Why We Don't Ask Why

A funny thing happened on the way to the strategy today. We all forgot to ask, "Why?"

Look, you've been in the meetings. You know how this goes down. Everybody gathers around with the client and the client asks, "How do we go about this?" And everybody struggles to come up with the solution.

"How do we manage Facebook?"

"What kind of ad should we do?"

"Where should we target the creative?"

These are the questions that get asked. Then we go to work to solve the problem. But no one seems to ask, "Why the hell are we doing this in the first place."

Okay, correction. We do ask "why" behind closed doors as we walk aways grumbling that the client doesn't know what they're doing. But so few times do we ask "why" in a meaningful way that affects the resulting programs.

It never ceases to amaze me that we don't stop and really question why we need to do things. Everything from the TV campaign to the banner ad should be examined with rigor these days, and every massive crisis to troubling issue should be subjected to careful scrutiny before we act.

It's not enough to just solve problems in advertising. Any vendors can solve problem. But it takes a partner to step up and confront the truth. 

Maybe that's why we're talking to procurement more than the people in charge these days.

Your IP is BS

I understand the need for non-disclosure agreements. When it comes to things like customer data or some as-yet unreleased new technolgy you kind of need them. But advertising? Really?

I am going on record as saying there is nothing new in advertising. Period. We just repackage and rework our same old methodoly to respond to the changing needs of the market, then call it our "Intellectual Property" and act like God smiled down on us with his divine providence.

Further, agencies can't possibly own the "thinking" of their employees. It's like a bad zombie movie. I picture a balding white guy in a suit shambling after me murmuring, "Brains! Need brains!" A paycheck doesn't entitle you to all of me. It gets you projects completed, not the rights to everything that comes out of my head.

This obsession with owning IP — having some sort of proprietary right to a new way of stirring the soup of old ideas — is crazy on so many levels. But the biggest problem with it is that it fails to recognize that the biggest asset an agency offers is not its ideas, but rather the people that come up with those ideas. 

Right now the model is that we pay the employee to develop cool creative or innovative strategies or cutting edge anlytical models and then we own that. We may say our employees are important to us, but that's a lie. We couldn't care less about the employees. They are only as valuable as the next idea that we can take from them. And once they stop producing good ideas they are expendable. 

We fail to understand that nurturing smart people means valuing the person as well as the work they produce. This is how innovation happens. If a person knows that they are not valued or that their idea is worth more than you are paying them, they will always hold back or start looking elsewhere. And when they leave we're left with empty IP that doesn't have the brains to grow and nurture it.

So tell me, is that IP really all that valuable without a brain to back it up? And why do I have a sudden urge to watch a zombie flick?

Why You Always Watch Your Back In Advertising

I was reminded by a Twitter conversation the other day about one of the darkest moments in the history of my show, The BeanCast.

One of my guests was booked opposite ad blogger George Parker a few years back. At the time I was relatively new to doing the program and fairly naive about how volatile many of the agency networks were toward the man. So when my guest, who was an employee of a WPP-owned shop came on, I proceeded as I would for any show.

What I didn't anticipate was the WPP George Parker hit squad.

George is flaboyant with his insults toward WPP chairman, Sir Martin Sorrell, calling him the "Poison Dwarf" along with more choice descriptions. As a result, WPP monitors the man very closely for PR reasons. So when George is on my show, WPP knows about it.

The show itself was rather par for the course with George. He hurled insults at WPP, for sure, but it was not the thrust of the discussion and my guest did a good job of deflecting and representing the the interests of his parent company.

Then came the email.

"I was let go."

I was shocked. The day after the show was released my guest was called into a room and dressed down for appearing on a program with the infamous George Parker. Then a week later he was culled as part of a larger staff layoff to save appearances.

Talk about taking ourselves too seriously! Sir Martin may or may not have been aware that one of his employees was on my program with George, but that's beside the point. The company itself made it their position that no one should even engage the man in any dialog at the risk of termination. Now that's some thin skin!

Don't think. Don't take risks. Play it safe. Advertising thrives on innovation and creativity, but how can you have either when you're more worried that your actions will lead to a knife in your back.

Obviously WPP is not alone in such behavior. I can think of a dozen such incidents at other shops, both big and small. And admittedly, maybe advertising needs to be cut-throat and petty in order to do what is does. But it sure leaves a bad taste in your mouth about pursuing a career in this business.

The Future of Social: Steve Woodruff

One of the most engaging videos I shot this past week at Social Media Masters New York was also the one with the most audio challenges. But Steve Woodruff, principal at The Connection Agency, got past the background noise to deliver some thought-provoking points about the future of digital marketing.

I've always loved futurists, and Steve is among the best there is. He excels at looking at the trends and keying in on the things will be true soon, whether we like it or not. If you get a chance to see him speak, don't pass it up. But for now, here are his answers to my follow-up questions.

The Social Business: Kathy Mandelstein

I sat down with Kat Mandelstein after her session at Social Media Masters, New York, and had a great conversation about her work at IBM. 

Her actual title couldn't even fit on the screen, since she is world-wide marketing director of several specific areas. But in a way that typifies the IBM approach. The job of building relationships with customers takes hands-on focus and knowing a customer's needs and desires. And it takes an organization that is dedicated to making these details a reality.

I think you'll really like what Kat has to say. It's a brilliant picture of what I've been espousing much as of late: Social media is not just a marketing tactic, but a business operations mandate.

The Post Advertising World: Chris Heuer

Chris Heuer, who is the Specialist Leader for Social Media at Deloitte Consulting, sat down with me at the 2011 Social Media Masters New York, to discuss his session. And kudos to him for tackling my rather pointed questions head on.

Anyone who reads my blog knows that I don't take statements related to the death of advertising lightly. So when Chris seemed to bring up the issue in his presentation, I had to get some clarification. The result were these brilliantly illuminating answers. I still don't 100% agree with everything he says in the video, but I do understand his points better and must admit, he defused me quite well. Chris is a very smart guy and someone you should definitely know. Have a listen.

Also, I hope you are finding these videos helpful. I have a couple more to release, so keep coming back.

More Ads, Please!

We’ve kind of grown used to the website in the ad. After 15 years, we expect it. If you have an ad, you need a website. Simple. Now we have the Twitter logo, the Facebook logo, theYouTube logo and more. “Follow us,” these ads say. Okay. 

But here’s the problem. In the past with an 800 number there was a clear reason for having the connection point. “Order now.” There was a reason to call. A real reason. But now the value exchange has become, “follow us so we can market to you a little more.” Basically we’re saying, “Like our ad? Then follow us and get more ads!” 

Who the hell wants more ads?

I mean seriously? Who of us wakes up in the morning and says, “You know what, I hope I get even more ads today. More than yesterday. Maybe more than I’ve ever had in my whole life. And in fact, when I see an ad, I’m gonna go seek out that advertiser online so that I can get the rest of the story or see more of Danica Patrick. That would be awesome!”

It started with the website, but now it’s painfully obvious that we have no idea why we are promoting our online presences. I mean, God forbid we ask for a sale! That would be too obvious. So instead with limply offer our Facebook page and say, “Follow us.” Maybe if we’re a bit more creative we add, “And get a 50% off coupon.” If we’re feeling really wacky, we add a bit of spice and say, “See what happens next.” (Like it will kill me not to see the end of your lame car chase.) 

There is no clear reason for engaging us beyond a tease offer. It’s almost like we expect the customer to do all the work here. If they like us enough to come and visit our site or YouTube channel, then they pass the test. They have navigated the gauntlet of our advertising ineptitude and we dub them, “Advocate!” E pluribus unum. Gloria in excelsis deo. See store for details. Amen.

Now I’m not saying get rid of web addresses in ads. There’s nothing wrong with listing a website. It certainly couldn’t hurt. Maybe we’ll get that one guy who luuuuuuurvvvves advertising, who will come and totally dive into the comments section. 

The problem is not in the listing, but in the understanding. We don’t understand how digital and social media work, so we apply old media understanding to our execution. We make our ad campaign episodic and put portions of the ad campaign online so that we can appear digital. (Look at us! We put a commercial on YouTube! We rock!) Or we try to shortchange the hard work of relationship building and jump right to the “let’s get married” phase of marketing and ask for a like before we’ve even really met.

Marketing has always been guilty of crap like this. It’s just now more of us are getting guiltier and guiltier of doing it, because it’s easier and easier to do. “Come Like us on Facebook,” might as well be changed to “Come Lick us on Facebook and see what you think,” because that’s the extent of the relationship most of us are forming. 

So I urge you. I plead with you. If you are in marketing, please think through exactly what you’re asking for when you list a site on a social platform. Have a clear followup and understand what the value is that you are offering. Otherwise you are wasting all of our time.

Oh, and by the way, follow me on Twitter at @thebeancast.

Classic Direct: A Template For Content

In the usual way that seems to happen in the digital world, we've latched onto the idea of content creation as if it's a whole new paradigm in marketing communication. Certainly we give lip-service to the fact that digital storytelling is the evolution of TV and print, but we do so as if we are creating whole new methods and practices for storytelling that have never existed before. There's only one problem with this assumption: The rules of digital storytelling are EXACTLY the same as those that have always existed in classic direct mail.

A conversation recently with Frank Days, Director of Social Media at Novell, brought all this crashing home for me. Need to tell an elaborate and entertaining story that grabs attention for mutliple minutes? Direct Mail letters used to do this with four, six and sometimes 12 page letters that told deep and moving stories. Give a path to response using an easy annotated link via a YouTube video? Direct Mail has used the Johnson Box (the selling text beside the address block) the P.S., bolding and underlining to do this for a century. Provide entertaining games to engage the audience into action and involvement? Direct Mail has used stickers, poster, game boards, toys, pop-ups and all kinds of devices to engage and delight audiences.

Now don't misunderstand me here. I am not making a case for a resurgence of the 12-page direct mail letter. It was effective at one time, but today the medium of growth and opportunity is primarily in digital, and more specifically mobile digital. Yet in our rush to dismiss the past as old-school and "uncool," we are in effect dismissing a depth of knowledge and tactics that could be invaluable to us today. Because in the light of shortening attention spans, we have to remember that direct mail has already dealt with this problem, and has developed proven tactics for overcoming resistance and keeping people reading (or watching or playing.)

I have my own problems and battles with the Direct Marketing Association, so believe me when I say I understand the reticence of digital players to work with the organization. But facts is facts: They are the largest repository of direct resources, case studies and training materials in the world. They understand what works to tell a story and elicit an action. And it may be worth a trip to their archives, ye digital content gurus, in order to more clearly understand how content can be good and entertaining, while still working hard to motivate action.

And if you read this and all you can envision is your beautiful content being turned into a schlocky appeal, then I really pity your lack of perspective and experience. Because as much as you may be touting the power of content, you really have no concept of what your content is capable of achieving.

We Bring Our Own Bad Customer Service

One thing a few minutes in an airport always teaches me: Customers are jerks.

I mean seriously! All of us! We bitch and moan and complain and act like somehow the company (in this case the airline we are flying) is somehow failing us in ways that our favorite brand never would. And guess what. We self propagate our own bad customer experience. We are surly, which makes the brand's staff surly, which in turn leads to irritated looks, which then fuels our anger and convinces us the brand doesn't care.

The reason I bring all this up is because as marketers and customer service personnel and representatives of our brands, we need to understand this dynamic. We can be our best and still people bring their bad attitudes and prejudices. Our challenge is to train our staff to push past this and, as Erica Mayer likes to say, puke a rainbow.

Each time a customer brings his or her own bad customer service experience in tow, we need to see the opportunity to deliver a positive brand impression. After all, this is our best chance to gain a loyalist. Because as we know, a customer with a problem solved is always a better customer than a customer who already loves us.

Easier said than done, I realize. But good food for thought from 20,000 feet.

The Power Of The Icon

I've had a mind-blowingly awesome couple days since reading Gamestorming by a few of the folks over at Xplane. I've always been an adherent to the idea that business functions by the rules of games, so it's only obvious that the process of brainstorming should as well. But this particular book did an excellent job of codifying the processes involved.

One specific thing really stood out for me in the text, though. And that was the emphasis on icons.

We've all known that using notes cards or post-up notes has become a staple of the brainstorming process. It allows us to quickly rearrange thoughts and group ideas for exploration. But what I hadn't considered is that writing an idea on a post-up note transforms the idea into an icon. And as an icon, it holds more value to the brainstorming process.

As idea alone, words function only as far as the idea itself. Mentally we still have to wrestle with the idea in our minds and try to unpack meaning from the ideas. However, when an idea becomes an icon, it functions as a piece in a much larger puzzle.

Think about this in religious terms. We can read the text of John in the Bible and we can derive meaning from that text. But the text will only take us down a complicated road of religious dogma. We don't see the text in the larger context of religion as a whole. But when we simply assign all this meaning into the form of a cross and simplify the complex into a symbol, we encapsulate all of the meaning contained in the Book of John and create a powerful device. This device helps us move beyond wrestling with the specifics of that particular set of ideas and see it in the context of other religions and faith as a whole. We can move the object and never disturb any of it's meaning. It becomes more functional to our deeper understanding and can be visually rearranged with other such icons representing other faiths to create broader meanings than the mind was originally able to comprehend, locked into the words alone.

To put it simply, turning the complex into visual icons helps us to think outside the boundaries we place upon ourselves every day. Just think how this can transform the way we perceive the world around us. And consider what it can do to the creativity and innovation produced by your company.