Moustache - WHY WAIT FOR NOVEMBER?

I have just wasted a few hours of my life watching the final of Eurovision.

Everything seemed familiar.

The songs, wardrobe, look and even the dance moves, I felt as though I had heard them all before.

The Greek artist had a fusion of traditional Greek music with rap. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

The French guy had a great voice but not much more.

The Italians had a jazz theme, funnily I think I have heard it all before.

Next, the UK’s ‘Blue’ – Man Power on speed. I thought that Eurovision was about music, not muscles.

Lena, the defending winner from Germany, certainly had a great sound, but she was so last year.

At this point I am thinking, this is the Eurovision Song Contest, shouldn’t it be about the song?

Half the acts are about the stage show not the lyrics or the delivery.

Austria, so Céline Dion, so 1988.

Iceland was the sentimental favorites with a great song but a familiar sound.

The Ukraine used a sand artist. A great visual effect, that didn’t add to the originality of the music.

Serbia was a bit like Dianna Ross and the Supremes, only in Serbian.

Even the Eurovision show lacked substance. It was like a lot of current TV commercials – all technique with no real creative idea.

The only act that stood out for me was Moldova and their song ‘So Lucky’ with the fairy on the unicycle.

I could imagine them on Triple J.

It was a bit like watching 2 hours of TV commercials. Very few acts stood out or were memorable.

It was all wallpaper.

What is the criteria for Eurovision? If it’s originality then most acts have failed.

And the winner is – Azerbaijan with ‘Running Scared’

I somehow don’t think they have the staying power or originality of Sandy Shaw (1967) ABBA (1974) or even Céline Dion (1988).

The RACV (Royal Automobile Club of Victoria) has pleaded with the state government to adopt a road transport infrastructure programme and stop implementing quick fixes – like reducing speed limits rather than improving the roads.

I have discovered a quick fix in packaging.

More and more screw top jars are becoming impossible to open.

I don’t think that the average home cook could get the top off most jars these days, even if they do spend eight hours in the gym each week, pumping iron.

The only reason I can see for this is to improve security, by making the product more tamper proof.

They may have saved a few dollars, by not putting a security seal on their jar, but they will have pissed off a lot of customers who can’t actually open them.

Is it good business to save money and then lose customers?

Nestle have spent millions of dollars, or Swiss Francs, using George Clooney as the face of Nespresso.

This poster, I found stuck to the window of a coffee shop in sleepy Queenscliff, is a perfect parody.

And trust me it’s working, as the café was full.

I will put the disclaimer for this blog right up front.

I work for a B2B (Business to Business) advertising agency, so there is a vested interest here.

However that doesn’t distract from the fact that most B2B advertising is appalling.

And it’s appalling on so many levels.

Go through a B2B publication, there are hundreds of them, and you will see what I mean.

The ads lack a strategy or an idea, are poorly written, poorly branded and look like they were designed by the boss’s 3 year old.

They make a dog’s breakfast look like the winner from Master Chef.

You could almost expect a lack of creativity and communication skills in an ad for an EP/NN100 Coal Mining Conveyor Belt from the Shuangma Rubber Co Ltd.

But why is it well-known consumer brands suddenly take on a chameleon persona as soon as they run an ad in a trade publication? They spent millions of dollar building equity into their consumer brands then flush it down the toilet, by running a trade ad that mimics the rest of the dross in the magazine.

Isn’t the consumer, who is looking to buy an industrial air conditioner for a factory, the same one who might be looking to put a reverse cycle wall unit into the family room?

There shouldn’t be one brand strategy for consumer ads and another, inferior one, for B2B.

The consumer sees one brand and it’s bad for business if that brand doesn’t see one consumer.

Football

I don’t follow football, so what I am about to write may be obvious to those who are sports aficionados.

Being a layman has its advantages, as you actually see the world from a novice’s perspective.

I went to a lunch yesterday where the guest speaker was Paul Hamilton, General Manger Football at the Essendon Club.

Paul went through their reasoning for appointing the new coach, James Hird, and their rationale for also appointing Mark Thompson as assistant coach.

James has never coached before while Mark has an enviable track record, as senior coach, at Geelong, winning two premierships there.

So why appoint the novice ahead of the proven professional?

The answer is ‘marketing’.

James Hird is a legend at Essendon, an inspirational captain and player. Regarded by many as one of the greatest players of the modern era.

Getting him to coach the club was as much a marketing decision as it was a game winner.

James has a loyal following and is regarded as part of the fabric of the club.

So what they did was hire the personification of the brand, with the hope that this would lift their fortunes.

James Hird isn’t an ego like so many others. He is a genuine person, a team player.

It must be noted that Mark Thompson also has a great history with Essendon, after all, his nickname is ‘Bomber’.

Given the reception that Paul Hamilton received yesterday, I think this marketing exercise might just work.

There used to be clever campaigns.

They ran on TV, radio and in print.

The medium wasn’t important, the idea was. And the idea was so clever that it could run anywhere.

If the 1980s campaigns, by CDP, for Hamlet Cigars or Heineken Beer ran today, they would still be media neutral.

There would be iPhone apps, social media and of course the obligatory website, all built on the back of the core idea.

So why is there a proliferation of executions that only involve one media?

Like social media that only communicates if you tweet in ‘leetspeak’ or installation ads that speak to a miniscule audience with the hope of attracting PR.

I once had a creative director that would never approve one off ads. He was always looking for the campaign idea.

He believed that techniques went out of fashion while clever ideas were timeless.

17’$ 4££ 4b0µ7 7h3 1Ð34

Hayden has just pointed out that Google did in fact print a number of hard copies of Think Quarterly.

These were free for their advertising and industry partners and they say that they have no plans to do a larger print run.

I still believe there will more printed soon and they will be for sale.

Time and marketing imperatives will tell.

Google has just produced an online magazine called Think Quarterly.

It’s aimed at their business partners and advertisers, and is stylishly designed.

I guess, given the name, that they intend to publish it four times a year.

It is the sort of publication that would make an excellent collection, especially a printed version sitting in your bookcase or on your coffee table.

However Google have made it very clear that this will remain an Ezine and there will be no hard copies.

Below is an extract from the Think Quarterly site.

“We’re flattered by the positive reaction but have no plans to start selling copies!”

Making the product a rarity is one of the oldest marketing tricks in the book. It also gives it a higher perceived value.

What’s the bet they will be releasing a printed version very soon?

I recently moved into an apartment and downstairs we have two coffee shops.

They both stock delicatessen items, prepare take away meals, sell lunch and of course serve coffee.

They are identical, in many ways.

One is always full and sometimes it’s hard to get a seat, while the other is normally empty.

The empty one is far cheaper, yet what they are selling isn’t that different. However one is just selling, while the other is marketing.

The difference between the two was best described by a former lecturer at the Harvard Business School, Theodore Levitt.

“Selling focuses on the needs of the seller and the need to convert product to cash. Marketing focuses on the needs of the buyer and the need to satisfy the customer through the products produced.”

The successful café has created an experience and their shelves are crammed with interesting things to buy.

You might just go in for a macchiato but you will probably come out with a basket full of imported French Brie de Meaux, Italian Sopressata and a duck egg Frittata for tonight’s dinner.

I’m off for a coffee now, and I’m taking my wallet.

The service industry is at an impasse.

For years the telecommunication and airline industries have been promoting service as one of their key benefits and a cornerstone of their business.

However as a result of the GFC, costs have been squeezed and the bottom line has to deliver returns to the shareholders.

CEOs are rewarded when they deliver a profit and the brand image is of secondary importance.

Airlines are continually cancelling flights when they don’t reach a particular percentage of capacity.

Making the claim, ”More flights more often.” seems rather lame.

Then take the telcos and Vodafone in particular.

They have spent years and millions of dollars promising service and raising the expectation of their customers.

Many consumers, sick of the monopoly and heavy handedness of Telstra, moved to the more proactive and approachable Vodafone.

Now it’s all gone horribly wrong.

With an increasing lack of service from the network and the company, their customers started to complain.

There are so many disgruntled consumers that a class action has been mounted against Vodafone. Currently 20,000 angry people have signed up.

Their initial response to the barrage of complains was to shut down their email server.

Now they are in damage control.

The Vodafone CEO, Nigel Dews, has been forced to publish a public apology, listing the steps they are now taking to rectify their shortfalls.

Time will tell if they do lift their game and invest more than just words in delivering a better service to their customers.

If you do wander past a Vodafone shop at the moment they are eerily empty. So the one area they were trying to protect, by reducing service, their profit, now seems very much at risk.

It’s been years since anyone has debated the value of a brand as being as important an asset as production lines or bricks and mortar.

This fact seems to have been lost on short-sited shareholders and weak, complicit, CEOs.