Albert Einstein once said that the definition of insanity is “doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.” Think about that and then ask yourself if your current advertising strategy is based in insanity.
I’ve spoken with several local small business owners this past week who, like many others, have cut their ad budgets due to the economy and declining foot traffic in their stores. The interesting thing is that they were all very frank about the fact that their advertising wasn’t producing great results even before they scaled it back.
My question to them was: “if your tactics weren’t effective when you were spending $5,000 per month, what makes you think they will be effective when you’re spending $2,500 per month?”
Basic principles of ROI would dictate that if you’re not hitting a break-even point by spending $5,000, then you certainly will not hit it by spending $2,500 on the same tactics. In essence, you’re running a loss campaign.
Based on your profit margin, how many customers do you need to earn each month to justify the $5,000 expense? Cutting the ad budget will decrease your expense, but it will also decrease your exposure, and thus, proportionally, your return.
Here is a lesson you can take to the bank: if your advertising tactics aren’t paying for themselves at $5,000 per month, then they aren’t going to pay for themselves at $2,500 per month or even $10,000 per month.
The problem is not the amount of money you’re spending. The problem is the tactics you’ve chosen. If they don’t work, then doing more or less of the same thing isn’t going to change that.
The “sweet spot”, as we say in advertising, is to find tactics that work (to be defined as tactics that pay for themselves and leave a profit) and then to do them at a high enough frequency to provide your business with adequate revenue. That formula is different for every business…but the principle remains the same.
If the tactics you’ve chosen for that $5,000 budget aren’t working, abandon them, as I advised the business owners I mentioned earlier. Do something else. Think outside the box. There’s more to the world of branding and marketing and advertising than print, radio, television, and billboards. Lots more.
When you get outside of that traditional mindset, you will find tactics that produce lower cost, higher returns, and stronger brand equity. Hello, sweet spot!
The point I’m making here is this: if something isn’t working, accept that it isn’t working. Don’t expect a different result by doing more of the same. That’s insanity.
We are happy to have been associated with the Epilepsy Foundation of Mississippi’s annual fund raising event, “Off the Leash for Epilepsy”, this past weekend. The foundation raised awareness and lots of money for their programs and services for Mississippians living with seizure disorders. They also set a record for total sponsors! Mojoloco helped in naming and branding the event as well as production and public relations throughout the event lead-up. This is the second year we’ve helped the foundation with their major annual fund raiser. We had a blast- with the people and the dogs- and look forward to next year’s event!
Bud Light has saturated the market with their new positioning strategy: “Drinkability.” I want to address this because, to me, it is a poster-child for a bad positioning strategy. Don’t get me wrong, the Bud Light commercials are well-produced, but apparently, some marketing genius fell asleep during differentiation class. “Drinkability” is not a valid USP, or Unique Selling Proposition. Dictionary.com defines “drinkable” as simply “suitable for drinking.”
Congratulations to Bud Light for choosing a USP that every other fluid on the planet shares. Creek water has drinkability. And, as fans of Discovery Channel’s Man vs Wild know, even urine has drinkability if you’re stranded in the desert. So, why did Bud Light pick that term as their new positioning angle?
First, some Marketing 101. The goal of any marketing campaign is to differentiate itself from the competition. Tell your market how and why you’re different from the other guy so that they’ll buy your stuff. Unique Selling Proposition (or USP) is one theory that explains how to do this. A strong USP is supposed to have three components:
It should make a proposition that has a specific, tangible benefit. “If you buy Brand X, you will get ___________.” No fluff, no foolery.
The proposition must be unique. “Brand X is the only product available in stores that ____________.” Whatever “blank” is shouldn’t be something that the competition offers.
The proposition must be strong enough to convince a lot of people to switch brands. “Unlike our competition, Brand X does not have harmful side effects.”
Now, back to “Drinkability.” The word doesn’t fit any of these criteria, except the first one and that is a very weak argument. So why pick that word? The answer, IMHO, lies between the lines of the ads. Watch this ad…
What’s the message? Bud Light doesn’t fill you up. Now, watch this ad…
What’s the message? Bud Light tastes better than the competition.
Hmmm, starting to sound familiar? Tastes great, less filling. The whole message is a throwback to Miller Lite’s hugely successful campaign…
Some things just never get old…
Bottom line: “Drinkability” is a smoke & mirrors campaign. Bud Light is trying to edge in on Miller’s position. After all, “taste” and “healthy” are two very strong USP’s. The question is: will it work? All I can say is that Mr. and Mrs. Consumer and their Consumerlings aren’t stupid.
Is “Drinkability” a tangible benefit? I suppose it is, since one can, in fact, drink it. Is “Drinkability” unique to Bud Light? No, far from it. And, finally, will re-hashing the “tastes great, less filling” argument inspire mass exodus from Miller Lite to Bud Light? Very doubtful. After all, why would Miller Lite drinkers change when they already have “tastes great, less filling”?
Puzzling move by Bud Light.
But it’s not the first time a brand has chosen a weak USP. On a local level, we see business owners every day who select weak USP’s. Here are some examples:
Quality- unless you can point to some very specific, very tangible feature
Hard work- everyone works hard
Integrity- this should go without saying
Good Service- all businesses claim to provide good service
What are some examples of potentially strong USP’s? Here are a few:
Taste- as long as you can maintain it
Price- be very careful with this one…it can come back to bite you in bad way
Expertise- if you can be specific…it’s not enough to say “I’m an expert.”
Atmosphere- if you can really deliver it
One-of-a-Kind Product or Service- if you’ve got it, flaunt it
Selection- be careful of this one, too…but, if handled right, it can work
Performance- “it keeps going and going and going…” Ring a bell?
Self-Worth- possibly the strongest avenue of all
To sum it up, every brand should have a strong USP as the core of their positioning strategy. That USP should provide a specific and tangible benefit, it should be unique to that brand, and it should inspire consumers to change. If it doesn’t do those things, you’re going to be in trouble in the long-term. You will suffer from a weak position in the market.
When you select your USP, try to do a better job than Bud Light and “Drinkability.” Because, unlike Anheuser-Busch, you probably don’t have millions to waste on a bad marketing strategy.
I admit, I am personally guilty- absolutely guilty- of using a number of these phrases quite often. With all due respect to Oxford, however, if these phrases are used in fairly unique contexts, and not just 24/7, then they aren’t really so annoying. Right?
After all, at the end of the day, it’s a nightmare trying to come up with unique phrases and expressions. I suppose we shouldn’t of all used the same ones…then at least some of us would be able to claim originality.
But, at this moment in time, that isn’t the way it works, is it? In our efforts to be unique and different and “cool”, human beings have a pack mentality- even if it’s subconscious. We all want to be different, but we don’t want to be so different that we’re viewed as weird. As a result, we all wind up being different in basically the same ways.
Think about it. The iPod was a first of its kind- truly different. And, because Apple’s competitors want to be different, too, they all released a new product to compete with the iPod. Each claimed their product was different. But they were all different in the same ways, and they all got lumped into the same category. And the iPod still dominates.
I addressed this in a previous post that dealt with business names for Web 2.0 brands. Web 2.0 names are notorious for being different in the same way that all the rest of them are different. MySpace, Facebook, Digg, Diigo, Fark, Faves, Furl, Reddit, StumbleUpon, Twitter, Google, Kaboodle, Link-a-Gogo, etc. These are all cool names. But they’re all cool in the same way. None of them really jumps out. So, it begs the question…are any of them really cool in their own right?
Things get irritating when they are repeated too often. That holds true with language, product ideas, brand names, you name it.
If you want to set yourself apart in your category, then have an original thought. Don’t be original in the same way that your competitors are original. Be truly original. Start by coming up with original words and phrases to describe your brand. Really, it’s not rocket science…
Actually, I’m sure there are a number of lessons to glean from the past few months of watching the candidates duke it out. But there’s one really, really important one. And, I’ve touched on this in a previous blog entry about the election.
It’s a lesson about owning a word FIRST in the mind of the consumer…or, in the case of the election…the voter. Obama owned change. He owned it because he was the first to use it.
That’s how it works in brand theory. Remember, marketing is a battle of perception, not products. It doesn’t matter what the truth is…it only matters what consumers believe. And, the brand that claims a word first, usually gets to own it.
Several other candidates tried to steal this word from Obama….Clinton, Romney, and McCain. They all failed. Not because they weren’t agents of change, but because that word was already taken. So, by trying to stand for the same word as their competitor, they wound up standing for nothing, and they lost.
Some tenants of brand theory thrive in shades of gray. This one doesn’t: whoever owns the word first, gets to keep it.
Wow. It’s November 5, and I’m looking at a crisp, clear morning sky. I’m sure at least half the country is amazed that it didn’t fall on our heads last night. Whether the sky falls or hangs on to its celestial hooks for another 4 years…I’m just glad the election is over.
No more attack ads. No more debates. No more polls. No more pundits. I’m ready for it all to just go…away. I’m ready to get back to the plain ole’ everyday partisan bickering. This election year bickering is way too shrill for my tastes.
If I never get another pleading, conspiratorial, politically-themed email from my grandmother (the kool-aid drinking republican) or my little brother (the ideologically naïve democrat), it’ll be too soon. And, I’m all for locking Mississippi Congressional candidates Ronnie Musgrove and Rocker Wicker in a dark closet, giving them each a bag of fire ants, and letting them go to town.
But, at the end of the day, it’s just another election. It’s not the end of the world. The sky hasn’t fallen, and probably won’t fall anytime soon.
So, let’s all take a big, fat, freakin’ pill, and just…move on.
Running a business requires calculated risk. Pure and simple. When you succeed, you count those risks as entirely worthwhile. You may even pat yourself on the back for your bravado.
But what happens when you fail?
Our culture is one that places high emphasis on risk that leads to success and a high price on risk that leads to failure. Two business owners can take the exact same risk, and, for reasons beyond both their control, one can succeed and the other can fail. The one who succeeds is seen as a hero, while the one who fails is remembered as a fool.
It’s too bad, really. Of those two, which is really the wiser for his or her experience?
Your business must assume some risk…it’s the nature of the beast. Another part of this nature is that not all of the risk will pay off. Sometimes you’re going to lose. What do you do with those failures?
Failure is among the best teachers. Failure is an excellent strategy for innovation. Thomas Edison tried 2,000 times to create a light bulb. He is famously quoted as saying, “I did not fail. I found 2,000 ways not to make a light bulb.” Another example is WD-40, that time-tested lubricant that’s good for anything from squeaky hinges to (some will swear) arthritis. WD-40 stands for “Water Displacement, Formula #40.” In other words, it was the 40th attempt to make a formula that works. This means that somewhere in the company’s archives is a dusty file folder with 39 failed attempts.
Another innovator once said that the “fastest way to succeed is to double your rate of failure.”
I’m sure we’ve all been in the boardrooms and taken part in the discussions about how to “manage” risk and minimize failures. We talk about exit strategies, testing, focus groups, polling, market research, developing multiple approaches, etc. And, more often than not, CEO’s obsessed with risk do the logical thing: NOTHING. Don’t rock the boat, or it just might tip over. Doing nothing earns nothing in return. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
Personally, I’m a big believer in Jerry Garcia’s philosophy: “the cards aren’t worth a damn if you don’t lay ‘em down.”
What slight chemical adjustment (speaking of the Grateful Dead) made such a huge difference between WD-39 and WD-40? What modest alteration in Edison’s 2,000th attempt led to a successful light bulb? At the point that you decide to give up and do nothing out of fear that you’re going to fail, what small change in thinking might make the difference and lead to success on your very next attempt?
Of course, you don’t know. We never do. We aren’t clairvoyant. If we were, there would be no such thing as risk. But there is, and we have to take it.
It all boils down to learning to view failure as a strategy for innovation. Want to succeed? Double your rate of failure. Plow through those 39 failed formulas. Be diligent in your 1,999 attempts in the dark.
Don’t confuse this with funneling dollar-tokens into a slot machine in a desperate attempt to break even. It’s not the same thing. That kind of stubbornness isn’t smart. Getting up , dusting yourself off, learning from your mistakes, and moving forward is.
Earlier, I referred to an innovator that said “the fastest way to succeed is to double your rate of failure.” This innovator’s name was Thomas J. Watson, Sr. He was a shy loner. He quit his first job after one day…his second after a year. He became a traveling salesman. He was fired, then moved, and continued selling, and was fired again. After this, he pulled up stakes and moved yet again, eventually begging his way into a company that sold cash registers. Several years later, after finally finding his niche, he was one of the top salesmen in that company. After some legal troubles, he left the company and took over a small upstart called Computing Tabulating Recording Company (how’s that for a mouthful?). Several years later, after phenomenal growth, he renamed the company to International Business Machines…IBM. Watson remained the head of IBM for the next 30 years.
“The fastest way to succeed is to double your rate of failure.”
By the way, Watson’s famous motto at IBM was “THINK.” That’s the reasoning behind the company’s “ThinkPad” brand laptops. “Think.”
Thinking is something. It’s a start. Action should follow, if you plan to succeed…even if sometimes that action leads to failure.
We were in a meeting with a client yesterday to discuss a performance-based advertising campaign. As I was explaining the difference between performance-based tactics and traditional tactics, I found myself wondering, “shouldn’t all advertising be performance-based?”
With performance-based advertising, you only pay for measurable results. How many prospects called? Walked through your door? Sent you an email? With this data, you can reduce your campaign to a cost-per-contact figure. This makes it very easy to determine whether or not it’s worthwhile and working. Historically, pay-per-click advertising online has dominated this category, but it is rapidly expanding into other media as well. Mobile marketing, word-of-mouth, and direct marketing are some examples of categories beginning to toy with performance-based models.
On the other hand, with traditional advertising, you pay regardless of the results. You’re going to write a check for that TV spot or print ad whether you gain new prospects or not. Traditional media has typically covered this gaping hole in logic by labeling traditional advertising “awareness advertising.” What John-Doe small business owner knows how to measure awareness? Sure, on its face it makes sense - plaster billboards all over town, folks see it, and become aware. Sounds reasonable enough, in a very non-scientific sort of way. But what does the consumer do with that awareness? And, more important, how can you measure it and assign it a value so that you’ll know when you’re getting a good buy or getting ripped off?
Here’s the rub: why would you pay thousands of dollars per month for this nebulous idea of “awareness” when you can pay the same amount of money for actual, real-life customers who come to your place of business to buy stuff? Do you know what your cost-per-awareness is? Or, would you sleep better at night knowing your cost-per-customer? Hmm…
We’ve been so dumbed down that we expect very, very little from traditional advertising. Therefore, when we don’t achieve huge results, we aren’t surprised or disappointed. My print ad was seen by 150,000 people last month and I got 15 customers as a direct result? Fantastic!
Huh? Since when is a .01% conversion rate acceptable? Would you accept the same results from your sales team? What about from your favorite quarterback? (are you listening, Vince Young?)
Why, then, do we accept such poor results from our advertising?
In my opinion, the performance-based model is the way of the future. ALL advertising should be performance-based. If it doesn’t perform well, STOP DOING IT. Do something else instead.
Regular readers of this blog know I’ve regularly harped on the ongoing battle between Apple and Microsoft. The Mac/PC ads are fast approaching mythic status, ranking up there with the Coke/Pepsi rivalry of the 80’s.
There was (and is) a lot of buzz surrounding the long-awaited Microsoft response to these ads. As I’ve noted here, that response was somewhat lackluster. The beauty of the Mac ads is that they have an “I’m-rubber-you’re-glue” quality to them that forces any response at all from Microsoft to backfire.
Ever since Microsoft launched their multi-million dollar response to the Mac campaign, I’ve been waiting for Mac to respond. This week, they did, and I have to give them a standing ovation. View the new ads below…
The beauty of this response is that it’s grounded in absolute truth. I’ve made the point here a couple of times that the strength of the Mac ads is that THEY ARE TRUE. Microsoft tried to candy-coat it in their response. Maintaining their previous approach, Mac stuck to the truth and, IMHO, scored a big one with their latest ad.
The moral of the story: honesty is always the best policy. Whether you’ve fallen short of expectations or whether you’re attacking a competitor, be honest. Consumers will reward you for it.
They say that money changes everything. If that’s the case, then I suppose the lack of money also changes everything. Millions of business owners across the country would attest to that today, I’m sure.
We had a conversation yesterday with a rather shortsighted sales manager from a local radio station. He was making the point that, when his station feels the pinch of a bad economy, “desperate times call for desperate measures” and that “what flew a few months ago doesn’t fly anymore.”
In turn, our point was “ok, that’s fine…but wouldn’t it be wonderful if you explained that to your customers and worked to find a win-win situation instead of stomping on growing and profitable relationships?”
I don’t think our point was taken. It’s no surprise, really. All he can feel is his current financial pain, and pressure from his bosses, no doubt. He is in desperation mode. And people get weird when they get desperate. As a result, he expects to increase his profitability by burning bridges and damaging trust. In his mind, it makes sense. But…I just really have to question that logic.
Don’t get me wrong…when budgets decrease, it’s sound business practice to tighten the belt and cut the fat. The trick is not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The origin of this expression dates from the pioneer days of early America when families lived in small log cabins and bathed in big tin tubs. And yes, they all used the same water….in order of oldest to youngest. So, by the time the baby’s turn to bathe rolled around, the water was pretty murky. And, so…you can probably see where this is going…it became a common household joke to make sure the baby wasn’t invisible under the water before tossing said water out the door. How charming…
My point is that an unhealthy business clouds the water. And in their zeal to rid the business of unhealthiness, sometimes people get desperate and damage the very relationships that can help them flourish.
My stepdad hung a small plaque on his office wall throughout the many years he operated his business. After his death a few months ago, I brought the plaque home and it now hangs on my office wall. The plaque reads “those who believe the customer isn’t important should try living without them for 90 days.”
Good advice for shortsighted sales managers.
I don’t want to be preachy…that isn’t the purpose of this blog. Our purpose here is to explore ways to strengthen your brand. So let’s bring this home… In times likes these, expect some people to be desperate. And, as a result, expect them to act weird.
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you
But make allowance for their doubting too,
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Keep your eye on the prize. Hold tight to that which really drives you. Avoid the pitfalls that would cause you to treat your customers as anything less than valuable.
Tactics aside, there is no better brand strategy than that…in good times or bad. And, what’s more, there is no better answer to the weirdness that desperation brings.
Print This Page
