"Remarkable is necessary to market today, because unremarkable products don’t get talked about, they just fade away." - Seth Godin
Seth is an incredibly smart guy and a master marketer, especially when it comes to the Internet and self-promotion. But I simply couldn't buy into the whole "remarkable, Purple Cow" meme that he started. Not that remarkable isn't a worthy goal, mind you. But if you're not remarkable, you'll fade away? C'mon.
You can read my thoughts about being remarkable and marketplace success in The Remarkable Chimera.
Please let me know your thoughts by posting a comment below. Also, if you're interested in receiving notification of new articles by email (along with some random statistics, news and interesting links), you can sign up by entering your email address, clicking the submit button, and then confirming your subscription from Aweber. Thanks! And please note: You'll only receive about one email a month, and I will never use your address for anything else. Promise.
I've been doing some blogging with my friend's at AdPulp, and the comments on one particular post got me thinking. Here's my post:
--------------------
Rate the ad: That's Not a Real Breakfast
Have you seen Denny's new ad with Tony Sirico, channeling his Sopranos persona Paulie "Walnuts," paying for a fast food breakfast with phony money?
.
.
So, how would you rate that ad on a scale of 1 – 10? More importantly, what criteria did you use to arrive at your decision?
I have my own list, but I'm really interested in what you all in the industry use. And let's not play the ROI card. Someone had to evaluate it and approve it prior to seeing the results. How'd they go about it? What was their thought process?
--------------------
And here are a few comment excerpts from AdPulp readers (you can read all of the unedited responses at this link):
"Good overall idea (I'd have bought the idea in concept phase and felt good about it).
But I wanted more comedy out of it."
"I've seen it once on TV and remembered the advertiser and the 'real breakfast' message."
"Effectiveness: 0 (I remember the commercial, but I can't remember who the advertiser is.)"
"As always, it’s subjective. But I stand by the lame, 20th century comments. It’s the old 'tell ‘em versus sell ‘em.' Yes, the spot communicates Denny’s has real breakfast. But does it motivate people to go? Does it make you hungry for Denny’s fare?"
So here's what I'm thinking: The commercial is intended to help establish Denny's as an alternative to the unreal breakfasts at places like McDonald's, B.K., Dunkin Donuts, and other sources of precooked, microwaved breakfast fare. Does it work? It doesn't for me (although it did make me laugh). Time will tell if it works for Denny's.
Here's how I would prejudge any ad or other piece of marcom. And I base it on the fact that the marketplace of old resembled a mass of passive caterpillars hanging around the tree of traditional media, venturing down the branches of mass distribution, and consuming the offshoots of brand advertisers. No more. The masses have escaped their pupae, spread their distinctive wings, and are fluttering around fields blossoming with an abundance of colorful and succulent offerings. A fleeting glimpse is all one usually gets of them.
1. See the flower.
The first thing an ad must do is grab the attention of the audience. Therefore it must be different; different enough that the audience pauses and says, "Huh? What's that?" This is difficult to do with a TV ad. We tend to multi task with the television humming in the background. That being said, I did notice the Denny's ad. Check.
2. Smell the flower.
Certain butterflies are attracted to certain flowers. The same is true with people and their marketplace predilections. Therefore an ad must be highly relevant to a specific audience. It should creatively communicate compelling value to that audience, as well as deliver value in its execution; e.g. engaging, identity enhancement, provides social currency, etc. I'm not really sure who the Denny's ad is speaking to? Is it addressing the folks who eat unreal breakfasts? Are those people not aware of slower, real breakfast restaurants? Where is the reason to choose Denny's over every other local sit down breakfast joint? And what am I saying about myself, to myself and to others, if I suggest breakfast at Denny's? This is not clear to me at all.
3. Taste the flower.
Let's say the audience does approach the flower to taste it. To prove that it's not some clever, plastic facsimile (like most ads). Does the experience match the expectation? Is Denny's real? When I consume the experience, does it taste as good as it looks and smells? And what precisely is the expectation created by the ad, beyond "real" food? I'm not saying that the value has to be some price, food, or atmospheric feature and benefit. Burger King's wacky ads made the value about a shared sense of strange humor, social currency and identity. But I'm missing the compelling value of Denny's ads.
4. Talk about the flower.
Is there a way for the audience to easily share the brand and reinforce their Denny's identities? To say, "Look at what I found!" In this case, the ad was easy to find on YouTube. Most ads are not (why is that?). But I highly doubt that people are compelled by the ad to spread it around to their friends and pseudo friends (e.g. the ones on Facebook, Twitter, et al.). If you see someone wearing a Denny's t-shirt, please snap a picture and send it to me.
So that's my quick, strategic look at the Denny's ad. Feel free to toss in your two cents in the comments. But if you do, please make them "real" comments!
I was recently asked that question by the Director of Marketing at Market Insights. My answer will probably upset a lot of people. If you're interested, you can read it over here.
"If no one knows the brand, then you're not diluting anything. It's all about awareness any way you can get it." So advises David Hartley, an analyst with BMO Capital Markets as reported in the Financial Post, regarding Tim Horton's rough start in the New England coffee-and-doughnut market and thus their foray into self-serve kiosks in Shell gas stations.
Awareness any way you can get it. Wow. That's the kind of thinking that looking at numbers, instead of experiencing with customers, gets you.
Have you ever hiked up a snow-covered mountain trail? It's a frustrating, two steps forward and slide back a step ordeal. So, it appears, is the AMA's attempt at defining the word "marketing."
Take a look at its "evolution:"
1985 - 2004: Marketing is the process of planning and executing conception, pricing, promotion and distribution of goods, ideas and services to create exchanges that satisfy individual and organizational goals.
2004 - 2007: Marketing is an organizational function and a set of processes for creating, communicating and delivering value to customers and for managing customer relationships in ways that benefit the organization and its stakeholders.
2008 - : Marketing is the activity, set of institutions, and processes for creating, communicating, delivering, and exchanging offerings that have value for customers, clients, partners, and society at large.
Does this represent a progressive change? I certainly agree with the idea of "creating, communicating, delivering, and exchanging offerings that have value." But there are two glaring problems with this new definition, excluding the whole "society" bit:
1. It sounds passive as hell. Since when does creating and communicating value automatically motivate human behavior? In today's supersaturated marketplace, incitement, education, inspiration, and stimulation (of customers, employees, media, et al) count as much, if not more than all of the creating, communicating, delivering and exchanging combined; and
2. Why no mention of profitably, growth or even achieving organizational objectives? All of this "activity" requires resources, and over time those resources come from the creative planning and backbreaking execution of the "Big M" marketing plan.
So what's your take? What would you say to a CMO who has created, communicated, delivered, and exchanged offerings that have value, but has shrunk the customer base, reduced operating profits, devalued the brand, and lost the election?
I've just caught up on my reading for the week, and I've discovered a few gems that may be of interest to you. The first is a New York Times article, which details what good sales people (and people skilled in NLP) have known all along -- that rapport between people "is highly dependent on mimicry."
Next up, researchers at the University of Iowa have found that when it comes to shopping, sometimes ignorance really is bliss. Using consumer-style tests, they found that the less people knew about a product, the more they liked it. They suggest the results show we need to be happy with our choices, even if it means kidding ourselves. Read all about it on Newswire. Or if you're really busy, simply tell yourself that it's really not worth your time. :)
And finally, in keeping with how the mind works, if you're interested in the difference between women's and men's brains, watch this YouTube video:
I love remarkable; especially remarkable products. Take a look at this $100 pop-up book. It's a limited-edition memento that follows a young girl's journey through Neiman Marcus, documenting the retailer's 100-year history. You can buy one, or watch it come to life, at this link. However, I'm sorry to say that it will not arrive in time for Valentine's Day. Next year, right?
Take a good look at some of the pages below. See the one with the woman popping out of the middle of the book (click to enlarge)? See that shadow to the left? It's not real. It was printed on the page. What unreasonable nut spent that kind of time, and went through those lengths, for a book that pretty much no one will ever see? A remarkable nut, that's who!
You see, every remarkable product, remarkable web site, remarkable business, and remarkable service experience is made possible by some remarkable and unreasonable human being. Someone who is passionate. Someone whose internal fire burns bright. We seem to forget that.
I ran into one of those people during a recent service "encounter." I was experiencing repeated problems with a technical product (technical to me, any way) that I purchased online from a fairly large retailer, and I was about to throw in the towel and write a nasty blog post, when I got a crazy idea: I decided to pick up the phone and call the Director of Online Marketing. I figured I had absolutely nothing to lose.
To make a long story very short, not only did this nut take my call, he also left his office, went to the warehouse, physically unpacked, assembled, and verified that the product worked. He then disassembled it, and repacked and expedited the shipment to me. And get this: he even trusted me to return the defective product without having me go through some frustrating corporate paperwork rigamoro (he was well aware that I was already pretty frustrated).
If it wasn't for that one, remarkable human being, everyone involved would have come out on the short end. He could have easily sent me off to some customer service call center nightmare, and washed his hands of me. But he chose not to. He chose to do something unreasonable, by corporate standards. He chose to do the right thing . . . for me . . . for his customer. Make no mistake: Doing the right thing is always a choice. By someone. To do something. Typically something unreasonable, to brighten up the life of someone else. Thanks Zisha for brightening up mine. Corporate America needs more nuts like you.
I was just perusing the recent issue of BtoB magazine when I ran across an article by Matthew Schwartz titled, When the going gets rough, branding or lead generation? Here's the lead paragraph:
With the economy slowing down, b-to-b marketers have to ask themselves a tough question regarding their spending: Do they focus on advertising that plugs the brand or drives sales leads?
Huh? What brand marketers, and Matthew Schwartz, should really ask themselves is even tougher: Do they have any idea what branding is all about?
Branding and lead generation are not mutually exclusive subsets of advertising. Branding is any and all activities that influence the perceptions and expectations of a marketer's audience towards his or her brand. Branding done well increases customers' and prospects' connection to, and regard and desire for, said brand. It adds value to their lives by delivering value in various forms; e.g. saves time and/or money, improves physical and emotional well-being, provides entertainment and social connections, enables creativity, learning and meaning, etc.
Image advertising is a subset of branding. If done well, it can add value to people's connection, regard and desire for the brand. Advertising "designed to generate leads" is also a subset of branding (although one would hope that all advertising was ultimately designed to generate leads and sales). So is package design, web design, retail design, product development, customer interactions, pricing, reputation, pr, events, articles, etc.
Why the hell is this concept so difficult to grasp? And who edits these articles, any way? BtoB refers to its brand as, "The Magazine for Marketing Strategists." That being explicitly stated, Schwartz' article is a great example of branding done poorly.
Like every other marketing-related question today, the short answer is: it depends. For example, money couldn't buy votes for Rudy Giuliani. He spent nearly $60 million on his presidential campaign, and won only one delegate. Although the collapse of his campaign has been blamed primarily on his decision to bypass the early primaries, something more fundamental went wrong: he failed to communicate a clear, concise emotional benefit to the American people. A benefit that they could quickly grasp, was believable, that they wanted to believe, and which they could identify strongly with.
This was certainly not the case with . . . the pomegranate. Suddenly, the pomegranate is everywhere, said Anne Kadet in Smart Money. And the fruit's overnight success is no accident. Beverly Hills billionaires Stewart and Lynda Resnick, who own the nation's largest pomegranate farm, have spent a lot of money promoting pomegranate juice as health in a bottle. The difference here is that not only is the benefit easily grasped, believable, and desirable, but no one is ripping apart the evidence.
"If no one knows the brand, then you're not diluting anything. It's all about awareness any way you can get it." So advises David Hartley, an analyst with BMO Capital Markets as 
I love remarkable; especially remarkable products. Take a look at this $100 pop-up book. It's a limited-edition memento that follows a young girl's journey through Neiman Marcus, documenting the retailer's 100-year history. You can buy one, or watch it come to life, at 
