Category: Musings

No Duh!

Posted on by Drew Neisser

One of the tenants of Marketing for Good is that you should never do anything that actually annoys or irritates your target. Even if you achieve short term attention-getting disruption, the long-term consequences of creating ad “pollution” will be bad for your brand. A recent study by Forrester as reported by Promo Xtra notes that 79% of consumers find mobile ads annoying unless they are incredibly relevant.

To avoid the perception of mobile spam, marketers must work with the unique elements of the mobile channel itself and the relevance of their message, said Christine Spivey Overby, a principal analyst and co-author of the report. In contrast to other channels, mobile is highly integrated into people’s daily activities and physical environment. This means that marketers can embrace the real-work connections with relevant location-based services and campaigns that tie mobile and on-premise advertising.

This evoked the following response from me, “no duh!” I don’t know about you but every time I get an unwanted text message from my carrier, I consider changing carriers. On the other hand, if I was about to run out of gas and I suddenly received a message noting there was a station at the next exit, I’d probably swear eternal allegiance. Of course, that’s an unlikely scenario for extreme relevance but that’s how far you need to think when exploring mobile.

Sony Caught Flogging

Posted on by Drew Neisser

Just because you can do something, doesn’t mean you should. Marketers are always tempted to push the envelop and believe me we’ve recommended some pretty crazy ideas over the last ten years at Renegade. But there is a line that when crossed breaks the bonds of trust between brand and consumer. Trust is everything when it comes to brands. Without trust, premium prices are impossible, repeat purchase unlikely and consumer satisfaction is a pipe dream.

A few years ago SONY crossed the line (as far as I’m concerned) creating a “stealth marketing” campaign by having brand ambassadors pose as a real people in bars to sample their SONY Erikson phones. So it is no surprise to me that SONY was recently caught underwriting a fake blog or “flog.” According to MediaPost “the blog, alliwantforxmasisapsp.com, was supposedly authored by an amateur hip-hop artist ‘Charlie’ — whose cousin, ‘Pete,’ craved a PSP under the tree.” Once this blog was exposed as a flog (industry blog DigitalBattle.com wrote a lot about this), SONY issued a release that noted it was developed as a “humorous site” and have “added a posting that provides clarification to consumers visiting the site.” The blog Digital Battle has more coverage on this topic.

Is this really a big deal? Should we be concerned that one of the largest CE brands in the world has twice tried to trick the consumer into engaging with them? On one hand, since Panasonic is one of my clients, I’m thrilled that SONY has undermined the trust they have built up over the years and maybe more people will chose Panasonic over SONY. On the other hand, when one marketer tries to pull a fast one, it hurts our whole profession. Ironically, in both of SONY’s marketing transgressions, all they would have had to do is reveal their connection upfront and the consumer would have responded equally well. When it comes to Marketing for Good, honesty is indeed the best policy.

Update 12/17: Looks like SONY took the blog down;-) Will keep you posted.

What is good?

Posted on by Drew Neisser

One of the challenges of writing this blog is figuring out what is good and trying to determine what will make life a little better. For example, yesterday I alluded to my concerns that banning trans fat would not necessarily make life better. (As a side note, I like my glazed Krispy Kreme donuts just the way they are, trans fats and all. When I want something healthy, I’ll eat a banana. When I want to indulge, I don’t want to compromise on a trans fat free sugar free glutten free taste free donut!) Part of my rationale against the trans fat ban is a firm belief in the law of unintended consequences. Banning trans fats will result in the consumption of other fats which may or may not prove to be healthier, which may or may not promote increased weight loss. Undoubtedly one of these other fats will create problems for some consumers that were unexpected and suddenly new lawmakers will be wondering what is good, too. Peanut oil, for example, doesn’t have trans fats and works well for high temperature frying but lots of kids are allergic to peanuts, so that “good” wouldn’t be so “good” for some people.

This notion became particularly clear to me after reading an article on the first page of the 12/5/06 Wall St. Journal. Titled “As Alternative Energy Heats Up, Environmental Concerns Grow,” it also includes the telling subhead “Crop of Renewable ‘Biofuels’ Could Have Have Drawbacks Fires Across Indonesia.” The article described how the need for more palm seed oil for the processing of “renewable biodiesel” in the US was leading to the burning of forests in Borneo which was causing really bad air pollution over there. Here we were thinking that “renewable biodiesel” was a no-brainer “good” since we’d have cleaner air for our cities and the next thing we know is that that “good” turned out to be bad for Borneo. If you didn’t appreciate the law of unintended consequences before surely this example will help you appreciate its validity now.

So, where does that leave us marketers looking to make life a little bit better? Should we give up because we might cause bad as we try to do good? Not on your life. All we can do is try. That’s why I’m forgiving of marketers who align with non-profits for blatantly self-serving purposes. Even if their motivation is ignoble, their actions might help raise some money that will definitely make someone’s life a little better. For example, it only takes about $6k for the Moravian Open Door to house an elderly homeless person for an entire year in New York City. That’s not a lot to ask from a marketer who wants to do a little good, tainted or otherwise. Let me know what you think is “good”.

Talking Tombstones?

Posted on by Drew Neisser

Business 2.0 reported in a story called “YouTube for Dead Guys” about a new product called the Vidstone Serenity Panel. Evidently, a sizzling rise in cremations is hurting the mortuary business so morticians are killing themselves trying to come up with new revenue sources. For about $2k, Vidstone provides a Ken Burns-style video tribute of the deceased right on the tombstone. It is even solar powered so long after your dear departed has departed this baby keeps on projecting. No doubt some folks are going to think this is the cats meow but frankly, I’m stumped why anyone would do this. Not really sure this is Marketing for Bad since it is unique and may actually make life a little better for someone who really wants a video remembrance with their grave visit. What do you think?