me write. you read.

Employee Value Propositions, part 1

This is a great example of how the wonder of the world wide interweb shapes itself.
Upon looking at the analytics for my site, I discovered that most of my search traffic came from the search term “Employer Value Proposition.” In fact, it was well over half, meaning that people are hungry to learn more about this intricate subject matter. So allow me to share.

First of all, the value proposition is a concept that’s been all but jargoned out of the marketing industry. It’s been replaced by far better buzzwords and concepts that people can charge way more money for and sound way smarter when they use them. But in reality, a value proposition is rooted in the concept of the unique selling point: what is it that your brand does exceptionally well that no other brand can claim superiority. This, foundationally, is also rooted in the Jim Collins Three Circles/Hedgehog Concept of “what can you be the best in the world at?” And while this seems like a no-brainer, theoretically, the truth is that the day to day grind of marketing any element of a brand often beats this purity out of you.

But for the employer, the overall value proposition is rooted in these ideas:
1. What is the product (the job) being offered?
2. How does it benefit me individually, both rationally and emotionally?
3. How is it differentiated/superior?
4. What is the proof?

Healthy amounts of research are required to fully understand these perceptions, because an employer or a brand cannot intrinsically understand these points. As the person spinning the plates of day to day brand management, it’s impossible to fully grasp what your publics and your candidates believe about your brand. Because, in truth, a brand is never what you say it is: it’s what your publics and your consumers say it is. Therefore, to fully grasp what your value proposition is, you have to start by identifying the real benefit a job has for a candidate, understanding the internal perceptions of working for your company and discovering the external perceptions as well. A solid EVP and employment brand are fundamentally rooted in realism. We’ll get into that later.

That’s the initial necessity for understanding your EVP, and therefore the foundational element companies need to build a successful, real employment brand.

Facebook and The Transparency Bandwagon

While the tinfoil hatters amongst us who fear the divestiture of liberty keep pointing to the likes of the Patriot Act, the US Census or Google’s caching of every search known to man, the real worry for all of us should be Facebook. Well, all of us that aren’t in marketing, at least. The truth is that the “new openness” that Facebook is propagating has two wildly untapped (and yet genius) ideas at its core.

First of all, it’s tapping into a generational zeitgeist. There’s just something about Millennials that make them not only prone to share intricate details about their lives (and subsequently making them wide open for identity theft) but also willing to let that information be used to help them connect to better products. They don’t feel sold, the feel catered to. And for the generation that lives at home until almost 30, takes their parents to interviews and has never used a card catalog system in a library, why would they expect anything else? This notion of “openness” is also a major tenet of successful social campaigns over the past several years. A certain current president of ours ran on such a platform (never mind that it’s not practiced) to wild acclaim and popularity among Millennials. The concept of opennness is really driven by the use of the web in general, and since Facebook is the standard bearer for all things social, web-oriented and open, why shouldn’t they be the first to sally forth into such unknown territory?

The second thing it taps into is the kind of low-cost targeting that marketers are salivating for. Never mind that Millennials (and that oh-so-coveted 18-35 year old audience) are incredibly difficult to nail down and push your message at, this additional, product and brand-centric style of targeting gives Facebook the ultimate power in the universe to wield over desperate media wonks and marketing directors alike. They will be able to give you more targeted information about their users and segment users better than even Google. It’s staggeringly simple and genius at the same time. About 18 months ago when Facebook made a huge push to be the “login credentials of choice” for hundreds of sites across the internet, it seemed odd. But this, now, makes perfect sense. If Google is out to “organize the world’s information,” then Facebook is out to “segment the world’s people into highly targeted and affordable lists for companies to purchase and profit from.”

But the reality is that Google is loosing its sheen as a kind of do-gooder company. After their initial IPO, people loved everything they did. Now, after a few fumbles with their Android software updates, a couple censorship issues in China and some sneaky backroom stuff with the White House later, Google is mirroring a corporate image as opposed to a warm, smart startup. Whereas Facebook, well, they still have Mark Zuckerburg’s warm, childish face to be the, um, face of their company. They are the living expression of relationships in the 21st century. Therefore, how could we so demonize them? This, mind you, is after the Beacon fiasco of a few years back. They learned and got more sneaky about it. But they’re still tallying buckets of information about you that you are willingly giving them. We, as consumers, are blind to it because it is leading to us getting better access to deals and brands we want. In fact, the level of data that Facebook is able to gather on its 411 million users makes Google’s data from search look more like geo-targeting by zip code. It’s good, but beaten by emerging standards.

And you were afraid of the government.

Giving in to Facebook

Did they get it right?

For most social media skeptics out there (see everybody not peddling social media like it’s the next incarnation of the television), there’s an enormously growing amount of speculation that Twitter isn’t the social tool that social media folks say it’s going to be. I would lump myself into said category, as well. And while the Brand Bowl 2010 is a really nice concept, both for a show of technology and agency prowess, I think it’s the wrong metric and the wrong thing to show expertise in.

Brand Bowl 2010

Let me explain. Everybody who’s anybody is angling for the next best thing in the ad business. Whether it be one of the various and sundry social applications on the web, say twitter, yelp, ning, digg, delicious, etc, etc, etc, brands can’t afford to be the farm on just one of these. Because, in truth, the social media application doesn’t matter if it doesn’t hit the target audience well. So, let’s use the “results” from Brand Bowl as an example. The Focus on the Family spot, which was quite possibly the most controversial and tame spot in Super Bowl memory, got lots of love in the Twittersphere. Why? It was both controversial AND it bore the exact subject matter that people oft tweet about: politics, religion and controversy. So, naturally, it would grade high on that scale. However, that does nothing to monitor effectiveness, strength of message or any other necessary metric to determine ROI on a Super Bowl spot.

All that’s really to say is that I truly believe anybody still putting Twitter in any sort of elevated status in the social media sphere has it all wrong. Most people who work in brand building in any sort don’t believe it has much longer of a shelf life in terms of the overall brand discussion. It faded quicker than MySpace and most younger consumers are onto something else. I wouldn’t have used it to measure effectiveness of anything. But that’s me.

The Discipline of Targeting

This topic has been rolling around in my noggin for quite some time, and after watching last night’s episode of Mad Men (3:2), I decided it was time to go ahead and put pencil to paper. Or keyboard to blog. Whichever suits your fancy. So here’s the crux of it: good consumer targeting takes remarkable discipline from both the agency and the client. Allow me to explain.

As marketing professionals we should always be able to watch a spot on TV and immediately decipher the target audience. Beer spots: men. Lifetime promos: women. It should be that easy, but it’s not. Why? Ineffective and inefficient targeting. I was watching TV the other night and a spot for a certain brand of yogurt comes on. The main character is an attractive young woman shopping at a grocery store. Shes very flirty with the camera, the setup is way over the top and the ending is downright odd. To my maleness, there was sexuality in play from the character. My wife, who is a retired account director herself, totally missed it. She just thought it was weird to end a spot like that. But to the trained male eye, there was far too much “naughtiness” in the spot for it to be accidental. From my point of view, the spot came off as if it was the result of dude-think: a bunch of guys sitting around concepting and ending up on something that appealed more to them than it does the target audience. OR, it could be that the client was a dude and chose something that skewed more to his liking than the target audience.

In recent years, I’ve noticed too many brands suffer from something very similar that I like to call “Cocktail Party Syndrome.” This popular condition is when marketers try to make a brand more palatable for their cocktail party friends than to be true to the brand’s actual and potential target audience. It’s hard for an egotistical creative director, account director or even CMO to look their swanky friends in the eye and proudly say, “We just cut new price/items shells for Brand X, and I think it’s really going to shake things up in the lower-income rural markets of the Great Plains.” That’s not cool. What’s cool is to say, “We’re totally reinventing our target audience. We want the brand to be the Target of our industry. We’re shifting from a lower-income based consumer to a middle and upper income individual. They have more disposable income anyway, right?” That sounds awesome to your peers because you sound like a trailblazer. But it takes a disciplined, strategic mind to have the gumption to know your target audience and stay focused on the business at hand. Despite how much fun it would potentially be to take it there, not every brand will be Target or Apple or VW or Chipotle or even Burger King. The solutions that have transformed good brands into great brands arent prescriptive because brand maintenance is not as simple as one solution fits all.

I look at Wal-Mart and Olive Garden as excellent examples of knowing your audience and speaking to them. Wal-Mart had a few missteps over the last few years, but they totally have it down now. Olive Garden, while not appealing to me, appeals to their audience and has the consistent growth to prove it.

I re-reference Mad Men again. The model of “Men want her and women want to be her” is completely false, and we have absolutely grown past this as an industry. However, it takes incredible discipline for individuals in advertising to not fall into this mindset when your target audience is not yourself. Its ok to create work that doesnt appeal to you. Its all about being objective versus subjective. And thats an entirely different post altogether.

Really good stereotypers

Recently, I’ve been working on a minority-focused campaign, and it’s done nothing but made me ask lots of questions. Now, for a typical white guy working in the ad industry, I am blessed to both work for a minority-owned firm and have very candid relationships with several black people I work with, which means they will give me nothing but honest feedback on whether or not an idea is treading too close to that mythical line of offensiveness. And for our whole creative team, that’s an invaluable asset. But this process has made me analyze the way other brands flail in their attempts to market to segments by ethnography instead of demography. All that’s to say: I don’t think anybody is getting minority-targeted marketing right.

Read more »

5 out of 100 is pretty sad

In the most recent issue of Fast Company, they released their list of the 100 most creative people in business. Of the esteemed 100, only 5 of them work for a company that does “marketing” of any variety:
32: Lee Clow, TBWA
39: Greg Hahn, BBDO
59: Noah Brier, Barbarian Group
81 & 82: Karin Hibma & Michael Cronan, Cronan

So, um, wow. I thought we were supposed to be the most creative people in business? What happened here? I thought marketing was the marriage of creativity and business; that we were tasked with creatively solving business problems; that the greater ad industry was the helm of creativity. Not so, according to FC.

For this, I believe there are 2 reasons. The first is far more jaded and less plausible, but requires thought, nonetheless.
1. Is it possible that the marketing industry is far more isolated from the rest of the business world that the people we consider “rock stars” of the industry are really little more than peons in the greater business world? I think it’s highly likely. Look more closely at the names chosen. Clow is an obvious pick, since he is the Michael Corleone to Ogilvy’s Vito Corleone status. Throw somebody in from BBDO, since that’s about the only agency that most people have ever heard of (courtesy of foppish depictions of ad agencies in film. I loved Alan Alda saying “BBD and O” in What Women Want). Do ten minutes of digging past Crispin, and you’ll find Barbarian Group. And, throw in an under the radar name like Cronan, and you’ve covered your bases. And make sure you leave out Bogusky. FC has had an absurd man crush (much like most of us in the biz) on AB for quite a while now. After the big splashy feature last year and the full page blurb 18 months ago, people will begin to think they pump him up because Microsoft (CP+B’s big ole client) has a pretty hefty media buy with the magazine.
Plausible? Eh, maybe. Probable? Sure. If you’re a tad jaded.
Or, there’s the other option.
2. It’s more obvious than ever that the ad industry as a whole has grown embarrassingly stale. Most of our business models are as stale as the rehashed rehashed ideas we continue to sell clients and expect them to throw money at us because we’re creative. At least we tell the we are.
For me, this theory holds a lot more water. Think about it, the basic agency model has barely evolved since the 1960s. Watch Mad Men, and you get a sense of what most agencies are still like that. (Creative team + Account team) x Media team = Agency Model. Outside of a few noteworthy shops (Mother, Creative Orchestra), we still hire people who do one thing well and throw them together with other people that do one thing well and expect a certain outcome. And we as a group are still held creatively hostage by the invoice that our clients may or may not sign based on how the last client meeting went. Until we break these two basic molds, marketers will never live up to their potential.
We should hire multi-talented, smart people who are both creative and business savvy. We should work with clients that respect the value of a good strategic partner, but first we must re-earn that title. We still have a lot of work to overcome the Charlatan stereotype that we will do or say anything for money, because the reality is that stereotype is still resoundingly true.
So, why is it that if we are so creative that we don’t focus that energy on our own business model? I have 2 explanations. 1. It’s scary. 2. Most advertising/marketing folks are bad businessmen. They mostly don’t understand it, outside of the context of a brand. If they did, things would be way different.

Hopefully, it’s just the first reason. But I have my doubts.

Club & Rubber

A few weeks ago, somebody left hard evidence of a good time in our parking lot. Now, I know what you’re thinking: ad people. However, based on our proximity to the local high school, university and retirement community, I think it was somebody looking to do something outside other watchful eyes.

Basically, we found an expended prophylactic right next to a shattered bottle of Canadian Club. And while the scene looked like evidence of some recent debauchery, I couldn’t help but notice how awesome the shattered bottle looked. The patina of the glass. The perfectly preserved type. The contrast against the newly blackened asphalt. It seemed like so much more than a broken bottle, but a statement of the man behind the bottle. And since I’m on it, I do love the long history of Canadian Club’s advertising. Especially the new stuff. And the old stuff.
So, I snapped a picture to preserve this iconic moment in time. Ok, actually I snapped about 4 pics, this being the best one:

So, Matt Lane Harris, being the lover of all things aesthetic that he is, took it upon himself to turn this simple photo of a broken bottle into a pretty awesome gig poster for Blue Mountain.

Here’s the full gallery:

How the Mighty Fall

It’s called How the Mighty Fall, and it looks incredible. In the context of the current economy, I think it’s perfectly timed and a good shot of inspiration for lots of companies. And for those of us in the marketing arena, I think it’s particularly good to hear the words of encouragement, change and determination for the turmoil we find ourselves in. BusinessWeek did a preview of the book, which you can read here. Here’s an excerpt that explains some of his conclusions:

Never give in. Be willing to kill failed business ideas, even to shutter big operations you’ve been in for a long time, but never give up on the idea of building a great company. Be willing to evolve into an entirely different portfolio of activities, even to the point of zero overlap with what you do today, but never give up on the principles that define your culture. Be willing to embrace loss, to endure pain, to temporarily lose freedoms, but never give up faith in your ability to prevail. Be willing to form alliances with former adversaries, to accept necessary compromise, but never—ever—give up on your core values.

The path out of darkness begins with those exasperatingly persistent individuals who are constitutionally incapable of capitulation. It’s one thing to suffer a staggering defeat—as will likely happen to every enduring business and social enterprise at some point in its history—and entirely another to give up on the values and aspirations that make the protracted struggle worthwhile. Failure is not so much a physical state as a state of mind; success is falling down—and getting up one more time—without end.

Is Twitter the next MySpace?

Does anybody else remember how awesome 2005 was? The economy was rolling, jobs were plentiful and MySpace was all the rage. It was everything. Marketers all over the fruited plains were making sure their brands had a MySpace page. People were blogging on how MySpace was changing the industry. It was almost as awesome as the Adkins Diet.

Now, raise your hand if you still even use your MySpace account any more. Thought so. This is precisely why I feel like Twitter will inevitably fade out of relevance in the next 5 years. Granted, I feel like marketers and agencies alike need to engage in social media and know how to properly wield it as a tactic in their overall brand strategies, but what’s the breaking point? Seeing the numbers for Twitter’s growth (something like 1400%) are troublesome for those who think it’s gonna be bigger than advertising on the television set. It’s a great tool and it should be used wisely, but make no mistake: Twitter has a shelf-life. And when it gets so saturated with your mom, your pastor and your high school English teacher that consumers start to leave, then something else will inevitably take its place.

However, I feel certain that Twitter hasn’t even come close to reaching its zenith. It’s got a long way to go down the monetization path before it gets oversaturated. People are just now figuring out how to make money off of it, so until Apple or some other worthy, cash-laden suitor makes an offer, it’s safe to work into a basic strategy. But I am afraid too many people are leaving agencies only to start social media companies who’s business model is based on the idea of twitter being relevant indefinitely. Well, I hate to break it to you, but it will fade from relevance.

Many of these agencies are also predicated on the idea that social media is right for every brand out there. Also, a farce. Many solid brands have no need of social media because their target audience is almost wholly not online. But no worries. Somebody is inevitably pitching social media to them.

I am a huge fan of the practice as a supplement to good marketing strategy, but as I’ve often stated, don’t make it the focal point of your strategies or of your agency. And especially not on one social media outlet.

Lots of good content. No conclusions.

Has anybody else noticed that most social media, web 2.0 and “the future of advertising” presentations have absolutely no conclusions?

Those of you who work with me know that I am a presentation junkie. I scour the web for really good ones, constantly try to up my game on style and do things that break the rules whenever possible. Because of that, I have become a pretty harsh critic of most presentations and a huge fans of the ones that are solid on communicating their intended purpose. But what’s the point of presenting information to someone without making some sort of recommendation for how they use it?

I base this on a point of view on a deck that I viewed yesterday by David Armano, who just left Critical Mass to join the unaptly titled Dachis Corporation. Here’s the deck:

Read more »