You should never force your brand name into a slogan or headline. But when it makes sense to do so, why not do so?
Which all came to mind when I noticed this Taxi topper the other day. I took a quick shot in moving traffic, so the type may not be legible, but it is an ad for Simply Orange orange juice. The copy line is: From city to serenity in one sip.
It seems to me there was an opportunity, with just a little tweak, to make the line less generic while building the brand name. Along the lines (pun intended) of “From city to serenity in one simple sip.” Or some other version of the line, as long as it used“simple” or “simply” in an unforced but appealing way.
Are you keeping current, or better yet, ahead of the technology curve? Granted, it is impossible to stay on top of today’s latest hi-tech wonders, no matter how many Google alerts, blogs, Tweets, feeds and websites you look at. But limiting your daily (hourly) searches to specific areas of interest is a good place to start. Be it marketing, creativity, ideas, copywriting—any business related source—these can keep you abreast of the curve, if not always ahead of it.
Yes, “All work and no…etc.” is true. And we should look for entertainment that simply attracts us, because it often informs and broadens us with insights and connections we would never otherwise have made. But it pays to be somewhat conversant in current advances in your field, if for no other reason than to avoid the blank look on your face when a client asks your thoughts about a new advance/website/technique/social medium you have never heard of.
QR codes in magazines? So yesterday. Crowd funding? So early this morning. Mobile payments? So ten minutes ago. Klout? So ten seconds ago.
But here’s something I have not seen before. An interactive phone kiosk. I took the picture in Manhattan late last week, and for all I know it is obsolete already, having been replaced by the inevitable billboard that greets you by name and comments on your shoes.
This kiosk is uniquely for the Samsung Galaxy S III, though Apple will probably sue for patent infringement. You simply unlock your phone, turn on NFC (near field communication) tap your phone on the kiosk and get a free music track.
I like the novelty, but want to make one thing clear. It is the idea, not the technique, that makes the difference. Keep current, but concentrate on what you do with the technology, not what the technology does.
Speed dating announcement in Paris (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
The article in The New York Times about online dating reminded me of all the things I have problems with when “suits” insist on the irreproachable validity of copy and concept testing.
The article, by Jena Wortham, begins by saying that “Online dating services have long promised to help people find a mate by using statistical science to predict personal chemistry.” So right away I leapt to, hey, that’s what they claim to be able to accomplish when they test concepts and commercials. As in, “Research companies have long promised to help clients find the answer by using statistical science to predict personal needs and wants.”
The analogy gets even richer as they quote Susan Etlinger. “There’s only so much you can do with data. There’s always the unknown that has to do with pheromones and human nature.” Yes indeed! And though I don’t know much about pheromones, I agree with Pablo Picasso's similar observation: "Computers are useless. They can only give you answers."
To be, reluctantly, fair, research can provide guidance, and perhaps help avoid complete creative catastrophe. But do you believe that “personality tests and data can accurately predict whether two people will be compatible”?
Or, more important for this post, do you believe that testing and data can accurately predict whether your marketing will be effective?
So, like online dating, which has evolved (regressed?) to several sites now bringing people together at parties and bars, a good thing for you to do, when possible, is to actually meet and talk with your target audience, live and in person.
And use data, research and numbers as a guide, not an answer.
Hey, you probably stole my idea also. That’s just how it sometimes seems to work. Usually, and hopefully, not intentionally. It’s just that basically, most every idea we come up with is based on something; it depends on whether you simply clone it or change it to make it truly new and yours.
Happily, according to an adaptation of “The Knockoff Economy” in the Wall Street Journal, imitation often spurs innovation. Which certainly goes contrary to the idea of patents and copyrights, which exist because conventional thinking is that copying destroys the incentive to innovate.
Except think of the fashion industry, which is famous for copying, though the term used is “knockoff.” Or the primary example in the article, John Bogle who introduced the first index fund through his company the Vanguard group. Critics scoffed, asking who would be satisfied with just matching the market average? But not only is Vanguard the largest American mutual fund company, but Mr. Bogle’s idea, as you know, has been widely copied.
“Fashion—and finance—show that’s sometimes sharing an idea is more valuable than monopolizing it.”
And what about food? No one can copyright a recipe or own a unique dish. But the most ambitious chefs are constantly developing new dishes, knowing they will be “adapted” by others. Yet the world of food is more creative now than ever before. Many of the most innovative chefs realize that an open approach provides inspiration to others, to tweak, and improve and inspire.
I must admit I used to be hesitant to expose my ideas to other creatives for fear they would steal my thoughts. And that did indeed happen. But just as often, bouncing the idea off others gave me insights that made the original thought even stronger. My small insight then was that those who were really good at producing ideas never hesitated to let others see them, knowing that if they were “borrowed” they could always come up with new good ideas. It was only the marginally talented who repeatedly stole, because their hoard of ideas was limited, and they knew their last idea could well have been their actual last idea.
As we all know, beer, wine and especially distilled spirits—unlike say chocolate and soft drinks—are an acquired taste. And if it weren’t for the relaxing, inebriating effect of the alcohol, most of us wouldn’t bother waiting till our palates learned to tolerate the flavor. Or, to put it more bluntly, if booze didn’t get you high, who would bother to acquire a taste for it?
Which makes me wonder about the appeal of ArKay, a nonalcoholic but whisky-flavored beverage. At first glance, it seems to me to have all the appeal of a bitter tasting cough medicine that claims no medicinal benefits. And at second glance too. Why would anyone find it appealing?
The Huffington Post might have been a little aggressive by saying that it “Smells Like Shoe Cleaner, Tastes Like Horse Saddle.” But it does point out that for dietary or religious reasons not everyone can consume alcohol. Though that begs the question as to why they would therefore want the taste of alcohol.
And what would their slogan be? “The acquired taste. Without the pleasure.”? (Maybe this would be a good contender for next year’s headline contest on my blog.)
If ArKay captures a meaningful portion of the beverage market I will humbly apologize. I have been wrong before. (Note to self: See if that is actually true.) But till and if then, let me suggest that when you think outside the box when developing your concepts, you needn’t completely abandon reality.
International Money Pile in Cash and Coins (Photo credit: epSos.de)
It is gratifying when a publication like the New York Times agrees with what you have been preaching for many years. And manages to state it in one sentence. While it was said in a different context (the changing of a brand’s name), that’s not what’s relevant.
In an article by Nicole LaPorte (no relation that I know of to my ad agency, Porte Advertising), she says:
“As a smaller company with limited resources, [COMPANY] relied more on creativity than extravagance.”
Or, as I have been known to declare, the most efficient way to build a brand is the power of a good idea, not reliance on what is often the waste, bloat and expense of a big budget.
Or, said another way, all you need is a good idea.
In real life, are you the type that remembers birthdays, anniversaries and most other special events, and calls, or sends out cards or gifts? Good for you.
But how about in your business life? How often do you make contact with current clients and prospects that are not just the expected occasions, the expensive business dinners, the tickets for games or shows? “Touching” your clients and prospects is a great way to develop and maintain relationships, and it couldn’t be more appreciated. Or easier. Or more effective.
Your calendar or database can easily provide the basic information. Birthday, anniversary (the anniversary of the start of your business relationship, not their wedding anniversary, unless you are really good friends), or even just, “Thanks for the order.”
But the real value is less with the expected contacts that the unexpected ones. The ones that really demonstrate your interest in, and appreciation for, his business. The best mail, email or simple phone call you can make is the one you make for no reason at all. The “Hi, I don’t want anything, I am not trying to sell you anything, just saying hello,” conversation.
Another great way to help build your relationship is by providing information. I don’t mean sending your latest ad, or price sheet of press kit. I mean that when you come across an article in a trade journal or magazine or blog or newspaper, send it, or the link, along with a simple “Thought you might find this interesting.”
And don’t assume that they have already seen the information. I am constantly surprised when I send along some piece that I just know my client must have seen, how many times they have somehow missed it. Another benefit to reaching out this way is that when you make a call, your client doesn’t automatically think, “OK, what is he t trying to sell me now,” and automatically go into the “I ain’t buying” mode. Now, the cynics amongst us will think this is all self-serving and transparent to your client, who knows exactly what you are trying to do, which is to deepen a relationship and hope that it leads to more business. Well, maybe. But it’s better than the alternative.
Not surprisingly, as you develop the habit of thinking about your client more often, you will think of different and innovative ways to help them.
I have 3,456 photos on my iPhone, but I am perhaps one of the few photographers who have never used Instagram. Its distinctive feature, according to Wikipedia, is that it confines photos to a square shape, similar to Kodak Instamatic images.
I am happy enough with the shape my photos are in, but I am leading to a larger point, triggered by an article in the Wall Street Journal by Nicholas Carr.
The subhead of the article asked, “An app for making vintage photos isn’t exactly a moonshot. Are we too obsessed with ‘tools of the self’?’ Mr. Carr is seeking a resurgence in big thinking and grand invention.
And you should be searching for it too. All to often we confuse a “good” idea with a “good-enough” idea. It may be a fine line, but there is a distinction. And though there may not be a definition of the difference, you will hopefully feel it.
One way to get to the big thinking and grand invention Mr. Carr proposes is to, well, think huge. Throw away any self-imposed restraints as to media costs, production budgets, and deadlines.
We can’t afford to produce it
We have no time to produce it
The client will never buy the idea
It’ll never work in 30 seconds
It’s too subtle, complicated, obvious
You can always tone down and adapt a good idea; you can seldom improve mediocrity. What would you come up with if you had an unlimited budget, world enough and time?
Recent Comments