BULLSEYE: When the Going Gets Tough

When Canada's Finance Minister recently dodged the dreaded 'R' word, the same 'ol marketing debate raged:  "Should I cut my marketing budget?" and "Should I move from brandsell to hardsell".  Time to change the channel on that discussion.

BULLSEYE: The power of leveraging equity

Anyone Remember Equity?

* * * * * *

There was a time when ad campaigns were designed to last for years.  It was a time that begat Tony the Tiger, the lonely Maytag repairman, and that little Ty-D-Bowl fella patrolling your toilet tank in his rowboat.

In time, these campaigns, their characters, ideas and attitudes work their way into the deeper, more meaningful spaces in the consumer's brain.  Relationships are formed.  Familiarity breeds comfort (and sometimes contempt).  But at least the advertiser reaches that coveted 'memorable' plateau.


Hollywood Gets It

Consider this:  below is a list of the top grossing Hollywood films of all time.  The yellow highlights (added by me) indicate films based on things already familiar to audiences:  established characters or stories, films based on books.  Sequels, remakes and reboots.

The films not highlighted are completely new to audiences. But even they tend to carry the comfort of some familiarity.  It can be argued that James Cameron's reputation helped sell Avatar, as Spielberg's reputation boosted E.T., etc.

HIGHEST GROSSING FILMS
Rank	Title	Worldwide gross	Year
1	Avatar	$2,787,965,087	2009
2	Titanic	$2,186,772,302	1997
3	The Avengers	$1,518,594,910	2012
4	Furious 7	$1,489,386,455	2015
5	Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2	$1,341,511,219	2011
6	Frozen	$1,279,852,693	2013
7	Iron Man 3	$1,215,439,994	2013
8	Avengers: Age of Ultron	$1,148,986,835	2015
9	Transformers: Dark of the Moon	$1,123,794,079	2011
10	The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King	$1,119,929,521	2003
11	Skyfall	$1,108,561,013	2012
12	Transformers: Age of Extinction	$1,104,039,076	2014
13	The Dark Knight Rises	$1,084,439,099	2012
14	Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest	$1,066,179,725	2006
15	Toy Story 3	$1,063,171,911	2010
16	Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides	$1,045,713,802	2011
17	Jurassic Park	$1,029,939,903	1993
18	Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace	$1,027,044,677	1999
19	Alice in Wonderland	$1,025,467,110	2010
20	The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey	$1,017,003,568	2012
21	The Dark Knight	$1,004,558,444	2008
22	The Lion King	$987,483,777	1994
23	Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone	$974,755,371	2001
24	Despicable Me 2	$970,761,885	2013
25	Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End	$963,420,425	2007
26	The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug	$960,366,855	2013
27	Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1	$960,283,305	2010
28	The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies	$955,119,788	2014
29	Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix	$939,885,929	2007
30	Finding Nemo	$936,743,261	2003
31	Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince	$934,416,487	2009
32	The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers	$926,047,111	2002
33	Shrek 2	$919,838,758	2004
34	Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire	$896,911,078	2005
35	Spider-Man 3	$890,871,626	2007
36	Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs	$886,686,817	2009
37	Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets	$878,979,634	2002
38	Ice Age: Continental Drift	$877,244,782	2012
39	The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring	$871,530,324	2001
40	The Hunger Games: Catching Fire	$864,912,963	2013
41	Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith	$848,754,768	2005
42	Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen	$836,303,693	2009
43	The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 2	$829,685,377	2012
44	Inception	$825,532,764	2010
45	Spider-Man	$821,708,551	2002
46	Independence Day	$817,400,891	1996
47	Shrek the Third	$798,958,162	2007
48	Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban	$796,688,549	2004
49	E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial	$792,910,554	1982
50	2012	$791,217,826	2009

Yes, it's the age of short attention spans and disposable relationships.  In this climate, 'faith' and 'patience' are virtues few marketers- and fewer clients- are willing to cultivate.

* * * * * *

BULLSEYE: The Double Ad Standard

A TV show might portray lovemaking, murder, violence, racism, misogyny, and poor dental hygiene.  While the ads sponsoring that show might be ordered off the air for showing a kid removing the vegetables from a burger, or a woman (legally) riding a bicycle without a helmet.

Here's my BULLSEYE for Marketing TV:

* * * * * * *

BULLSEYE: the Infestation of Micetype.

With feet planted firmly in a post of some months back, here's a look- in 6-point-type, at a new kind of advertising pollution.

WELCOME TO BULLSEYE

BULLSEYE is a new, twice-monthly video commentary I've launched w. the good folks at MARKETING TV.

The title, BULLSEYE, refers to that seductive, elusive perfection creative advertisers pine for.  Like an Academy Award, or Stanley Cup, or Michelin Star, a rare few achieve it, and so often, spend years trying to replicate it.

Anyone who's stared at a blank screen- deadline looming, in Stage 3 panic-denial- knows what I mean.

* * * * * * *

The Scam Letter: Why I Love Bad Writing

It is with great joy and inaudible fanfare that I share with you the scam letter I received recently.

Did I say 'letter'?  I meant "OFFICIAL LETTER."

May I direct your attention, not to the scam, but to the writing.  Blissfully, deliciously-bungled writing: the kind that hooks you from the salutation:

"Dear Tennant"

From there, it just gets better: (italics are mine)

"...I work for one of the financial institutions here in the United Kingdom"

One of them.  Like his workplace is a state secret.   Fair enough: I once worked for some of the radio stations.

Or is it a game?  "Guess which one, and win £150!"  Or perhaps it's more in the line of "If I told you, I'd have to ..." so on and so forth.

Pins & needles.

Do yourself a favour- read his next sentence out loud:  it follows the author's apology for the unsolicited letter.  I mean it.  Out loud.  You won't regret it:

"I knew that this is certainly not a predictable way of approaching to foster a relationship of trust, but because of the circumstances and urgency surrounding this claim."

Allow me:

Wha- ?

Moving on. Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeere's the pitch:

Seems poor Adam has been charged to find an heir to the estate of "business magnate" David Tennant, and, finding none, looks to me, a randomly-chosen namesake.  Brace yourself for the life-changing reveal:

"I know you might not in any way related to him,"

'be'.  He forgot 'be'.  But I'm not about to let a lousy state-of-being verb stand between me an 4.3 million clams.

"but having the same last name with him and coming from the same country with him, all the modalities I have in place I can guarantee that if you follow my instructions, the fund would be released to you legally."

Hot spit!  I'm rich.

Reading on: there is no risk.  Nay, "There is no atom of risk..."  Golly, a moment ago I was just "Tennant."  A mere five paragraphs later our relationship is approaching the sub-atomic level: an intimacy hitherto reserved for the breathtaking Mrs. Tennant.

A misplaced word here, a stumbling phrase there, then the big finish:

Disappointingly, 246 Upper Street is a Financial Institution

"This letter was mailed out to you when I was in Canada for business meetings."

Mr. Westwood mustn't have anticipated the 21st Century technology enabling a recipient to check investigate his story. Starting with his address.

In an unfortunate lapse into credibility, Mr. Westwood's address reveals- not a seedy back alley or re-purposed cargo container- but an actual financial institution.  Nationwide, of 246 Upper Street, London, is an established banking co-op.

That one faux pas notwithstanding, the letter is a masterpiece of non-misdirection.  It has a place of honour in my "Funny Stuff" file.

Bad writing is underrated.  To those language snobs who wail and gnash teeth over the demise of our language.  To them I offer a hearty:  Tthththththththththththththththwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwp!

I stand, in spirit, shoulder to shoulder with those who wax Christmastime-giddy at the annual release of the Bulwer-Lyton Prize* for 'Worst Opening Sentence'.  A contest of deliberately-crafted so-bad-it's-good writing by smart, highly-inventive people.

Seen another way: a scam letter built on convincing, elegant, believable prose isn't so damned funny.

My new benefactor, Adam Westwood, offered no such disappointment.  He has no idea how much he brightened my day.

I'm resisting the urge to send him something.

* * * * * * * *

*BONUS MATERIAL!  Here's the "winner" of the 2014 Bulwer-Lytton Prize, by my new hero, Betsy Dorfman, of Brainbridge Island, WA.:

"When the dead moose floated into view the famished crew cheered – this had to mean land! – but Captain Walgrove, flinty-eyed and clear headed thanks to the starvation cleanse in progress, gave fateful orders to remain on the original course and await the appearance of a second and confirming moose."

I'm weak.

OGILVY'S "13 PREDICTIONS FOR THE FUTURE OF ADVERTISING" A HALF CENTURY LATER

There's something unseemly about poking fun at failed predictions, as though one was building a shrine to moral superiority atop a foundation of hindsight.  When Terry O'Reilly and I wrote The Age of Persuasion, we toyed with the idea, but chose instead to frame ours as a wish last rather than a series of earnest prognostications.  There was a good reason for this.

Ogilvy

David Ogilvy.

The wartime British Intelligence officer, door-to stove salesman, and disciple of  George Gallup, (yes, the 'Gallup Poll' guy), who was, himself one of the founding fathers of modern market research.   

I'm not alone among copywriters in my love-hate relationship with this long-departed gentleman and Ad legend, who founded the empire that thrives today as Ogilvy and Mather Worldwide.  And whose contribution to the tone, dignity and art of advertising informed a generation.  The go-to work in all of Ogilvy-dom is the print add for Rolls Royce, as lovingly and skillfully crafted as the vehicle itself:

In his wonderful 1963 book Ogilvy on Advertising, he offers a (baker's) dozen predictions as to what will transpire in the ad world in years to come.  

51 years later, it's time to take a peek and see how he did.

To his credit, the great man attributes this to the prodding of his publisher, and confesses a declining interest in the industry's future.   What's so fascinating today is how spectacularly wrong so many of them were.  To quote the man:  "So here goes:"

1.  The quality of research will improve, and this will generate a bigger corpus of knowledge as to what works and what doesn't.  Creative people will learn to exploit this knowledge, thereby improving the strike rate at the cash register.

YES! Nailed it (as the kids say).  
As anyone who's answered a dinnertime phone call or been button-holed in a shopping mall can attest, the prolific growth of market research is itself a force of nature. 

Ogilvy (bless him) also cautioned: "I notice increasing reluctance on the part of marketing executives to use judgment; they are coming to rely too much on research, and they use it as a drunkard uses a lamp post for support, rather than for illumination."

2.  Advertising will contain more information and less hot air.

Swing and a miss. Strike one.

3.  Billboards will be abolished.

Strike two.  Though I could kiss him on the mouth right now.

4.   The clutter of commercials on television and radio will be brought under control.

Ooooo.  'Wrong' seems too small a word.  (See The Age of Persuasion, Chapter 1)

5.  There will be a vast increase in the use of advertising by governments for the purpose of education, particularly health education.  

Granted: the Ad Council in the US does incredible public service work, so much of it health-related. The Government of Canada, meanwhile,  has defunded Participaction, but has spent upwards of $100 million since 2009 (sayeth the Globe) selling Canadians on its Economic Action Plan.  Let's call this a wash.

6.  Advertising will play a part in bringing the Population Explosion under control.

Hey, whatever happened to the Population Explosion as a world crisis?  Or acid rain, for that matter.

7.  Candidates for political office will stop using dishonest advertising.

Okay, David, drive way down that highway past a place called 'Wrong'.  Then keep driving till I tell you to stop.


[9 & 10 deal with the ownership and nationality of major ad agencies.  Let's bypass this, except to note that Mr. O bats about .290 on these.]

11.  Multinational manufacturers will increase their market shares all over the non-Communist world, and will market more of their brands internationally.  The advertising campaigns for these brands will emanate from the headquarters of multinational agencies, but will be adapted to respect differences in local culture.

Yes to the first part- though he never imagined Big Macs in Beijing.

No to the second part about centralized global agencies:  today, the empire he founded, Ogilvy and Mather, has more than 100 offices in more than 50 countries.  We'll cut him some slack:  Mr. Ogilvy retired twenty years before the advent of email.

12.  Direct response advertising will cease to be a separate speciality, and will be folded into the 'general' agencies.

He was kinda sorta right in the 80's, and wildly right in the Digital Age.

13.   Ways will be found to produce effective television commercials at a more sensible cost.

Buffalo NY area car dealer ads notwithstanding, this one's a howler, worth of a place near the record exec who told The Beatles "guitar bands are on their way out."

Enough fun at the giant's expense.

Did the great man predict that he'd regret giving in to his publisher's request for predictions?  I don't know.  But the man took huge risks. Built an empire.  Changed for the better the advertising end of popular culture.  And lived out his days in a lavish medieval French castle.

That's gotta be worth a mulligan.

* * * * * * *

A truly...Vagical Viral Video..

Yes.

There are still clients who will look at you over a boardroom table and ask, with a straight face, that you create a viral video for them.  It's conventional then to wait five or ten seconds, to ensure they don't burst into laughter and declare you punk'd.

If they don't, then nope, they're serious.

Translating from clientspeak, what they're asking is:  "Take this pocket change and produce a video that will amass the spontaneous self-spreading adoration of millions.  Oh, and don't spend a dime on media."

Anything else?  A formula for cold fusion?  Locate Jimmy Hoffa?  Get Bell Canada to admit a mistake?

I beg your pardon.  I don't mean to be Norman Naysayer.  People routinely create viral videos, just as some routinely write New York Times Bestsellers, and others win the Powerball.  The former two require a mysterious combination of skill, timing, and luck.

Have a look at one of the more recent virals.  It's got a snappy little backstory. First though, see if you can figure out what has lured more than 20 million views.  Including you and me.




"First Moon Party" is actually a sequel to an earlier and almost-as-ingenious film, Camp Gyno.  Which began when the president of a Tampon Subscription company (who knew?) buttonholed a couple of friends from BBDO, the writing/directing team of Jamie McCellandt and Pete Marquis, and asked their help creating a video.

For Camp Gyno, they cast a brilliant 10-year-old (I know, I know- but even at 10 she was too good not to cast) and shot the film over one day at a camp in Cold Spring NY.



Cat Flushing The Toilet it ain't.  Unlike the rags-to-riches "Charlie Bit Me" sorts of virals, this is a first rate production.  Great acting.  Great direction, photography, and music.  There's a story circulating that it was produced for $6,000, which is partly true.  The production company, and almost certainly others, worked free of charge.  (To have this on your reel, wouldn't you?)

Sure there are formulas for creating viral videos, just as there are formulas for winning lotteries, becoming UN Secretary General, and winning the Nobel Prize for Physics.  All equally effective, so far as I know.

But a couple of factors give "First Moon Party" a little extra push into the viral mesosphere.

THE JOY OF THE FORBIDDEN SUBJECT

Any daughter's father knows that so much as acknowledging the existence of menstruation is akin to tossing Darth Vader a Twoonie and telling him to grab you a coffee, black, two sugars. Yet this film (to shift metaphors) saunters across this forbidden turf in big honkin' steel toe boots, hands in pockets, whistling a showtune.

The very subject of menstruation, like death, bankruptcy, and hairpieces, is so wonderfully awkward, it's natural fodder for a viral video.  Years ago a friend at the old Radio Bureau told me the ad category that fetched the most consumer complaints, by far, was feminine hygiene.

On that basis, First Moon Party's fearlessness is its strength, with its attitude of 'yeah, it's menstruation kid, get over it.'  It thrives on its own lack of respect for the 'forbidden' subject.  They smacked the beehive with the hockey stick and got away with it.

I'm going to stop the deconstruction here, lest you get the idea that First Moon Party operates on a transparent, replicable formula.  Suffice it to say I laud the skill of the filmmakers.  I hope they had a blast working on the project.

And I hope they bought a Powerball ticket.

* * * * * 

Brrrrrr. Skittles and the New Big Chill

If you're ever hoping to pinpoint the generational divide, step away from the GPS, and look no farther than DDB Chicago's campaign for SKITTLES.  A campaign which, from my side of the chasm, has a distinct chill to it.

Who are these ads playing to?  C'mon- I'll introduce you to a whole ballroom full of them.

CARLEW HOTEL, TORONTO
LAST MONTH

The ballroom was a'buzz for a major Ad Awards presentation, especially since most of the two-free-drink-tickets had been redeemed.  Dinner and wine were done, as were coffee and dessert.  Lights dimmed, and two hosts were introduced, and strode on stage before hundreds of Canada's most high-octane young ad creatives*.

                * Memo to word snobs:  "creatives" is an established industry noun referring to a class of writers, artists and designers.  Suck it up. 

And then, nothing happened.

Really.  By 'nothing' I mean that few acknowledged that the presentation had begun, and the loud chatter continued.  Many laughed and gossiped loudly with their backs to the stage, raising their voices slightly to compete with the room noise, which now included two hosts on a P/A system.  Try starting a bible study in a strip joint and you get the gist.

Anticipating this, the hosts introduced their running gag:  when (not 'if', mind you) the room became too noisy, a third character would be wheeled to the stage on a dolly (channeling, one supposes, Hannibal Lecter.) packing a bear horn, with which he would restore quiet. (Neither the bear horn, nor the gag, worked.)

Peace broke out now and then over the next hour and change; as particular names were called, and particular works cited, interested tables hushed, then cheered madly.

The savvier marketing minds in the room- and they were many- must have grasped the irony:  this was a microcosm of 21st century marketing communications:  people pay attention to what interests them (which is nothing new), but have no time, zip, nada, zero tolerance, for what doesn't.  This is a relatively new, and troubling trend.

TROUBLING HOW?

This is the audience of "you have two seconds to win my attention."  If that.

As a branding device, DDB's SKITTLES campaign is trashes the campaign playbook:  it lacks warmth, story and emotional connection.  It does nothing to forge a relationship.  Instead, each spot is built around an abstraction: a bizarre 'moment', a mutation of the cute and the disturbing. Young love, fluffy white clouds, and sweet older ladies are dispensed with the same confectionery iconoclasm.



SKITTLES builds no emotional equity or momentum; it's less a campaign than a series of first dates, linked by a common design and tone, and a plug-in-the-verb tagline:

Touch (or Smell/Feel/Pet/See) the Rainbow.  Taste the Rainbow.  

You can be forgiven for seeing a similarity in style to Wieden + Kennedy's much lauded Old Spice work:



The tone and imagery share a similar DNA.  But there's a major difference: Old Spice is built on a clear proposition:  "This isn't Dad's Old Spice anymore.  And to show it, we'll take you on a joy-ride far, far away from Dadland.  SKITTLES makes an inexplicable b-line to a similar place, and just parks there.  (Caveat:  yes, Old Spice is a fashion/lifestyle product, where SKITTLES is candy.  Marketing approaches twixt these categories are not interchangeable.)

All this isn't to say the SKITTLES campaign is a failure. Merely a sign of how an emerging generation of ad Creatives are perceiving and communicating with their peers:  opting for quick sugar hits over long-term relationship building.

And if that doesn't work?  There's always the bear horn.

* * * * * * * *