The Virtues of Staying On Message

As a marketing communications case, Barack Obama’s campaign is the clear winner. The campaign has chosen a message (the economy is really bad because of the Republican’s mismanagement of it and Obama can do better) and stuck with it. People are concerned about this message and are responding well to it.  The McCain campaign on the other hand has not found its core message. We know that McCain is concerned about mortgages, taxes, and….Obama’s association with Bill Ayers. Although all of these are legitimate issues to focus on, the campaign has not crystallized into one overarching message that can be delivered time and again.

McCain may have the ideas and the experience, but his “marketing” is getting muddled. And that may cost him the election. Obama, on the other hand, early on grasped the importance of the Internet in attracting younger voters, has stayed on message and has a flexible ad budget that has allowed him to put money in the states he considers more important. McCain’s most recent ad strategy, in spite of the overwhelming economic news, was to place ads talking about Obama’s relationship with Ayers. It has backfired, no doubt. At a campaign stop on Friday, McCain had to spend time assuring the crowd that they shouldn’t be scared of Obama, that he is decent (subtext–he is not a terrorist).

The bottom line for any campaign, political or otherwise, is to choose a message that resounds with the target audience and stick to it.

Ways of seeing

In the end, as consumers (of products and of media), we see things the way we want to see them. If anything has become clear with this presidential campaign, is that voters (consumers) see what they want to see, and so does the media. There is no such thing as lack of  bias. Everyone knows Fox News hangs to the right, and in their eyes, McCain won the debate last night. CNN is considerably more liberal, although they throw in two Republican strategists to their panel for a mix, and they say Obama won. My personal view is that neither candidate did well and that the town hall format was a mess.

It continues to shock me just how different people see the same thing differently. Where some people see patriotism (Sarah Palin speaking about America) other people see racism (her saying that Obama is un-American). If you do a search for Sarah Palin’s racist remarks on Google, you will find an AP story about this, along with a great many blogs decrying this. I found a blog today that claims, erroneously, that Obama is a Muslim. And so the social media and the mainstream media can really serve to muddle the facts. Of course, we are seeing an upsurge in “fact checking” from organizations such as Factchecker.org. But where are those “facts” coming from? Which facts are we choosing to check?

I think that as consumers of media, we need to acknowledge what we are looking for and we need to question the motivation of media outlets. Remember too that media is paid for by advertising dollars and ultimately, that makes the most difference. Remember a few years ago that when Ellen DeGeneres was on the sitcom Ellen and she came out, some groups threatened to boycott the advertisers that advertised on that show? It works the other way too…some advertisers won’t advertise on one channel because of bias. And more importantly, some commentators will not interview somebody because they disagree. For instance, Campbell Brown of CNN had a spat with the McCain campaign that led to McCain canceling his appearance on Larry King Live.

Now more than ever we need to understand that what we see is not the whole story. As consumers, we need to find out what the story is and our best chance in the political season at least, is to read each candidate’s position papers (via web or campaign) and to watch the debates and perhaps skip the “analysis.” In the end we need to develop our own way of seeing. And the media needs to be more transparent about why they see what they see.

Improve your marketing communications

Are your efforts working? You advertise and send direct mail but are getting no results. What do you attribute that to? Chances are you are not communicating effectively. Here are a few things to consider:

1. Target audience: Are you sure you are targeting the right demographic? Are you reaching the target effectively?
2. Clarity of message: Are you using jargonese? Using complicated terms? Really saying what you mean to say?
3. Timing: Is your timing on target? Are you giving your audience enough time to make a decision?
4. Attractiveness: As in dating, in communications the visual can take precedence over content. Are your marketing materials designed to be easy to read? Are they attractive and professional looking?  What image are you conveying?
5. Outside opinion: Have you shown your campaign/materials to an impartial observer? Have you tested it with a focus group or a potential customer?

On knowing your target audience

Knowing your target audience is the primary task of any marketer. How can you craft your message if you don’t know who you are speaking to? How can you make sure your potential clients buy your product if you don’t where they live, what they like and the other elements that make up your demographic profile?  Often, ads don’t work because they don’t target the right audience. Or, they target the right audience but don’t communicate properly. So this brings me to Sarah Palin and Joe Biden during the debate last night. It was very clear that each of them knew who their target audience was and used the proper language to communicate with it. Palin used her folksiness to establish connection with “Joe Six Pack and Hockey Moms” around the US. She used terms like doggone it and gosh darn it to make the point that she is an average person from Main Street Wasilla.  Biden spoke in a more formal fashion, to  communicate with an intellectual audience and to those seeking a traditional politician. He threw in references to Scranton and Home Depot to assure “Main Street” that he’s also in touch with them. In the end, I think both politicians understand who they need to communicate to and did so well.  I think if you are a liberal Democrat with environmental leanings, Sarah Palin rubbed you the wrong way. But then again, you are not her target. She knows she can’t connect with you. On the other hand, if you are someone who feels politicians are out to get you with their misguided policies, then you loved that Palin spoke to you.

If there is a problem with appealing solely to your target audience during a presidential campaign is that you don’t motivate the other side to vote for you. This debate proved that–neither side did much to convince the other to switch allegiances.

On coupons and reinventing your product

Clipping coupons is a sometimes denigrated activity which nonetheless helps thousands of Americans keep to their grocery budgets. In this sense, coupons play a significant role in marketing communications. Many people buy the product for which they can get the best price, and coupons (especially in stores that double their face value) can help lower prices. So, for example, if you are shopping for detergent, and you have a 50-cent coupon for Tide and a 75-cent coupon for Purex, you may decide to buy Purex, either as a trial or because it will be cheaper.

Manufacturers also use coupons to introduce products and to stimulate sales. And, often, I think, they use coupons to experiment with campaigns. After all, coupons are traceable. You can gauge if something is working just by the number of coupons that are redeemed.

Today I saw an interesting juxtaposition of coupons for Palmolive Dishwashing Liquid. One was for traditional Palmolive (you know, the green stuff that claims to save your hands from the harshness of doing dishes) and for “New Palmolive Pure +  Clear.” This new product claims to have no unnecessary chemicals, no heavy fragrances, non-irritating dyes and no harmful residue on dishes.” This is from the same people who manufacture the other Palmolive. Are they saying that regular Palmolive has unnecessary chemicals, irritating dyes and leaves harmful residue???? Do you see how this is dangerous for the Palmolive brand? Although I applaud them for their new product I think that this where branding can be defeated. If you introduce a new product that in a sense contradicts your existing product, you should use a different brand, right? Or, is the thought process that the brand is strong and now they can provide an alternative for people looking for a less chemically harsh dish liquid? Will this lead eventually to a complete change in the Palmolive brand?  I really wonder. Also, do people think about the ads or do they just take it at face value?

What do you think?

What kind of political ad works best?

We’ve seen lots of mud-slinging via commercial during this year’s presidential election. Negative ads work to some extent or they wouldn’t be used. However, this morning, I saw Barack Obama’s newest commercial. It is all  about his economic plan, and he is on camera and talking for all of it. I think it was effective–he laid out his principles and what he wants to do for the American people, and of course, he dealt with the hottest topic du jour, the economy. It made him look serious and proactive. Let’s see what McCain responds with. In a way, I think Obama is trying to look presidential to conteract McCain’s grandstanding of these past two days.

On seizing opportunity and speaking diplomatically

We are in the middle of rough times economically and politically in the United States. We have to deal with real economic worries, chiefly about the safety of our money within the banking system. So, now, what used to be a footnote on all bank ads, has become a selling opporutnity: the FDIC logo.  All banks want to reassure their customers that the FDIC backs their assets. Some banks have increased the size of FDIC logo and others such as Schwab are using it during commercials on TV. Schwab clearly created their newest campaign to reassure its clients that their assets are safe. Another banking opportunity seems to be the CD. You may have noticed that more banks are advertising their CDs, with their “higher” APYs.  Today’s Washington Post featured ads for both Commercial Bank and Wachovia CDs. Again, these are FDIC insured and promise “real” returns, unlike the volatile stock market.

A couple of days ago I saw Laura Bush being interviewed by CNN. This woman can teach everyone how to speak, convincingly and politely. She is a real pro! The interviewer asked if Mrs. Bush thought that Gov Palin had enough foreign policy experience. Mrs. Bush said no, she didn’t because it wasn’t her role. She also said she was excited to be able to vote for a woman on a Republican ticket. I can’t do Laura Bush justice by paraphrasing her, but I can assure you she answered the questions, not with obfuscation (as Sarah Palin does) but with tact and diplomacy. She knows how to communicate assuredness. She is calm and can stick to talking points without sounding like she is sticking to talking points. Overall, I think she is the best thing in the Republican party.

Will it play in Peoria?

It used to be that the primary concern for advertisers was whether their ad “would play in Peoria,” shorthand for would middle America like it. More and more we are seeing ads that don’t play in Peoria or anywhere else than the ultra chic world of Manhattan advertising agencies. Microsoft is a case in point. The company is now withdrawing its weird Bill Gates-Jerry Seinfeld ads after only two weeks. The ads were just too strange and didn’t get across their point. Unfortunately, this is not the only case, nor will it be the last. Now, I am all in favor of “pushing the envelope”  creatively and approaching things differently, but ultimately, the target audience has to appreciate the ad or else it is literally missing its target.

This morning, I was watching the news and they were talking about what to do during this financial mess. One of the advisers recommended holding off on any big purchases such as real estate and hanging on tight to any money. Not sure if I agree, but I know that mortgages are hard to get right now. Not five minutes later during commercial break, Coldwell Banker had an ad for its services, ENCOURAGING people to buy now BECAUSE of the economic climate. Huh? Dissonance!!!!! I thought to myself, are these advertisers really thinking that people will be buying during this type of economic crisis? Is this another case of not taking Peoria into consideration?

Update on Microsoft: Here’s a story from Newsweek about how Microsoft is failing to shine Vista’s reputation.

Customer communications in an unstable era

As we saw yesterday, we are officially in a era of market volatility and our financial institutions are in freefall. I am speaking of course of the 500 point drop the Dow experienced due in no small part to the Lehman Brothers failure and the Bank of America buyout of Merrill Lynch. This has spawned talk of the security of regular deposits at commercial banks and the Fed’s ability to actually insure this money. At the same time, oil prices fell below $100 because investors fear a drop in demand. OK. Are we economically unstable? YES. Are the fundamentals of our economy as strong as John McCain thinks they are? I don’t think so.

In this steadily worrisome environment, United Airlines announced that it will raise the price of a second checked bag to $50, affecting one in seven of their customers. The company continues to claim that the rising price of oil has forced it to continue to squeeze its customers. This comes after  United scrapped a plan to provide only cold meals, for purchase, on international flights. Now, I am not a United frequent flyer, or an investor, so I did not receive a communique from the company. The news media reported these changes and all  I can say is, I am not inclined to fly United, ever.  These fees and changes are being reported but they don’t seem to be creating a public relations problem for United. But they should. A company that continues to increase its fees to its customers is not doing enough to examine if it operates efficiently. On the other hand, Southwest Airlines has seen an opening here and has a very clever commercial that tallies the additional fees other airlines are charging and compares it to its non-additional fee fare. Who do you think wins?

This brings me to banking. As mentioned above, there may be real worries relating to the safety of your deposits.  Today, I received a email from ING Direct, the online bank where I have an account, thanking me for my business and continued trust. The email assures me that my deposit is safe and that ING is not engaging in selling off loans etc, like Lehman and Merrill did (that is subtext).  In any case, this is smart customer communications. Talk about a problem and show how you are dealing with it. I think it is smarter that what United seems to be doing–talking about a problem that affect the company and NOT assuring customers but rather using them as additional piggy banks.  What succesful companies know is that customers are the reason they exist. Without customers, there is no business. Alienating customers is never a good policy!

Bottom line: kudos to ING Direct for its direct (albeit somewhat self-serving) communication and thumbs-down to United to continuing to raise the bar on fees to customers, and announcing it via press release.

Another advertising what?!?! moment

Much like the Coke-Pepsi taste wars, Microsoft is vying with Apple to be the taste of a new generation. You’ve probably seen the Apple commercials showcasing the young Justin (standing in for Mac) and the old man (standing in for PC). PC  is so out of touch, so many problems while Mac is just a breeze. Somehow, PCs are still in the majority… But Microsoft is pulling out all the stops–they hired Jerry Seinfeld and Bill Gates to shill the MS Operating System. Seriously. And I caught part of the TV commercial yesterday, and all I can say is what the??? It didn’t make sense, it was dumb and a complete waste of Jerry Seinfeld’s  comedic talents. And Bill Gates is going to convince me Microsoft is better than Mac? We know he thinks its better–he made millions off it (or is it billions?).  Bottom line, the ads are just not as hip as the Apple ads.