"The meek shall inherit squat."

Sermon From the Mount

April 23, 2010

Messaging and The IKEA Effect.

In Predictably Irrational, author Dan Ariely describes the phenomenon whereby human beings naturally attach a lot more positive emotion to possessions that present a bit of challenge to obtain. He calls this The IKEA Effect.


Marketing messages can work the same way. Sometimes “Some Assembly Required” can be a very powerful thing.

This happy airplane helps American Express earn trust.

This happy yellow airplane proves I'm smart and helps American Express earn trust.

My current favorite example of this is the American Express “Don’t Take Chances, Take Charge” TV campaign in which everyday objects like clothing, furniture, a shower curtain and even a pair of closet doors (my favorite vignette) wear sad faces while the voiceover describes how they might get stolen, lost or broken. The faces turn happy as the copy tells us how Amex insures purchases against those very vicissitudes.

Aside from the fact that these are perfectly-crafted little films (the Bach cello music is a brilliant accompaniment, by the way), what I find particularly riveting about the ads is that you need to watch them for a few seconds to get the joke. It’s not immediately apparent that the wallet, mug of cappuccino and leather chair are “sad”. But, by the time your brain can actually form the concept of “hey, what’s going on here?”, the coin drops, the light goes on, the synapses fire and your brain sighs with relief. “I get it. I feel good. Thank you for proving how smart I am, American Express. Now I feel good about myself and I feel good about you, too.”


If you want me to trust you, don’t prove that you’re smart. Prove that I’m smart.


I can’t claim to have any research right here in my hands that demonstrates the efficacy of the American Express commercials, but I do know that Drumcircle just completed a project for a big retailer in which we discovered the real, emotional components of this elusive thing called “trust.” One somewhat counter-intuitive “aha” was this: if you want me to trust you, don’t try to prove how much smarter than me you are (as aside: this has some pretty significant implications for any organization that sells “expertise”; whether that expertise is in home theater systems, enterprise resource planning or even marketing strategy).

Instead, make me feel smart.

There are a lot of ways to make a customer feel smart. One real good one is to let them do some of the final assembly of your message all by themselves. They’ll value the message more highly (according to Dan Ariely) and you may just earn a little bit more of their trust in the process.

December 9, 2009

Why every single brand of insurance, detergent, appliance, light bulb, motor oil, plant food, rental car, investment service and galvanized roofing nail needs “taste copy”.

When I was a young copywriter I had the privilege of working on several Anheuser-Busch beer brands (to be clear, I was one of a small army of young copywriters and art directors sharing that privilege). One of the great parts of that job was attending Beer School, where we learned about the magic of beechwood aging, what several tons of hops and malted barley smell like (delicious), what Clydesdales smell like (also, surprisingly delicious) and the difference between lager and pilsner.

One of the non-great parts of that job, at least to a young copywriter’s  way of looking at the world, was being forced to internalize the sacred mantras of the Anheuser-Busch brands’ “taste copy.”

Whether they were "rich and smooth", "smooth and mellow" or "crisp and clean", as a young copywriter, the mandatory :taste copy" made me nuts. As a not-so-young marketer, I find it not only darned smart, but worthy of stealing.

Whether they tasted "rich and smooth", "smooth and mellow" or "crisp and clean", as a young copywriter, Anheuser-Busch's mandatory taste copy made me nuts. As a not-so-young branding strategist, I find it not only darned smart, but an idea that's well worth stealing.

Each A-B brand had a set of words - mostly adjectives – that were used to describe the particular flavor of that particular brand. Budweiser was always “distinctively crisp and clean.” Michelob was always “smooth and mellow”. Michelob Light was always “rich and smooth.”

Those words were to appear in that order in every piece of communication, whether it was a TV commercial or a coupon ad. And woe betide the high-spirited, creative puppy who took it upon him or herself to “improve” on this situation.

Of course, at the time, being high-spirited, young creative puppies, we rankled under these…rules. Wasn’t it our job to push hard at this boundary? Wasn’t it our duty to rend and sunder rules like these?

In fact, no, it wasn’t.

Especially not if we ever wanted to see our work produced. So, we all grumbled and cracked, dark, cynical jokes and “crisped” and “mellowed” until our fingers grew numb on the dull, gray keys of our beige IBM Selectrics.

Now, flash forward a decade or two and bear witness to this former creative puppy beseeching clients to work together with their researchers, planners and creatives to craft, agree on and enforce the use of “taste copy” for every brand.

Taste copy for every brand of what? Every brand of everything.

As young creatives, all we could see was that the fascistically-dictated taste copy prevented us from stretching our creative wings and describing Michelob as “brisk and refreshing.” What we didn’t see was all the good things the taste copy did:

  • It stopped territorial squabbles between client-side brand teams before they could even start. Budweiser owned crisp and clean. Michelob owned smooth and mellow. Period. There was nothing to discuss. Dismissed. Go sell more beer.
  • It streamlined the work because nobody at the agency or the client got bogged down reacting to focus groups’ opinions about whether or not Michelob Light really tasted “rich”. It did. It said so in the taste copy.
  • And, perhaps best of all, at least from a pure, marketing standpoint, the taste copy enforced consistency of message across all media. And this is where the concept becomes especially relevant today.

Back when I was pecking out the fifteenth variation on Michelob Light for the Winners or This Bu’d For You, “across all media” pretty much meant TV, radio, outdoor and print. Now it means all that plus web, earned, viral, social, guerrilla, buzz and body art. Which is terrific. But since creating content for each of those media can conceivably be handled by a different set of people, enforcing a consistent description of your product, what it does, how it works and what it stands for begins to look a lot less like creative handcuffs and a lot more like common sense.

Please. Use the handcuffs.

The harder trick, of course, is to create the right “copy” - I’m using that term in its loosest sense, to mean the core message that pins a brand in the heart and mind of it’s intended buyer - that not only appeals to the senses, but also to peoples’ need to make emotional connections with the brands they buy. It’s not easy because people are not necessarily willing to admit (in many cases they’re not even aware) that their choice of insurance company, light bulb or analgesic is making a critical emotional connection for them. But finding those connections – or, more specifically, finding where there may be a lack of connection and crafting your brand to make one – is the most important job marketers have in this rip-off-your-features-and-undercut-your-price world.

So, by whatever means possible, discover the emotional connections that your brand can make, craft your “taste copy” accordingly (plug: one real good way to accomplish this is to hire Drumcircle. End of plug), then enforce the use of that copy with draconian ruthlessness. Demand to see it everywhere your brand is written about and to hear it each time your brand is spoken of. Defy anyone to “improve” it.

And if, by chance, somebody does come up with something better, well, buy them a beer.

July 15, 2009

“Facts are the enemy of truth.” So said Miguel de Cervantes, 16th Century Spanish novelist and, apparently, savvy marketing guy.

I think Seth Godin is a heck of a bright fellow and I especially admire him when he expresses (beautifully) ideas that align with Drumcircle’s worldview.

For example, in his blog today, entitled Facts always win, right?, he writes about how marketers, especially B2B marketers, are far too prone to rely on facts as reasons people should buy their products.

Young man, your presentation on 3/8-inch, high-capacity chisel point staples interested me. But it didn't move me.

Young man, your presentation on 3/8-inch, high-capacity chisel point staples interested me. But it didn't move me.

Says Seth:

“If you’re selling a business to business service and you can prove that it’s better, that it delivers more value, that it’s cheaper or more durable or more efficient, shouldn’t that mean you will close every sale?”

Of course, we all know it doesn’t work that way. Nobody closes every sale. And there are dozens of fat books and scholarly papers on neuroscience, decision-making and marketing that explain why: they’ll never admit it, they’ll probably never even know it, but even the most spreadsheet-obsessed, abacus-wielding, thy-Likert-scale-guideth-and comforteth-me businessperson will still always buy what feels right rather than what - at least according to the manufacturer - is right (a more neuroscientifically accurate way to say it is that we buy what feels right, then convince ourselves that it is right by looking to all those facts).

The truth is, building a sales pitch solely on facts and product attributes is risky. After all, a competitor can drop prices, introduce a more durable product, incorporate a secret ingredient or win some important industry award. Suddenly you’re in a facts arms race. Suddenly, you’re working hard to “out-fact” your competitors instead of outsell them.

Without even knowing it, Seth Godin captures in four paragraphs the potency of what Drumcircle calls Message Architecture™. It’s an important part of how we help clients move from feature/function/fact-driven, transactional marketing to connection-driven, Emotivational™ marketing.

Stick to the facts. Just stick them on the bottom.

Message Architecture isn't advertising copy, but it has been known to inspire more emotionally engaging advertising copy.

Message Architecture isn't advertising copy, but it has been known to inspire more emotionally engaging advertising copy (click the picture for a larger view)

In almost every Drumcircle engagement there’s a session called an Emotivation Workshop. In these half-day sessions, we work together with our clients (and anyone else they’d like to include) to craft a new, more effective Message Architecture for their products or brands.

These new messages are always constructed from the bottom up, in three linguistic “stories”, like the illustration on the left (click it for a version you can actually read).

As with any good structure, Message Architecture has to be built on a firm foundation. In this case, it’s all the facts and features that make what we’re selling great: we’ve got the biggest, fastest, oldest, newest, freshest, lightest, heaviest, you get the picture.

Continuing the architectural analogy, the middle story is where the work gets done. It’s where we elaborate on the benefits customers derive from all those great features and facts in the first layer.

The top layer is derived from a unique, emotional insight discovered during the course of the project. This insight is the answer to the question “what, exactly, does right feel like?”

Whether our client is selling baby shoes, copier paper or auto service, there’s always an emotional need within the potential purchaser that goes much deeper than shoes, paper or an oil change. The closer we can come to acknowledging and filling that need, the more right our offering will feel.

This is how we’ll out-connect, out motivate and outsell competitors.

This is where we’ll demonstrate that We Understand the deep, emotional need.

This is where we’ll make our offering feel right (if our assignment is to help develop a new product concept, we’ll work together to design the new product so that every aspect of it, from components to packaging to promotion, not only feels right, but is right).

We don’t have feelings about facts. We accept the facts that fit our feelings.

It’s important to keep in mind that, while Message Architecture is built from the bottom up, people perceive and react to it from the top down. We Understand makes people look (“Why, they’re speaking directly to me…), We Can Do Great Things For You makes them pay attention (…and they’re telling me things that benefit me, personally) and, finally, We’re Great gives them reason to believe (I knew I was right to look and listen, after all, look how great these people are!).

Facts, features and functions are important parts of marketing communication. But in Message Architecture and in human psychology, they come dead last in the process of making a sale. And that’s good. Because, if some competitor comes in and cuts your facts out from under you, but you’ve done a good job convincing people that you understand and are doing great things for them, that powerful, emotional connection can buy you some time to build yourself some new facts (if you find you even still need them).

June 8, 2009

Recommending Best Practices to Positively Impact the Verbiage-Based Communication Space

Filed under: Marketing Language, People — Tags: , , , — admin @ 5:27 pm
small-hmmm-woman

I'm imagining inserting a pushpin into this guy "at every possible touchpoint."

About three weeks ago, I launched a thoroughly unscientific survey on Facebook to identify the 25 most clichéd, credibility-wrecking examples of Biz-Buzzpeak that people are coming across in conference rooms and the Barnes & Noble “Business and Money” section these days.

I’m talking about words and phrases that, when they come out of a person’s mouth, immediately make you subtract about 40 points from that person’s estimated IQ.  You know, terms that make you think, “If that man says ‘optimize’, ‘empower’ or ‘go-to-market’ one more time, I’m going to force-feed him that PowerPoint clicker.”

So, here’s the list (alphabetized because, as I said, it’s an unscientific survey). Please keep in mind, I’m just reporting the data, not passing judgment, and, if anybody ever hears me use one of these terms, know in advance that I’m using it “ironically”.

  1. Anything “2.0”
  2. Best Practices
  3. Center of Excellence (personally, I’ll be happy to be part of a Center of Extreme Adequacy)
  4. Change Agent
  5. Circle Back
  6. Client/Customer Centric Strategy
  7. Continuous Conversation/Improvement
  8. Core Competency
  9. Dialogue (as a verb)
  10. Eco Anything
  11. Inclusion
  12. In The _________ Space (Example: “We’re having a game-changing impact in the emulsified, starchy-tuber-based, salty snacks space” instead of “we’re selling a lot more potato chips”)
  13. In today’s (Choose at least one from (1) and one from (2))
    1. globalized / challenging / recession-ravaged / interconnected / high-speed
    2. economy / society / workplace / world / corporation
  14. Let’s Take This Offline (translation: “I need some time to come up with a better response than “oh, yeah?!”)
  15. Low-Hanging Fruit
  16. Maximize
  17. Relative to _________ (as in “…how people feel relative to cufflinks” instead of “…how people feel about cufflinks”)
  18. Stakeholder
  19. The iPod of ________ (as in, “We believe we’ve created the iPod of galvanized roofing nails.”)
  20. Thought-Leader
  21. Touch Base
  22. Touchpoint
  23. Turnkey Solutions
  24. Traction (unless describing tires)
  25. Value Proposition

Here’s a thought: when a person uses a phrase like “optimizing throughput”, there’s a good chance that 50% of the people in the room will think he sounds smart and the other 50% will roll their eyes (most will do this in their imaginations, but it doesn’t matter, the damage is done). If that same person says “”becoming more efficient”, nobody will roll their eyes.

_________________

22210991NOTE: This entry was inspired by the excellent and tiny book Why Businesspeople Speak Like Idiots by Brian Fugere, Chelsea Hardaway, and Jon Warshawsky. The book has been around a few years and some of the jargon has changed, but based on the way we hear a lot of people talking, the subject matter is still relevant.

So, before you buy another book that purports to tell you how to create win-win scenarios by seizing the long tail of downstream, value-added, best-of-breed, seamlessly-integrated strategies, buy this book so you’ll be able to tell people what you’ve done, in a way that won’t have at least half of them rolling their eyes.

June 6, 2009

Hey. Check it out. The New York Times no longer has “readers”.

Filed under: Consumers, Marketing Language, Media — Tags: , , , , — admin @ 8:36 pm
Photo of a man using a newspaper

Photo of a man using a newspaper

When we founded Drumcircle in 2008, my partner Anne and I set out on a quixotic mission to eliminate the term “consumer” from the lexicon of our industry (there’s a whole page on our website devoted to the subject, in fact).

Just substituting the word “people” for “consumers” will instantly make every one of us better at our jobs. It just makes sense. Thinking about people instead of consumers will give us all one less chance to forget that it’s breathing, brains, blood and bone individuals, just like you and me, but nothing like you and me, that we’re dealing with here.

We have to get a person’s attention. We have to connect with that person at a level he may not even have direct access to himself. Then we have to change, reinforce or create something new within that person.

So, today, I came across this in Creativity Online:

“Why The New York Times Doesn’t Call Its Readers ‘Readers’

“In a world of near-ubiquitous computing, where an ever-expanding collection of devices turns readers into…co-creators and distributors, The New York Times…(needs to turn)…its readers into, well, something more.

Speaking at the CaT: Creativity and Technology conference today, Derek Gottfrid, senior software architect and product technologist at The New York Times, said the company has quit calling online readers “readers,” instead referring to them as users.”

Until now, only software developers and drug dealers have referred to the people they sell their merchandise to as “users”. So this is a big step forward. Congratulations to the folks at the venerable Gray Lady who were in the meeting where this decision was made. This is exactly the kind of thinking that’s keeping newspapers in their current state of relevance in today’s dynamic media climate.

Come on, people.

Powered by WordPress