Underground Blog

It always seems odd to me that when the advent of a new, exciting form of media sprouts up, another has to be crushed into oblivion and “die.” Why? In a mad rush to seem like an Oracle of What’s Next, there’s always some person in our industry who has to declare the time of death of a certain type of media. And I just have to call BS. Like when I hear….

“Newspapers are dead!”
Not really. Newspaper content is shifting to online and taking a different shape than what we’ve known. Don’t mistake this change for meaning that newspapers as an irrelevant option for media where appropriate to your target audience.

“TV is dead!”
Wow. I’m glad you told me. I’ll have to notify the millions upon millions upon millions of people who have these weird boxes in their living rooms because, as you say, Johnny Expert, TV is dead. TV is transforming and expanding into online with video, thanks to good old YouTube and others (but the traditional TV isn’t leaving the house anytime soon either).

“Radio is dead!”
Interesting. So everyone with a car doesn’t listen to FM or AM radio? I know this medium is changing, but dead? Not quite. One of my clients always seems to get terrific traction from people saying, “You work for them? Hey, isn’t that the company who has the radio commercial that sounds like…”

And then I hear this, which sends me over the moon:

“Advertising is dead because social media is here!”
Stop. Stop. Stop. Hold your horses right there. I am as big a fan and proponent of social media as anyone. Social media is bringing exciting changes in the way that we converse with potential customers. But advertising or PR it is not nor should it replace. To be clear, social media is something that brand managers need to get familiarized with and fast. They need to evaluate it in the context of what they’re doing in tandem with their overall strategy rather than an add-on afterthought.

Yet, brand managers also have to remember that it is their own audience behaviors, budget, goals and more that should dictate media decisions. And what I’m seeing is that these types of factors are pointing in the direction of multiple avenues of communication, including in several cases, avenues that have been erroneously declared “dead.”

Let’s take advertising, for example. Spending in certain areas of advertising may be down, but to eliminate traditional advertising as a potential avenue – especially when it makes sense as part of research is telling you – is foolish.

I believe in integrated approaches to brand building. Sometimes that includes advertising in the picture, sometimes that doesn’t. But what The Oracles of What’s Next don’t seem to understand is that the picture can include Advertising, PR, Social Media, Digital and more. Media that makes sense for the client’s challenge gets included in the strategy. Media that doesn’t make sense for the client’s challenge still lives to get evaluated for another client, another day.

One big happy family under one brand umbrella. I think we can live with that.

Generally speaking, big financial brands are having a credibility gap between what they’re saying via their media messages and what consumers are experiencing. For example, these brands need to just stop saying, “We’re on your side.”

Really. You, giant bank or credit card company, are on your customer’s side? Interesting. So you’re not charging them fees they may or may not be aware of? You’re not sending them constant notices via mail? You’re not harassing them at home and at work with phone calls and e-mails?

My point is not to complain about those institutions from that perspective, but to say that from a brand perspective they are shooting themselves in the foot day after day after day. The American Consumer knows better because they live in a world with real bills to pay. In the case of so many financial institutions, Brand Promise does not equal Brand Reality.

However, there are thankfully good exceptions. I like what American Express is doing with its Open Forum direction (www.openforum.com) – if you’re not familiar, AMEX’s Open card is generally targeted toward entrepreneurial-minded folks who are getting a small business off the ground.

AMEX has gathered experts in the fields of marketing, money, technology, management, etc. and given entrepreneurs a good centralized hub for finding useful information in the early stages of their business. For example, in the marketing section of the site, smart people like John Jantsch of Duct Tape Marketing and Ann Handley of MarketingProfs have regular features to share.

Of course, as social media is about sharing bad comments as well as good comments – instead of pretending everyone loves you – one such angry poster expressed that AMEX shows “audacity to claim in their TV commercial that they want to help? Their actions speak louder than words!”

I do not doubt for one second that sentiments like this may be entirely true in some cases. Again, you can’t say “we want to help” when you send a notice to a challenged business owner that you’re reducing their credit card limit and punishing them in the most difficult economy since the Great Depression. So in that sense, AMEX and so many other credit card companies are not without fault.

However, I also believe that financial companies, particularly the larger ones, need to look to examples of how they can extend themselves greater for the public good as helpful resources, not solely product pushers. AMEX’s example of the Open Forum site is a reflection of who the Open card itself is originally designed to be for. It is not a site like so many others that merely explains the benefits of the card. That’s boring and unhelpful to the business owner. It’s a site that aims to build a community of shared ideas.

One line of humanity in AMEX’s current TV commercial driving people to the Open Forum site begins with “We don’t have all the answers…” And you know what? They don’t. But I find it refreshing to hear someone in the financial realm finally saying that. And then creating a setting for where that company can bring experts together who aren’t employees to convey a real way business owners can learn a thing or two.

To get on the road to their own brand recovery, financial marketers have to stop saying “In times like these.” It’s overused. We get it. The economy has stunk for quite a while. Tell us something we don’t know. Instead of that doom and gloom messaging, there are actual small signs of hope from our economy. Unless we want to go back to keeping it all under the mattress, we have little choice to look for the same small signs of hope from the people we entrust our money to. That hope entails honesty, transparency, greater back-and-forth human interaction and a genuine willingness to help people like small business owners who are the lifeblood of our economy. Nobody says AMEX has all that covered to perfection. But their latest effort is a start in the right direction for financial brands. Here’s hoping we see more positive momentum from others in their industry as well. And I don’t mean the bonuses they just paid themselves.

On July 28th, Fox News’ Glenn Beck called President Obama a “racist” with “a deep-seated hatred for white people,” during a broadcast. Not long after, Geico, Progressive Insurance and SC Johnson said they would stop airing ads on his program. Clorox, AT&T, Kraft and other advertisers followed suit, pulling their ads from Beck’s show. In total, 46 advertisers thus far have stopped advertising on the Glenn Beck Program.

Beck takes a hit. Advertisers win. Right? Not so fast.

Look, Glenn Beck’s comment was wildly irresponsible and very stupid. I would like most rational human beings would say he went so far overboard, he couldn’t even see the ship anymore. But let’s not give his advertisers a pass for making a move based on morality and special interest pressure rather than what makes sense for their business, which may have included remaining an advertiser on the show.

The knee-jerk reaction is to pull advertising from a program for fear that your customers will see that you are a sponsor and then stop using your product. I do not believe for one second that most customers think that way until the seed of influence is planted by special interest groups that take up a rallying cry to boycott programs and products.

Accuse me of being an idealist if you must, but I do believe we have to give the American people credit for being smart enough to separate an advertiser from the show they advertise on. This is an issue larger than any show, advertiser or comment. It is an area I like to call Common Sense and not enough of us live there. Just because Kraft has an ad on Glenn Beck’s show, I do not think when I’m eating Kraft cheese, “Hmm. I wonder if the makers of this delicious Velveeta are racist because they advertise on Glenn Beck.” While I believe most consumers think this way, I am not sure every strategist trying to steer their brands toward these consumers does. Kind of ironic for some supposed experts on consumer behavior.

What I find dangerous is that the moment a certain group takes offense to something said on television or over the airwaves, those special interest groups are going to become Media Planners by telling advertisers what to do. That offends me because that is MY profession, not theirs.

But worst of all, it causes advertisers to listen only to an outside interest group that is speaking the loudest instead of examining the feedback from their own target audience. It’s not much better when an advertiser makes a decision based on their own moral compass rather than ever considering how their audience behaves.

By making a statement in pulling ads from a popular program your audience watches, you may be doing more harm to your own brand than good. I remember a similar argument about listeners fleeing from a program when Howard Stern began his rise to popularity as the self-proclaimed “King of all Media.” Everybody who listens to Howard is bound to be offended in some form or another by something he says or does. Special interest groups will rise up and say their two cents about him. But you know what? People haven’t stopped listening. Because it is still entertaining. You can debate the moral ground of his commentary all you want, but the reality from a business perspective is that the man has had listeners in droves. Like him or not, so does Glenn Beck. So do a lot of political commentators to the extreme right and left.

Any Media Planner with half a brain knows this and while it is convenient for them to steer focus on the host’s comment, they know full well what they’re getting into when they recommend advertising on a program. They know the commentary on these programs will be biting, that it will cut deep and that it will not be anywhere close to objective. They have to live with the potential that one of these comments will swing into territory their audience may deem offensive every single day their client is an advertiser on that program.

When such controversy happens – when, not if – the automatic response does not have to be pulling the ad from the program.  It can be leveraging your position as an advertiser with the network and working with the host to elicit an apology. You may then be able to take a firm stand for keeping your position as an advertiser on that program. This is particularly relevant when you have to weigh the consequences of leaving the position as advertiser of that program because some people will turn against your brand. In fact, some have said they will no longer purchase products and services of the companies who pull their advertising from Beck’s program.

If an apology from the host is not forthcoming, you can also consider moving advertising on another show on the same network IF it is clear much of your audience listens to that show as well. This way, you continue to speak to your brand’s core audience while making a statement that you do not approve of the commentary made on the show you formerly advertised on.

We live in a country that is full of controversial opinions. Your brand may eventually come into contact with that controversy by association, if not directly. But when that happens, consider your audience’s loyalty to that program. Not what some group who could care less about your brand says you should do.

The best client-agency relationships are those where give and take are part of the formula. The agency gives great work and the client takes all of the credit. Just kidding, a little. It’s about true collaboration to bring out the best in the brand and move forward with ideas that produce amazing results. Unfortunately, many times the agency is seen as merely the minion – the one who creates pretty pictures and that’s all.  When that happens, the brand gets lost in the one-sided art of client congestion.

It takes a village. Or at least a weekly phone call.
Let’s face it. Building a brand is like raising a child. Sometimes the client has ideas that work. Sometimes the agency has better ones. And sometimes the brand sneaks out of the house and toilet papers the neighbor’s yard.  As long as both parents are open to the other’s ideas, the brand can grow big and strong and avoid selling tricks in the bargain bin. But if one parent dominates and shuts out the other, you’re left with an underdeveloped brand that can never fulfill its full potential.  Too often clients don’t look at agencies as parents at all, merely babysitters who will drink their liquor when they’re not looking. What you don’t understand is that we ARE proud parents of every brand we work on. When they succeed we are thrilled. When they fail, we take it just as hard as you. Even if we are paid parents, it doesn’t diminish our stake in your brand’s success. CMOs get paid. Marketing Directors get paid. Everyone who works on the brand gets paid, so whether it’s by job title or by contract – we all are paid to ensure the brand eats its vegetables and shines in the class photos.

Treat us like the lawyers. Not the criminals.
Advertising is the only professional service that you get hired to do the work, then not trusted to do what they hired you for.  It doesn’t happen to lawyers, doctors, accountants or anyone else. I believe in compromise, I do. But when the research says you should be saying one thing, and you say, “I like teddy bears,” we have a problem. We are ultimately responsible for the work produced. We are held accountable for the results. And we should be allowed to use our experience and expertise to shape what that looks like.  As a partner, our points should be acknowledged and our advice considered. I’m not saying we know it all, but we obviously knew enough that you chose to work with us in the first place. So put the teddy bear down and trust us. We know what we’re doing.

It used to be that 30-second flashy introduction at the beginning of websites wasn’t an absolutely essential element, but many felt it was. Personally, I think anything that keeps the user from getting to the content instantly is a vanity piece to say, “Look how great and cool and sophisticated we are.”

I’m glad to see the Flash Intro disappearing slowly but surely. It should join its other annoying friend from cyberspace, the Banner That Covers Up Stuff I Want To Read Until I Click “Close.”

If you’re worried that your content won’t be enough to lure the audience’s attention, you must have some pretty boring content. Or your visuals aren’t that great. Or maybe you have a little of both.

Because the fact of the matter is, my friend, the main part of your site has to be engaging and a place where visitors can see themselves exploring aplenty. If you have that going on, you don’t need an introduction. Your site should be your introduction to a meeting. If it isn’t giving you that, adding 30 seconds of smoke and mirrors at the beginning won’t fool too many savvy marketers. Concentrate on making the main course great, not the appetizer.