Plot revenge on call centres with this new app

Please hold

Thanks to call centres the British people are a lot like Debbie Harry’s Blondie: ‘Hanging on the Telephone’.

According to a recent report, we typically waste around 45 hours each year waiting to be connected to a call centre representative.

This won’t be surprising to students of Behavioural Economics who know that – rather counter intuitively – people are more willing to hold on longer if told all lines are busy compared with being promised that their call will be answered soon. Why? The notion of having freely available operators suggests an unpopular service that is consequently not worth holding for. Whereas a message saying that all lines are busy and requesting people to hold or ring back later encourages them to stay holding in the queue longer as it suggests a popular service worth waiting for.

Power of scarcity value

Many a company plays on the lure of this scarcity value, which dictates that if we perceive something to be scarce it takes on a greater value in our eyes, whereas if it is plentiful the perceived value falls. Apple is a skilled practitioner in the art of creating scarcity – when launching new products it creates a lot of buzz and excitement in the marketplace and then holds back on distribution at the launch to further heighten demand.

From call centre hell –
to hell with call centres

However, coming back to our call centre example it looks like the tables are about to be turned. A new phone app has been developed that promises to ‘give you back’ your waiting time.

The ‘WeQ4U’ service claims to not only take the angst out of contacting call centres, but will also save users about 30p per minute. Through use of ‘queuing robot’ technology people can put the phone down when told to wait for a call centre to pick up. The phone stays connected and will automatically ring the user’s own phone once an operator is free.

So in a nice twist of fate call centres will now be held in line before being put through to customers.

Creating Frankenstein’s monster?

For some reason the above reminds me of the story of the nursery school, which fed up with parents picking up their offspring late decided to introduce penalty charges. This sounded great in principle but rather than reducing late pick-ups the penalties boosted tardiness as it effectively legitimised the offering of a cheap baby-sitting service.

Likewise with the call centre app. While the intention is good, I can’t help wonder if in a similar way this creates a Frankenstein’s monster where the consumer ends up becoming the ultimate loser. While people may get back their waiting time they could still end up paying more for this ‘convenience’ as call centre managers realising waiting time is no longer an issue reduce their staffing service levels accordingly. And as this ultimately increases the holding time it also increases the profits of the app provider. So an app that is meant to give control back to the consumer could inadvertently be playing directly into the hands of the call centres.

This begs the question: Is it payback time or will Joe Public still be left ‘Hanging on the Telephone’?

This article first appeared in Brand Republic's The Wall blog on 19/03/12 (http://wallblog.co.uk/2012/03/19/plot-get-revenge-on-call-centres/)

Accessibility kicks the arse of superiority – The Art of persuasive digital engagement

Probably late in the day, but I recently stumbled across the quite brilliant Hailo taxi app co-founded by three cabbies in London. For those not familiar with this app, it allows you to select a black cab in the near vicinity, indicating how many minutes it will take to reach you and gives the taxi details to look out for when it arrives.

After arriving at your destination you can then automatically pay with your credit or debit card as the fare on the meter is charged straight to your account. Without any additional mark-ups and a copy of the receipt emailed directly after the journey I found it to be a joy in its simplicity and effectiveness – especially when using it for the first time on a late, wet and windy night. And of course the cabbies win too as they find more passengers on the street, with the added benefit of avoiding traffic on the way through an alert system.

Better sometimes isn’t good enough

Since then I have discovered what I thought to be an even better service called minicabit. This overcomes some of the few niggles I had about Hailo – in that it allows you to confirm the cost up front, save regular destinations for speedy retrieval and also works across the UK rather than just London.

However I won’t be using minicabit anytime soon within London for one simple reason – accessibility. Or to be more precise the lack of it. You see minicabit currently only offers its service via a website – not as an app – which means when using a mobile it requires 3 clicks before I can access the site versus just one click with the Hailo app. Given this is a service I’d normally use on my mobile this effort barrier means Hailo gets my vote as it’s good enough for the job with the advantage of speedier access.

Now students of marketing will know the power of accessibility is a powerful driver to consumer uptake. Take the well-known latter day example from the world of video where the superior Betamax format was outflanked by VHS as the latter had a better distribution strategy. And from personal experience I recall from previous days of working on the marketing of tabloid newspapers the biggest influence on sale wasn’t the news content or marketing promotions but availability.

If a newspaper was out of stock at the nearest newsagent the chances were that readers would substitute their preferred read for some other paper or go without rather than find another outlet that sold their paper. The reality is that it is part of human nature to choose the path of least resistance where expending too much effort becomes a barrier to motivation.

Seductive design must be friction free 

This is a lesson worth taking on board when it comes to digital design; something Joshua Porter referred to as seduction design. This works on the principle of increasing motivation by taking advantage of persuasive tactics that will make people take action. The most persuasive digital engagement focuses on making users feel comfortable about making decisions and helping them act on them.

This is a lesson the good folks at minicabit should take on board, as from my experience they are akin to a Ferrari with flat tyres – in that it looks good but is going nowhere fast.

This article was originally posted on Brand Republic's The Wall on 21/05/12 (http://wallblog.co.uk/2012/05/21/accessibility-kicks-the-arse-of-superiority-the-art-of-persuasive-digital-engagement/#more-27324).

60 seconds on the Internet

Infographic by- Shanghai Web Designers

Are really annoying ads really effective ads?

The marketing philosophy of Hayley Parsons who heads up Go Compare the insurance comparison website makes for an interesting debate.

Talking about their TV ads, featuring the large moustachioed opera singer Gio Compario, she says “the brief was to make them as irritating as possible. I didn’t want to win any awards for creativity. Annoying ads really work”.

Her premise is that the tune sticks in your head until it hurts so that when people think insurance, they think Go Compare. As far as Parsons is concerned “It doesn’t matter that they don’t like us”. Despite being voted the UKs most annoying advertiser, Go Compare has grown to be worth a reputed £400m in the 5 years since its inception.

Another infuriating example is the Michael Winner esure ads, famous for their "Calm down, dear, it's just a commercial" catchphrase repetition of the same joke in different guises. Winner revealed they might never have been made as Greg Delaney whose agency ran the account said of the original concept: “This is the worst commercial I've ever heard in my life. We don't want anything to do with it” and promptly resigned the account in disgust. Yet when the adverts were launched in 2002, esure had to take on 600 extra staff to cope with the volume of phone calls.

So does the claimed success of these ads in driving up sales give credence to the notion that ads don’t have to be liked to be effective?

Well the short answer is both yes and no…

Yes in that they do get attention, even if it’s negative.

Behavioural Economics thinking demonstrates that you don’t need to change attitudes to effect a change in behaviour - which is fine given research shows the strength of advertising lies less in persuading people to change their attitudes and more in acting as a reminder to reinforce current behaviour.

Expanding on this, Sutherland & Sylvester point out in their excellent book ‘Advertising and the mind of the consumer’ there are also two different mental processes at work in choice decisions: ‘Weighing up of alternatives is one, but more importantly is which alternatives get weighed up’.

In other words to be considered, a brand must first get itself onto a consumers mental checklist. So salience is the name of the game as the primary importance of any ad is to drive top of mind brand recall at the point of consideration. The strength of salience determines the mental order in which alternatives are considered. So the higher up a brand sits on a consumer’s mental checklist the better the probability of it being considered and purchased before the competition so long as the offer and experience is better or comparable to the competition.

This means in a cluttered relatively undifferentiated marketplace like insurance, getting your name firmly into people’s heads appears to be sufficient. So although Go Compare ads are extremely annoying, it appear s they don’t act as a barrier to purchase as they help remind people at the right point in time and encourage purchase.

So does this mean t it is better to be hated if it gets you attention?

No – creativity has an important role to play

The above question raises an interesting point. Strategically it can be good to be hated in helping focus and strengthen bonds with a specific type of consumer such as the case with Marmite. Likewise with advertising it is arguably better to be hated than ignored which is the fate suffered by the vast majority of advertising so long as you don’t alienate the people you are targeting.

Ads can be ignored for many reasons – not relevant, too bland, too boring, too me-too etc. To work, ads need to spark a reaction whether this is good or bad. However ads which set out to irritate and annoy don’t respect the consumer and as with real-life personal relationships, this doesn’t provide a solid foundation for building a strong positive bond.

Previous research by the Advertising Research Foundation established that ‘advertising liking was the strongest factor linked to sales’

As Roger Dooley, author of Neuromarketing puts it “At the cognitive level, I find myself repelled by an advertiser bold enough to acknowledge that their ads are annoying me, and then continue to assault me with the objectionable elements in the same ad.” He goes onto say, “The real danger, though, doesn’t really involve conscious processing by the viewers. If viewers begin to associate the brand or packaging with the negative emotion of a loud and annoying interruption of their entertainment, eventually the brand will suffer.”

And returning to Sutherland & Sylvester who say that ‘a brand’s advertising reflects a dimension of its personality, and therefore critical to making people feel good about the brand. Ads that are liked have a higher probability of being effective…and can be the feather that tips the balance towards that brand if all other things in the market are equal’.

In summary

It is true that irritating ads can be effective at driving recall and brand consideration especially when aligned to significant marketing spend to repeatedly hammer home their messages.
Also it is true that likeability is somewhat less important for high involvement products such as cars which have a more complex decision making process. This is especially true of humour which can be seen as superfluous in attracting attention if it distracts from the key sought after message elements.

However it is important for low interest relatively undifferentiated categories such as car insurance where the purchase decision making process tends to be more functional and value-driven. This is where a good creative strategy can help capture people’s attention, interest and imagination in a way that doesn’t annoy or irritate.

And in a digital world where people can choose to block out ads that irritate and where positive word of mouth is increasingly important to a brands success aiming creatively higher will help drive salience. This is because a brand's advertising attire can make a brand more attractive and be the essential difference when everything else is equal.

So to win out in the longer term I’d suggest it’s not a case of shouting loud, but thinking smart.

What do you think?

Gaze control – the look of things to come?

A Swedish company, Tobii Technology, has invented a prototype laptop that can carry out 100 or so simple commands by using your eyes in what the makers call ‘gaze control’.

Recently showcased at the CeBit technology fair earlier this month in Hanover, the technology works by reflecting infrared light off your corneas, enabling inbuilt sensors to detect to within a few millimetres where your eyes are looking at. To activate gaze control you have to hold down the Alt key so not to inadvertently activate wayward looks or movements. For example it can follow your gaze to automatically scroll down a document that’s being read or open and select from drop down menus or carry out other previously mouse activated commands such as opening bookmarks.

While eye-tracking capabilities have been around for a while, this is the first time it has been installed in a consumer friendly computer. Still in the early stages of development further refinement is required in terms of design, performance and production at an affordable cost.

While it is intended to remove up to 80% of the times you need to click, the makers say it is intended to supplement rather than supplant the mouse or keyboard to speed up and make easier a range of common tasks.

Given the advent of gesture activated devices such as the Xbox Kinect and the continued development of voice activated software beyond the world of HAL to ease inputting content through dictation, I wonder how long it will be before look, gesture and voice interface technologies converge to provide even richer more time efficient digital applications and experiences?

For digital agencies, the challenge will be in how to best harness this to the benefit of brands, businesses and end users through evolving, inventing and blending their skillsets and intellectual know-how.

Just in the same way that giving a film the 3D treatment doesn’t automatically make for a better film, both intelligent application and a good plot is essential. After all sizzle by itself cannot make up for an unsavoury sausage.

Is digital delivering what it promises?

This was a question recently posted by the DMA in advance of a live debate they are hosting on Thursday 15 October – http://www.linkedin.com/redirect?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Edma%2Eorg%2Euk%2Ftraining%2Fevt-article%2Easp%3Fid%3D4648&urlhash=jN3a&_t=disc_detail_link.

Below was my posted comment…

When it comes to measuring performance digital is arguably the most transparent medium in terms of trackability. This is especially true since the ability to attribute ROI metrics beyond the last click, thus moving away from the flawed last ad model.

We are also seeing more sophisticated ways of tracking the shouts and whispers of social media buzz which meaningfully translate into ‘corporate’ value.

But… in assessing if digital is delivering on what it promises, ROI accountability is only part of the equation.

Given that digital is increasingly embedded in everyday life, there’s still work to do in establishing how it contributes to the shaping and building of brands over time. Only through demonstrating both the brand and sales impact will digital’s potential and position be fully realised within the overall marketing mix.

So how do we benchmark the comparative and accumulative value (i.e. the multiplier effect) of digital with non-digital ATL media? Well it doesn’t mean we limit this to replicating the existing ATL brand model template of pre/post awareness, image, relevance type metrics.

Don’t get me wrong - we still need to do this, so there’s a common currency that brand managers can relate to. But I’d suggest there is also richer way of gathering and interpreting this.

Let me explain…

There is growing chatter amongst the digital classes about shifting marketing effort beyond short-lived switch on/switch off campaigns to that of creating long lasting experiences. Simply put this boils down to helping brands ‘walk the talk’ by closing the divide between what brands promise and their service delivery. So it becomes more about pushing the quality of engagement.

Outside of physical interactions, this is where digital media really comes into its own. Whether it’s engaging within communities or tapping into the utilitarian properties of emerging technologies such as Augmented Reality or simply creating more user friendly applications, digital has the capability to facilitate, shape and grow such positive experiences through adding genuine meaning and value.

So perhaps we should reframe the original question to a more forward thinking: ‘how can digital help create deeper more meaningful brand experiences?’ And then through this seek to measure its individual and accumulative value relative to all other brand touch-points to help strengthen its position within the marketing mix.

Building benevolent and believable brands

As we know, WOM and referrals are playing and increasingly important role in people’s purchase decisions.

So my thought for today…

In this period of austerity brands that show greater benevolence and believability will be more likely to amplify customer attention and loyalty.

First off, by benevolence I mean stressing caring ethics in these uncertain and trying times. Simple but effective ‘physical world’ monetary examples include M&S 'Dine in for £10' meal for two offers and Sainsbury’s ‘feed your family for a fiver’ menus.

Brand benevolence can be further enhanced through digital media. For example the Celebration Facebook widget helped build relationships between friends. It did so by enabling them to send virtual Mars gifts containing mobile barcode redeemable at PayPoint stores. After all who doesn’t like receiving chocolate as a gift?

Social media also gives brands the opportunity to develop longer term relationships with consumers by getting inside and shaping the flow of conversation. However for many brands this appears to be a notoriously tough nut to crack, but needn’t be.

This leads to the second point contained within my thought for today…

As with ‘real’ life, if you want to be perceived as interesting you have to actually say and do something of interest. Translated to the world of marketing, this means building believable brands that meaningfully engage people based on their needs, wants and actions.

By believable I mean:

• Communicating with honestly and transparency
• Doing what you say – delivering on your promises
• And in delivering on your promises, doing so in a compelling and rewarding way

For example GSK’s NiQuitin and Alli products (NRT smoke cessation and weight loss capsules) also give access to personalised interactive support plans. Delivered primarily through online and mobile media they provide access to experts and social community support, advice, tools and inspiration. Arguably with development these programs could become the key ‘value’ components in their own right in driving consumer uptake with the product given away for ‘free’.

Finally, in becoming benevolent and believable brands this also helps humanise them towards forging stronger, more intimate relationships with consumers. And through these intimate interactions this creates more brand advocates…which leads right back to where we started.

Potent marketing tool: Fear

I saw a recent article (can’t recall where) talking about the Swine Flu Virus.

While the article as a whole was interesting, there was one apparently flippant quote that caught my attention: ‘nothing sells quite like fear’

This was in relation to the mass panic buying of 99 cent surgical masks in the blind hope that it would ward off infection.

I’m of course being flippant myself when I state 'apparently flippant'.

After all fear is the counter-balance to hope and together they have been employed by marketers for eons.

Just think of the marketing of socially sensitive products such as weight control, baldness, flatulence etc.

Or the murky world of insurance products.

Or a large chunk of cause-related marketing.

In fact come to think of it I struggle to identify many high-involvement products which don’t sit somewhere along this continuum.

As Aristotle said ‘hope is a waking dream’.

And at a base level isn’t that what marketing is all about - fulfilling dreams?

Open ID

The more lifestyle, shop & social community sites I sign up to - the more passwords I collect.

And the more I forget.

NO MORE...

Now I may be late to the game, but Open ID is proving a life saver.

A bit like having a magic key that opens all doors.

Nintendo calling...

Just read that Nintendo are releasing their latest hand held console the DSi in April. Apparently this allows users to listen to music and take photos.

This aligned with other features such as 'brain training' and the ability to purchase & read novels over the DS will no doubt help to continue building appeal beyond it's predominantly youthful audience.

This extension beyond it's core functionality of gaming brings to mind the expansive development of mobile phones.

Which then got me thinking...Nintendo already has the capability to connect people together.

Together with its widening utility and appeal, could Nintendo be seeking to become the ultimate 'hub in the hand' device by entering the mobile phone market?

Undoubtably it won't possess the same 'know how' of existing mobile operators but the same could have been said of Apple...and just look at the response to the iPhone.

A Nintendo mobile phone device with all the qualities and capabilities of the existing product has the makings of widespread appeal.

A time for the hunter to be hunted perhaps?

Existing mobile operators beware.

Much ado about something

I stumbled across a great blog from Dave Trott, a leading light in the world of marketing and also the 'T' in GGT a great ad & dm agency of old I'd previously worked for.

Never worked with the man himself, but reading his blog I wish I had.

'Nuff said.

Compelling ideas

As a planner how do you persuade clients to 'buy' your proposed strategy or idea?

Let me share with you the overlapping viewpoints of two well known planners:

#1 You can't bore people into buying an idea - you need to be interesting
#2 It's better to be interesting than it is to be right

Now let me add into the mix an extract from another well known planner, Malcolm White:

'...planning today is more about interesting ideas than it is about the right idea...[however] as Jeremy Bullmore put it: "we need to be intuitive, instinctive, scared and lucky AND we need to be rigorous, disciplined, logical and deductive".

...we need more of these sorts of people and less of those who are just interesting'

Coming back to planner #1 and #2. It is absolutely right to 'be interesting ' in helping gain a clients attention and buy-in. However this mustn't be to the detriment of ensuring those ideas are also robustly developed. After all the best ideas are those that not only see the light of day, but that also deliver.

So as planners it is our duty to be compelling. In other words we need to provide both the sizzle AND the sausage.

To borrow interest or not borrow interest?

That is the question that popped into my head last weekend triggered by my kids. Or to be more precise, it was triggered by the Madagascar film-based toys they were clutching excitedly in their hands after a rare trip to McDonalds.

By borrowed interest I mean the marketing tactic of ‘borrowing’ properties external to the brand in question to capture consumer interest, such as McDonald’s tie-in with DreamWorks.

Borrowed interest is often the main component of sales promotion activity where there is a tangible merchandise tie-in. As in the case of McDonalds this can work handsomely (well based on the straw-poll reaction of my kids…!).

There are also cases when borrowed interest is a necessity to attracting consumer attention such as in commoditised and/or low interest categories. Just think of the insurance market which employs a variety of mnemonic devices from dogs, phones and geckos to name but a few to help build a stronger narrative.

But outside of the above scenarios does borrowed interest have a legitimate role?

Not so, according to a very senior Creative I recall from the dim and distant past. According to him borrowed interest was an absolute ‘no-no’ when it came to developing marketing strategies.

His argument went along the lines of…

1. Borrowed interest falsely lays claim to consumer attention. It acts as a supportive crutch, when surely the focus must be to find something directly interesting to say about the brand in question that would help grab relevant consumer attention
2. Borrowed interest relies upon people making a contextual connection, without which the message isn’t taken on board.

I can agree with his thinking to a certain extent but not in his black and white assertion that all borrowed interest is bad. Agreed, borrowed interest done badly is more likely to lead to poor results. For example gratuitous references that don’t help reinforce the brand narrative in some way, will ultimately make any initial attention garnered somewhat hollow.

Also, while Wonderbra’s ‘two cups of joy’ viral homage to Cadbury’s Gorilla campaign paid off, a campaign risks failure if people don’t make the connection to such popular cultural references, especially when being used as a route into comprehending the overarching message. Of course the other risk is that even if people do ‘get it’ a brand won’t get the differentiation and attention it desires if it has lamely jumped on the ‘me-too’ brand band-wagon of following the latest fads (think of the initial splurge around Google map mash-ups).

However, it is my belief that borrowed interest as a strategy can attract attention and strengthen a brand’s appeal if done well.

Two very different examples help prove this.

First off, is the Diesel sex cartoon viral (SFW XXX Dirty 30). This video helps celebrate its 30th anniversary, using actual porn footage with the rude parts censored out by cartoon overlays. The WOM this created without a doubt helped amplify and reinforce its risqué and rebellious credentials

The second case is from Intel. Talking about microchips powering computers isn’t a terribly appealing way to reinforce the ‘Intel inside’ brand positioning to a youthful demographic. However harnessing the ‘Powered by Intel’ thought to their shared passion for music is. This led to Intel developing the 'Intel powers music' campaign to encourage MySpace users to install a branded widget, which let them increase the amount of music storage space within their profile page.

What’s lovely about this approach is that is takes a passion and turns it into a social object that provides real utility in a way that credibly underlines the brand credentials while building its reputation in music. And it does so in a way that gives a permanent presence that helps shake off Intel’s stuffy image. Genius!

We’ll save further discussion on social objects for another time.

In the meantime - borrowed or not - a penny for your thoughts?

Crunch time for brands

It’s not just consumers who are suffering with the recession.

Hardly a day goes by without fresh news of another brand’s woes. MFI and Woolies have gone; Whittards is going…and news today that even the luxury brand Chanel isn’t immune to the economic downturn in being forced to lay off 200 staff.

However with the credit crunch biting further, brands must resist the knee-jerk reaction of making carte blanche marketing cuts as a means of slashing costs to protect profit margins.

To quote Sun Tzu - the clever combatant imposes his will on the enemy, but does not allow the enemy's will to be imposed on him.

As past evidence shows from a 1998 PIMS consultancy survey, brands that hold their nerve tend to win out. Research amongst 1,000 consumer- facing brands showed that during the 1991-93 recession that while those who cut marketing spend made higher profits during the recession they then went onto lose market share after this. Converse to this those brands that maintained spend or even went on the offensive and increased their marketing activity achieved higher brand vales after the recession.

Of course maintaining marketing spend by itself won’t necessarily attract customers or drive sales if the category as a whole is afflicted by the recession.

Instead marketers must seek to adapt the marketing mix. However while price reductions and special offers can drive traffic (think of M&S 20% ‘one-off’ sales days before Christmas), mid-to-high level brands need to be wary of doing this too often or for sustained periods as it could cannibalise revenue and/or erode brand equity.

The smarter brands will look beyond price discounting in matching their product offering towards consumer needs within the present economic climate. One example is the Morrisons supermarket chain which ran a high profile celeb driven advertising campaign before Christmas. While I’m not a fan of the ads per se they have been part of a concerted effort to make Morrisons more appealing by visibly and better communicating their offering of “freshness and value” just as the recession was kicking in.

This message has been supported by additions and amends to their product lines (including re-launching their value range) and refurbishing their stores to accentuate strong points such as allowing shoppers to see that bread was baked on the premises.

Like Morrisons, brands who invest in reinforcing their brand values and maintaining their marketing spend in the right areas will stand a better chance of emerging unharmed. Ending with another quote that echoes the thinking of Charles Darwin - it’s a case of survival of the fittest.

A rock’n’roll way to smashing away stress

Sounds like there is a more fun way to relieving the pressure of life’s trials and tribulations beyond squeezing a boring old stress ball.

Out in San Diego, comes news of ‘Sarah’s Smash Shack’ where stressed out customers pay to smash plates and even whole rooms. As their website states ‘because sometimes...you just need to break something!’

Their goal is to allow people to let go, let loose and go home with a smile on their face. The inspiration for the Smash Shack came when co-founder Sarah Lavely was at an especially low point in her life. She literally woke up one day and thought "I wish I could just go somewhere and break some things. I should open a shop where people can come and break stuff!" And, so the Smash Shack was born.

So perhaps rather than wanton vandalism, those old rock’n’roll stars might just having been smashing up hotel rooms as a means of helping blow away life’s shit storms.

Finally, (slight tongue in cheek thought) could there be a Web Shack version of the Smash Shack? Possibly a brand sponsored area where online users get to erase their frustration through the destruction rather than construction of a website?

Slogans of the Century

Following on from my last posting, a strong slogan can help strengthen a brand's positioning and presence in the mind of consumers. In fact the word 'slogan' derives from the Gaelic word sluagh-ghairm (pronounced slua-gherum) meaning 'battle cry'.

In line with the above, I discovered an Adage poll of the top 10 brand slogans of the century that puts De Beers 'Diamonds are forever' introduced in 1947 at No1.

The Top 10 list is as follows:

1) Diamonds are forever - De Beers
2) Just do it - Nike
3) The pause that refreshes - Coca Cola
4) Tastes great, less filling - Miller Lite
5) We try harder - Avis
6) Good to the last drop - Maxwell House
7) Breakfast of champions - Wheaties
8) Does she...or doesn't she? - Clairol
9) When it rains it pours - Morton Salt
10) Where's the beef - Wendy's

Some of these are surprising from a UK perspective which makes me think the audience polled was most probably from the States.

Within the UK you'd definately expect to see Tescos 'Every little helps'. What makes this slogan extremely powerful is the fact it acts as a brand promise in highlighting the company's ethos and alignment of efforts to deliver against this. And especially given the current credit crunch times we are now embroiled in it provides a timely and pertinent reminder of Tesco's focus to deliver consumer value.

Now, lets hear it for your personal favourite...

Power of the ad slogan ;)

It’s interesting to note in these times of increasing consumer resistance to broadcast advertising messages a news snippet (Metro 08-12-08) suggesting that the powers of a good ad slogan can pay dividends.

The slogan in question is the famous and enduring Dogs Trust’s ‘A dog is for life, not just for Christmas’ which is just turning 30.

It claims to have helped reduce the tradition of giving puppies as presents from 1 in 5 present in 1978 to 1 in 50 today (though that’s still a yapping 130,000 puppies facing this fate).

The anniversary celebration offers the opportunity to remind people that dogs are not disposable items to be upgraded or discarded after a few months.

What’s strong about this slogan is that it isn’t a bland shout-at type message without depth or credibility. Whilst being hard-hitting there is also a rich tapestry of meaning within this that draws people to conjure up their own vivid interpretation – and make some of those people think twice.

Or course for every great slogan, there are 1000’s that, ahem, fall well below the gold standard. Such as a certain automotive manufacturer…

The Death of the Destination Website?

I’ve recently been involved in a debate about 'The Death of the Destination Website'.

This was sparked by the fact that more and more internet users are pulling content of interest from sites via RSS feeds, widgets, podcasts and the likes so reducing the need to visit specific websites. Such tools are in effect acting as filters. In addition to which we are also seeing more and more people subscribing to the curated behaviour, views and opinions of other people – in effect trusted ‘tribe’ leaders. So it’s not just tools that are acting as filters but also people themselves.

So let’s get back to the debating point about destination websites. Do brands need them? Or is it better to focus marketing spend and efforts on being in the flow of consumer conversation thereby negating the need for a website presence – or at the very least a ‘front-of-house’ version of this?

If portable content enables brands to meaningfully engage consumers without ‘forcing’ them to visit a destination website, perhaps it’s more profitable for brands to invest more of their marketing £££s on ‘fishing where the fish’ are.

However there are still many people who prefer, want or need the total brand experience (perhaps akin to say the different consumer shopping experience of buying the latest iPod product from Curry’s versus the Apple store).

So what if the construction of a brand’s website became truly ‘modular’ beyond the current RSS et al capabilities? Within this concept all content would still exist holistically within the website (giving the full brand experience) but it would also thin-slice into a variety of consumer driven content typologies that exist outside of the website. In addition, this portable content could have intelligence built into it (semantic web apps) to help anticipate and meet peoples’ needs in being really interesting, relevant or useful. This could be further strengthened through brands adopting an ‘open’ philosophy of encouraging consumer content collaboration and making it easy for them to pass on to others.

Take for example someone that exhibits search and browse behaviour particular to booking a holiday. Just think of the possible benefit to both consumer and brand if British Airways could serve an ad within the browsing site that gives this person the choice, in situ, to either purchase tickets; request further specific details; set up a mobile phone price alert; IM friends with the details; as well as visit the website for fuller information.

So to end, I believe it is both simplistic and folly to sound the death knell of the destination website. Instead it is better to suggest that the concept of the monolithic website is dying out. Perhaps this will lead in the not too distant future to the evolvement of the modular website – where consumers engage with content in its assembled or disassembled states according to their individual needs.

Importantly with the above scenario it’s not really a question of website content versus portable content; but one of developing ubiquitous content that co-exists independently or interdependently to a brand’s website.

Creating brand warmth

Report fromTruemors today: you can enjoy a flickering Yule Log on your Apple gadget without the hassle of tracking down matches. iPhone or iPod Touch users can download the Virtual Yule Log app courtesy of record label EMI from iTunes and enjoy hours of holiday cheer sans any fire risk or Christmas-y aromas.' Makes you feel all warm inside.

Hello - is anyone listening to me?

I saw a blog on http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2008/11/index.html entitled: 'Actor Robot Takes Centre Stage in Japan'.

It showcased a robot 'acting' alongside human actors in a Japanese play called Hataraku Watashi (I, Worker) premiered at Osaka University.

As one of the few examples of robot-human interaction on stage, the robots were programmed to speak their lines as they moved about on stage. The robot used was the 'Wakamaru' from Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, designed primarily to provide care for the disabled and elderly. It runs Linux operating system, has limited speech and speech recognition abilities.

The play is about a young couple with two housekeeping robots. One of the robots complains about its "demeaning" work and that leads to a discussion about the role of robots in human lives.

It made me think about the rise of the semantic web and computers gaining 'human-like' intelligence. Perhaps it's not too far off before we are seeking to converse with our laptops in the same way as the Wakamaru. Of course with the rise in computers chattering amongst themselves, could us 'the consumers' find ourselves in the same situation as brands are today online? In other words, to be in the flow of conversation we need to ensure 'we' meaningfully engage 'them' in a way that adds both relevance and value!