Very excited to be included in the top 50

Much to AdNotes' delight, we have been included in a list of the top 50 marketing blogs in Australia.
Click on the crest (over there on the left) to sample the other 49 and become Australia's best read marketer.

Squeeze a few fruit

I was listening to the radio the other day and the story was about giant American food stores entering the Australian market. To get the predictable ‘I think it’s outrageous’ comment, they contacted a local fruit and vege shop owner called Nick Mashadis.

To everyone’s surprise Nick thought the arrival of mega food barns would be a good thing. Far from being negative about the idea he thought it would be great for his business and shoppers over all.

The reason? Simple choice.

Nick reasoned that shoppers would try the new places then try his stores and make up their own minds. He was confident that he had what people wanted: quality product, product tailored to local needs and preferences, and outstanding service. He even believed he could compete on price, as his rental overheads were so much lower.

This little surprise story reminded me of the choice facing marketers when they need advertising help. Currently most FMCG clients have ‘an agency’. They have been encouraged since advertising began to make a lifelong attachment to a big agency. (I once met a very senior marketer who was conducting her first and probably only agency pitch)

The theory is of course that the agency is a consistent ‘brand expert’. This idea had some merit 20 years ago, when agency staff stayed put for longer than 18 months, and when the client had a lot less involvement in marketing communications.

But today the argument is a little hollow and starts to smack of a simple (and understandable) need to hang on to business at all costs. ‘We’ve always done it this way’ is no longer an excuse in the public service. It should never be an excuse in the world of advertising.

Large agencies need the ‘wedded for life’, or as ‘long as possible’, model to perpetuate. New ideas and models are mercilessly derided by an industry that ironically prides itself on creativity. Mark Buckman, Marketing Director of the Commonwealth Bank, broke with tradition by going offshore for creative. He used a US ad agency for the ‘Brand‘ part of the Comm Bank business. The Ad Industry’s reaction was predictably shrill and obviously self-serving. I wrote a letter to AdNews congratulating Mark on his ‘creativity’.

I’m not saying trash the system if you’re happy and it works for you. But out of the hundreds of marketers I’ve talked to over the years I can remember one, that’s right one, who was 100% happy with his agency’s creative, service and price.

I know that Head Office usually prefers/demands the same agency worldwide. Again if this works well - great. All I’m saying is that there is always choice available, even within a contracted relationship.

The most obvious example is the booming ‘branded format advertising’ phenomenon. Big marketers with rusted on agencies have managed to separate a tactical/short term strategy and use it successfully.

Other examples include quite large marketing companies briefing one-off ‘tactical’ projects out to smaller creative agencies. This usually starts as a simple cost saving measure. But clients are often surprised by the quality and service they also receive.

Project work has many other benefits to the marketer. It gives the opportunity to sample other ways of doing things and of meeting other creatives and suppliers. And just as importantly, working with other companies allows you to build up a ‘feel’ for what things really cost.

Most marketers have no idea of the enormous depth of creative firepower available to them. And why would they? Your average client might have heard of 10 agencies, because that’s all they read about in the trade press.

But did you know B&T lists 794 Australian companies who call themselves Advertising Agencies? Even if half are kidding themselves, that’s still a lot to choose from.

So go on, take Nick the fruiterer’s advice. Try a few shops and squeeze a few fruit. You might be pleasantly surprised.

Avoiding TVC construction blowouts

I have a friend, Scott, who is having a major renovation done to his house. At least when I say he is having it done, I mean he plans to have it done. You see, after many months and tens of thousands of dollars in architect’s fees Scott still has no idea what his renovation will cost. His architect is from a prestigious firm and can’t give him any clues to the final cost. Indeed any queries about cost are greeted with a certain disdain and dismissal.

The creative process goes like this: the plans are hammered out between architect and client, then the council makes whatever changes it and the neighbours deem necessary, then those plans are handed to a builder who prepares an estimate. At THAT point Scott will know whether his dream plan will cost half a million or 5 million dollars. If it’s too much they start all over again … and so do the fees.

I found this story incredible. Then it hit me that this was very close to the way the Ad industry creates TV ads.

The creatives (architects) don’t ‘do’ money. They ‘do’ the script (plan). The idea is developed between agency and client, then goes to research and or head office (the council) who usually want a few changes. Then after many months, quotes are called for to make the finished script (plan) a reality.

As the quotes roll in it often becomes apparent that this well loved script is either going to cost way too much to make properly or will have be drastically ‘simplified’ to fit the budget.

It’s a crazy system. Here’s how you can fix it.

1. You, the client should give a realistic budget up front. Many clients are coy and would really rather not show their hand so early. They are the ones who end up in the mess described above. If you can’t trust your agency enough to tell them a budget, fire them and find one you can trust.
2. Make sure that ‘understanding the budget’ is a key component of the creative brief. Write it in the briefing document and talk about it at the briefing meeting. Make the creatives tell you what you can expect for this money. They will resist because creatives, like architects, are encouraged to pay scant regard to such mundane issues as cost. Go no further until you have them verbalising, no matter how generally, what you can expect to see on film.

For example $100,000 should get you one speaking talent, in a location such as a house, shot over one day, with a 15 second cutdown. If you do this, the agency will know that you are serious about your budget.

3. If the agency is smart they will now realise that the budget is the budget, and they will write the script accordingly. If they are really smart they will talk to directors and producers as they go.

4. When scripts are presented ask if they have been ‘ball parked’ by a producer or some other responsible person. Ball parks are unpopular with agencies and production houses because too many clients think a ball park is a quote. It’s not. It’s a ‘plus or minus 25%’ thing. BUT, at least all parties know that what you are discussing is ‘in the ball park’ and won’t be twice or three times what you expected to pay.

5. When the job is formally quoted there should be no surprises. When you think about it, why would there be? Budget was part of the brief. Budget was part of the creative development process. And budget was part of the script presentation.

All you have to do now is sit back and watch as the experts build your house, sorry, shoot your commercial.

A media match made in heaven

Harold Mitchell, of Mitchell Communication group, makes a very interesting point in a recent AdNews article. He’s touched on a theme that has been troubling me for some time. Let me get it off my chest.

For the past 10 years, proprietors of various specialist communications companies, and eager journalists, have been telling me for that old media is dead. The web will replace everything. No one reads the paper. TV is a waste of money. And who listens to the radio?

I want to get with the times, but I feel as though I’ve been letting the side down a bit. While I downloaded the final episodes of the Sopranos I ALSO continue to watch TV. While I check SMH online during the week, I ALSO love to read a ‘paper’ paper on the weekend. While I listen to pod casts of radio shows I’ve missed, I ALSO listen to live radio in my car. While I search for good prices on Google, I ALSO scan through catalogues.

Am I doing something wrong? To my relief, Harold tells me no. It seems that I am not alone in sampling the best of both worlds. 303 million Americans are used to having old fashioned ‘emotional’ TV commercials that direct them to websites full of ‘rational’ information. Harold talks about TV, but any of the traditional media could benefit from working WITH the internet.

In Harold’s words, “Internet is no threat to TV, it is a great ally. The passions that TV fires are satisfied with the informational depth the internet provides. Never before have we had the opportunity to influence the emotional and the rational as we have with this communications combination.”

It makes a lot of sense and yet it’s a plan not carried out much in Australia. Promotions aside, when was the last time you saw a TV ad that really drove you to a web site dedicated to that message? And I don’t mean slapping the corporate url at the end of the spot. I mean a concerted effort to let TV and Web work together to answer the same brief.

But why stop at TV/internet? A poster style print ad (or Poster) can lead to web-copy as long or as short as you need. Radio spots can only say so much (60 words in 30 seconds). Why not make a whole spot about a web site?

I’ll leave the last words to Harold. “The combination of TV plus (my italics) the internet is the biggest thing to happen in advertising communications since television in 1956. It promises, and delivers, accountable results. Every marketing manager’s dream come true.”

Website Insights

Many marketers talk about creating a dialogue with consumers, rather than talking at them. It surprises me then that these same marketers have websites that quite simply are love letters to themselves.

A corporate website is the perfect place to present your company and it’s brands as a helpful advisor to your consumer. At the risk of repeating myself, communication to your consumer should be ‘all about them’ not ‘all about you’.

If you talk about your brands it should be in the context of how this helps your consumer. But why not talk about human situations THEN how your brands help those situations?

Scotts Australia is a perfect example of how to get it right. (I must admit an interest here. I wrote and produced the TV ads that Scotts run on the site.) Notice how ‘Need Help?’ is the first tab you see. And ‘About Scotts’ is near the end. The site is chokka-block with useful information presented in a simple way that ultimately leads the consumer to the brands and products.
www.scottsaustralia.com.au

Kimberley Clark Australia’s site for Huggies is similarly informative and engaging. To a new mother her baby is the most important thing in the world. So KCA talk about babies and motherhood and slip their ‘plastic and paper fibre product’ in right at the end. The home page layout does this and the tab bar does it too. 10 out of 10 for consumer focussed design.
http://huggies.com.au/


Kraft’s site makes me hungry just looking at it! Fantastic food photography, recipes, and health information. Products neatly alphabetised with easy links to specific brand sites.
http://www.kraft.com.au

Continental’s site goes one further. It has recipes, that lead to family meals together, that lead to real conversations between parents and kids. You couldn’t get much more emotional than that. The Continental brand becomes a part of real life.
http://www.continental.com.au

Now for some sites that could lift their game.

Why do I feel that Telstra is unashamedly trying to squeeze every last dollar out of my wallet. Am I letting the constant call centre sales pitches blind me to a helpful site? I don’t believe their corporate home page is the right place to sell, sell, sell.
http://www.telstra.com/index.jsp

Procter and gamble haven’t bothered creating an Australian site or even a re-direct address to the US. Does this speak volumes? They do have sites for some of their Australian brands, but these are not accessed from the US site. So at random I tried Pantene. Product and packaging comes well before any consumer benefit.
The contact section has no phone number: you have to fill out a form. So much for a dialogue with consumers.



In the words of David Ogilvy, ‘The consumer is not a moron, she is your wife.’ Gender issues aside, if a consumer has bothered to tap the keys, we as communicators should make the process as easy and fulfilling as possible.

It’s pretty simple really. 1. Talk about consumer needs well before you talk about your neat new products. 2. Help, don’t sell. 3. Make contact easy.

The Beat

I’ve just seen some little primary school kids play in a rock band. The full thing – singers, lead guitar, rhythm guitar, bass, drums. Great fun. They all played very well. Well there was one small exception. The drummer. He held the beat OK for a while then tried a few tricky moves. This lost his place a bit and he would suddenly be out of time. There is nothing more noticeable than a drummer in a rock band who is out of time. There’s nowhere to hide. A drummer’s job is to keep the beat. If he or she doesn’t the whole performance falls apart.

I’m sure I’ve mentioned previously, the line, “It has to be right before it can be clever.” My little drummer mate lost track of being right (keeping the beat) in an effort to be clever (doing a few tricky solos).

Sounds like a lot of advertising that’s around at the moment.

Examples please? OK.

1. Nando’s pole dancing, patch wearing mother of two. What the? I really wanted to like it but I couldn’t even get it. I watched it over and over but still nothing.

Visit the strip club here.

2. Mars Bar meets John McEnroe. He gets angry, eats a Mars bar, and then wins. Here, clever cutting and editing don’t make up for a non-existent idea. Why a Mars bar? Why not a slice of Pizza, a new shirt or a read of a magazine? I really don’t understand how the Mars Bar has helped him. Also, does anyone under 45 know who he is?

Check it out here.

3. The creepy Heinz ad where a middle-aged man meets his childhood sweetheart … only she’s had a sex change. Didn’t see that coming. In the words of Pauline Hansen, ‘Please Explain?’ Gender re-assignment? Beans? Have I missed something?

Australia's only trans-gender baked bean ad

After viewing this lot I feel a bit thick. I’m sure other consumers do too. Did the marketers really want to come across as elitist smart-alecs who are superior to their consumers? I doubt it.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for having a go at being funny and entertaining. There should be more of it. But not at the expense of the message or the marketer’s production and media budget.

So next time the creative team are getting all clever, stop and ask, ‘are we keeping the beat or are we doing a little solo while the rest of the band falls apart?’

Thanks

It’s a small word, but one that makes such a difference. It can mend fences. It can lift spirits. It can build relationships. It can even save you money. The word is … ‘thanks’.

Business, and our lives in general, seem to be getting faster and faster. Common courtesies are no longer common. But a few seconds invested in uttering or emailing a thankyou can pay big dividends.

I try to remember to say thanks to my suppliers. Without them I’m sunk. It could be an entirely commercial transaction, but life is too short. I try to remember to say thanks in person and later by email. Cost $0. If it’s been a particularly tough and drawn out job I might shout lunch. Cost $50. At end of year I might give a nice bottle of wine. Cost $40.

I do this for two reasons. 1. It’s a nice thing to do. 2. I get thousands of times the value back in vital advice, small jobs done for free, discounts when needed, and favours.

It means that I get much more for my dollar and so do my clients.

This is a very unusual practice. Most large creative agencies treat suppliers like crap, thinking the money will make up for it. It doesn’t. Many suppliers hate large agencies with a passion.

It’s also nice when my clients say thanks for a job well done. I really go the extra mile for them next time.

Luckily most marketers are not like one I’ve heard of. I don’t work with her I hasten to add. She is routinely paying between 10 and 20% extra for all creative and production work because she is such a pain. Her reputation has preceded her. I’ve been told suppliers either suddenly get ‘too busy to help’ or add on ‘smile’ money. This is the extra cash needed to continue to smile through the process! What a waste.

So, for reading AdNotes, for your comments, for your referrals and for your work, I say ….

Thanks.