Why the web demolished newspapers as news sources

This was the view on Thanksgiving... maybe 4 or 5 times more FSI's than actual news. And even the actual news sections were full of ads.

Given the scant amount of actual news, any doubts as to why just about everyone gets his/her daily news fix on the web?

Lame Cliché Thinking – Reboot!

In what seems to be a time-honored tradition, one more consultant warns that “Holiday Season Price-Cutting and Hard Sell Can Damage a Brand”

http://adage.com/article/cmo-strategy/holiday-season-price-cutting-hard-sell-damage-a-brand/231023/

It’s time to re-examine that myth.

#1 – Price –not sex—sells.

Time Magazine reports that, for the first time in 20 years, the percentage of the population employed in the U.S. is lower than in the U.K., Germany and the Netherlands.

The Govt. Poverty Line being set at $22,350 for a family of four. In September 2011, the Census Bureau reported that there are 46.2 million people living below it, an increase of 2.6 million people from last year.

The New America Foundation estimates that the share of middle-income jobs fell from 52% in 1980 to 42% in 2010.

So, first things first… today, if you are not on sale, you are not selling.

As I reported previously in this blog (http://salupmedia.blogspot.com/2011/09/braman-miami-how-to-destroy-and-image.html) even Bentleys and Rollers are advertised on price. A practice that, by the way, I don’t agree with, but they appeal to the upper 1% of the upper 1%.

#2 – When is a “brand” not on sale? When the retailer sells it.

Think about your day-to-day brands… the Nikes, Colgates, Crests, Pantenes, Folgers, Thomas English Muffins, Smuckers, Coca Colas, Budweisers, Canons, Sonys, Panasonics, iPads and the other hundred premium names that surround us in real life.

One of the common elements that they all have is that they are sold through retailers, be it your local Foot Locker, Publix, Ralph’s, Best Buy, Brands Mart and, naturally, Walmart.

Do you honestly think that Coke went flat, Thomas English Muffins grew moldy and Nikes are less desirable because a retailer decided to offer a discount or BOGO? Nah.

Do you really think that Macy’s shoppers will blame Polo for long lines at the register? Or for the crowding in the corridors? Nah. They’ll blame Macy’s.

Real consumers understand both concepts to the “t”. If not, they wouldn’t even bother using coupons to buy name brands, they would just buy the store brand for less money.

If you want to think nuclear damage to brands think Walmart, Costco and their brethens. And not because they sell brands cheaply (people see that as a benefit) but because in driving all profits from brands, they dis-incentivate brand creation. Why brand your Kellog’s Cereal Bars if you are going to make a few cents per sale? You might as well create more store brands!

So, most of the time, it’s not the brand that’s on sale… it’s the retailer holding a sale.

#3 – The brand “experience”

Go back to the brands that surround us on a daily basis… and what is another huge common element? Their transactional nature.

I go to Publix… then buy shampoo (Pantene), toothpaste (Colgate), coffee (Bustelo or Pilon Black), chicken (Purdue), soft drinks (Gatorade or Propel Zero), bananas (Chiquita)… and dozens of other products. All branded. All transactional.

I definitely like these brands –and go out of my way to buy them—but there’s no experience, just a transaction. A branded transaction, to be sure, but a transaction nevertheless.

More… my wife goes to Macy’s (a brand) and buys Clinique makeup. Again, transactional… she is replacing make up.

From a regular consumer point of view, I’d say that 90% of all brand “experiences” are transactional. Branded. But transactional.

#4 – So why brand?

A brand only has one purpose in life: get a consumer to pay a premium for what would otherwise be a parity product (think store brand, Sear’s sneakers…)

Branding as a discipline only has one purpose: get the brand to be in as many transactions as possible.

From my experience in consumer research in stores, restaurants, supermarkets, pharmacies… consumers can tell what brands stand for and what retailers do to them.

Moreover, consumers can tell very well when a brand is relevant and when it isn’t and make many of the store-brand decisions based on that mental map. I would venture to say that, whenever a store brand wins over name-brands, the name brand hasn’t done its job well.

Bottom line: There are so many lame clichés around the entire issue of branding and discounting that it’s time to try to see it from the consumer’s point of view:

• Discounts are seen as a regular event today; needed and welcomed
• Most discounts are seen –correctly—as coming from the retailer
• The consumer seems to be differentiate well between a brand’s activities and a retailer’s
• Consumers also seem to have no problem in determining when a product should be branded and when it doesn’t matter

Contextual advertising gone horribly wrong

Let me be clear. I am 100% in favor of every modifier in online advertising. Geographical. Behavioral. Conteextual. You name it, if it can help me focus my message, I'm there.

But wow, there must be some way to avoid this:

I am sure that the Motorcycle Superstore wants nothing to do with a picture of a supposed motorcycle crash victim with the head split open, brains spilled out and a bike very visible in the picture.

I have seen (less, way less, extreme) cases where I might type "escalate" as in "escalate a problem" only to be rewarded by banners from the Cadillac Escalade.

Wow.

Apple iPhone 4S... Ogilvy all over again

David Ogilvy once said "Our business is infested with idiots who try to impress by using pretentious jargon"

He also said "The consumer is not a moron; she's your wife"

Which is why I am absolutely floored by the iPhone 4S's Siri spot

Here's a spot that is as straightforward as they come. It is blunt, uses no flowery language, no timeworn cliches, no puns, no lame jokes, no self-effacing but adorable dumb guy, no kid, no baby, no dog, no sincere-looking woman holding a steaming cup of java using both hands, no grandiose music... basically just tells you what the product does and how it will make your life better.

And treats you like an intelligent human being in the process.

Does it explain what an iPhone 4S is? Nope, we know what it is.

That the iPhone competes/is superior/trounces others? Nope

Does it explain how Siri works? Nope. Just what it does and how it improves our life.

Actually, does it even explain what Siri is? No. Someone assumed we'd have heard about it by now.

Does it tell us to log onto www.apple.com? Hey! If you don't know by now...

So why does it work so well?

• It really integrates everything you know about the iPhone 4S. It assumes you've heard about it, read about it, seen videos on YouTube, read the reviews, heard from friends... in short, it acknowledges you know
• It shows you what the product does
• Then it shows you how it is relevant
• Speaks to you in a straighforward, friendly, relaxed way
• And really, truly, deeply drives home product features and advantages

In short, this is truly a direct-selling, hard-charging, fact-based spot disguised via soft music, nice images and a friendly voice-over and minus the phone at the end.

Which treats you like an intelligent person.

And that's why it works so well.

New ad campaign from the U.S. Postal Service - Return to Sender!

From Ad Age: 


Postal Service Sticks With Pitch: Paper Mail Can't be Hacked

So... after losing 22% of its mail volume in the past 5 years, The U.S. Postal Service will continue attempting to slow the migration of first-class mail to electronic communications by sticking with an advertising campaign begun in September that tells businesses that refrigerators and cork boards can't be hacked.


Really?


The aim of the campaign is to slow down the loss by 1%. We also learned that every 1% in lost business translates to $300. So... so far, the USPS has managed to lose $6.6 billion in business and sticking letters to the refigerators or pinning them to a corkboard is the best they can do?

Let's talk messaging for a moment: Do something simple, like talking to consumers, business owners and executives and you'll quickly learn why everyone migrated to email:

1. Free
2. Immediate
3. Convenient


Now look at this spot:

So, from a messaging point of view... will Mr. Captain of the Industry or Mr. Head of Procurement turn around and say "Golly! This is terrible! I'm going back to spending 40 cents in postage, increase the number of mailroom employees and spend all the extra money in paper and envelopes to make sure that Mrs. Consumer's statement is not hacked by some evil force and she can either stick it on the refrigerator or pin it to a cork board. Yes siree".


And some people have to ask why the advertising industry is in trouble.


Then let's talk media.


On national TV. The super effective, magnificently-efficient media in which to reach high powered heads of procurement. Never mind that TV highly over-indexes against lower and middle class women.


Now let's talk real world:


I get my email on my computers (my home and business are fully synched), on my cell phone and on my tablet. And the USPS really thinks I want to get a paper statement?


My suggestions to Ms. Joyce Carrier (Carrier? For real?) USPS's Manager of Advertising and Media Planning:


#1 - Drop that pitch. It has no traction. Since the advent of https:// and other verification services, no one really worries about hacking, but everyone worries about cost.
#2 - Drop the TV. Waste of money if businesses are your target.
#3 - Instead, develop a campaign for mass mailers: it is way easier to hit delete on an email than it is to throw a circular in the trash can.
#4 - Go online, use search, use mail, something distinctive that someone won't "delete"
#5 - Invent new products because like King Canute found out centuries ago... there is no rolling back the tide


Oh... and, Ms. Carrier... drop me a line: marcelosalup@gmail.com 

I agree with the Junk filter

What to make of this cryptic email I just got from Miami Today?

This left me wondering if it was a joke or did someone actually think this would work?

1. Advertising Advertorial Opportunity with Photograph (???)
2. Have you shown interest (???)

Weird & Cryptic. And not persuasive at all.