he Marketing Relevance Imperative
|
|
NIGEL: You're on ten on your
guitar...where can you go from there? Where?
MARTY: I don't know.... NIGEL: Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is if we need that extra...push over the cliff...you know what we do? MARTY: Put it up to eleven. NIGEL: Eleven. Exactly. One louder.
-Conversation between filmmaker Marty DiBergi and guitarist Nigel Tufnel,
This Is Spinal Tap
|
In
study after study, consumers have stressed that, regardless of the channel, they’d rather not see ads.
- A 2004
study by Forrester found that when people watch pre-recorded television
shows, they skip an average of 92 percent of the commercials
- Most
Internet users block pop-up ads, screen for adware, and safeguard against
spam.
Confronting an ad-averse audience, how have major advertisers and ad
agencies responded? With more unwelcome, and in some cases underhanded,
tactics – pandering ads, manipulative word-of-mouth campaigns, contracts that require a
publisher to pull their ads if the publication prints a negative editorial
about them...
As
marketers, we’re all in the same boat: how do you get heard above the din?
Where do you go, what do you do, when the volume’s already at 10? Well, if
you have the clout – and believe “He who succeeds shouts the loudest” –
you:
- Run
something shocking at a moment of maximum exposure
- Try to
control (i.e., threaten) the presumably impartial media
- Claim it’s
in all the service of branding
One
naturally wonders: “This is how you gain trust?” These advertisers and
agencies – what we’ll call legacy marketers – are resorting to tactics that
not only ooze desperation but are ethically suspect.
Let’s give legacy marketers their due. They’re struggling to survive as
media budgets get butchered. John Wanamaker’s oft-quoted adage about 50
percent of advertising being wasted pales in comparison to what they’re
facing.
A
recent study found that most of these advertisers don’t measure the impact
of their television media budget; instead, they relegate it to a black box
called “branding.” CEOs and CFOs aren’t fooled – to them, it’s a
rationalization for inadequate measurement (branding as a “get out of jail
free” card).
To
add to the irony, these marketers aren’t fooling – let alone engaging – the
public.
You
can spend millions on monologues that swamp your target market, only to be
muted by a single consumer voice on the Net. Many marketers fail to realize
that they aren’t moving closer to dialoguing with consumers or learning how
to thrive in a world where consumers are savvy and empowered, where
information can be shared in seconds.
Just visit Amazon.com. Who do you think the consumer’s going to believe? The
carefully selected expert on the dust jacket or opinions posted by peers?
Google away – third-party, consumer, and consumer group reviews are a breeze
to find.
When brand messages are Tivo’ed, pop-up ads and irrelevant email marketing
is tuned out, how do you justify your legacy budget? How does a marketer
become more relevant?
Well, first, you don’t make a spectacle of yourself. The kid throwing a
tantrum in the grocery store knows this is a way to garner attention. The
problem is, it isn’t positive attention. The more shrill advertisers
and agencies become, the more they employ aggressive/intrusive/obnoxious
techniques, the more they distance consumers.
Under a constant onslaught of advertising, consumers
have adapted, evolved. In order to process information, they’ve learned to
be more vigilant, more adept in tuning out predatory messages. In short,
consumers see a shark fin and steer clear. They have unprecedented access to
information and are less likely to swallow what they hear from marketers.
But
marketers can take heart. Consumers and business-to-business targets have
shown they will listen – and be receptive – to a truly relevant message
delivered at the right place and time.
It's a simple, but true statement, that it's time to really get to know who you're talking to. Stop messaging that screams “Notice me”; choose messaging that means something to your targets. Start connecting with them.
It's a simple, but true statement, that it's time to really get to know who you're talking to. Stop messaging that screams “Notice me”; choose messaging that means something to your targets. Start connecting with them.
Allocating media budgets based more on old habits and silos than information
is part of the problem.
As the
internet becomes an increasingly popular media choice and televisions soon
get IP addresses, the potential and expectations for marketing relevancy
will only increase. .
There are marketing innovators to look to as models who don’t treat consumers like a cage of white
mice.
Google's approach to advertising is an excellent example. Google
methodically creates systems based on relevance. Google knows
that, in an age where consumers and business buyers have information so
readily at hand, compelling marketing is pertinent marketing. Through being
relevant to users searches, page editorial content or personal email
content.
Few
media outlets and brands have the trust to scan a user’s email for keywords
and phrases and deliver back related advertising, but Google does. It speaks
louder than words that consumers allow Google to look at their personal
emails in order to get more relevant advertising. It is a testimony to that
the fact that targets will listen if marketers will only take the time to be
relevant.
Few
marketers have made strides towards relevancy as assertively as Amazon.com
and, to date, it has paid off dearly.
Marketing relevancy takes a lot more effort,
but the rewards are in the results.
Peter DeLegge is the publisher of
Marketing Today. He has nearly twenty years experience in marketing,
advertising and e-business strategy experience, holding marketing management positions at both Fortune 100, 200 and
medium size firms. To contact Mr. DeLegge regarding speaking
engagements, licensing his writing or media interviews, please email <peterdl@hotmail.com>.
PGDM 1st
maketing
How have Vijay Mallya's troubles with 
In a way, the low profile that G fears his friend will now have to keep has already begun to take effect. In late October, Forbes removed the billionaire tag from Mallya’s name as his net worth had fallen from $1.1 billion to $800 million, thanks to his troubled airline. Mallya reacted on Twitter on October 25: “Thanks to the Almighty that Forbes has removed me from the so-called billionaires’ list.” It would cause, he hoped, less “jealousy, frenzy and wrongful attacks”. For over six months now, his tweets have abstained from highlighting the good life he is so fond of. On February 6, Mallya had tweeted about his stay at the luxurious Taj Falaknuma Palace hotel in Hyderabad. On May 4, his Twitter followers learnt that he was dining at Atmosphere on the 123rd floor of the Burj Khalifa in Dubai. “Magnificent view,” he had tweeted. “[I have] never been so high up in my life.” There were no such tweets after that. “There was a need to scale down his lifestyle engagements after the [Kingfisher Airlines] crisis,” says adman Suhel Seth. “He was seen as clinical about the young men and women he employed.”
