Still Don't Beleive Me?

Nielsen recently discovered something. It's not new if you read my blog, just keeps saying the same thing, of the nearly 1,000 consumers Nielsen has interviewed to date, only a third could recall any TV commercials they had seen. Of course if you follow what I write, you know I often say how Madison Ave. doesn't work, how misdirected advertising is, and how millions of dollars are wasted on advertising that sells little, but wins agencies plenty of awards. And don't think what I say doesn't hurt me, it does. I have been passed over for work because of what I think, and have had jobs pulled from me midstream, all because I believe that most major advertising does little to engage a consumer. Now Nielsen puts another nail in Madison Avenue, and another feather in my cap.

Of course the answer to Nielsen's recent discovery, if you asked Madison Ave. is that consumers attention spans are getting smaller and with all the diversions like the web, etc, it's tougher to get your message across. Hey did you ever have a nail that you just trimmed that you didn't quite trim smoothly and you could feel it in your sock. It just snags whatever it touches. Even if the foot is bare, you know that nail is not correct and it drives you crazy. So annoying is it that you must immediately stop what you are doing and fix it, whether you have to use that clipper again, or if you can't find it, you'll even go as far as to bend your leg so as to bite it off with your teeth if you have to.

Wait!!! How did I get here? It was a demonstration. A demonstration of how I engaged you. If you've ever been in this situation you know how that improperly clipped nail can stop your life. I could have continued the story relating experiences and you probably would have continued reading because of the simple fact that I found a connection between most people and shared something that we can all relate to. Some of you didn't relate to my story and that is okay. If you didn't, I didn't fail, just didn't relate a story that worked for you. Advertising can't find 100% of an audience all the time, rather can only engage as many folks as are interested. And the rest simply aren't interested. Madison Ave. doesn't use that way of thinking. Rather they use the term clutter, breaking through, and creative to try to explain the same thing.

Here's how a major Madison Ave ad would have tried to engage you about that same foot problem. A man standing on a subway platform, looking uncomfortable. Images of people all standing around, well dressed, with plenty of color and camera movement. We see eyes looking at him, noticing he has a problem. He shakes his leg, squeezes the foot through the shoe and eventually when the train comes, is forced on it by the multitude of people all waiting for the train.

And there is how Madison Ave. would try to engage you; with an ad that might make you laugh, an ad that would definitely be entered in as many awards as it could be to falsely give the agency security as if they must be doing something right, and basically an ad that you can't remember. You'd forget it, because the agency's goal probably started out the same way most big ads do, an idea is hatched by some former graduate of a Fine Arts institute. Nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is that this person has two goals; to make something creative, and he does it within a system that is about being creative. In other words Madison Ave thinks that if something isn't creative and doesn't win ten of those awards anyone can pay to win, then it isn't good. They forgot that they are in existence to sell products and services and to do it in a way that benefits the client, not themselves.

The way I see it, advertising is mostly broke because it has a method for operation that is mostly broke. No one wants to engage people based on some sort of emotional connection, rather they want to engage folks by being creative. There is nothing wrong with being creative, but I look at most advertising as a person painting a picture. In this case, they don't choose to paint because they actually want to end up with a clear image. Rather they want to paint something that catches your eye. It might mean they want to use the brightest colors possible. Perhaps they want to shock you with an image. Or they might want to even use a canvas that isn't conventional. And what they end up doing is painting something that might catch your eye but doesn't touch your heart. No not everything you see touches your heart, it shouldn't. But I can say that my success in advertising has always been by trying to find meanings that folks can say, I know that feeling, or I've been in that situation, or I know someone like that. And with those examples, people can relate to what you sell. Madison Ave? They'd rather be creative and simply make a joke, shock you with an image, or have an elephant sitting in a room that is only 8 feet wide. And when your done watching Madison Avenues version, you might laugh, but odds are good that like the Nielsen folks found, you'll have no idea what was you saw other than that funny image of a guy trying to share an eight foot office with an elephant.

How do you fix Madison Ave? That is tough. Tough because most of Madison Ave is like an alcoholic that you just saw leaving one bar and heading to another, they are in denial. Recently I was relating a story of an agency job I did to a 15 year veteran art director. To sum up the story a story board was created by an art director who never spoke creatively to the person who wrote the copy so the words didn't work with the pictures. Most folks would shake their head to this kind of ineptness. And he did. But he then defended it saying, "That's the way advertising works!" And that's why it doesn't work and that's why making it work again is going to be difficult.

Ad Age recently published an article about a conference for advertising where as the author put it, the three folks on the panel really wouldn't say anything because they were all afraid of giving away too many secrets. So everyone did double-talk and skirted any questions. But there was one glimmer of hope. One of the panelists admitted that most advertising doesn't work and it would probably take an influx of people from outside of advertising to fix it. That's one of the first steps in recovery for the 'alcoholic' ad industry. At least someone can admit there is a problem. Now getting Madison Avenue to do something about it is going to require more intervention than we might be capable of. So, most of advertising will blame the consumer instead of themselves. And like alcoholics, Madison Ave. will use excuses not to see their own problem. It's always everything and everyone but me when your spiraling down and can't face the truth.

Who said it? Doesn't matter, everyone believes it.

I'd like to start out with a link:

http://adage.com/century/campaigns.html

That link leads you to Ad Ages top 100 advertising campaigns of all time. Look at it and you'll notice something interesting; very few of the top 10 are dated past 1984. Only three make it to near today with Got Milk ('93), Coke Always ('93), and ESPN Sports Center ('95) being the only three recent campaigns to make it close today's date. And even then they are still more than ten year old campaigns. What happened? What about all these award-winning ads I see and read about every week? Why is Creativity magazine like a clearing house for awards? Each week the magazine is filled with all sorts of ads that win all sorts of awards. Yet with all those awards you'd think that we'd have more of today's ads in the top 100, but we don't. The answer is simple, an award winning ad has nothing to do with an effective ad. And that is where most of the industry went wrong.

I was posting a comment on an advertising blog recently. The blog is filled with example after example of award winning, cute looking, and interesting ads. As I looked at them I saw lots of flash and color but little in the way of effectiveness. So I commented on how ads today are more about style than substance. And the blogs owner responded with one of my favorite lines. It's a line that no one can attribute to any author. It's one of those line that "everyone just knows is true". It comes in all sorts of forms. His form was in the words:

"sounds like you want advertising to look like advertising, you know, the stuff people ignore. A good ad comes about when you actually respect the customer enough to try to create something that will actually be of interest to them. I find your comments several decades outdated."

I really got a chuckle out of it. Especially the first line which is what I was referring to as the myth that every knows is true but no one can find the author of. I laugh at that line because advertising is about what connects you customers to the product, not some silly mural on a wall where you'd have to look awfully hard to figure out what the product is. And even if you do, does it do more than catch your attention, do you remember it?

I work with a great guy who has a great saying:

"For an ad to work you need four things. It has to be:

Noticed
Liked
Believed
Remembered"

I agree with him but I take his list and make it a single phrase - emotional connection.
If you have an emotional connection you notice the ad, you like the ad, you believe the ad and you remember it. But most advertising these days is about only noticing. And most advertisers think that if they make an ad that is flashy and stands out from the crowd, then somehow that qualifies it as an ad that works. I know that syndrome. Someone tells me about some funny ad they saw where they can describe not only the content but what color shirt the actors wore. Yet ask them what it was for and they say, "Um, it had something to do with cars, but I don't know what it was for."

WOW! That was an effective advertisement [sarcasm]. I see it a lot. I see a lot of ads that grab your attention but do little to make an emotional connection. And then again I see some that do make the connection. The Geico Cavemen campaign is an example of a good ad. There is one simple underlying truth that makes it work so well, that they are actually turning it into a TV series. It's that we can connect to these people. These people suffer the same ills and feelings of abandonment that we all do, consciously or subconsciously we relate to their feelings. Like working through the pain of your mother, getting back with an old girlfriend, feeling victimized, or very simply not fitting in. And the juxtaposition of a caveman in our world makes it appealing in some way because we all like to watch other groups suffer. It makes us feel ok to know others have it worse than us. That is the crux of what reality television is and why it is so popular. Do we like Donald Trump because he's some billionaire that we respect? No we like him because he oozes with dysfunction, and all the people they wrangle on that show do also.

So going back to this fellas comment about me [sic] liking advertising that looks like advertising, that myth that everyone thinks is true but no one knows who said it. I want to say he got it wrong. He got it wrong because I'm about advertising that works. And what is that? Very simply advertising that has something your viewers connect to emotionally, whether it be a person behavior, a song, a feeling you portray visually, or an overall look. No one cares unless you give them a reason to. Hence why so many ads don't stand out in the crowd, they don't give anyone a reason to pay attention. So to see an ad that is a huge mural on a wall that looks like some artist simply had a fun day rather than something that was created to give the viewer an idea of what you are selling is not a good form of advertising to me. Oh they'll enter it into Cannes and wait with bated breath for an award, but they disservice their client, and most importantly the customer with gibberish like this. Do people notice it, sure. Do they care, not really. Does it increase brand awareness? No, because most everyone that sees it has no idea it is actually an ad and even if they did, it's so out there, that it doesn't have any emotional connection to them so it does nothing even though visually it stands out. The ad spent so much time catching your attention that it forgot it was trying to sell something.


Sorry to say that most large campaigns these days do little to make a connection, rather they make ads that are more designed so that the agency can win an award because the myth that drives advertising today is that for an ad to work it has to stand out from the clutter. People who are successful in business will tell you not to worry about the competition, just do what you do well. But most advertising today is about standing out in the field rather than simply making a message that by itself 'cuts through the clutter'. Perhaps that is why most ads are not successful.

And that is what is wrong with most of today's advertising world. An award winning ad should not be confused with a good ad. They are not one in the same.

Everyone is doing it, you should too!

I find it interesting how the ad/marketing community plays "follow the leader," shifting their thinking towards what the "industry thinks" rather than realistic planning. Has anyone thought about the end user and asked if consumers really care, or is the idea of "virgin marketing" more important? Are marketers falling for their own marketing? I'm reading story after story
about how the "entire industry" is making moves towards web content, but as of yet, no one has seen any real and definable ROI, and I wonder if they will. Sure there are some isolated successes which drive the hype machine, but can the money being spent on web migration make it viable? Is it the future, or just more hype being swallowed by a confused industry? Because one company wasted 1.6 billion, does that justify everyone else in following with the false hope of what the future brings? This all reminds me of how everyone quit their job in the nineties to become website designers because the "industry" said that was the future too. We were all going to have a website and that would become the "future of how business is done." Those folks have since found real jobs again after that hype-bubble burst.

YouTube gets plenty of visits, but are those visits something that we can turn into a viable market or are those "youtubers" just looking for the outrageous and "different" on a site that does what conventional TV can not and should not do?

YouTube is not unique. Ebaumsworld.com did the same thing a few years ago, offering all sorts of video posted by anyone who had the time, and it grew to millions of hits a month. The only difference between the two was that YouTube caught the hype wave. A visit to YouTube shows lots of visitors, primarily to any clip that has the word "sexy" in the title or any clip that shows someone getting injured or worse. Let's not confuse 30 second video clips with television programming. It is not!

I will not deny that some of the promotional postings by the TV networks get sometimes thousands of hits on YouTube. Why shouldn't they? It's a novel idea. But with viewer comments to these postings such as, "Thanks for posting this clip, now I know not to watch the TV program," it seems to me marketers are selling nothing more than the same ideas in a freshly painted room. YouTube works the way it is, but once the pop-ups, ad banners, and
conventional TV appear, will the 'viewers' still come? The industry may be moving with full steam to find their place on the web, but I actually see it as the second time they are trying this. The last time, it failed too. I think the industry needs to figure out how to invest in quality products and stop substituting marketing for their lack of viable content. That's why we
called television the BoobTube in the first place. And now we are just going
to call it YouTube.

Yea, but the message is clear

I often complain that the ad industry as a whole lost it's way some time ago. "Someone" a long time ago complained that consumers were tuning out. Perhaps they were, or maybe they were not. No one really proved it, they merely made a guess, and the rest of the industry believed them. The advertising world got scared and ran. It ran hard and fast by dropping the most important part of advertising, and concentrating instead on fluff, creativity, cool visuals, lots of editing, in other words it joined the MTV generation. I often look at old commercial spots from the 50's, 60's, and 70's thanks to Ira Gallen. Spend an hour looking at those ads and you will see ads that give a clear message- they sell a product or service. Fast forward to what you see on TV today in the form of ads and it looks like Mel Brookes was given a job at an agency. Spots today are all about being funny, or being cool, or being the first to use some sort of special effect or other eye-stimulating gimmick. And what was given up for this? Selling the product. Basically most spots today are about anything but what has always effectively sold a product or service -a simple message. I know, you think I'm harsh. Of course not every commercial is bad, but many campaigns sure are. Examples are such as the latest Jeep campaign which has animals mistaking Jeeps for road kill, or a meal. Or how about Dr. Z. That campaign needs an ambulance. Or how about the Gap's long term attitude of acting cool. Too bad the company hasn't sold enough clothing to get it out of the stinker in ten years. Yet they pour tons of money into these campaigns because someone "thinks' abstract branding is a guarantee for success.

How many times have I heard how history is the key to the future? Lot's. Everyone says to see what the future holds, you have to look at the past. The advertising industry needs to learn this. Someone ought to buy one of Ira Gallen's greatest hits commercial videos from the old days of advertising. Sure they will see old spots, mostly in black and white. Spots where women's hair curls up at the end like Marlo Thomas in "That Girl". And spots where men are white and wear wool suits and hats. Ok, the style is old. Fashion has changed, as has political correctness, but one thing they will see that has never changed, universal truth. What's universal truth? It is a way of communicating an idea that anyone in any culture can understand, regardless of what language they speak. In simplest terms, like those universal signs for men and women that tell you which bathroom to go into. If you spent any time watching old TV spots you'll notice you actually remember the message. You might even sign the jingle. Odds are good, you'd know what the product does. In fact watch one of Ira's tapes, then watch TV from today and then tomorrow tell me which one you remember most?

And that brings me to what I realized is actually one of the most effective genres of advertising out there, pharmaceutical advertising. You think I'm kidding? Of course your response is how annoying those ads are. How could I possibly say they are effective? Ask your doctor! No that is not a joke. Ask! If you do, he will be mad. Mad because every patient that comes in says they saw some drug advertised on TV and want to know how to get it. Advertising doesn't get any more effective than that. Those ads, which are regulated must follow a simple rule; tell us what the drug is and what it does. And that is what they do. If it wasn't for regulations, some of those ads might end up like the rest of advertising, images, colors, music, but no clear message. It's what the industry calls an "award winning ad", but awards and success are two different animals in advertising. Advertising with a message is not a new idea. Watch any of the old commercials I told you about and you'll see they do the same thing. They give a simple but effective message. They actually are effective like pharmaceutical ads.

WAIT A MINUTE!

The Kaiser Family Foundation in Menlo Park found that 70% of adults learn little or nothing from such ads about the health condition in question. In addition, almost 60 percent of adults say they learn little or nothing about the drug itself. But...here comes the important part. The same survey finds that one third of respondents have asked their doctor about prescription drugs they saw advertised, and 40% of those same respondents say they plan to talk with their doctor about the health condition cited in the ad.

WOW!!!!

Talk about ROI! Is there any better form of advertising.. a simple message and a call to action? But what about the fact that the survey above found that 70% of adults learn little or nothing from such ads and 60% of adults say they learn little or nothing about the drug itself? Who says you are going to be able to teach that much in 30 seconds. The message in those ads is clear. The idea of the spots is to get you to ask more. They introduce the drug, and say "ask your doctor". It's a simple message, and it works. PERIOD! Now if only much of the rest of the advertising world could figure out how to make a simple, but effective message too. It might justify the millions of dollars wasted on horrendous campaigns. People are more sophisticated you say? I say ask your doctor. He'll tell you those spots work too well. Sophistication not necessary, just a good message.

Come to think of it, the fact that anyone you speak to will tell you those ads are annoying means they got through.

They Must Be Kidding?

I keep wiping my eyes, but again and again it reads the same. I guess I can relate the current world of advertising to physicians. Try to question a physician and he'll either abruptly cancel the limited time you waited 40 minutes to spend with him, or he'll breath down your back like a dragon, shaming you for being born and daring to question his expertise. Try to tell someone in one of the 'big agencies" that an ad they produced does little for you and probably little for the product, and even that they might be out of touch with advertising, and you'll find the same result. I know I do it to friends in agencies all the time. Just today I was talking to a CD from one of the "big" agencies. I asked her how things are. She said she was "busy working on branding for a big company, you know". It wasn't what she said as much as how she said it. As if she had all the answers. Yes, it seems like the huge head that the advertising got somewhere in the early eighties is so big as to be out of control.

Advertising lost its way back then when someone came up with the notion that it's not really about the client, but about "creativity", or so they thought. We even have a trade magazine which spends many pages a month oozing with praise for 'creativity'. It usually contains some hip picture of a 30 something with spikish hair, some cool color behind them, "downtown" cloths, and a rather strange look on the subjects face as if saying "Yea, that's me. I'm creative! ". And wouldn't you know it, that trade magazine is called "Creativity".

Once you change your attitude and worry about creativity, it means little things like selling the product or service and even doing something to further your clients business go out the door. Why? How can you have any time for a client when all you are worried about is making the latest, greatest spot. A spot that folks will all remember. The greatest commercial of all time! Of course they will remember the spot, but not the product you are trying to sell. Oh they'll remember the sock puppet, or the cute animated frogs, and the German Dr. who sells cars, or the screaming Puerto Rican men drunk on your beer, but 40 seconds after seeing it, they will not remember the most important thing, something you got paid to convey. It's as if some sort of subliminal frequency was put in the audio portion of the spot that blocks the viewers recollection of what you are trying to sell, they will not remember much else. And why should they? The conglomerate companies that we still call ad agencies have shifted their focus to winning awards and getting peer recognition, and from a business perspective, getting accounts not return on the investment. It's like some Greek tragedy about narcissism gone wild.

Today I saw an article on the Ad Age website. It's a story about how Walmart is going after the Hispanic market. And on that web page the word 'award' appeared no less than 16 times. It had nothing to do with the article. It was links to everything you needed to know about awards for creativity below the article. Check this out. There were links to "What the Hispanic Ad Awards Say About the Market", "Awards Photo Page Two", "Awards Photo Page One- Cocktails at Miami's Gusman", "Multimedia Awards", "Out of Home Awards", "Direct Marketing Awards", "Hispanic Creative Advertising Award Winners 2006", "Meet The Judges of this Years Awards", "Photos From the Awards Judging Sessions", "TV Gold Awards", "Non Traditional Awards"," Interactive Awards", "Newspaper Awards", "Radio Awards", "TV Bronze Awards", oh yea, and a link for "Report From the Hispanic Awards Ceremony". They added that last story because the earlier links; "What the Hispanic Ad Awards Say About the Market", and "Hispanic Creative Advertising Award Winners", couldn't write enough about the Hispanic awards. Anything with the term "Hispanic" these days translates to meaning, 'it's the future', because someone started a Hispanic steamroll by writing an article once that said the Spanish market was undeserved so they cover it all even more than they should. There are a bunch of these guys and gals out there; "marketing/ad experts" who write the fodder that is fiction but somehow becomes fact. I can think of a well known name who writes for one of the trades. His articles always have two elements, first some concocted conclusion about the future of advertising or marketing that never ends up true, and a pitch as to how he and his company are the only ones to help you figure it all out. And folks listen to these people, falling for the same marketing methods that I thought they would see, understand, and be able to rise above.

Wow imagine, one page on Ad Ages site with 16 references to the awards you too could win with a 3/4 inch videotape and $ to enter. And strangely I would have thought more Ad Age articles would be about successful campaigns. I know, someone told you that winning an award means you have a successful campaign. And there my friend you have the core of the ills that face the advertising industry. I think the best analogy to the big heads in advertising is the traditional Advertising weeks close where they march a motorcade of brand icons through Times Square. I love how Ad Age states it gives "throngs of camera-toting tourists an unexpected treat" as if it is some sort of amazing branding parade. No, it's just a bunch of hot air balloons, a perfect synopsis of the ad industry as a whole and a reflection os what most advertising is these days, old icons, with little idea of what made them icons or how to recreate that brand successfully today.

It's not Ad Ages fault. Ad Age and all the other industry trades are reflections of the industry. But they sure do reveal how dysfunctional the industry is as a whole. No, not everyone and every company is a candidate for an advertising industry reality program. There are some great things out there. But watch TV one evening and you will not use up the fingers on one hand counting what is effective. Fix it? No, it's easier to say that other forms of entertainment are the problem. Or diffuse the situation because now your clients want accountability. Or say that TIVO is at fault. Sorry folks, it ain't TIVO (in avery small portion of US homes) and it ain't other forms of media stealing your steam. Your sounding like the newspaper industry that is blaming the same things for the decline in newspaper readership. They did it to themselves to and that started in 1970!

But let's see some more ad industry hot air. How about Advertising Week 2006? What a program! Start off with a lot of hot air coming out of an accidental billionaire named Mark Cuban who suffers from Donald Trump Syndrome, defined as thinking you are something you are not and convincing everyone else that you are. He speaks at lots of things (like Trump), in all sorts of fields from advertising to gaming, to filmmaking but has little real knowledge of any of it, just an opinion like you or I. Oh and he's got a billion dollars he accidentally earned which automatically gives him some sort of credence in the mind of the masses. And somehow folks believe he actually has something to say that affects them or means anything. Money will do that to you. In addition to Cuban, sprinkle in an interview with Harvey Weinstein where he blows more air about how he didn't make that extra million dollars in his gazzilion deals. Then if it isn't exciting enough, add that "rare" candid interview with John Wren. And what success did he speak about? His life growing up and life leading up to Omnicom, where success is measured in how many clients you can obtain and how much growth your company can muster each year. Add to that Mr. Doug Dobie, who is looking for more ad revenue for his mobile phone company and who pleaded for more episodic television to show on his little one inch screens. Yep, someone actually believes real television viewing is headed to your cell phone too. But if you owned a cell phone company, you'd think that too. I remember a few years back when all the "experts" said that the web was coming to your phone. I see the other day ESPN folded up their cell phone service , the same one the "experts" said was going to shape the future of mobile sports. It was "surefire hit".

And how could we forget one of the highlights of Adweek, the 'waffle off' with Martha Stewart against the head of BBDO which played more like one of those very poorly produced corporate videos we've all had to watch. What a setting they had the event in. It looked like a sample display case in Color Tile. Best of all Mr. Robertson admitted that his waffle had a lot of hot air in it. Hot air? I'm not kidding. He actually said "my waffle has a lot of hot air in it". Is he admitting something about the industry and using a waffle as a symbol for that problem? Interesting! I think they should change the name for Ad Week to "I Week" because the ad industry as a whole is lost in its own sputum. Or using the waffle analogy, the ad industry is like one of those frozen waffles. You take it out of the freezer and toast it. Then you pour that sweet sugary maple syrup on it. It sure looks good. But one taste and you know what it's like to lick the walls of your freezer.

Next time I will tell you what needs to be done to correct the ills of the advertising industry.

Where's the (Human Made) Warmth!

Today I read a story on CNN that shows a recent core sample from one of the deepest such samples we've ever taken shows that CO2 levels on the last 400 years have increased faster than they ever did before. It then goes on to state very clearly that it's due to human intervention. Of course it doesn't explain why, just uses that catch phrase that everyone knows; "global warming is the fault of human intervention". No, it doesn't explain how temperatures have not risen progressively with the supposed CO2 increase. Nor does it mention that since 1920 average temperatures have actually decreased. No, it's simply a story that "everyone knows it true". How myths become reality!

I know, I know. Al Gore has told you that global warming is caused by humans. Wait! Let me say that although I used a politicians name, I am not political. Don't care to be. If you didn't know, I have a background and interest still, in the sciences. In fact I have a lot of friends still heavily involved in the sciences. I studied Astrophysics at the University of Arizona many moons ago (pun intended).

But here is where I stand on the matter of global warming. I have read much literature and both sides of the argument and have to say I can't find a shred of evidence that humans have anything to do with global warming or that in fact there is such a thing going on. I know what your thinking. Yes you read about it everywhere, but when has anyone in media ever done anything but jump on whatever bandwagon exists that day? Global warming makes for nice news-fill, but I'd trust the ads around the stories more than the stories themselves on this topic.

Somehow we humans think we are so much in control of this planet and that in fact it's here for us, and all the other animals are just that animals that don't have the 'unique' gifts that humans possess. The reality is humans are just a small bucket of sand on this big planet. Take the 6 billion people who live here and give each one a one square-foot area to stand in and every single human (all 6 billion) would fit in the state of Florida. In fact, let's be generous, this is a big planet. Give them two-square feet to stand in and they'd still all fit into the state of Florida.

So what's my point? Actually, it's more about marketing, than global warming. From my perspective, I simply can not find enough evidence nor qualified scientists who agree that global warming is a human condition. In fact, outside of computer models, many of the indicators that one would think point to human intervention don't. But look at how marketing has convinced most folks it has, even if they know little about the subject. Now, that's good marketing.

It's still about the experience

I belong to a marketing website where anyone can share experiences and ask questions. Every day I get emails from the site when someone posts a question. And every day I see the same type of question asked; "What's a good name for my plastics business... We have a Real Estate Company and looking for a good, catchy name.... and so on. But rarely do I see anyone ask a question about the experience. In case you didn't know, I firmly believe it's still about the experience yet many in the marketing world are caught in a sort of limbo. They are concerned about doting the "I" and "T" but forgetting that it's more than just good food, or a cool name. A good name will get you so far, but it doesn't mean folks will come in your store, and more important, it doesn't make them come back. And I've known places that made great food that didn't make it too.

This morning I took my wife and son to a local cafe/market by our home in Mass. It was not planned. I was actually going to get the paper and thought they might want to ride along on a rainy morning. They did. When we got there, I asked my wife if she wanted tea. She thought it was a great idea. The Market place we went to is an older single story blue building with a hand painted sign, limited selection in the merchandise section, with a cafe in the back. It's a nice place, somewhat inviting but cold at the same time.

My wife and I have been there a number of times but never together. The first thing my wife said was she was going to find the in-house toy that our 18 month old son likes to play with. It's an old (I mean old) Fisher Price toy that has a bunch of buttons and switches that make noise when you push, pull, or slide them. It even has a rotary phone dial on it to tell you how old it is. She got a tea and something for the baby. I hadn't planned on anything but got a toasted bagel with butter. It was okay, not amazing. So we spent a half-hour there sitting amongst a lot of single people who were surfing the web on laptops. Oh, and two ladies complaining about life at the table next to us.

When we left and were back in the car, my wife said how much fun it was. She even went as far as to say we should make this a regular thing. I asked here what made it so fun. She said that we were together, and Max was having fun and we sat and had coffee, etc. She never mentioned anything about the quality of the coffee, or the bagel she had, or anything else. It was totally about the experience. It's something to remember when you are looking to make something successful. I've gone to plenty of places that were all the rage in NYC. And I've waited along time for a table, and served mediocre food. But the places are happening. And when you look around it's about the experience. No the food might not be great, but the place has a buzz. You can have a great place with great food that does not survive and you can have an okay place that is considered fun that does. So it's always about the experience first.

The day before that we went for breakfast at a local place called Roosters. Walking into Roosters is like walking into a time machine, circa 1972. Old tables, old walls, old. But the experience is great. Great because it's a real breakfast place. Rarely is the breakfast exceptional and most time, just good. At one point my wife noted that she was eating the most undercooked poached eggs she's ever eaten. Yet she finished them and she'll order them again. Neither her or I complain when things aren't great, because the best thing about Roosters is the experience and while it might sound like the food is the number one part of the experience, it's not, just part of the experience. If the food was, Roosters wouldn't have a steady crop of folks coming in and out all morning. So it's got something else going for it.

Remember Krispy Kreme donuts? At one time all you heard was how incredible they tasted. Did they? To me they tasted chemically. Their glazed donuts tasted funny, not like a real glazed. Yet Krispy Kreme marketed the experience. Hot, fresh donuts. They were small so you could eat them in one bite if you dare. And they sold them in boxes of what seemed like a thousand so it was cool. They even had a sign in every store that lit up when the donuts were just made. But once the experience wore off, so did Krispy Kreme. If it was really about the taste, they'd still be where they were. But today it's hard to find a store. In fact they just closed their flagship store in NYC leaving only two.

As marketing people, sometimes we need to stop looking from the outside in like we are smarter and act just like everyone else if we want to learn what success is. It has always been about the experience, not much more.