Comments on: the cluetrain-lovemarks deathmatch (cont.)

By: Tom Sherman

Tom Sherman — Mon, 31 Jan 2005 22:26:17 +0000

Love them buyers, customers, clients. Make them feel loved! They may be undeserving, but they need to buy. Sounds so simple, basic and blah. I have found success with emotions. When they hate me it is good. They are thinking about me and it is an emotion and I have the impetus to turn it around when the hate comes. Make them love. Sorry Hugh sounds like I am teaching, but it was in me and had to come out.

By: AdPulp

AdPulp — Sat, 29 Jan 2005 03:01:20 +0000

Down Off That Soapbox Son

In the comments area on Gaping Void, Dwight Little recently had this to say, “Advertising as we know it is ineffective. Advertising as we know it is obsolete. Advertising as we know it is extinct. Have I got that right?…

By: Keith

Keith — Fri, 28 Jan 2005 21:42:59 +0000

What is going to replace conventional marketing/advertising? Producing the best products and services. Look, for the last 50 years, the bulk of what the consumer was offered has been shit. The role of advertising/ marketing has been trying to convince the consumer that this chicken shit is chicken salad.
Here’s an example: Shitty service at British Airways, outstanding service at Singapore Air. Why do people fly Singapore? Because they deliver the best in the business. This outstanding service is how they market themselves.
How does BA market themselves? By giving average service (at best) and then running ads trying to convince people that they are as wonderful as Singapore Air. Don’t bullshit us, give us better service. It really is that simple.
Another example: In-N-Out Burgers. This is a chain of hamburger stands throughout California. No joke, these are the best hamburgers on earth. Ask anybody in California. They raise their own beef and it’s never frozen. Your burger is cooked to order. Your french fries are made from a fresh potato, not frozen. Milk shakes are hand made with a mixer–not from one of those soft ice cream machines. Even the lettuce is fresh from the garden, not pre-chopped from a supplier. The restaurants are always spotless. The employees speak English (a rarity on the west coast) and they are among the highest paid in the industry–they attract better people. The company is fanatical about quality. This is how they market themselves; a better product, a better experience. It cost more and people are willing to pay for it.
Look at McDonalds: A ton of national spots are trying to convince consumers that the greasy burger and fries parked under a warming lamp is “doing it all for you.” Well, fuck me. The food is shit and all of the advertising in the world won’t make it taste better. Please, blow more smoke up the consumer’s ass.
Often, you’ll find an In-N-Out Burger next to a McDonalds. Nearly anytime of day, there are more people at the In-N-Out, relishing their meals. McDonalds will not have nearly as much traffic.
Let’s see. McDonalds advertises everywhere. In-N-Out doesn’t. Yet In-N-Out is more popular; go figure.

By: Frank Ruscica

Frank Ruscica — Fri, 28 Jan 2005 09:34:21 +0000

Hugh,
As it happens, today Google launched the beta of their AdWords API. From the project’s official blog (http://adwordsapi.blogspot.com/):
“The AdWords API beta program is an open invitation to developers to explore new concepts (and then write great software) for managing Google AdWords advertising campaigns. Large advertisers can use it for their complex ad management needs, like tying product margins to optimized keyword bids.Third parties can use the API to build new interfaces to manage their client accounts. Best of all, an API enables the creation of all sorts of unanticipated ideas.”
Watch the ad-bitrageurs go wild here…
Especially if/when an AdSense API is introduced…

By: Frank Ruscica

Frank Ruscica — Fri, 28 Jan 2005 07:12:02 +0000

Hugh,
As I think you noted elsewhere on your blog, the old days of media buying were pretty sleepy. But going forward, as the media landscape becomes ABSURDLY fragmented, there is a new opportunity for agencies (a/o stand-alone media planning shops) to differentiate by getting clients the lowest possible CPM for their target demo — adjusting, of course, for the impactfulness of different media. (Knowing how to make these adjustments is, of course, a big piece of the puzzle.)
And the best ad-bitrageurs will be the folks who make those buys…
Of course, a great media plan w/ crap creative won’t work…
But at the “structural” level, the big opportunity for a game-changing play revolves around the ad-bitrageurs…
Again, read Moneyball…

By: AdPulp

AdPulp — Fri, 28 Jan 2005 04:13:23 +0000

Lovemarks Must Be Genuine Article

The anti-Lovemarks argument just found its voice (or at least one I can readily comprehend), thanks to Rob at Bad Marketing. He writes: “Lovemarks isn’t complete bunk. The vitriolic response comes because this ad agency has created and hyped the…

By: hugh macleod

hugh macleod — Thu, 27 Jan 2005 23:48:12 +0000

Well, Frank, one advantage of buying media first is “the idea” is limited by what you have bought.
If all you have are 30-second commercial buys on Seinfeld re-runs, it gives you a “place” to focus. No need to spend weeks coming up with direct, print, guerilla ideas etc.
I think it’s somewhat putting the cart before the horse, but hey, welcome to Madison Avenue.

By: Frank Ruscica

Frank Ruscica — Thu, 27 Jan 2005 23:42:45 +0000

The future agency will be run by successful ad-bitrageurs. To understand why, read Moneyball by Michael Lewis.
From a June 2004 issue of Fortune:
The ascension of the media buyer completely disrupted Madison Avenue’s old assembly line. “We’re getting to the point where the media plan is done first, and the creative is developed behind it,” says Verklin. “That is a radical vision for the advertising business that would have been unheard of five years ago.” He adds: “We used to be the dorks. Now we’re driving the whole advertising process.”

By: Rerun

Rerun — Thu, 27 Jan 2005 23:29:33 +0000

Just my 2cents:
We still use landline based phones, we still write letters and post them by snail-mail. So Advertising as we know won’t die quick. It will dwindle and lose much of its domineering role in corporate marketing commnucation but it wont’t become extinct.
Newspapers and Magazines will include ads in their print issues als will TV shows.
But — as far as I got it — the point Hugh is trying to make: Classical Ad-Agencies won#t be the leading players in the communication game.
Who will replace them? Marketers with a deep understanding of conversations. Some of these will work on the corporate side and conduct an orchestra of agencies (classical, diaologue, interactive, viral etc.) Others will fill that role outside corporations and found Meta-Agencies which will concentrate on the development of conversations (or communacation strategies and ideas) which will span different channels.
The classical monolithic agency with its focus on (TV-)ad-Spots, Print-Ads and Radio-Spots is a dying species.
Some even know this: Jung/von Matt, a german creative Hotshop just formed a new Unit for dialogue– and interactive centered campaigns and expect that unti to generate up to 40% of their gross budgets in the near future.
(sorry, no english press release to link to)

By: BadMarketing

BadMarketing — Thu, 27 Jan 2005 22:52:21 +0000

Why Lovemarks Offends Us There's a lot of hate out there for Lovemarks, the "beyond branding" marketing schtick. The thing is, these brand relationships weren't developed overnight, they weren't manufactured by an ad agency, and it's insulting to the brands we do love and res...

By: Dwight Little

Dwight Little — Thu, 27 Jan 2005 22:35:21 +0000

Advertising as we know it is ineffective. Advertising as we know it is obsolete. Advertising as we know it is extinct.
Have I got that right?
Once again, I ask Hugh — and Keith and the rest — if “the ‘conventional’ ad biz must die a quick and sudden death,” what will replace it?
I’m not trying to be snarky or insincere. I am genuinely curious. I keep hearing people on this site gas on about advertising’s ills — and there is much truth to what you say. But I don’t hear too many concrete alternatives.

By: AH

AH — Thu, 27 Jan 2005 22:10:06 +0000

Like so much in life, a LoveMark that is the result of accumulated meaning — Apple, Capezio when I was a little girl — is full of effective meaning. One foisted on us, like the New Age Coffees of Starbucks, or constantly referred to to confirm we still love it, makes me queasy.
Love is a result of grace in a prepared place. Er somfin.

By: Joe Hoyle

Joe Hoyle — Thu, 27 Jan 2005 21:35:57 +0000

So, the “bigger you are, the slower you move” and most agencies have become too slow to the point of a slow death. I’m not sure. While I agree that, on the face of it, some ‘monolithic’ agencies are not nimble and shrewd enough to keep up with the market, most have strategically postioned themselves to move in an agile way by fragmenting their business offerings into smaller, more manageable companies. These companies will survive

By: Keith

Keith — Thu, 27 Jan 2005 20:58:06 +0000

True Story:
Last week, I was out with “the gang” (about twelve of us) for beers. None of them work in marketing/advertising. The subject of commercials came up and over 30 minutes of group conversation was devoted to bashing stupid TV spots that made no sense. The typical comment was, “What in the fuck was all that about?”
Look, even the average consumer has figured out that the bulk of advertising is total shit.
As Hamish said about the ad execs, “This really is extending the core brand message into an interactive experential relationship, that adds value to the consumer interaction.”
No, it’s not. It’s making the consumer ask, “What in the fuck was all that about?”

By: Hamish

Hamish — Thu, 27 Jan 2005 17:23:26 +0000

Ad fatigue. Fatiguing ads.
The British try and overcome ad fatigue with interesting ads. “You know, the one where the eagle swoops down over the ocean, and metamorphoses into a lobster, just as the tree bursts into flames, and David Beckham kicks the egg whisk into the arms of the silione breated supermodel covered in feathers.”
“Oh yeah, I saw that. What was it for?”
“.”
Right. Ad fatigue, not giving any additional benefit to the poor bloody client. Worst one at the moment is that bloody stupid Britiah Airways one, where the traveller looks out of the taxi on the plane at the beach sees musicians sawing away at that theme tune they have had for a long time.
Ad account executive: “This really extending the core brand message into an interactive experential relationship, that adds value to the consumer interaction.”
Customer: “What are those dorks standing in a field full of cowpats with trombones. I reckon that if I am going to travel anywhere it will be cheapest available for short haul, and if I am forced to go long haul I will go hungry Arab. Hungry Arab is the new trend to hubs out of Dubai, and Qatar, good service low costs. OK, you have to change aeroplanes in the Gulf, but if you are going serious long haul, what the hell is the difference in changing in Dhubai or Singapore?”
So, that works.
The alternative is the factoid advertising — “Got piles? You need preparation H, over 99.99% of customers had a less sore ass when they used it.”
Problem is context. If I don’t have a sore ass, then this is useless and embarassing information. However, if I am looking for information, then this is good context based relationships.
I wonder why Google Ad words are selling strongly.…
As for the rest, it’s just ugly wallpaper.