"The meek shall inherit squat."

Sermon From the Mount

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).

July 9, 2009

Malcolm Gladwell, Howard Moskowitz, spaghetti sauce and the end of endless line extensions.

Stop & Shop in Somerville, MA stocks 33 kinds of spaghetti and 87 kinds of pasta sauce. To anyone planning to introducenumbers 34 and 88, respectively, good luck!

Stop & Shop in Somerville, MA stocks 33 kinds of spaghetti and 87 kinds of pasta sauce. To anyone planning to introduce numbers 34 and 88, good luck!

Everybody who works in any phase of marketing in any category from investment counseling to internet routers, farm machinery to pharmaceuticals, horse chow to house paint, furniture to funeral services (you get the picture) should watch this video, take it to heart and share it with colleagues who might either benefit from it or deny its implications (after you’ve finished reading this blog entry, of course).

In the 20-minute video, Malcolm Gladwell, at the TED conference in 2004, makes great points about the fallibility of focus groups, the unreliability of asking consumers directly what they want in a product and the worldview of worms in horseradish. Gladwell is a genius at seeing the deep meaning in tiny things, so you owe it to yourself to watch the video. But, here’s my shot at condensing it to a bloggable blip:

It was the early 1980’s. The time of “just say no”, Rubik’s Cubes, Pac-Man and Flashdance.

Second-place spaghetti sauce manufacturer, Prego had a can’t-miss plan. They’d have Psychophysicist Dr. Howard Moskowitz determine the formulation for the “perfect” spaghetti sauce, with the flavor and texture that was most liked by the most people. Then, in one swoop, they’d unseat category leader Ragu.

But Dr. Moskowitz’s proved (to Prego’s initial dismay) there was no such thing as one perfect sauce, and that if Prego created a sauce that hit the “sweet spot” between the different sauces that different people liked, they’d have a sauce that millions would find acceptable, but nobody would love.

Dr. Moskowitz still saved the day, though. He went on to prove that if Prego looked at people not as one, big group of spaghetti sauce consumers, but as a groups of people who clustered around particular spaghetti sauce traits, then made multiple kinds of sauce, they could divide the market and conquer Ragu.

Thus was created Prego Extra Chunky, and thus was Ragu moved to the number two position in the category.

Now, embracing and exploiting* the diversity of an audience’s desired product attributes is a standard, common part of almost every marketer’s tool kit these days. We use this tool to design new products, seize shelf space (in the case of CPG’s) and brain space (in the case of just about everything other product or service) and to focus marketing programs more accurately.

So I’m going to make a bold assertion that this tool is, in fact, so standard and common that it just might be losing its effectiveness.

Consider:

  • In The Paradox of Choice, Barry Schwartz, a sociologist at Swarthmore, makes a pretty darned convincing argument that today’s abundance of choices (a good thing, right?) is, in fact, an excess of choices (he describes the shelves of his local supermarket groaning with 85 kinds of crackers, 21 “different” kinds of chocolate chip cookies, 75 kinds of iced tea, a dozen different choices of Pringles, 29 different chicken soups, and goes on to cite similar examples in just about every business category from financial services to health care plans) that bewilders, overwhelms and actually causes symptoms of depression in many people.

Graphic from the The Wall Street Journal, Jube 26, 2009

Graphic from The Wall Street Journal, June 26, 2009

  • According to The Wall Street Journal, (June 26, 2009), These Challenging Economic Times** may already be alleviating some of that problem, because many retailers are cutting way back on the variety of products they’re allowing onto their shelves (Walgreen’s is cutting the types of superglues it carries to 11 from 25. Wal-Mart is dropping 20 of the 24 different tape measures it sells. Kroger is eliminating about 30% of its cereal varieties).

The time is fast approaching, if it’s not already here, when marketers are no longer going to be able to line-extend their way to success. Tossing product features and consumer traits into the Cuisinart isn’t going to pass for “innovation.”

We’re all going to need to learn new ways to design products that are both relevant to and resonant with consumers who are more discerning, less willing to spend and just plain weary of having to chose between zip front and button fly, boot cut and standard leg, athletic fit and trim fit, stone washed and acid washed, just to buy a pair of pants.

________________________

*By the way, I’m sick and tired of “exploit” being considered a bad word. This is the definition according Microsoft Encarta:

exploit: verb [ trans. ] : make full use of and derive benefit from (a resource), noun : a bold or daring feat

Neither of those are bad things. I hereby reclaim this perfectly useful word for the forces of goodness and clarity.

**Henceforth in this blog, this irritatingly overused set of words will simply be abbreviated as “TCET”.

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.

June 5, 2009

Who does Bill Mount think he is to name his blog that? And, for that matter, who is Bill Mount?

Yes, I named my blog “Sermon From The Mount”.  And, to explain why, I’m about to severely date myself. But it’ll be worth it if I can remind the world of one of the greatest trade advertising campaigns ever.

From sometime in the 1970’s to sometime in the 1990’s, The Wall Street Journal ran a series of more than 100 ads aimed directly at the people responsible for filling the newspaper’s pages and coffers: ad agencies. The campaign ran in just four publications: Advertising Age, Adweek/Mediaweek and the WSJ itself. It was called Creative Leaders and each full-page ad was a long-copy quasi-interview that explored the roots, philosophies and general worldview of an exalted figure in the Advertising Creative Pantheon.

All were minimally designed and beautifully written, but, bizarrely, had these goofy, get-you-flunked-out-of-University-of-Texas-School-of-Advertising, bad-pun headlines: Ed McCabe’s ad was headlined “The Real McCabe”. Lee Clow’s was “Clow, as in Wow”.  Penny Hawkey’s was “Penny For Your Thoughts”. Lois Korey’s was “Korey’s Story” (you can see the whole campaign – and I encourage you to do so after you’ve finished reading this – here at the Advertising Educational Foundation website).hawkey1

Naturally, all of us young creative guys (of which I was one during most of the years the campaign ran) devoured every word of every ad and, much like wannabe baseball players imagine themselves batting cleanup in the World Series and ‘tween girls doodle “Mrs. Zac Efron” on their notebooks*, we all spent an absurd amount of time dreaming up often viciously insulting bad-pun headlines for each others’ eventual Wall Street Journal Creative Leader ads.

Now, I remember some of the headlines we came up with for one another and, don’t worry, guys (and you know who you are) I won’t reproduce them here since I don’t have permission from my former colleagues to use their names. But I certainly remember many of the headlines my creative buddies came up with for me. Some of the G-Rated ones included “A Mound of Mount”, “Bill Shills” and “Five-Dollar Bill.” I also remember the day a young art director, fresh out of (you guessed it) The University of Texas School of Advertising, poked her head into my office and told me that she had the perfect headline for my WSJ ad. “Sermon From The Mount”.

An ACD who was sitting in my office at the time rolled his eyes and delivered, with absolutely flat affect, the withering put-down, “That’s not funny. That’s actually decent.”

About fifteen years have passed. The Wall Street Journal doesn’t run that campaign any more and I’ve been out of the Ad Guy Business for quite a while. This blog is about the last place that not funny but decent headline is going to have a chance for exposure. It certainly isn’t intended to imply that this blog will be filled with sermonizing. But I hate to waste material (especially if I didn’t have to think it up in the first place) and it’s a chance to say thanks for a good idea to a really talented art director (and you know who you are).

As for the “who is Bill Mount” part, please go here for my official Drumcircle bio and here for my Facebook page.

* Yeah, yeah. I know. I’m ready. Bring it. I place this link here for anybody who questions the painful but undeniable truth of my reporting

Powered by WordPress