What is Twitter?

According to its CEO, if you answered "A Media Company", then, you are wrong. The right answer is that it is a distributor of traffic and content. Which, when you think about it, actually is something subtly different - and opens up new and different business dimensions.

Twitter is one of those major breakthrough companies that put together a great and disruptive product, impacting and changing the lives of millions of persons globally - but that struggles with monetization. Saying that they are not in the business of billboarding and advertising messages, but yes on getting the traffic to where their customers can interact deeper and more directly to consumers is refreshing - and provides clarity of purpose! It states very clearly that a company shouldn't expect to sell products just because it twitted a bit - but that they need to use it complementarily to their communication campaign, as a useful tool. And, when get further clarity when Dick Costolo to the Super 8 campaign that Paramount ran on Twitter - that used hashtagged tweets to trend the movie, but also to drive traffic to its trailer.

The fact is new businesses require clear definitions - and I think that Twitter just provided that by stating it is not a media company. It positions itself as something different, a new business that can be used by companies to successfully impact their consumers on very different ways. It all depends on clients objectives, talent and imagination...

http://mashable.com/2012/01/31/twitter-is-not-a-media-company-ceo-says/

Can you keep a client that is just not interested anymore?

The question is relevant when you think of some business models that are focused on getting clients, and not so much on retaining them - like Holmes Place gyms. In those businesses, the customer signs a long term agreement, committing to stay in the gym for a number of months. The problem is when the customer is not interested in staying with you anymore - for several perfectly reasonable reasons, like job loss, disease, poor service from the company... If the company tries to keep the customer committed to the contract, it is just generating badwill and creating potential negative word-of-mouth - and would you like a former customer refering to your company as a "don't go there!" to his friends?

If you understand Portuguese, have a look at this great article - http://www.tudomudou.com/2012/01/26/o-modelo-de-negocios-do-holmes-place-esta-condenado/ .

Troubles reading package labels?

A worldwide online research done by Nielsen to over 25000 consumers unveils a scary truth - around 59% of consumers have issues reading nutritional information on labels. They only grasp part of the information that is stated there or don't understand it at all. And, the ones that understand it, have doubts on the credibility of the information that is written on labels - they consider part of it ambiguous and biased. And this could probably be said on 95% of all packaged products – whatever the industry!

The truth is label information should be considered crucial. It is the only information we know will be directly associated to our product and always present where our product is. And, if label design is key to get shoppers attention and stand out vs competition, the way we present information on it might be cornerstone for our communication (think about diets and foods and you get the point I am trying to convey).

But too often, label information is not considered part of marketing. It is basically left to technical departments to sum up the legal and maybe a quick claim and then to write it up somewhere in the label. There are limited concerns on readability, on passing key messages on a clever, easy and mind grabbing way, on alignment with point of sale or above the line communication. The potential progression margin on labels design and information is huge – and with clear benefits on brand and product equity, and revenue potential.

http://www.hipersuper.pt/2012/01/26/mais-de-50-dos-consumidores-nao-sabe-ler-rotulos/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=linkedin (in Portuguese)

Social network - a must do for athletes

This morning, I woke up to know Frederico Gil had achieved a remarkable achievement for himself and Portuguese tennis - he is off to a third-round match on a tennis Grand Slam Tournment. But I couldn't find him nowhere on my twitter - no references whatsoever. Sports players need to understand they are a brand, they are media that passes messages and can carry them to a larger audience - thus, meaning it is on their own interest to make themselves as visible as possible. Just look at Carlos Sousa amazing social network (Facebook and Twitter) exposure during the last Dakar (also conveying Great Wall Motors brand) or the incredible work on twitter that Wayne Rooney (footballer) or Maya Gabeira (surfer) do. For a professional athlete, being active on social networks is a must do - please, just do it!

P.S- I just found out Frederico Gil's twitter account - it has around 150 followers...

Stengel 50

"Maximum profit and high ideals are not incompatible. They’re inseparable. Companies with ideals of improving lives at the center of all they do outperform the market by a huge margin." – Jim Stengel

Jim Stengel former P&G’s Chief Marketing Officer wrote a new book – GLOW. In it, Stengel moves on to probe the statement above – that brands and companies that actually engage with their consumers in a positive and responsible way enjoy steadier and fastest growth. Partnering with MillWard Brown, he was able to actually prove that the brands in his top 50 list (“Stengel 50”) generate stronger gains to investors – 400% over the last 10 years. And that companies that focused on improving people’s lives triple their growth vs competitors that don’t.

Doing well by doing good, has been the motto for a growing number of big companies – and it seems that is the right approach, the one consumer feels relevant and strikes a string at their hearts.

If you want to have have a look at MillWard’s Brown introduction to GLOW, please go to http://www.millwardbrown.com/Sites/Brand_Ideal/The_Book.aspx .

Can out of stocks be part of a marketing strategy?

I am fully convinced that Apple's recurrent out of stocks on theirs iPhone and iPad series are part of their strategy to keep everyone talking about them, as well as create a feel of scarcity that drives higher prices. And, let me tell you, it is a pretty good tactic - one of the things that makes me say Apple is probably the best marketing company in the world!

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/13/apple-halts-sale-of-iphone-4s-in-chinese-cities-after-scuffle/?iref=allsearch

Is touching that important?

According to Martin Lindstrom, it might make all the difference between selling or going back empty handed. According to his latest article on Time ( http://ideas.time.com/2012/01/10/the-secret-cause-of-buyers-remorse/ ), just holding a product might activate a sense of ownership in our brain, that we then strive to protect - a theory supported on FMRI studies that show that touching a product activates the emotional center of the brain. It is a very interesting side of the equation that is never looked at - but might actually be true. How many of us, after grabbing something, feel the need to take it home? The fact is, Martin looks at it as a threat to online shopping and the reason behind rising rates of returns - just because after holding the products they ordered, the feeling consumers get isn't exactly the one expected. Do you think he is right?

24 hours around the clock in your consumer shoes

This is one of my number one tools. It is all about media and communication.

One of marketing’s classical problems is actually to reach your target audience in an efficient way. Many years ago, the answer to that question seemed easy – you just put an ad on TV and on the most read newspapers and that was it. Well, actually, that was probably not the most efficient solution – but it was the traditional one and everybody would be happy with it. But now, the myriad of media that surrounds us make this an especially tough question.

The 24 hours clock is actually one of my preferred tools to solve it. Just put yourself on your consumer shoes and map its day, being aware of all the opportunities that might be around. Let’s think about a 30-something working mother of 1, married. She (Kate):

6.30am – wake up, with the alarm clock on her radio station;

Till 7.15am – take a shower and get ready for the day. Keep listening to radio and dress her daughter (Anna).

Till 7.30am – breakfast with Anna and Paul (husband). TV is turned on for quick news, meteo and traffic news

Till 8am – drive and leave Anna at school. Cross billboards and listens to radio

Till 8.30am – drive to work. Listen to radio

Till 12.30pm – work. Occasional 15 minutes stop to read online news, go to her facebook, read her emails in her smartphone

Till 1.00pm – lunch time at her desk. Surf the web a bit – facebook / youtube/ going through some travel sites / blogs to pick up ideas / dream a bit.

Till 6.00 pm - work. Occasional 15 minutes stop to read online news, go to her facebook, read her emails in her smartphone

Till 7.00pm – Pick up Anna and drive home. Listening to radio and driving past billboards.

Till 8.00pm – Her time to cook. TV on

Till 9.00pm – Dinner with Anna and Paul. TV on.

Till 10.30pm – Watching TV with Paul while answering and writing emails, facebooking, maybe a bit of web surfing.

So, looking at this 24 hours clock, what media mix would you choose? The fact is Kate follows an average pattern, and she is kind of conservative in her media choices – she is not on Twitter or on Google+, she is not checking in on FourSquare, not watching any movie on NetFlix. We could easily spice it up a bit – but, for that, we would need a tighter profile. And, as usual in marketing, if you have your target well defined, then, the number of opportunities and their importance and potential increases.

The fact is this simple tool can help you a lot on defining which media to consider. The weight you give to each one of them, the way you will explore them and make them interact based on the same campaign idea will then depend on the work that has to be developed based on actual penetration on target, impact, budget and prices,… But the 24 hours clock is a good starting point!

Kodak

The imminent bankruptcy of Eastmann Kodak is a severe and sharp warning for all the companies - one day, you will have to face the challenge of keeping your business model up to the future times. If you don't do it in a way to play and enhance your sustainable advantages, the market and the way the consumer thinks and behaves will end up overthrowing you. Watch it carefully!

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/01/05/business/kodak-bankruptcy/index.html?iref=allsearch

http://economia.publico.pt/Noticia/kodak-corre-risco-de-entrar-em-insolvencia-1527866

Consumers are (first and foremost) people

I was just reading Marc Mathieu (SVP Marketing at Unilever) interview to Marketing Week when I stumbled across this sentence - "to do marketing for people who are human beings first and foremost and not just consumers." And I strongly agree with this statement - actually, I agree so strongly with it that I had intended to right a post about it (I was just waiting for the right occasion).

Human beings are complex. We are never straightforward and out thinking and feeling processes are far from being simple, involving contradictions, past memories, senses, rationalisations,... When a brand tries to engage a person as a consumer, it moves on those shady waters that talk not only about the message of that brand, but actually about all the memories that might be associated with the brand, product, people involved... If a marketeer is not carefull to understand of all those contradictions and complexity, the brand message might not come across.

My motto on this is always the same. Treat consumers with the respect you would like to be treated - it is the only first step for having people who will actually admire and buy your brand.

http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/analysis/qa-marc-mathieu-senior-vice-president-of-marketing-unilever/3033003.article

Branding vs Attention? Some real examples

So, let's look at http://aeiou.expresso.pt/sexo-na-publicidade-adivinhe-onde-esta-a-marca-fotogaleria=f697484 , as promised yesterday. And let's do a quick analysis:

1) The brand might make some sense in this ad – but actually, it is completely crushed down by the model. Even the idea that is blistering hot at that moment is not immediate – how many persons have actually noticed the melting radio in the image?

2) This is a very funny and surprising ad. It really is different and it drives attention to understand what happened in that salad. But the brand has no tradition in this advertising language. The big question here is to understand the alignment of this ad with the brand’s strategy – maybe it actually makes sense

3) Too subtle. I don’t really get any branding here. Unless the target is very specific with the brand and this is actually clear to it, I would dim it a waste of money.

4) Spot on! This ad breathes sexual attraction that is exactly what the brand sells to its consumers. And it does it in a funny way. I am sure you will remember this ad and brand longer than all (or almost) the other ones in this collection

5) The branding here is a lot stronger than in the first Perrier ad. So, everybody will understand it is Perrier – the only point is what does it have to do with a nice bottom? Maybe it helps you be in good shape, maybe there is some sort of association to a higher social class – the point is, as a stand alone ad, I have some doubts here.

6) Axe is about attraction – so it is more than ok to use images like this, it actually, is almost compulsory. I just think that branding should be stronger – with a bigger pack, maybe? Apart from that, it makes sense.

7) Perfect! Great association between ad and product benefit.

8) This is a very good ad from Hawaiian Tropic – and it makes all the sense to use bikinis for a sun tan brand. I would probably just improve visibility of the message (“Extreme Waterproof”) that unfolds the meaning of the ad – probably by placing it at the feet of the model (and this would elect me to a major discussion with my creative agency…)

9) I really don’t know what to say about this ad. I understand the message – but I am not very sure if it is the trigger that would make someone register in a donor database…

10) This is a good ad, in my opinion. Even because of positioning as a street billboard – you never know what can happen on the street and want always to look your best…

11) Again, Durex shows it is one of the brands that can use sexual innuendo, as it is part of their brand proposal.

12) I always found it difficult to advertise cars – because, nobody outstands itself. Most of the ads are very similar. This is a little different, but, on my opinion, still falls short of presenting a strong reason or of creating a bond that is compelling to drive a buying decision

13) For a masculine magazine – it makes sense. In my view, “let’s keep dreaming of a better world” is a strong connector to the image that is presented, as part of a “men’s world”.

14) Again, Wonderbra is a brand that is entitled and should use sex to sell – it is part of their brand core

15) Ok, let’s use a sexual innuendo image. And it has some glamour. And is emotional, to try to establish the necessary link with the potential consumer. Bread is not easy to sell – so, if you actually have it in your communication DNA that you should be using sexual promising images and you are consistent about it – why not?

I hope that these examples drive the point. It is more than ok to use sexual images if it is part of your brand – whether it is part of the product core (like Wonderbra and Durex), your brand promise (like Axe) or the way you consistently communicate your brand (like it might happen with Kohberg). The product then plays a relevant part in the ad, interacts and flirts with the consumer mind and will leave a positive and lasting feeling in its brand. But if you don’t have anything to do with attraction or sex, using it seems just a cheap and ineffective way of driving attention – and the consumer will soon forget the association with your brand (let me be more explicit – you might remember the bottom on ad number 5, but do you remember the brand?)

And now, the analogy we just did with sex can actually be fitted to many other subjects in the communication world. It is a very simple rule that many good advertisers forget – your product or brand needs to play a relevant part of the ad, that actually is strong and fast enough to endure a positive and enduring memory and feeling in ths consumer heart. If you need to think to much about the part of your product, you probably should brief differently or move to a different angle.

Branding vs Attention?

One of the most dreaded battles in publicity is the one that opposes attention and branding. The challenge is almost always the same – how to create a compelling and eye-catchy ad, that still communicates and doesn’t obliterate the brand we want to drive?

It is a common mistake we see in so many different ads! The brand is left to a secondary position, as an add-on or a disconnected stamp, while something in the centre of the image drives the eyes. There is a reason to use blond-bombshells, sexy bikinis, flashy colours, beautiful sunset images,… - it grabs our attention. And that is alright – if we are able to make it work with the brand, if there actually is a reason for the brand to present you that image and to integrate itself there. If it makes sense to your target audience. If it comes naturally. If it does, then, you have a compelling ad. If not, you are just getting a fraction of your potential, jeopardizing your return on investment.

The following link will drive you to a Portuguese newspaper, presenting you 15 different billboards and newspaper ads that use sex as an attention driven tool. Have a look at them and make up your mind on whether they are able to build brand or are probably not maximizing the return on the money invested on them – I will comment later on.

http://aeiou.expresso.pt/sexo-na-publicidade-adivinhe-onde-esta-a-marca-fotogaleria=f697484

Department stores – why I don’t love them

Yes, department stores, like Macy’s in New York, KaufHaus des Westes in Berlin or El Corte Ingles in Madrid. They have variety, quality and (sometimes) good prices. Their locations are usually also great – all the stores I mentioned are located in the centre of their cities. But still, I don’t like them. And let me tell you why:

- Room disposable and internal organization is often chaotic, misleading people to wander around many different sections and product proposals. For an efficient buyer like me (I almost always have a clear shopping target and seldom defocus from it) lack of organization is a waste of my precious time;

- It is too crowded and chaotic, and usually doesn’t live up to the clean and exclusivity promise of many of the brands it sells. It has brand quality, but their store quality is very poor;

- Price is usually worse than in brand or category specific stores, making it a bad place for a bargain – unless you get a price cut-off promotion.

I know there is a market for department stores – it was a key format throughout the 20^th century, especially for the upper-middle class. But, it needs to make sure it is fit to compete in the fast-paced and very competitive environment in which we live nowadays.