Wednesday, May 15, 2013

Old School Assisting New School

Ok so the semester has been about old school outbound vs new school inbound marketing right? Well we're about to talk about using both and how the results can be terrific (in opinion at least, who knows about the ROI). Maybe some of you will even appreciate the pun I used in the title of this post by the time we're done.

Uncle Drew Video
So who are we talking about? Pepsi. Specifically Pepsi Max. Pepsi has recently run spots during prime time sporting events showing a short clip of NBA stars Kyrie Irving and Kevin Love disguised as old men playing pickup basketball with the "Young Bloods". This is played into the advertising campaign for Pepsi Max - a zero calorie cola in disguise. The commercial shows the old guys dominating the game like they were NBA stars. Oh right they were but the other participants didn't know. Anyway so its a funny commercial, whats the big deal? Well if you follow up on Pepsi Max's web presence, you find a much longer film that includes the back story, a more elaborate scheme and more smack talk. It's really tremendous if you appreciate basketball and know the stars involved in the production. Basically, Pepsi is using traditional media to draw people to their web presence and without siting statistics it seems a solid concept.


Jeff Gordon Test Drive Video
One thing I noticed was that Pepsi didn't really direct you to the website to tell you there was more video with the Uncle Drew commercial above. That changes with Pepsi's next disguised commercial featuring Jeff Gordon. This one shows a short clip of the NASCAR star test driving a car in disguise and nearly giving the salesman a heart attack with his driving shenanigans. This time Pepsi directly says more video available at...

So whats this all mean? Both types of marketing are still relevant and can be used in tandem too.

Oh did you get the Pun?

Sunday, April 28, 2013

The Way We Think About Charity is Dead Wrong

This morning I was laying in bed perusing the internet on my tablet. I found my way to the TED app I have and saw a talk by Dan Pallotta with the same name as this blog post. Due to the heavy focus in our IMC class on charity and not for profit work I thought this would be an interesting piece to watch and it was.

In essence, Pallotta makes the argument that we have a vastly different view of for profit and not for profit companies and that our perceptions place not for profits at a huge disadvantage. In his 20 minute talk, Mr. Pallotta identifies 5 major disadvantages not for profits have and then tries to add some perspective as to why this is. I am going to focus on his first two points because I believe they are the strongest and his other three points build off them:

1. Compensation - Pallotta first points out that there is a stigma about people that want to get paid to help people. As he says, you can pay the guy who makes violent video games for kids 30 million dollars and put him on the cover a magazine but if someone wants to get paid $500,000 to help end world hunger he's the biggest scum bag on the block. This forces the most talented people into the for-profit world because they don't want to be financially limited for their entire career.

To exemplify this, he provides an example. The average salary for a 38 year old Stanford MBA is
$400,000, while the averages for CEOs of medical and hunger charities are $232,000 and $84,000 respectively. Now are all Stanford MBAs greedy for wanting this higher salary? As Pallotta points out, NO, they are just smart. Why give up $316,000 of salary, when you could donate $100,000, write it off on your taxes, be labeled a philanthropist and still be up over $200,000 on the CEO of the charity? So in the end, we can pay people exorbitant amounts of money to bring value to shareholders of corporations but paying people a fair sum for solving enormous social issues is taboo.

2. The second major point of discrimination in the profit vs not for profit battle is in advertising and marketing. People don't like seeing their donation going to advertising, they want it to go to the "cause". But Pallotta points out that in order to raise funds, you also need to raise awareness and he has some incredible experience to back this claim up. Pallotta was one of the creators of the multi-day charity events that evolved into the Breast Cancer 3-Day Walks and AIDS bicycle rides. To promote these events, his team took out full page ads in major newspapers like the NY Times and Boston Globe and also purchased primetime television and radio space to get the word out. What was the result? Over 500 million dollars raised in a 9 year span. Sure the advertising cost more, but the return was there as well so whats the difference?

So what do you guys think, fair or foul? Should those who succeed in philanthropy make a more equivalent salary to their for profit counterparts and should not for profits advertise in the traditional sense in the attempt to dramatically increase revenues?

If you want to see the entire TED Talk follow this link:
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_about_charity_is_dead_wrong.html





Tuesday, April 16, 2013

The New Rules of Marketing?

What are we talking about today?

So its been a while, a little more than a month actually. Since my last post, we have presented the first portion of our ABAN work and have began work on the second phase. We have also covered a variety of new topics and most importantly, began to read David Meerman Scott's The New Rules of Marketing and PR.

I find the title to be a little misleading, when it says "rules" I think it should say "rule" because so far its really just about the switch from traditional marketing to content driven marketing. All the old rules about what you should and shouldn't say still basically hold true, its just more of one monumental shift as opposed to a myriad of little changes to the "rules". But I digress, who would spend $20 on a book about one rule when you could spend the same amount on a book that covers multiple rules? Gotta get that bang for the buck.

The old vs. the new

Anyway back to the issue at hand...content driven marketing. so what is it and how is it different from the traditional form of marketing? Well traditional marketing is what most people think of when they hear the term marketing. It encompasses the big guys like TV, radio, and print. Messages through these mediums have always been trying to drive consumers to action -  buy this because, pick up the phone now, don't be left behind, etc. A relatively new way to describe this type of marketing is interruption marketing. You were watching your favorite TV show, now here's 30 seconds you don't care about. In the current days of DVRs, satellite radio and the internet, consumers increasingly have the power to cease these interruptions. This is where the new rule(s) come into play.

Everybody loves rodents, right?
Scott argues that the best way to establish a relationship with a consumer is through developing interesting and meaningful content. People buy based on need, so if they need a product they will seek out information based on this need and this is where platforms such as facebook and blogs can play a huge rule. In a sense, this new strategy doesn't seek to sell a product or brand but rather inform the consumer about it. Traditional marketing is still certainly useful to gain recognition, but lets look at it this way: Say you're looking to buy a new car, what are you going to do? Well most likely you already know about the brands (due to traditional marketing) so you're probably going to do some research right? You'll check out the major competitors websites probably, but maybe also some blogs about the auto industry, or maybe ask your friends via social media. The latter options are all potential points of contact for content driven marketing. So whats really going to sell you on that new car, The "hip" hamsters dancing and driving to Flo Rida, or that amazing review you read about a Kia on a blog somewhere?

How about some examples?

On Scott's blog, there are many examples of companies that have adopted aspects of the "new rules". One such company is Raytheon, Scott's post about this company can be seen here: Raytheon and Brand Journalism. Basically, Raytheon has hired a number of prominent writers and social media experts to help market the company. Even though they are a B2B company, Raytheon has found that developing and posting relevant content has increased their brands reputation and success.


A company that I am familiar with that has incorporated some of the new rules is golf equipment manufacturer Titleist. A quick look at Titleist's facebook page will yield a variety of products, stories, videos and other types of content all related to golf and specifically Titleist as a brand. By incorporating stories and advice from PGA Tour Pros, the company delivers content relevant to their audience. It is also important to note that the company engages in a two way conversation with their followers. If someone asks and question or voices a complaint, the company is quick to respond and clarify or rectify the situation. By doing this, it increases the trust and respect consumers have for the brand. Titleist has long been successful in the golf industry and they are working hard to maintain the success and reputation they have gained over the years.



So far the new rules are interesting and I'm sure there will be more of this to come as we continue to read the book for class.

Tuesday, March 12, 2013

Strategies in Not-for-Profit Marketing

The past few weeks, we have been doing extensive research into the Not for Profit world. Our work with ABAN requires a deep understanding of the industry if we want to achieve our goals. Marketing strategies differ between different industries and sectors, so it comes as no  surprise that there is significant amounts of research into the subject of marketing nonprofits. This past weekend, we were required to read an article by David Williamson that was published by the Center for Public and Nonprofit Leadership at Georgetown University. The article was full of useful information that will certainly be applied in our ABAN work. In addition to the wealth of information he provides, Mr. Williamson also lists 9 "morals" for marketing nonprofits and social causes. I am going to talk about a few that I find interesting and highlight recent trends.

There is no such thing as the general public. Find the audience that matters most to your mission, and focus on them like a laser beam. 

As with any type of marketing, it is important to have a well defined target market. The broader the audience, the more difficult it is to develop a message that will resonate with said audience. By selecting a narrower audience, it is more likely that you will be able to connect with them and push them towards action. Finding the right audience is even more important when working in the charity world because of the typically limited means they posses. Obviously P&G can afford some leeway in defining their market because they have an enormous marketing budget in comparison to a typical nonprofit. For ABAN, defining this market is paramount. As a start up, they are still trying to figure out what works, after first trying to appeal to college students, the organization learned this was not a good market for them. Currently they are targeting more middle age, socially conscious women. As we continue to work with ABAN, we will try and narrow this target further so they can be more efficient in their marketing processes. 

Show marketing some respect. It is essential for mission success, but if you wait around until the need is obvious, it will already be too late. 

While this may seem like common sense, the author brings up several good points to show that this moral is often disregarded. My favorite point was that few managers recognize their lack of expertise in marketing and that those same people would never contradict and engineer or financial expert but will frequently overrule a marketing professional. Another great insight was that many nonprofit managers don't see the need for marketing because they feel the mission should sell itself. While this is simply wrong in the first place, the problem is compounded by the fact that these managers will only turn to marketers after there has been a significant issue. By the time marketing expertise is requested its usually too late. At this point, many organizations that can will hire an outside PR firm. Williamson points out, rightfully so that this is an expensive and poor substitute for people that know your organization and staff. 

Don't pick fights with people who buy ink by the barrel. Instead, learn to take your medicine and follow the Davis Rules.

Nonprofits and their employees are held to a higher standard than most other organizations. Because the company's mission is inherently to do good, it can be devastating when scandals arise. William's points out that the best way to handle these scandals is with a policy of full disclosure. It is important not to stonewall because this is viewed as a sure sign of guilt. It is important to get out in front of the story so that you can be the one to tell it. If there are issues that need to be addressed, by bringing them up yourself, you are able to also discuss how they will be resolved. It is incredible how people are willing to jump all over a nonprofit for even the smallest of things. When there are big issues, it is absolutely imperative to deal with them or they can severely damage your reputation (lookin at you Invisible Children)







Tuesday, March 5, 2013

The Fantasy Land

Sunshine, a rainbow & a Unicorn 

What We've Been Up To

We have done a lot of reading so far this semester. On the whole this provides valuable insights into the world of marketing through the perspectives of different people in the field both academic and professional. This weeks reading included an article about Purple Cows and Media Fusion. Both articles provided some great information and valuable information; however, I think some of these people live in a fantasy land of rainbows, sunshine and unicorns.

Purple Cows


The Good:

In Seth Godin's article "In Praise of the Purple Cow" there is a wealth of good information. Godin makes the very valid argument that you need to be remarkable to stand out in today's consumer markets. He also talks about the benefits of taking a risk in being innovative. While many people may be too afraid of failure and criticism or simply like to play it safe, those that manage to overcome these fears and create a purple cow are rewarded handsomely. Another major point Godin brings into his argument is that boring stuff quickly becomes invisible and therefore boring always leads to failure.
A Purple Cow?

The Fantasy Land:

To me Godin goes wrong when he begins making generalizations that are far to broad. "Boring always leads to failure. Boring is always the riskiest strategy" In my opinion, this couldn't be farther from the truth. There are a wealth of "boring" companies that have been wildly successful. 

For example, Altria (formerly Philip Morris) has been making the same product the same way for over a hundred years. Guess what they make? Cigarettes. Are those exciting? Like purple cow exciting? I don't think so...but you know what I do find exciting? How about an average annual return of 20.5% over the past 45 years (for those of you that aren't finance majors that means if you invested $1,000 in 1968, you would have $3.7 million now) oh but wait boring always leads to failure...
Right now maybe you're thinking: Ok Paul, you brought up one example and its a bad one because of the addictive nature of the product this boring company produces. Well here's another one - Valspar. Remember when Seth mentioned Dutch Boy Paint? Dutch Boy Paint is owned by Sherwin-Williams and invented this great purple cow (aka a new and improved paint can). According to the article, this innovation increased sales for Dutch Boy. The article failed to mention by how much sales increased or how much market share they gained. My question is, if the innovation was so successful, why haven't all Sherwin-Williams paints adopted the new packaging? Regardless, Valspar is another producer of paints and coatings. They have continued using traditional packaging and are considered a "boring" company yet despite that, they have averaged an annual return of 16.3% since 1968.

Valspar Paint


Don't get me wrong, the concept of a purple cow is great and everyone should strive for that; but to say that boring always leads to failure is far to general and in my opinion inaccurate. A good strategy can always be successful in the business world as long as you have a good product (which doesn't have to be exciting).

Media Fusion


Alright, I'm getting a little long winded so i'll try and keep this brief. Safko's article was dreadful. I thought there was a lot of valuable material and many good take aways; but his presentation of the material was very poor. Safko came off as incredibly narcissistic - I do this, I do that, I tweeted this, this is my strategy guess what Lon? I don't care how great you are or how many books you sell. Present the information in a more general sense and maybe I wont be so irritated when I read it.

The Good:

Social Media Logos
Like I said, there is a lot of good information in the article. The main takeaway for me was that it is imperative to distinguish between tools and strategy. Twitter and Facebook are tools not strategies. Its not all about how many "likes" or "followers" but rather how you convert those people into additional revenues. Safko then goes into the specific strategies a person can use.

The Ugly:

Aside from his narcissism and off putting writing style, I couldn't help but pull a few things out of this article that shocked me. The first was on page 19 when Safko tells us that "A study once found that happy customers..." I don't necessarily dispute the information he provides, but tell me who conducted the survey and when the survey was conducted. I mean I could ask five of my friends and say, A study once found that 60% of people want a pet unicorn and it would be true. 

Business Card
The other part of the article that really frustrated me was the paragraph on business cards being the highest ROI lead generation tool. In a three sentence paragraph, the author uses the word free five separate times. I mean really? come on, this is supposed to be an academic work. Aside from that, the whole premise of the argument is overwhelmingly simplified. Well, you didn't spend anything so your return is infinite! If you read this to anyone in finance (believe me I did) they would laugh you out of the building. Its not that they have anything against business cards but simplifying a metric like ROI as much as Safko did is almost comical and it left me with significantly less respect for his opinions.  

Final Thoughts


Maybe I'm being too critical. As mentioned the reading in general provides significant amounts of valuable information but sometimes I feel it over-romanticizes marketing. Godin asks, "How can a Purple Cow company not be run by a marketer?" My response? Easily.  


Sources:

"Media Fusion" by Lon Safko
"In Praise of the Purple Cow" by Seth Godin 
"16 Painfully Boring Companies With Extraordinary Long-Term Returns" By Morgan Housel
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2012/11/27/16-painfully-boring-companies-with-extraordinary-l.aspx

Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Marketing Social Causes

Why are we looking at this?

The past few class periods we have focused on social cause marketing. Holly Stewart, an expert in the field came to class and gave us insights into the industry. The goal of all this discussion is to provide us with a base for our work with our client. ABAN seeks to tackle several issues in the African nation of Ghana. They are taking plastic waste off the streets, transforming it into products and selling them, with the intent of the proceeds going to helping women get off the streets and giving them a sustainable skill that will allow them to better their lives. 

What have we learned?

Holly Stewart provided a wealth of information on social cause marketing. It was shocking to see how many established not for profits practice policies that just don't make sense. Why would a diabetes related organization partner with Pepsi? I mean really? NYC just banned super sized sugary beverages because of the rising rates of obesity and diabetes especially among youths. Her point with that example was that organizations should partner with others who share common values or goals. Not for profits increasing have to be cognizant of where their money is coming from and where its going (Looking at you Komen Foundation). 

Another insight Holly provided that could be very beneficial to ABAN was the concept of partnering with a like minded not for profit. By doing this, the social causes are able to achieve some level of economies of scale by sharing strategies, information, donors, etc. With ABAN looking for exposure, a partnership with an already established not for profit that focuses on Western Africa could help quickly build the brand and get the message out to an already engaged audience.

Finally, the most powerful concept that Holly mentioned was heartache to hope. My last post discussed the emotional side of marketing. As mentioned, establishing an emotional connection with a person is key for a social cause. That being said, the message shouldn't be all doom and gloom. If it is, the consumer can easily be turned off and push the cause away. By providing some level of hope in the message, the potential donor can see how their donation or time can actually make a difference and therefore will be more likely to participate.  

Where to Next?

With all the new information we have discussed these past few weeks, it is now time to put it to work. Moving forward we will use Holly's insights to try and establish co-branding opportunities for ABAN and other methods for them to increase revenues and awareness...should be fun.

Tuesday, February 19, 2013

Why Do We Support Social Causes?


What can cause a person to commit their time or money to an organization that will provide no direct benefit to themselves? I would wager that 99 out of a 100 people will say because it makes them feel good. Ok, well why does it make them feel good? Guaranteed it has to do with with the organization connecting with the individual on an emotional basis. So what are some examples of organizations that employ successful emotional techniques?

Invisible Children

Invisible Children was catapulted onto the world seen with the release of the 30 minute short film Kony 2012. The film quickly went viral and has been viewed over 96 million times on YouTube alone. Two of my friends that I interviewed cited the emotional films Invisible Children produces as their motivation for becoming involved. By documenting the horrible atrocities of LRA specifically those against children, Invisible Children was able to draw people in because they were able to relate emotionally. People began putting themselves in the shoes of children who were abducted and brainwashed to become child soldiers. The loss of innocence of a child is one of the most emotional things imaginable because everyone can relate...everyone was a child at one point. Despite the fact that there was some backlash against the organization in the aftermath of movie, the fact that people were sharing the movie on social media and it garnered as many views as it did demonstrates that it was very emotionally impactful.

Citizen's Energy 

Citizen's Energy is an organization that seeks to provide low income families with home heating oil in 25 norther states. This happens to be my brothers favorite social cause. He came to support the organization after having to live for a week with no heat in Springfield MA. After a devastating snow and ice storm, my brother was without power for nearly a week and said when he woke up one morning he could see his on breath while laying in bed. One day he was watching a Celtics game and Joe Kennedy appeared on a commercial for Citizen's Oil. The commercial depicted a family who couldn't afford home heating oil and as a result tried to heat their home with their electric oven. This struck a chord with my brother who had lived through a similar situation. Seeing that people lived and suffered for months at a time in a fashion that he experienced for only a week was enough to cause him to support the organization.

What do the Experts Have to Say?

Clow and Gobe both agree that emotion plays a huge role in consumer buying decisions. Customers think with their hearts now, not their heads. Steve McKee writes in Business Week that McDonald's was one of the first corporations to recognize the value of emotional branding. Instead of focusing on selling bigger burgers, McDonald's focused on the family experience. 

Final Thoughts 

Most people agree that there is an emotional side to branding in the for profit world. That being said, there is absolutely an emotional component to marketing not-for-profits. How else would you get someone to donate something for nothing? 




Sources:
http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2007-11-08/brands-the-power-of-emotionbusinessweek-business-news-stock-market-and-financial-advice
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kony_2012