Q&A: Targeting vs. Alienation

And I use the phrasing "Question and Answer" loosely as I ask--

Answer: "It's OK if some people don't like you, if your target loves you." - Ashley Sommerdahl, professor at the VCU Brandcenter

On the one hand, it makes a lot of sense. Don't waste dollars on fish that won't bite. On the other hand, are you shooting yourself in the foot if you close the door on second-tier markets?

Proof: I'm still stumped on this one. Of course, as with most things in this business, the veracity of this claim likely relies up on the certain unique circumstances of any given project, but my immediate gut reaction is to be hesitant to speak so exclusively to your target that you alienate others. Naturally, my brain responds that while I can't shake that reaction, you still can't be all things to all people.

Nike tried this when they attempted to build a campaign around the idea that "if you run, you're a runner." At first glance, it's brilliant. It's empowering to all the college guys who run shirtless around campus, to the moms who take a jog around the neighborhood. When they're empowered, they feel like they're a part of the community, the tribe. So they follow the creed and take part in the rituals of the tribe--the right shoes, the right clothes, the right gear, the iPod and the Shox and the whole enchilada. All of this translates into sales--success!!

But what about their core consumers, the ones who train for their health and their sport, not just the end goal of a marathon? The ones who live for the race, not just the accomplishment? Those for whom running is their sport, not their hobby? I think they felt alienated by the idea Nike wanted to sell. Runners are typically quite humble folks, and their own standards for what makes a runner are often set far far above what Nike wants those college kids and health-conscious moms to think. I'm not trying to make claim on who's right--but I will say that the embodiment of Nike, and the allure it has for those moms and college kids, is the attitude of the core consumers. Aspiration has a strong role in advertising, but I think the degree to which Nike wanted to take it went against the brand and it's loyal consumers.

On the flipside, where Taco Bell went the route of Fourth Meal and the pure enjoyment and accessibility of their product for the younger, late-roaming, harder-partying crowd, McDonald's has fallen into the trap of trying to answer to every need of existing and potential consumers. McD's rode the health-conscious wave by adding salads, yogurt, apple slices, etc. to their menu. Then, they added coffee that they poured the cream into for you, later leading to lattes and flavored drinks to try to embrace the coffee shop trend. And I'm sure they found some success in it, though much of it seemed rather weak to me, even though I would consider myself one to ride the wave in the case of both the health and coffee trends. Previously, I had enjoyed McD's for their ridiculously gross but oh so satisfying dollar menu, but I wasn't charmed by their attempts to appeal to an impossibly wider market--I usually left feeling guilty, if anything. Taco Bell, on the other hand, stuck to their guns, offering greasy taco variations and bucket-sized sodas, and yet have somehow kept my loyal patronage and even grown my feelings of goodwill toward them, both of which were evidence by my enjoyment of a Crunchwrap Supreme from TB just this very afternoon.

So? Where's your proof? If the original claim is sometimes true and sometimes false, what guidelines can we use in determining when and for what reasons? Take your turn at Conversation B in the comments.

New Series: Questions and Answers

I'm regularly frustrated by bloggers who have nothing to say but somehow manage to be excessively prolific. When I began this blog, I wanted it to be used for proprietary thoughts and ideas, not reactionary ones. However, I've come to realize that sometimes I disappear for too long as I stew and consider to a point where I have something to share that you might not have read elsewhere. In an effort to allow a more steady stream of input so as to reward your loyalty, I'd like to introduce a new, ongoing series of bits and pieces I've picked up during my education and experiences that have helped shape my ideas and continue to make me evolve. I've enjoyed sharing my thoughts, but I think sometimes it might be helpful to share some of my source material as well.

Sometimes, this material may offer up a query that begs our brains to look for an answer. Sometimes, it will be an idea that we can learn to apply to our own struggles. And sometimes, it will merely be the proof we need to believe the solution. In turn, I hope you'll join me in putting the pieces together and use them as a catalyst for your own evolution of ideas.

So without further ado, please enjoy the first post for Questions and Answers.

Answer: You can't solve a new problem by choosing from a used set of solutions. 

Proof: Marty Neumeier points out in his new book "The Designful Company" a number of pieces of proof for this answer. In creative professions, we spend much of our time in the "vision-reality gap" where we have only our own creativity as building blocks for the solution to act as a bridge. We've spent much of our time analyzing what we've already done, what our competitors are doing, and what could be, but we remain steadfast in our focus on "what is," our current set of solutions. But as Edward de Bono points out, "You can't dig a new hole by digging the same one deeper." If we want to realize the reality we've dreamt of, we need to imagine a new solution. 

Precisely the kind of thinking that has been the guiding path for this site. More on Marty Neumeier's book "The Designful Company" in a few days, as well as more Q & A from other fantastic minds.

The Power(?) of Comparison Ads

In just one day this week, I saw three TV spots from Progressive, GEICO, and State Farm, each declaring that you can save money by switching from one of the aforementioned brands. We're all familiar with these kinds of claims, but seeing them in such quick succession, it finally sunk in that they can't all be telling the truth, or at least there's more to the story.

And it became immediately obvious, even though I've thought about these ads for ages and even spent 15 weeks working on a project for GEICO. Ultimately, they weren't comparing Progressive with GEICO, or State Farm with Progressive--they were comparing your current plan with switching. If you're price conscious and wondering if you could get a better deal elsewhere and you'd be willing to switch, you're pretty certain to choose a cheaper plan, even if it doesn't provide the same kind of coverage as before. The act of switching itself is likely to result in lower costs, regardless of which companies you start and end with.

Similarly, both Progresso and Campbell's Select have TV spots out right now saying that 7 out of 10 consumers preferred their soup...though in small print, Campbell's Select says that they're referencing the INGREDIENTS in the soup. 

So what's the deal? Are we really getting anywhere with our consumers when our competition can make the same claims as we can? Are we asking too much of consumers to notice the subtle differences? 

Yet another- Domino's and Subway have been at odds over CP+B's recent comparison ads. But in this case, Domino's was saying twice as many people preferred the taste of their sandwiches to Subway's. Well no shit! Subway's subs are the HEALTHY alternative--they're the tastiest of the healthy fast food options, but its no surprise that the Domino's subs would be tastier. I think the ads are really really smart on Domino's part, it's just hard for Subway to counteract their effect...if they have any that is.

The "Perfect" Brief

The brief is, at the best of times, a fickle mistress. It's hard to know what our creatives want and expect, and our media team, and our clients. What's the perfect brief to please all parties?

Well, I think we can all agree that there's unfortunately no right answer, and from agency to agency and even client to client, the layout may change. But I've come across a few briefs that I've really loved, and they've all come down to persuasion. Not in some sinister, "hoodwink them" kind of way, but in the sense that in any conversation, there may be questions, and our communication should have already considered them and prepared to respond.

So what if we considered two pieces: Questions/Objections, and Answers/Rebuttals, ie:

"I've always had my taxes done by a personal accountant, but this year I'm looking to save money. H&R Block says that I've 'got people,' but I don't know exactly what that means for me. Does that mean they'll take care of it all for me, even finding deductions?"

Yup. H&R Block will prepare your taxes and check twice to make sure you're getting all of the deductions for which you're eligible.

"Ok, but it's just a one-time deal, right? It's not like the relationship I had with my personal accountant."

Actually, H&R Block will stand by you if you get audited. We're not your partner for just April 15th.

"Well then you must be as expensive as my accountant."

Definitely not. And besides being cheap, you can even take advantage of all of our free services online, like filing your federal taxes, or getting tax tips.

At this point, I'm sold. And that's honestly the conversation I've had in my head. Taxes, for me and probably for most folks, mean lots of questions and a lot of stress about getting it right. So far, the communication I've gotten from H&R Block directly addressed many of the questions I've had in choosing how to file my taxes this year, and that's why I feel completely confident that they can handle my completely messy taxes this year, having worked in four different states with freelancing income to boot. It's complicated and confusing, but their communication has given me the confidence that they can handle it. They answered my questions, calmed my fears, and showed me they've thought about it from my point of view and the things that are important to me. I think that says a lot.

Do you think this could be helpful on your brief? Or perhaps something you'd like the creatives to consider as they execute their ideas? Or is it just so darn intuitive that we shouldn't have to be considering it at all? Please share your thoughts.

Building Bridges

In interviews, I'm often asked what I'm looking for in a position. And amongst other things (a strategic plan to make it through the recession, open-mindedness about product innovation and business solutions in the place of/in conjunction with advertising as a solution, etc) I've been talking about collaboration. And I'm not just talking about a collaborative environment where planners want to talk to each other and work together. I want to know what creatives are working off of my brief, and have, if not an ongoing conversation with them, and open, healthy relationship. I feel that in a perfect world, planning would be considered the first part of the creative process and thus be an opportunity for collaboration. 

I recently had the chance to discuss this viewpoint with a copywriter, and though we disagreed on some points, we both agreed that the idea is king. I absolutely think that if a great idea communicates to our target and gets them thinking about our brand, it's successful, even if the brief had noted a different direction. (Of course, it must still meet the client's objectives, blah blah blah you get the idea). But what exactly that means to each of us is different. To me, it means that a creative idea could come feasibly from a planner, and that the strategic direction can inspire a creative as a jumping off point. For the copywriter, it means that when you get the brief you should use the facts given and consider the target, and use that as inspiration to begin the creative process. He feels the strategy is formed in the creative idea itself. They are a part of each other and inseparable. The role of the planner is to act as a sounding board and confirm that the idea can be backed by research and fit the client's needs. Now I'm sure some of our disagreement was caused by semantics but I think that generally speaking, our viewpoints are somewhat representative of our roles within the industry as a whole--there's definitely friction between planners and creatives in many agencies.

While speaking with Rod, a copywriter from Fallon's glory days, he brought up such a great point for mitigating interdepartmental friction that I had to write it down: Make it known that you're in it for the same thing. Sure, there's more at play--everyone wants to keep their job, save face, get promoted, win awards, etc. There's a number of motivations for the things we do, but if we can all recognize that we're in it for the same thing--to help our client's business and make great advertising--it will undoubtedly be a smoother road. Creatives will "back into" strategies that are more successful by leaps and bounds than what the planners suggested and us planners need to recognize that success and support the campaign. Planners will present great creative ideas that creatives will find they couldn't improve upon if they spent weeks trying, and they too need to celebrate that success. It's all a team effort. A client doesn't care who came up with the idea. To the client, we are The Agency and whatever The Agency presents is what they know. They don't know, or care, who came up with idea, just that The Agency stands behind it. Why shouldn't we all?

Remember this race? They needed just a few seconds of running together. That's all it takes. Instead Team USA failed to make a successful pass and they were unable to finish.

Now I know this post is probably  pretty clearly written from the planners point of view and there's probably a faux pas or two in here, but I wanted to get this idea across. We're hired to do one thing. Now let's do it, together. 

Review of Trust Me- Reprise

Nope. Execution isn't there.  Started with too broad a strategy and left us assuming they had something up their sleeve. Nope. No pay off. Just exaggerated personalities and situations. 

I dunno about you guys, but when my CD calls a meeting to say the tag line is dead, it ALWAYS ends with the neurotic must-prove-myself woman being too eager for another chance to come out on top, the juniors being sullen and spurned, and the rest of the crazy creative department going ape shit 'til someone yells over them all.

But hey! Good to know that if I was single (and bisexual) I could be getting hot chicks during the work day. Then again, I'm the one engaged to a copywriter. Guess I win after all.

(Who knows? Maybe people who like TV more than I do will be into it. But I won't go out of my way to watch next week.)

Requisite Super Bowl Reflections

I had intended to just ignore the whole Super Bowl commercial buzz and not add to all the noise that we all make over and over again like records on repeat, but I've caved. You got me.

Loved it:

Teleflora- "No one likes to see you naked." Placement packed a punch with a strong male audience and close proximity to Valentine's Day. SO awesome.

Cash4Gold- I had NO idea they could possibly have a Super Bowl budget, not to mention actually get MC Hammer and Ed McMahon--"Goodbye old friend..."

Monkeys! Too bad the Castrol ad was otherwise forgettable. I still liked it for the adorable kiss.

Hang in there, Jack- I usually hate JitB ads, but I LOVED this. Hilarious, and I actually want to go to the website now. 

Doritos- Can't explain why, but I enjoyed the snow globe spot. Crotch joke meh, but whatever.

NFL/Sprint Mobile "football season never ends" spot- AWESOME communication of the value, and reward, of having Sprint mobile all year. Beautiful AND strategic. I would have liked it even if it hadn't been strategically strong. Sprint mobile ad at the beginning was really beautiful too, when it opened up into a stadium--really loved it.

Denny's- Ok, I hated the one that's been showing recently when they're talking about hard times, but I loved the new spot with our mobster trio. And what a great call to action, getting people in for a free grand slam on Tuesday? Perfect. Cheers to GSP for that one.

Coke Zero- New Mean Joe Green spot was GREAT, and it finally starts tying all the Coke Zero advertising efforts together. Hey Pepsi! This is how you REFRESH, not by showing people dancing in the 50's. For more on Pepsi, check out Reflushed from my man Anthony.

Career Builder- Just the right amount of crazy--DEFINITELY memorable.

Disappointing:

Bud Light w/ Conan- How can you mess up with Conan?

G- Meh. I haven't been big on the campaign in general, though.

Go Daddy- This idea is so tired...

Comcast Fastest Speed Ever- I get that its trying to be just ridiculous, but it's still boring.

Captain Morgan apparently offered to donate $ to charity every time one of the players did the Cap't Morgan stand. I didn't see it happen a single time. No buzz about it either. Eek.

Cars.com- They could have gone ANYWHERE with this (including launching a new Wes Anderson flick) but they totally killed it with a lame ending.

Sobe- Sorry but this was boring, and I couldn't quite tell if it was supposed to be in 3D or not. The glasses didn't do anything, but the picture otherwise looked like crap.

Coke avatars- "Ooo! New* technology! There's an ad in that!" Nope. 

*Right.

Vizio- poorly produced, really boring, and actually had tech stats on the screen. If someone understood those stats, they wouldn't be considering a value tv like a Vizio. (That said, I have a Vizio and I LOVE it, and apparently their site had more traffic than it could handle)

In general, they just weren't enough to interest me. I still found myself getting up to help with the food, grab a drink, or talk to everyone, and I was actively taking NOTES on the commercials. That's bad.

I expected more from the Super Bowl. Now to find out if consumers did too, or if I'm being overly critical.