your 'likes' are stupid.

I have a great deal of respect for social media pariahs. In a world filled with "gurus" and "ninjas," these are the people that say, "Your 'likes' are stupid."

Now, I (and, I'm sure, these people as well) recognize that social media isn't completely useless. In fact, social media can play a major role in consumer engagement, as well as customer service. If done correctly, social media can be a major marketing tool.

The problem is when we get stuck on the superficial statistics -- likes, follows, retweets, comments… You know…the stuff that's easy to talk about.

What nobody wants to talk about are the conversions after the 'like' or follow. After all, it is in the conversion where you can really measure the effectiveness of your social media. Sure, there are a lot of intangibles when it comes to social media, but that's true of all marketing channels or mediums. But, even with social media, you develop very effective measurements of ROI.

And, if you're converting to sales/donations, it's a good place to start.

Otherwise, what's the point? Really. So what?

Tom Belford, an editor at the non-profit marketing newsletter The Agitator, has a great article on the topic. And, in the comment section, he leaves this golden nugget in response to a reader who was questioning the post:

"Yes, I like that extra traffic to our site. But what’s it worth? Do we still have crap conversion? Show me what these 24,000 new fans have done for our cause in 3 or 6 months and maybe I’ll be a happy camper."

Ah…there it is. Traffic (or, likes, follows, etc.) is another meaningless stat when looked at alone. A site with 1,000 visitors a day that converts at 10% is just as effective as a site with 10,000 visitors a day that converts at 1%.

So, what is more important? Traffic, or conversions?

So, while you may have 25,000 likes on your Facebook page, I'm not going to be impressed until you show me what you've done with them.

outsource your marketing, outsource your ethics

Perform a Google search for the Avenger controller, made by video game controller manufacturer N-Control. Doing so will query a variety of sites containing information about the device. The search will also include stories about how a marketing firm contracted by N-Control nearly destroyed their brand.

When N-Control outsourced their public relations to Paul Christoforo at Ocean Marketing, they had no idea they were about to enter a PR nightmare that has forever tarnished the name of N-Control and the Avenger controller. While the actions of rogue egomaniacs can never truly be foreseen, N-Control should have known the dangers of letting their brand image be controlled out-of-house.

As attorney Eric Turkewitz says, “outsourcing marketing = outsourcing ethics.”

Managing a brand is more than deciding the colors on the packaging, or keeping your marketing message consistent. Brands are constituted via hundreds of moving parts, including every facet of the organization. From the ease of getting to customer service agents, to the copy on the packaging — everything a company does feeds into its brand image.

When marketing is outsourced, so are the ethics. And, if brands don’t keep a constant eye on the marketing, it can’t possibly ensure that the marketing tactics are within the ethics of the brand. This is why Popehat.com added to Turkewitz’s maxim, saying that one also outsources their “reputation” with their marketing, as N-Control saw in the worst way possible.

Outsourcing happens. Nearly every product that has been manufactured (outside of the lonely, wooden toy maker in a rustic Prague neighborhood) has used outsourced parts or labor. However, outsourcing a highly visible brand component, such as marketing or public relations, is a completely different story.

While not every instance is going to turn into Christofoesque nightmare, it has the potential to if not carefully monitored and managed. The Internet is fast. Christoforo’s infamous emails were sent on Dec. 26, 2011. The next day, they were on Penny-Arcade.com, one of the most highly trafficked sites in the nation (ranked 1,006 of US sites by Alexa.com).

The word “blindsided” does not even begin to describe what happened to N-Control. But, by handing the branding keys to a little man with a big ego, N-Control opened the door for this to happen, and was crippled when it came to responding.

The lesson here is to outsource what you need, but be wary about doing so with crucial elements to your brand’s image. All it takes is a few emails to cripple a brand.

value is the deal

At Forbes.com’s MarketShare, BrandKeys Founder & President Robert Passikoff is highlighting 12 branding trends for 2012. “These 12 will have direct consequences to the success, or failure, of next year’s branding, engagement, and marketing efforts,” says Passikoff. Trends such as “Inward Bound” (using a brand’s resonating emotional qualities to differentiate itself in the minds of consumers), and “Real-Time Branding” (the consumer’s expectation for immediate customer service responses from brands) are just two of things discussed by Passikoff.

However, Passikoff’s trend, “Value is the deal,” has perhaps the best lesson for brands of them all.

“Differentiated and believable brand meaning — emotional, rational, functional, and experiential — becomes a more effective and profitable surrogate for value than low-lower-lowest pricing strategies,” writes Passikoff. “But only the consumer gets to say how ‘valuable’ is actually defined.” To do this, Passikoff suggests that brands listen to consumers, and use their feedback to help shape and grow the brand by "tuning in" to the consumer’s frequency.

At Beneath the Brand, the hidden dangers of the “daily deal” and discounting have been covered extensively. However, the lesson can’t be repeated enough, and the “Value isthe deal” branding trend once again reinforces the idea that discounting won’t save troubled brands.

Just as Passikoff put so succinctly, a brand’s value is the deal for consumers — not the price tag. Even in a down economy, consumers are willing to pay more for a trusted brand if they perceive a greater value in it over a cheaper competitor brand. To consumers, the true “value” of a brand is in how it improves, enhances, or positively changes their lives. It doesn’t necessarily have to be profound, but even saving a few minutes — or even seconds — in their daily routine may be enough to gain a consumer’s loyalty.

But, only listening to consumers, and knowing what they see as value, will allow brands to maximize their full potential.

Daily deals are a distraction from gaining this type of insight into consumers. And, for brands already on shaky ground, the effects can be devastating. Businesses that opt for the allure of daily deals without first understanding what consumers find valuable about their brands — and making the changes to maximize this value — is like holding an open house on a building that’s only half complete. Sure, consumers may see promising signs of brand value, but the promise of potential value isn’t actually value. And, it surely isn’t enough to turn a one-off, daily deal customer into a loyal consumer.

Brands should take a hard look at BrandKey’s trends, especially the first. Brands must take the time to listen to consumers and discover the differentiating factors (this is the "value," in the minds of consumers) that separate them from competitors.

marketing may fade, but the brand is forever

Apple’s marketing budget is $5.5 billion. Microsoft’s is $17 billion. Yet, according to BrandZ’s Top 100 global brands chart, Microsoft holds the number five spot, behind brands such as McDonald’s, IBM, Google, and…Apple. Why? According to conventional wisdom, the companies that spend the most on marketing should have the best brand, right?

Not so, according to a recent article at Fast Company's Co. Design, which suggests that the days of marketing are fading. “In an increasingly transparent, digitally empowered economy, where everyone potentially can know everything, companies can no longer use the other three P's (Price, Promotion, and Place) to gain a long-term competitive advantage,” writes Jens Martin Skibsted, founder of design agency Skibsted Ideation, and Rasmus Bech Hansen, London-based strategy director at Venturethree. “These P's, in other words, are becoming strategically less significant; they are still valuable, just less so than they used to be, and they don’t provide any long-term edge.”

Is this true? That’s the ongoing debate, and one that has monumental implications for brands large and small.

Skibsted and Hansen write further:

We, however, still believe that where a company sells and distributes its offerings is becoming less important relative to what it sells. The rise of e-commerce makes it much easier for consumers to buy the best product irrespective of where it is sold. Sites like Yelp, Lonely Planet, and Zagat point consumers to restaurants, hotels, or shops that provide real value and good experiences even if they are off the beaten track. And we think Apple’s retail success has a lot to do with creating an amazing brand experience that is an extension of the product experience by offering a real service (the Genius Bar). If you have an extraordinary product, customers will find it and buy it in a transparent economy.

So, is a brand strategy more important than a marketing strategy? Can a company with a strong brand stay afloat with a small advertising budget? Can a company with a lousy brand make it by pumping money into marketing? Or, are they both necessary?

Leave your thoughts in the comment section below.

for online brands, play to the niche

In his book Meatball Sundae: Is Your Marketing out of Sync?,marketer Seth Godin defines two eras of marketing: old and new. Godin describes the era of “Old Marketing” as "interrupting masses of people with ads about average products." This type of marketing would be non-targeted advertisements for products designed for non-targeted demographics. Essentially, a product designed for the masses, advertised to the masses.

However, Godin describers “New Marketing” as that which “leverages scarce attention and creates interactions among communities with similar interests." This would essentially be advertising to targeted audiences with products designed for a target demographic.

Old marketing was for the masses. New marketing is for the niche.

In the era of old marketing, microtargeting was hard to accomplish, at least relative to what is possible today. Therefore, products were created with mass appeal, and advertisements were broadcast to the masses in order to reach the most people. "Masses of people could be processed quickly and cheaply, and some would respond to your message and become customers," writes Godin. "The key drivers of this approach were a scarcity of choice and a large resource of cheap attention."

As a result of this style of old marketing, brands weren’t focused, but built for the masses.

The rise of microtargeting, especially with online mediums of advertisement, has completely changed the game. No longer do brands have to sacrifice a narrow focus in order to have a broader range of appeal. In fact, the ability of brands to microtarget audiences amplifies the strength of narrowly focused brands.

For online brands, this means playing to the niche. One of the keys to brand strength is keeping it narrowly focused, simple, and consistent. Online advertising now makes it easier than ever to find new customers, and let them find you. Even the most narrow of brands is able to ring-up sales, which would have been impossible in the era of old marketing.

In the era of new marketing, the niche is no longer the trap that it once was. In fact, it is now a positive because it allows brands to stay on the narrow track. As some brands continue to play to the masses, play to the niche. You don’t have to appeal to the 99% if your customer base is the 1% you want to reach.

the daily deal emperor has no clothes

“Coupons for the spa drew women from around the metropolitan area eager to see their bulges melt and their wrinkles removed,” reads a New York Times article. “Once.” The article, detailing the rise — and, subsequent waning—- of coupon sites like Groupon, features a New York spa called Wellpath who tried to use the service to drive customers into their business. Unfortunately, the results were a story all too familiar (and predictable).

“Then they would get another coupon and go do it with someone else,” Wellpath’s director, Jennifer Bengel, told the Times. “There was no loyalty.”

No loyalty? No surprise.

Groupon is in trouble, and not because the rise of localized, competitor brands has already begun to take a huge chunk from Groupon’s market share. More and more businesses are learning just how disastrous daily deals can be for their bottom line. “We’re giving [customers] a discount when we could be filling that seat with a full-paying customer,” Arlington, Virginia pizzeria co-owner Joel Mehr tells ARLnow.com. “If we are giving discounts when we don’t need to be giving discounts, that doesn’t benefit us.”

Mehr says that despite selling more than 5,600 Groupon deals for his restaurants in the area, the pizzeria still lacks name recognition. Worst of all, they can’t control when customers come because the deals can be used anytime. “We are seeing people come in one time only, on a Friday night, they’re not coming back,” says Mehr, echoing a common theme among disgruntled Groupon users.

However, the discount emperor, Groupon, isn’t the one at fault. While Groupon has its own internal problems, from a business model that has investors worried to its new-found appetite for line-extensions (Groupon Now!, Groupon Getaways, Groupon Goods), it can’t be blamed for customer loyalty issues. When businesses use discounts and deals, loyalty issues are right around the corner.

Discounts are not a permission slip to excuse oneself from brand-building strategies, nor are they a panacea for driving business through the doors. Businesses that use deal sites as a marketing device can quickly find themselves drowning in customers who are only looking for one-off purchases at a discount price. One owner called using Groupon the “single worst decision I have ever made as a business owner thus far,” after the deal nearly put them out of business.

Yes, Groupon can help businesses find new customers, but the very nature of discounting undermines customer loyalty — especially when driven by daily deal sites. And, even more so when businesses aren’t prepared to convert new “discount” customers into loyal “full price” customers.

For example, oil changes are one common deal on Groupon, and they come from a variety of businesses. It isn’t out of the question that a Groupon deal for an oil change will come about frequently enough where a subscriber would never have to pay full price for an oil change, if he were to use the deals that came about every so often on the site. Therefore, the subscriber never establishes a bond with any of the businesses that advertise on the site — especially if those businesses have not put effort into retaining new customers.

Daily deal sites should be regarded with a huge caveat emptor for businesses looking to use them. There have been a number of success stories, but on the other hand, they can absolutely ruin a brand — as they have, and they will continue to do.

Discounting in and of itself isn't a brand killer. Just look at major department stores, which have opted for discount strategies instead of brand strategies. Rather than rushing to discounting sites for growing businesses, focus on building the brand through good branding fundamentals. It may take a little longer, but in the end, brand integrity is improved — not diminished.

On a side note, I would be remiss if I didn’t note the unfortunate passing of Apple Co-Founder Steve Jobs. The death of genius is truly like extinguishing a candle. The world is less bright without him around.

your brand doesn’t need a 'mr. t' strategy

Mr. T is one of the most iconic faces of the 1980s. He was the star of the A-Team, showed-up in the Rocky series, and has done a myriad of commercials over his acting career. His catchphrases reside among the immortal words of other American paragons like Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Paine, and Martin Luther King, Jr. Yet, in spite of Mr. T’s cultural and celebrity prowess, he won’t save your brand.

“American consumers insist that they are not swayed by celebrity endorsements,” reports Adweek on the results of a recent Adweek/Harris Interactive survey. “More than three-quarters [of respondents] answered that it has no impact on their intent to buy.” Furthermore, only 4 percent indicated it would make them more likely to purchase. So, what are brands getting for the millions they spend on “buying” celebrities in hopes they can get consumers to buy? More often than not, nothing more than a wasted advertising budget.

Of course, this should come as no surprise to brand managers. Advertising master David Ogilvy (himself once a cultural icon whose words still serve as teaching tools for young, and old, advertising junkies) wrote in his 1983 book, Ogilvy on Advertising, that celebrities don’t move product. “Viewers guess that the celebrity has been bought,” Ogilvy wrote. “And they are right.” Ogilvy also suggested that celebrities have a way of overpowering the brands they’re advertising, making the celebrity (and, not the brand) the only memorable part of the campaign. Any time that an advertising technique — be it a celebrity, or “humorous” copy — overshadows the brand, it’s not good advertising. It’s even worse when you spend extra thousands, or millions, to secure an endorsement.

Your brand doesn’t need a celebrity. It needs a strategy that’s based on solid branding fundamentals. There have been several famous non-celebrities as “brand figureheads.” For example, Subway’s “Jared,” or “The Man in the Hathaway Shirt.” However, the difference between these individuals and celebrities like Mr. T is that the ad campaigns made Jared famous; Jared didn’t make Subway famous. Their appearances in the campaigns were techniques that enhanced the brand instead of overpowering it. Jared wasn’t a celebrity. He was a product testimonial. Likewise, The Man in a Hathaway Shirt was story appeal.

Would Subway have achieved the same level of success with its “health and nutrition” positioning if they used someone like Justin Bieber? No. Celebrities have access to personal trainers and nutrition consultants. The “testimonial” technique would have been completely lost. And, what would have happened if Ogilvy had decided to use Frank Sinatra instead of Baron George Wrangell for the Hathaway campaign? Would consumers have even paid attention to the shirt? Doubtful.

This is not to say that celebrity endorsements fail 100% of the time. Using a celebrity who is an authority on the industry or product for which he is advertising can be beneficial to a brand. Rory McIlroy testifying to the quality of golf clubs, for example, might be a worthwhile investment. Maybe. At least it will certainly be more worthwhile than Mr. T hawking Snickers.

If your brand is looking to do something with endorsements, try focusing on delivering a solid brand performance to your customers. After all, it’s their endorsement that is the most influential to their friends. Yeah, it’s really cool that for $1 million you can get a celebrity to like your product. And, for $2 million, that celebrity will probably endorse your competitor as well.

Instead of dumping money into expensive advertising campaigns, or buying a head-nod from a celebrity, turn that money back into your business to improve upon things that will really better your brand. Denny’s opted out of advertising in the 2011 Super Bowl, saying they would rather spend that money on programs throughout the year. "It is a very expensive exercise and I don't believe it's necessary for us to continue to put all our eggs in one basket," says Frances Allen, Denny's Chief Marketing Officer, in an interview with AdAge. “We decided to focus our efforts on a broad, multilayer program that we believe better rewards our guests throughout the year, vs. doing a big, onetime push for Super Bowl.”

This lesson is especially apposite for small businesses with limited budgets. Never underestimate the power of smart branding fundamentals that resonate with consumers. There’s more evidence that a solid brand foundation will move product than there is for any endorsement from a celebrity. And, the return on investment is unquestionably higher.

a tale of two brands

In the city of Atlanta, there are many oil change facilities and many dentists. Out of these many oil change facilities, and these many dentists, there is the Express Oil Change & Service Center, and the dental practice of Dr. Elizabeth Caughey. While these two businesses are very different in the services they provide, they are both two entities with high levels of market competition, and face similar challenges in establishing a brand and growing their business.

This is their story.

Brand One: Express Oil Change & Service Center

Express Oil Change & Service Center recently ran a Groupon deal that advertised $101.97 worth of services (oil change, tire rotation, and brake inspection) for $30. For those in desperate need of an oil change, this was a great deal. While oil change facilities are plentiful, it’s difficult to differentiate what sets each business apart until it is actually visited.

The automotive repair industry doesn’t exactly have a sterling reputation. So, the user experience is a key differentiating factor (along with price, of course) among these facilities. Establish a level of trust with the customer, and repeat business is nearly in the bag. Because of the level of competition created by the numerous choices for oil change businesses, the first impression is everything.

Unfortunately, Express Oil fell short of creating a memorable first impression. Additionally, they didn’t live up to their promise of service. However, during checkout, customers are provided a “new customer packet” with several discounts for future services. They bring customers in with a discount. They encourage customers to come back with discounts. Discounts are their primary marketing strategy.

Brand Two: Dr. Elizabeth Caughey, DDS

Dr. Elizabeth Caughey’s dental practice has a five-star rating on Kudzu.com. Reviews say such things as, “The detail and time she spent with me…was surprising,” and “The perfect dentist!” New patients calling for an appointment speak with the office manager, who talks to them about the practice and explains the mission of the practice: to provide comprehensive, quality dental care. This dedication to quality care involves more thorough exams, and greater involvement from Dr. Caughey. As a result, it is somewhat more expensive than other dentists.

However, as the reviews illustrate, Caughey’s practice fulfills this expectation of superior service. The exams are comprehensive. The attention to detail and quality is clear. Delivering a premium service above that of their competitors is their marketing strategy.


Two businesses, each with a high level of competition, both facing similar challenges in establishing a brand. One uses discounts. The other uses superior service.

While discounting, especially through deal sites like Groupon.com, can be particularly effective at generating new business, the fatal marketing mistake is focusing primarily on future discounts at the expense of brand development. Had Express Oil put as much effort into the brand experience as they do their discount programs, they would have a better shot at generating brand loyalty — and loyalty at full price. Even if consumers were willing to sacrifice on quality in return for a discount, consumer loyalty is there only as long as the discounts. Once the discounts go away, so will the consumers. This means they are forever trapped in “discount mode” — not a good place to be.

On the other hand, the dental office put their energy into delivering a superior product, even at a premium price. They built their brand on quality — not discounts. Their brand is far stronger than that of the oil change facility because the dental office will generate consumer loyalty so long as they continue to fulfill on the level of service promised.

Discounts can’t be a substitute for true brand development. Your brand must offer something different to consumers, and you have to follow through with that promise. Express Oil didn’t offer anything that was different from any of their competitors, and they even fell short of what promises they did make (speed, quality of service). Instead, they rely solely on discounts, which cripples their potential. The differentiating factor in Dr. Caughey’s dental practice is that it offers a service superior to that of their competitors. As a result, they are able to establish a premium brand that has lasting potential.

lessons from leo burnett

"We, over and over again, stress this so-called inherent drama of things," Leo Burnett told Denis Higgins in an interview years ago. "There’s usually something there, almost always something there, if you can find the thing about that product that keeps it in the marketplace." Illustrating this point in his work, Burnett once slapped a piece of red, uncooked meat onto a red background. The ad campaign worked, with wild success. "This was inherent drama in its purest form," Burnett said.

Burnett’s point is that in every brand, there is a single factor that separates it from all other brands. And, if there isn’t, then it won’t be on the market for very long. Good advertising teams know how to bring that inherent drama to life. They are like sculptures who can bring a masterpiece out of a solid piece of stone, as if that figure was inside the stone all along. Unfortunately, many ad campaigns try to artificially manufacture this inherent drama, leaving the audience with superficial, forced feeling about a about a brand rather than what naturally should occur.

TalentZoo.com writer Kaitlin T. Gallucci has written the past few weeks on what she calls "lazy marketing" when it comes to developing creative for brands. "When brand messages can apply to almost any brand in a given industry, rather than focusing on individual differentiators or unique selling propositions, the messages become unclear, unremarkable, and unconvincing," she writes.

Gallucci highlights a significant problem with today’s marketing: a lack of differentiation. Without differentiation, products in a category blend together and lose their unique identity. A part of the problem has to do with an overabundance of products in a single category, but a larger portion of the responsibility falls on the shoulders of creative teams who are substituting "advertising tricks" for true brand development. The ads they develop are certainly creative, sometimes funny, and usually good for getting attention. Their fatal flaw is that they’re all show and no substance. So, while they may get the audience attention, they do nothing to sell the brand.

Attention is important, without question. And many of the techniques used to get attention are certainly with merit. The problem emerges when tricks are the sole technique used, and the "inherent drama" of the brand is completely ignored. It’s much easier to get attention than to sell a brand. But, advertising is not simply about getting the most attention. It’s about selling the most product. "Sheer visibility is important with today’s rising advertising costs; if you don’t get noticed, you don’t have anything," says Burnett. "But the art is in getting noticed naturally without screaming or without tricks…"

Many on creative teams will say today’s consumers are too difficult to reach without these tricks. And, if you want to get their attention, you have to use humor, or flashy graphics, or other advertising "tricks." This is a cop-out. Consumers are flooded with more advertisements now than they were during Leo Burnett’s time, but it is no excuse for bad advertising. It simply means working harder to find the brand differentiation — this inherent drama — and bringing it to life.

think simple.

"Some copywriters write tricky headlines -- double meanings, puns, and other obscurities," David Ogilvy, one of the greatest minds in advertising, once wrote. "This is counter-productive…your headline should telegraph what you want to say."

"Iconic designs that stand out apart from the crowd have just one feature to help them stand out," writes brand identity guru David Airey. "That's it. Just one. Not two, three, or four."

More recently, AdAge Editor in Chief Rance Crain flatly stated, "Good ads are simple and direct."

"Bad ads aren't," he continued.

If there is one ubiquitous theme throughout all the disciplines of advertising, it's simplicity. Simple headlines. Simple logos. Simple ads.

Unfortunately, as Crain points out, simplicity is "a characteristic that advertisers have a woeful lack of these days."

Simplicity seems like a simple concept for advertisers. You only have 30 sec. in which to sell a product to a customer, so it would seem like ad should be as concise and direct as possible. Sometimes, in the case of print, the time to capture a prospect's attention is even shorter -- three seconds at most.

So, why then do copywriters write blind headlines, or creative directors piece together television spots that waste 80 percent of the airtime on setting up some plot or twist unrelated to the actual product?

The war for consumer "attention" is certainly not anything new. It's a battle advertisers have been fighting since the days of Claude Hopkins and before.

The new war, however, has evolved. Advertisers now seem certain that in order to grab a consumer's attention, a commercial must be "novel," "sensational," or "spellbinding." They try to engage audiences with complex plots or graphics, or either misguided attempts at comedy.

The result is often a complete bust; for example, Kia's cosmic adventure advertisement during the Super Bowl.

Do you even remember what car they were advertising?

Simple and direct ads are, many times, very vanilla. They don't have the "wow" factor. That is, they're not built to entertain.

They're meant to sell product, which (used to be) the purpose of advertising.
And, you don't have sacrifice engagement for simplicity. Apple ads (agency: TBWA\Chiat\Day) are some of the simplest campaigns running right now. Yet, I bet after reading that sentence, you immediately thought of an iPad or iPod.

The Reese's "Perfect" campaign, from ArnoldWorldwide, is another exam of utterly uncomplicated ads accomplishing everything they need to do.

Don't fall into the trap of thinking you have to trick the audience into being engaged. As Leo Burnett said, there is "inherent drama" in every product. The true skill of an advertiser is to find this drama and bring it to life. That is, without tricks and games.

Think simple.

is groupon a “road-to-ruin” for local retailers?

In a February editorial published at AdAge.com, marketing guru Al Ries called Groupon – and the whoring of coupons – a “road-to-ruin deal for local retailers.”

“Presumably, all those consumers who bought products and services for 50% off are going to be happy to return to their local retailers and return to buy those same products and services at full prices,” Ries asserts. "That's not going to happen."

Speaking about the "coupon culture" as a whole, Ries has a point.

Coupons are like crack to companies looking for a quick fix in sales numbers. As such, it’s easy for companies to get addicted. And, unfortunately, it can come with some harsh realities after the rush wears off.

Companies that routinely use coupons lock themselves into a dangerous pattern where consumers shop only when product is on sale, or discounted by coupons.

It’s hard to lay off that sweet, sweet discount, man.

Ries points to department store retailers like Macy’s and Kohl’s who have begun to rely on steep discounts to move product rather than the strength of their brand. It’s basically a discount war.

Personally, I find this to be true. I love Macy’s because, from time-to-time, they have a huge discount on dress shirts and ties. Sure, the quality of the store will push me to Macy’s above JC Penny, Belk, or Sears, but I don’t find myself frequently shopping at Macy’s unless I run across a sale.

As a cost-conscience consumer, I know that all I have to do is delay my purchase by a little bit of time, and that the same shirt that costs $39.99 will be $15.99 two or three weeks later.

The distorting effects of coupons also fueled skepticism of the potency of Proctor & Gamble’s Old Spice commercial featuring “The Man Your Man Could Smell Like.” During the explosion of publicity and social media conversation regarding this pop-sensation of a commercial, a simultaneous marketing campaign using coupons was launched.

“It's hard to determine how much of (the sales increase) was due to an aggressive couponing campaign which was in market simultaneously,” says Adweek’s Joseph Jaffe, though he did admit that there was some impact that could be attributed to the viral success of the commercial.

But, is Groupon the same as a packaged good, or department store?

I have to disagree with Ries on this one. While discounts and coupons can ultimately undermine the strength of a brand when they become assimilated into the shopping behavior of a consumer, the platform of Groupon is much different.

The variety of Groupon’s clients makes discounts unpredictable. There is no reason to expect that a discount for an eatery will appear at a specific time in the future – or ever again. Consumers can’t anticipate the appearance of an additional discount in a way that will cause a delayed sale.

If Groupon’s discounts from clients rotated on a predictable schedule – say, a discount to a local retailer that appeared every two weeks – then Ries’ comments would hold some water.

But, it doesn’t; at least, not yet.

Retailers advertising on Groupon have a chance to offer a discount to their products much in the same way a loss leader is used to entice future sales. It’s more of a premium than a discount.

Retailers with relatively small advertising budgets can get a high profile spotlight in the community through the use of Groupon, which is the appeal that has sent Groupon’s value through the roof. As more retailers partner with Groupon, the more varied the discounts will be, and the less likely company’s are to fall into the “coupon trap” Ries fears.

favorite three television campaigns currently running

It's easy to point out things in advertising that you don't like. I do it all the time on this blog (cough…Starbucks logo redesign…cough). It's a much harder task to pick the advertising you do like.

However, listed below are my three favorite campaigns currently on TV right now. I picked them for several reasons, but mainly because I find them the best at what they're designed to do: sell. And, if they make me laugh while doing it, that's an extra tip of the hat to the agency.

3) Southwest Airlines - "Bags Fly Free" - GSD&M

(Agency: GSD&M)

Southwest is pounding the airwaves with their "Bags Fly Free" campaign. It launched the campaign in the summer of 2009 using their long-time agency GSD&M. The campaign recently has featured a "Fee Court," where other airlines face a jury of Southwest employees about passenger exploitation.

Not every commercial is a gut-buster, but the commercials do a damn fine job at positioning Southwest as the low budget, low hassle airline of choice. And, when passengers are increasingly cost conscience, Southwest is in a great position to start eating up some market share in the air travel industry.

It still has some time to beat its reputation for its "cattle call" boarding process of the past. But, if Southwest continues to position itself as the fee-free airlines, I think it will pick up a lot of business from passengers tired of being nickel-and-dimed by other airlines.

2) Reese's - "Perfect" - ArnoldWorldwide

(Agency: ARN Worldwide)

"We knew that consumers loved the product the way it was and that we needed to capture the simple brand essence of chocolate, peanut butter, orange, two cups," says ArnoldNYC President Lynn Power. "The solution? 'Reese's Perfect,' a campaign that treats the product as the icon it is, and gives Reese's a bold leadership voice that elevates it from the rest of the candy in the category."

Power's comments encapsulate what I like most about this ad series. In a medium where viewers are bombarded with flashy, over-the-top, outrageous campaigns, ARN took the simple beauty of the Reese's cup and makes a television ad out of it.

The simplicity of the commercials makes them stand out, which grabs attention. Entertaining copy and techniques, featuring the product front and center, brings it all together.

It truly is a "perfect" combination.

1) Allstate - "Mayhem is Everywhere" - Leo Burnett

(Agency: Leo Burnett)

Like Southwest and GSD&M, Allstate and ad agency Leo Burnett have been together a looooong time. Though, when your ad agency is putting out ad gold like Burnett recently has with the launch of the "Mayhem" campaign, it's not hard to see why.

Hands down, the "Mayhem is Everywhere" campaign featuring the hilarious Dean Winters is the best ad series on TV right now.

I can't think of a commercial that has made me laugh time and time again, with each new spot, like these Mayhem commercials.

And, to top it all off, they're not just good for laughs. Pitching the idea that "mayhem is everywhere" by using common, real life situations (deer, limbs, an oblivious teen on a lawn mower), it makes consumers stop and think if they're covered if something like that were to happen.

Let's not forget that Matt Miller, the copywriter on the campaign, continues to churn out brilliant stuff.

When you combine great copy with wicked-funny creative, you create the perfect storm for advertising.

I only blame Allstate for my recent switch to State Farm.

the golden rule for email marketing: permission

The single, most important factor in the success of an email marketing program is permission. Permission is the foundation on which your entire email marketing program is based. It will impact everything else that you do.

Permission essentially is an established relationship between you and the subscriber. It indicates that your email subscribers have given you explicit consent to email them. If you don't have permission, or your level of permission is weak, the effectiveness of your email marketing program will suffer greatly.

When adding names to your email list, always ask yourself, "Do I have permission to email these subscribers?" If you cannot definitively answer yes, then it is time to re-evaluate how you are building your list.

"Email is permission-based," writes John Caldwell, an email marketing expert and author of Red Pill Email. "You cannot legitimately buy or sell someone else's permission, it comes directly from the recipient. Permission may be revoked by the recipient at any time for any reason."

The strongest form of email permissioning is "opt-in" permission, where subscribers voluntarily agree to become a member of your email marketing program. This can happen in many ways, but the best form is subscribers unequivocally intend to be sent emails by your organization. The key in opt-in permission is the establishment of a relationship between your organization and the subscriber. This relationship can also be established petitions, surveys, purchases, donations, etc. However, when using these techniques, the notification that the subscriber will be receiving subsequent emails should be conspicuous and straightforward.

Email marketing isn't about the number of subscribers on your list. It's about the quality of the relationship you have with your subscribers. "Tricky" or "sneaky" opt-in practices will undermine this relationship, and reduce the quality of your email list. Having a large quantity of people on your email list who either do not want to be on it, or do not know they are on it, will significantly impact your results, and could ultimately shut it down altogether.

The weaker form of permissioning is called "opt-out" permission. This is where a batch of email subscribers are sent an email stating that if they do not "opt-out," they will begin receiving email messages.

While many companies perform opt-out services, this type of permissioning is not accepted by the email marketing industry, and opt-out lists are disallowed by almost every email service provider (ESP).

While opt-out subscribers are technically legal to email, the lack of a solid foundation of permission can hurt your sender reputation due to complaints and reduced subscriber engagement.

----
This is part one in a series on email marketing.

final thought on starbucks logo redesign

At the center of my rejection of Starbucks' logo change is the idea that the logo is ubiquitous enough to be a standalone identity. Were I to agree with Starbucks that they have worldwide brand identity, I would say, "Bravo. Job well done."

But, I think they're vastly overestimating how recognizable their logo actually is.

/end

ad humor: go whole-hog, or don’t do it at all

David Ogilvy, arguably the king of Madison Avenue, was no fan of humor in advertisements. He believed purchasing a product was serious business for consumers, and using humor as a technique more times than not undermined the effectiveness of an ad.

He had a point.

Tonight I had the TV on and a 30 sec. new spot for Wheat Thins came on:


(Agency: The Escape Pod)

This is a perfect example of how the humor angle undermines, if not altogether kills, the effectiveness of commercials if not done correctly.

What about that commercial was designed to motivate people to buy Wheat Thins? When the commercial was over, I was more confused than anything. My reaction wasn’t, “Oh, that’s hilarious that Wheat Thins did this. Let me go buy some.” It was, “What is she going to do with a pallet of Wheat Thins.”

Even the "victim's" face said the same thing.

Dropping a pallet of Wheat Thins off on an unsuspecting consumer is hardly a call to action.

I suppose one could make the argument that the commercial was not designed to sell product necessarily, but to increase brand awareness on social media. “So go ahead and tweet, post, blog, upload or text about Wheat Thins...we dare you,” says EP’s site.

But, is paying for a 30 sec. spot just to spark chatter on Twitter worth it? That’s a lot of money to pay for brand awareness on a social networking site that has only a fraction of the use as, say, Facebook.

Secondly, as McDonalds found out, pandering to Twitter is a dangerous game.

Here are a few recent tweets regarding Wheat Thins:

@Princessasuzy21: Have u seen those super fake wheat thins commercials? U can totally tell theu're fake!

@vdaze: I can't even tell you how pissed I'd be if someone just dropped off a pallet of Wheat Thins at my front door and left.

@ImTashaHOE: What the hell is that girl suppose to do with all those Wheat Thins SMH

The concept of the commercial isn’t all bad. It would make a great online campaign. And, it could be done for a fraction of the price not having to pay for ad time.

If Wheat Thins really wanted to do a television commercial, they should have either gone for the gold with humor, or stuck to something more relevant to the product (a wheat thin is a very humorless thing). They could have spent 30 seconds on positioning Wheat Thins as the healthy alternative to chips.

Boring? Yes. Effective? Much more so.

This is not to say that humor can’t work. Allstate is doing a great job with a hilarious series featuring Dean Winters as “Mayhem” (agency: Leo Burnett). Several of the spots are gut-busters, and the copy itself is very good. While making people laugh, the commercials motivate consumers to check their insurance policies to see if they are covered in the featured situation.

The key to the series' success is that Burnett's creative team went whole-hog on making it funny. The Mayhem commercials are a little weird and a little dark. And, it paid off.

And that's the thing: If you’re going to do humor, do it. Get weird. Get original. Don’t sell yourself short or you’re just going to waste a boatload of money on an ad that’s instantly forgettable.

who Is starbucks forgetting?

I feel like I may be belaboring the Starbucks logo issue a little (first three blog posts starting out are all dedicated to it), but it's such a dopey move...I...I just can't get it all out of my system in a single post.

Starbucks is the paradigm of what happens when you let hubris drive your marketing rather than data, or, heck, plain reason.

Starbucks decided its brand awareness, particularly its logo, was so pervasive in modern society that it could remove its name and product off the logo...letting the image alone serve as its brand identity.

Let's see who Starbucks completely forgot about in this move:

- People who have never heard of Starbucks.
- People who have heard of Starbucks, but never grabbed a cup.
- People who may have tried Starbucks, but aren't regular patrons.
- Patrons who are regulars, but never paid that much attention to the logo.

Who does Starbucks not forget about?

- People categorically obsessed with Starbucks (who probably like the new logo).

And, for all those tired people driving at night on the Interstate? They're probably going to Dunkin' Donuts because what the hell does a big green siren/mermaid tell me about that business? Nothing.

(posted from Starbucks)