A Twitter case study
...in Twitter format:
We launch ZeeVee. John Dvorak tweets "What's this about?" 900 followers flood the website. The #3 traffic referrer that week.
Will expound more in followup post.
Business taglines more important than ever
Steve Cone from Advertising Age published an interesting article last week entitled “Help taglines regain lost glory: why creating strong slogans is a marketer’s most important job.”
He says powerful taglines – what he calls “powerlines” are largely missing in action in today’s marketing messages. Cone believes this is a mistake because the right words “have the power to awe, inspire, motivate, alienate, subjugate and, in a marketing context, change the buying habits of consumers.”He argues most consumer taglines “generally mean nothing or are relegated to small, unreadable type.” Cone also doesn’t like the fact most companies change their taglines every year or two, and sometimes within the same year. “Nothing could be more harmful to your brand and your business.”
The secret to creating a compelling tagline is attitude. Cone says “the brain is wired to seek the unusual phrase … and ignores phrases that seem ordinary and unimportant.” He also makes a compelling case for the power of sound, “Sound trumps sight by a wide margin in forcing the brain to remember something; you can’t turn off hearing.”
A current consumer powerline Cone likes is “Las Vegas: what happens here, stays here.”
Most of his top 10 favorite taglines hark from an earlier era when they were “the epicenter for all promotional executions:”
- A diamond is forever (De Beers)
- Think small (VW)
- Just do it (Nike)
- You deserve a break today (McDonald’s)
- When it rains it pours (Morton Salt)
- You don’t have to be Jewish to love Levy’s rye bread (Levy’s Baking)
Some of my favorite consumer taglines are:
- Snap! Crackle! Pop! (Rice Krispies)
- It’s the real thing (Coke)
- M’m M’m Good (Campbell's Soup)
- We try harder (Avis)
- We bring good things to life (GE)
- King of beers (Budweiser)
- For life (Volvo)
- It’s everywhere you want to be (Visa)
- The ultimate driving machine (BMW)
- When banks compete, you win (Lending Tree)
Are taglines equally important in the world of B2B and technology? Is it more difficult to position a product that’s more complicated, or isn’t noticed/used by consumers?
Yes and yes.
I’ve met with hundreds of business people over the past decade to discuss how to create focused messaging. 80 percent expressed a passion for “dumbing it down.” They really, really, really wanted to capture their product benefits in a catchy way. The business taglines they most frequently cited to make their point:
- We don’t make a lot of the products you buy, we make a lot of the products you buy better (BASF)
- Think different (Apple)
- Intel inside
- The network is the computer (Sun Microsystems)
- When it absolutely, positively, has to be there overnight (FedEx)
- Invent (HP)
- Where do you want to go today? (Microsoft)
If you believe taglines aren’t that critical for business, think again. They’ve never been more important.Google never had a tagline until last year. Some people thought it was “Don’t be evil,” but that was their internal corporate motto. After a lot of introspection, they came up with: “Search, ads and apps.”
Salesforce.com had a pretty good tagline for years, “Experience Success.” But they changed it to “Success on demand.” They obviously care a lot about whether the new one is working because in January ‘08 they posted the following on their corporate blog:
“What do you think about the “success on demand” tagline? Is it memorable? Do you recall it when Salesforce.com is mentioned? Does it reflect who we are? Can it be improved?”
Look no further than Dell to validate the importance of taglines. They’ve created so many taglines it’s tough to keep track. Here’s a list of the ones I remember, most of which, if not all, are from this decade:
- Dude, you’ve got a Dell
- Easy as Dell
- Get more out of it now
- Purely You
- Yours is here (current tagline)
As Dell relentlessly morphed its tagline, the company’s brand reputation was frequently barraged. The two went hand-in-hand.
Taglines are important because they exist to capture the essence and promise of a brand. When companies consistently struggle to articulate this most critical message, it’s often a symptom they have lost their way.
Sharper Image dulled: bad review breaks a company
Think product reviews don't matter much? Try telling that to gizmo retailer Sharper Image, who filed for bankruptcy today due largely to a crippling review of its Ionic Breeze air purifiers in Consumer Reports magazine.
Suckers like me fell for the company's hyper-advertised clean air wonder. But the review showed that the Ionic Breeze not only didn't clean the air, it released harmful ozone, triggering an avalanche of consumer lawsuits.
Don't get me wrong; reviews are an important piece of a successful product launch strategy. No, strike that: they are an absolute must. A recent study from the e-tailing group found that nearly nine out of 10 US online consumers surveyed in February 2008 were influenced by reviews before making a purchase.
Just make sure your product works as designed and doesn't trigger childrens' asthma attacks first.
American Gangster and the tech industry quotes game
The movie business is hooked on the quotes game. Look no further than the Arts section of your daily newspaper, Rotten Tomatoes or TV. It’s the # 1 strategy used to persuade us to see a new film.
The quotes game has a definite stratification system.
The “best” movies attract the strongest testimonials. For example, the ad for critics fave “No country for old men,” is chock full of quotes from A-List film savants like Peter Travers at Rolling Stone and Roger Ebert at the Chicago Sun Times. “American Gangster,” one of the few money makers of Fall 07, showcases quotes from Rolling Stone, Ebert & Roeper, The Los Angeles Times and Associated Press.
The second tier movies (per critics) start relying on B-List media sources. “Beowulf,” for example, has to rely on the Salem Radio Network. Fred Claus trumpets how it’s “One of the FUNNIEST COMEDIES OF THE YEAR,” but the source – WDAF-Fox TV - is cited. They also needed The New York Sun. Similarly, “Badland” needed Wolf Entertainment Guide to make their case. Not exactly Elle or Vogue.
Ads for third tier movies crack me up. They play the quotes game but don’t have the ammunition.
When positive media reviews are hard to come by, some media still steps up to the plate. “The Mist,” for example, relies on Wireless Magazine for its one and only quote, calling it “The Scariest movie of the year!” Sometimes the type size is so diminutive you can’t read the source without a magnifying glass. One ad I saw for “August Rush” was like that. “Awake” also features one quote in its ad, and it’s from Wireless Magazine. I’ve never read Wireless Magazine, but I’ve noticed how it’s frequently a refuge for movies orphaned by film critics.Occasionally, a new movie ad doesn’t play the quotes game at all. “Hitman” is a current example. I’m so programmed to seeing quotes, I’m usually skeptical. I figure it’s so bad even Wireless won’t play ball.
We play the quotes game in the PR and technology industry too. But it’s a little different because there are two levels: customers and the press. Unlike the movie industry where critics watch movies and then share their opinions, the technology industry has to first tee-up customers before (hopefully) getting positive media quotes. Reporters validate story truthfulness and newsworthiness by speaking with satisfied customers - actually using the heralded product. Customers can buy and use whatever product they want, so there’s an implicit truthfulness. It’s a much needed checks-and-balance in news gathering.
If you don’t have any customers (and sometimes industry analysts) to validate your story, then you may not have a story, period. Conversely, if you can deliver excellent customer references, you may just end up with a phenomenal bit of press coverage or a prolific blog conversation.
Another difference we see is that sometimes the best stories don’t elicit the strongest quotes – or any quotes at all. Customers unwilling to publicly validate a product, concept, vision or company may cite a litany of reasons for not getting involved, including proprietary information, competitive advantage, company policies, etc. It’s a real stretch for reporters to make this leap.
The movie industry’s tiered quotes structure exists in tech. The A-List customer validators in our industry are the marquee consumer companies (think Best Buy, Disney, Neiman Marcus, Starbucks, etc.) and premier B2B players (think American Express, GE, Bank of America, Boeing, etc.). We all know the A-List offline media, but some online media – like Salon and Slate are at this level.
B-List customers are the bread-and-butter of our business. Most of these companies aren’t as well known but they’re solid players willing to go public with their story. The B-Listers on the media side can include substantive trade and vertical pubs as well as online properties like CNet and Slashdot.
The C-List validators get you by, but they aren’t as persuasive. On the customer side of the quotes game, technology companies sometimes fall in this category. Even the biggest names may not cut it because many reporters shy away from tech companies endorsing tech products. I guess they figure it’s too incestuous or something, with one hand feeding the other. C-List customers also include companies few – if any - have heard of; they may be great, but their zero star power diminishes persuasion.
Who do you think is the tech industry’s Wireless Magazine?
Heidi Klum and trade shows
Since I just watched the premiere of one of my favorite TV shows, Project Runway,
Like most of my compatriots, I frequently attend events to deepen connections with clients and meet new people. I find the experience extremely valuable and enjoy seeing, live and in person, what’s new in a particular industry. Lately though, I’ve noticed an eerie quiet at the convention halls that makes me wonder: Are trade shows just a place for exhibitors to “dress up for each other” as Van Morrison would say, or are they helping drive revenue as they were always intended?
I decided to conduct my own informal on-floor poll at several recent events to find out what people think about trade shows in general. Are they working? Do they generate quality leads? Is the investment worth it? Are people more interested in virtual trade shows as discussed in this BtoB magazine article and this Beaupre Endgame article?
About 75% of those surveyed agree that trade shows have definitely become less of a lead gen tool and more of a brand building tool, but even those who see value in attending for brand building purposes say the financial investment (usually substantial) often doesn’t translate into a big return. About 80% of the companies I talked to are narrowing their trade show schedules so exhibition and sponsorship dollars are spent on only one or two of their “sweet spot” shows per year. People also told me that in a lot of cases their companies believe it’s important to “be there” to avoid speculation that something is wrong with their company. That reason doesn’t seem like a good use of precious marketing dollars to me.
I want to know what you think. How many trade shows will you attend in 2008? Are you exploring any virtual trade shows yet? Do trade shows generate quality leads for your company? In your opinion, are traditional trade shows in or do we need to say Auf Wiedersehen?
Oprah's lesson
Andy Beaupre blogged in September that caring consistency is Apple’s #1 brand-building weapon.Oprah’s performance last week in South Africa (read, watch) epitomized the principle. It was a tour de force of caring, and oh, what a brand she has built. Her press conference on the child abuse scandal that broke Nov. 5 at the Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy for Girls was an object lesson in crisis management. I never dreamed I could sympathize with a billionaire.
Rather than go underground with her legal team, she contacted authorities, launched her own investigation, looked students and parents in the eye, apologized, and laid everything she could out for the media – at the earliest possible opportunity.
The day the accused dorm mother appeared in court, Oprah stood at a podium flanked by local authorities and stared into the barrel of the global press corps. She detailed the timeline and the facts, starting with the first inkling of a problem. She was the first to utter the explosive words “sexual abuse.” She publicly acknowledged the gravity of the situation, accepted her share of responsibility as founder, took hard questions, and expressed true emotion: “This has been one of the most devastating, if not the most devastating experience, of my life.”
No stonewalling. None.
Oprah, who earns $260 million a year and has a net worth of $1.5 billion, made the kind of statements and took the kind of actions that would make any plaintiff’s lawyer drool. She had urged students to come forward if they’d been harmed. More girls had come forward, which under the circumstances, was good: “No one ever, ever abuses just one child,” she declared.
Oprah was more than accountable; she was inspiring. The debacle could have closed the school, snuffed out hope for its students, and emptied the talk show empress’s deep pockets. Whether it was spin, courage or both, her on-the-record statement was authentic:
“I’m happy for the attention because it is one of my goals in life to put child abusers, whether they be in my home, whether they be in my workplace, or in this case, in the academy, to put them where they belong. And that is behind bars.”
The students who came forward, she said, represent “the new generation of youth in South Africa who fearlessly take back their voices to speak up about their concern for their fellow classmates. This is really what we’re trying to teach.”
And if there was any doubt about her resolve in light of the crisis, she added: “I am prepared to do whatever is necessary to make sure that the Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy for Girls becomes the safe, the nurturing and enriched setting that I had envisioned.”
This was refreshing, uplifting and rather straight talk (especially during presidential campaign season).
The Principled Profit blog hailed the appearance as a shining example of “How a Class Act Accepts Responsibility.”
All of this is in line with Oprah’s established (and quite credible) persona of caring consistency: This is how a beloved brand endures.
