as effectively as a negative one.  It allows people to share in a great service initiative just as much as a botched one.

But while its unfortunate, the truth is that for most businesses fear dominates.  Fear forces decisions much more readily than opportunity, and my suspicion is that most businesses fear social media.   Which is where our opportunity lies.

Social media is Marketing’s responsibility (not entirely Marketing’s, obviously, but for the moment we’re the ones most likely to be taking the lead). And social media cements again the need for every businesses to have the consumer at its heart. Which is exactly where they, and we as Marketers, should be.

It will be ironic. Social media has been enormously unsettling for Marketers.  We don’t understand it yet and, if you’re of my vintage, it challenges much of what you’ve spent a career advocating.  But social media will revolutionise how businesses behave.  And it’s very likely to be fear of social media, the thing we marketers don’t really understand, that will see Marketing invited back to the boardroom table.

Once we’re there, hopefully we can help people see the opportunity too.

Filed under Advertising, Marketing, Media Tagged with , ,

Toyota Yaris. The ad’s almost as shocking as Toyota’s limited grasp of Social Media.

December 13, 2009 10 Comments

The slightly bizarre ‘pitch’ being conducted in Australia for Toyota has come to an end. A pretty bewildering exercise has been brought to an almost perfect conclusion. Perfect, because it’s so spectacularly flawed.

Most of the discussion will focus on a genuinely offensive ad that was produced as part of the obligatory ‘create your own ad’ promo, the latest in a long line of similar user-generated content efforts. (Charlie Brooker wrote a particularly apt piece about loser-generated here, but given the bizarre incestuous overtones in this particular example, I’m coining the phrase abuser-generated content.)

But the bigger issue here isn’t the ad itself. It’s the considerable lack of understanding of Social Media exhibited by Toyota.

Anyway, it started with the announcement that a public pitch for Social Media activity for the Yaris brand would take place between five agencies. Each agency would produce a campaign. All would go live, and then Toyota would choose two agencies to produce more work in the New Year, presumably based on some measure of the effectiveness of the campaign they produced. After the work in the New Year has run, Toyota will then decide whether it is in a position to appoint a retained agency for Social Media.

The process began with eight agencies making presentations. Toyota intended to choose four to go to the second stage, each producing the campaign they had presented. Toyota then announced that five finalists had been chosen and that each would be given two weeks, and $15,000 to produce their campaign.

Todd Connolly, Toyota’s Manager – New Media and Direct Marketing, announced that “We have taken the ideas from everyone involved, both from traditional above-the-line agencies and boutique agencies. All eight were of a high calibre, all were very fresh ideas.” He explained that “the competition will run for approximately six weeks, but if any of the campaigns create “groundswell”, Toyota will continue the conversation with those customers”.

A few things about this puzzled me. (Let’s put aside why a group of agencies would choose to take part in a public beauty parade, with what seems a pretty vague promise that even a single agency will benefit from an ongoing relationship.) What I was really puzzled by were the comments in relation to Social Media. Now let me be clear. I am but a humble blogger. I’m not a social media expert. I don’t work for a social media agency. But I am an enthusiastic amateur, so don’t feel entirely unqualified to make some personal comments. Let’s look at a few of the observations from Toyota:

“All were very fresh ideas.” Really? What constitutes fresh in your world? Ooh look, this campaign consists of two Facebook fan pages. Hang on, this campaign’s a promotion inviting you to submit your own idea for an ad. No wait, this one’s got a stop-motion video featuring lego characters. I could be being unkind, they might be brilliantly executed, but they’re not particularly fresh are they? Not on account of all being commonly used mechanics and an already well-trodden video technique.

“The competition would run for approximately six weeks, but if any of the campaigns create “groundswell”, Toyota will continue the conversation with those customers”. If it creates groundswell, you’ll continue the conversation? What about those people who signed up for your fresh, new Facebook pages? Planning to abandon them? Or all those people who submit ideas for ads, or respond to your videos? Non-commital about whether to continue those conversations? You’re basically just not all that interested in doing anything with the people who make the effort to engage with Toyota as a result of any of the campaigns you’re planning to run unless a ‘groundswell’ justifies it? What do you think social media’s for?

But here is the shining conclusion to the make your own ad competition. By some margin the most sexist, offensive nonsense I’ve ever seen a mainstream brand put its name to. I’m getting old, I take offence too easily, it’s been said that I’m a little too inclined to pull myself up to my full height, but this is pretty disgraceful. Seriously.

Mumbrella wrote a piece about the film and the backlash to it. Todd Connolly, again, responded with “We wouldn’t distance ourselves from it by any means. It’s not an ad that we are putting to air. It’s user-generated content. I don’t really see it as an issue. The people on the jury who saw it thought it was funny and well made.”

I’ll bet you any sum of money you like you will distance yourself from it. You’ll do it as soon as the complaints start flooding in. You’ll do it as soon as the first staff member with a family and a spine tells you he’s ashamed to work for Toyota. And you’ll most certainly do it when the first women’s group calls for a boycott of Toyota. Perhaps they’ll set up a Facebook page, one I would wager will enlist a few more fans than the number your Yaris efforts managed.

How ignorant of Social Media can you possibly be? “It’s not an ad that we’re putting to air”. It’s on YouTube for Christ’s sake (or at least it was, before you removed it, hence the big, blank space above). I think we can safely consider YouTube to be ‘air’. Really popular, 340 million visitors a day, air.

And who cares that it’s user-generated content. It was generated by users in response to your promotion. And you rewarded them for it. That’s your logo at the end. What possible difference could it make who put the logo there? You judged it a winner and in doing so deemed it appropriate for your brand.

And I bet you’ll be running a mile from that decision when Monday morning rolls around.

Filed under Advertising, Marketing Tagged with , ,

Tagging, Neuroscience and the value of fascinated men

December 2, 2009 Leave a comment

I found these today.  I think they’re interesting.

At the risk of being completely pretentious about it, I love that they suggest a timelessness to the idea of people and relationships.  I also like that they give merit to the modern, the value of expression constant even as the specific style of expression changes.

But what I find really interesting is that the backdrop is so recessive.  You just don’t see it the first time you look at the images.  I’ve shown these to a number of people and every time I’ve had to point out the tagging (particularly the first two).

I guess this is either because tagging is so ubiquitous that it’s close to invisible, or it’s because we are just naturally drawn to people, and particularly to faces.

I suspect it’s the latter, which is one of those ‘principles’ that I’ve always tried to reject. I don’t like the idea that we are that predictable, that instinctive, in our responses because it’s that idea that leads to the concept of ‘rules’ that govern how layouts or art direction work – that there are a set of principles that should be followed to ensure maximum attention and impact.

I really hate the thought that those dreadful cosmetic ads that occupy the first fifteen pages of every issue of American Vogue might actually have some merit, simply because at a really basic level we just like looking at (pretty) faces. Or that those dire fragrance layouts featuring Kate/Scarlett/Gisele/Angelina/Heidi and an anonymous, handsome, clearly doting male might actually work.

But sacrilege as it may be, I’m starting to wonder if they might.  And then I stumbled across this and it seems neuroscience sort of agrees.  Apparently when featured in print layouts attractive people are good, celebrities are really good (but not that much better) but for greatest impact attractive women being admired by attractive men are the way to go. Or, as Claude Hopkins noted in 1923,

“… with beauty articles. Picturing beautiful women, admired and attractive, is a supreme inducement. But there is a great advantage in including a fascinated man.”

It seems it was always thus.

To subscribe to this blog, please click here

Filed under Advertising, Marketing Tagged with , ,

A very bad ad telling us how very bad gay marriage is. Very badly.

November 26, 2009 Leave a comment

Here’s what happens when a group of hetero-fundamendalists, the National Organisation for Marriage, attempt to use the medium of advertising to convince the world that gay marriage is a bad thing.  In the same way that a storm is a bad thing. And that what we have here is a storm of gay marriage. Making it quite possibly the worst thing ever.

And here’s what happens when the significantly more amusing, attractive and celebrity-rich National Organisation for Man Lady Marriage responds.

To subscribe to this blog, please click here

Filed under Advertising, Diversion Tagged with ,

What media people can learn from taxi drivers

November 26, 2009 Leave a comment

I flew back from Sydney last night. I spent a little bit of time enjoying the hospitality of the Qantas Club before my flight. And by hospitality I mean Campari.

I also enjoyed the in-flight service (and by service I mean Gordon’s) before having a nice little sleep. Which meant that by the time I got into a cab in Auckland I was a little…vague. Which may be reflected in this observation.

Because on the journey home I came to the conclusion that there’s a remarkable similarity between the media business and the taxi business. Here goes:

Everyone thinks they can do your job because it’s actually not very hard.

People pretty much begrudge what taxi drivers do. Most people know how to drive, so at a basic level believe they could do the job.

It’s the same for media people. Most people read, watch, browse and listen, so at a basic level believe they could do your job.

The answer is never right.

If a cab driver takes you to your destination via the most obvious route, they haven’t added any value. But if they take you via an unexpected route, they’re taking a risky option that you suspect will probably cost you more and take longer than the conventional route. You sit in the back of the cab suspicious that the other option would probably have been better.

It’s the same for media people. If a media person recommends the most obvious solution, they haven’t added any value, or, more damningly, thought innovatively. But if a media person chooses an unexpected media vehicle, they’re taking a chance on a risky option that you suspect will cost more and be less effective than the conventional choice. Either way, there’s always the sense that you might have done something else and that the other option might have been better.

Technology and costs are your problem.

People believe they should really only be paying for the driver’s time. I bet you do it. You take a 20-minute trip to the airport. It costs you $65. You think ‘that’s outrageous, that’s nearly $200 an hour he’s making’. Only he’s not. He’s running a car, paying for petrol, a GPS, a mobile eftpos machine and probably plenty more besides. But people don’t see why they should pay for that, because he needs them to do his job, so they’re his responsibility.

It’s the same for media people. Agencies pay significant amounts for research, training, premises etc, but clients don’t see why this is their issue (partly, in my view, because we keep telling them that people are our only asset). They pay for those people to work on their behalf. What we are required to provide those people so that they can do their job is our problem.

You should be able to anticipate problems before they happen.

If you’re a taxi driver you’re supposed to be able to anticipate when there are likely to be traffic problems. Two car collision outside a school on Remuera Rd at 3.06pm? You should have seen that coming. You are also supposed to know an alternative route that no one else is aware of that will allow these problems to be avoided. If you can’t anticipate these problems you have a passenger in the back unhappy because you’re obviously not very good at your job.

It’s the same with anticipating media problems. Banner for an oil company served on the same page as an article about irreversible environmental damage caused by excessive mineral exploration? You should have seen that coming. Two ads with very similar blue backgrounds on opposing pages of the Saturday paper? You should have seen that one, too. Because if you can’t anticipate these problems you are obviously not very good at your job.

What it says on the meter isn’t what it costs.

When you finish a taxi journey, what it says on the meter isn’t what it costs. There are things called ‘Extras’. That’s a word that immediately gets you offside. Extra? To what? And why? Then there are the surcharges and the service fees and it all just seems complicated and somehow underhand. It doesn’t matter whether the total cost is reasonable, it’s messy and carries the unmistakable whiff of rip-off.

It’s the same for media agencies. Commissions are awful. So are levies and monitoring charges. The simple outcome is that clients aren’t sure what they’re paying for. And clients don’t like that.

So then I got to thinking that if we are similar to taxi drivers, what might we be able to learn from them?

Be the best Taxi Driver you can.

There are some people who just want to be good at what they do. They take pride in the job and all that goes with it. While they very probably would like to be doing something else, you’d never know. While lots of media people broadly like what they do, they often wish they were doing something a bit cooler – a more senior job, a more interesting client or task – and you can tell.

It’s seldom the driving. It’s knowing when to shut up.

Most taxi drivers are adequate drivers (though we’ve all had the horror experience). It’s what goes around the driving that matters. Some passengers like to talk. Some like to listen. Some like silence. Clients are like that, too.

A clean taxi is good. A taxi with an in-seat DVD is bad.

A clean taxi suggests pride in one’s work and respect for one’s passengers. A clean boardroom and the offer of a glass of water do the same. A taxi with an in-seat DVD suggests an indulgent driver and fares that are probably too high. A retractable 52” flat screen and a tray of almond croissants do the same.

Confidence goes a long way.

I don’t like being asked which way I think we should go. But I don’t mind being told which way the driver thinks is best, and asked whether I agree.  My sense is that most clients feel the same way.

To subscribe to this blog, please click here

Filed under Advertising, Media

Marketing nonsense celebrated in the Bully Awards

November 26, 2009 Leave a comment

The AdContrarian is one of my favourite sites. He (being Bob Hoffman) reserves a particular kind of hatred for the vacuous and meaningless marketing-speak that curses our industry. He has instituted the Bully Awards for Achievement in Advertising and Marketing Bullshit. It’s great stuff.

To subscribe to this blog, please click here

Filed under Advertising, Marketing, Media Tagged with ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 158 other followers