Hm.  Eight-plus times infers someone should remember.  After all effective frequency has been historically set at 3+ times — or is it? 

The concept of effective frequency is widely misunderstood.  As well as the idea of “three-plus” times is the minimal exposure for any media campaign.  Regardless of ads.  Regardless of target. 

You can trace effective frequency and three-plus exposurs to Harold Krugman’s work while an employee at General Electric.  Herbert E. Krugman wrote, “The Impact of Television Advertising: Learning without Involvement”  His theory has been adopted and widely use in the advertising arena.  The following is what he wrote:

“Let me try to explain the special qualities of one, two and three exposures. I stop at three because as you shall see there is no such thing as a fourth exposure psychologically; rather fours, fives, etc., are repeats of the third exposure effect.

“Exposure No. 1 is…a “What is it?” type of… response. Anything new or novel no matter how uninteresting on second exposure has to elicit some response the first time…if only to discard the object as of no further interest…The second exposure…response…is “What of it?”…whether or not [the message] has personal relevance…

“By the third exposure the viewer knows he’s been through his “What is it’s?” and “What of it’s?,” and the third, then, becomes the true reminder . . . The importance of this view . . . is that it positions advertising as powerful only when the viewer…is interested in the [product message]…Secondly, it positions the viewer as…reacting to the commercial—very quickly…when the proper time comes round.

“There is a myth in the advertising world that viewers will forget your message if you don’t repeat your advertising often enough. It is this myth that supports many large advertising expenditures…I would rather say the public comes closer to forgetting nothing they have seen on TV. They just “put it out of their minds” until and unless it has some use . . . and [then] the response to the commercial continues.”

Further analysis of  Mr. Krugman’s effective frequency theory and today’s use of media models identify several other deficiencies: recognition and resonance.

Probably the biggest deficiency any model is target receptiveness.  Models are based on exposure not recognition.  In other words, although someone is exposed to a message, it does not mean they recognize (and respond) to the exposure.  Even Mr. Krugman used terms like new and novel to describe a commercial.  Keep in mind his work was completed in the mid-1960’s, when there was just three networks, and commercials could stand out due to the relatively little advertising clutter.  Today, it is a different story.  Except for the Super Bowl Commercials, commercials are everywhere, and the vast majority of ads are hardly novel — they are mostly un-memorable.

Taking this premise a step further, there is a lack of breakthrough commercials. Close your eyes and envision a car commercial, a restaurant commercial, a mobile commercial.  Is the commercial generic and non-descript?  Or is the commercial from a specific manufacturer?  One that is unique — stands out from the competition.

If you put your commercial in concert with the competition — are you following an industry formula?  From a target perspective is your commercial truly novel?  Is it relevant — does it resonate? 

Or do you need eight-plus exposures to get noticed?

Just Google (or Bing) it.  Any topic.  Any person.  Any thing.  It is all at our fingertips, but is the info helpful?

If I want get up to speed about Lady Gaga, Lebron James, or current unemployment conditions, the web delivers.  If I want to plan a vacation, buy a HD camcorder, or optimize my stock portfolio, the web becomes a dizzying array of facts, opinions, and data that is rarely helpful — and often misleading.

This is the conundrum of the web.  Plenty of information is sprayed around cyberspace, but it is one size fits all.  We leave it up to the user to interpret the data – the information to meet their needs.  Some can interpret the information into knowledge, most cannot.

In the past decade we have failed in many respects to create an online dialogue a conversation to assist people.  Sure there are pockets of hope out there like Click to Chat technology which thankfully humanizes many online shopping processes.   However, like an unseasoned salesperson, click to chat is hit or miss based on the competency, the experience of the person on the other side of the keyboard.  Click to chat provides the intelligence of the person or company.  It does not bring to bear the collective intelligence of the web.

Is there a better way to take advantage of the collective intelligence on the web and personalize it?

Web 2.0 is all about the social web.  Sometimes social connections can lead to valuable assistance in making a purchase decision.  Many times it is social white noise — opinions without basis.  Not any better than the inexperienced salesperson.

The vision I see is the  conversational web.  A human engine which can engage people in a conversation.  A conversation that leads to knowledge — quickly and efficiently.   I believe we are very close to someone cracking the code and creating an inference engine which can decipher and disseminate knowledge based on who we are, how we shop, what we need, and what we aspire to be.

In an attempt to fix their tarnished reputation, Toyota is running a television campaign touting  quality awards, SMART teams, and $1 million spent on safety per hour.   But can Toyota’s current television blitz is wipe the massive recalls from America’s memory?  They claim to have better safety than their competition and they have a safety website to prove it.  The site touts the following:

• The Star Safety System: Toyota is the first manufacturer to make the features of the Star Safety System standard on every vehicle.
• SMART Teams: To ensure rapid response, Toyota has established SMART Teams.  Short for Swift Market Analysis Response Team — are rapid response technical teams that perform on-site analysis (there are 200 engineers and technicians that make up these teams).
• Safety Awards: Yes, Toyota has won safety awards, including five vehicles chosen by 2010 Insurance Institute for Highway Safety as Top Safety Picks.

The site touts several other facts like the number of features that make up the SMART system (5 features); the number of feet of test track a V6 Camry takes to stop from 70 MPH on a test track; and 1,000,000 which is the number of dollars Toyota spends every hour on safety.

Missing Numbers
From a consumer perspective, spending a million on safety per hour may sound impressive, but will it trump the knowledge that 2.3 million vehicle recalled in January for gas pedal issues?  Will the fact Toyota has won more safety awards than any other brand (per their commercial)  compensate for the fact JD Power reported Toyota slipped to 21st in new vehicle initial quality (lowest ever for the manufacturer in the 24-year survey history)? 

In general safety is assumed for new car buyers today.  It comes standard.  If a company is talking about safety, chances are their vehicle is recalled for extreme situations like roll-overs, fuel leaks, or inability to stop.  If they obsess over safety, they appear as an insecure brand over-compensating for deficiencies — and most likely they are.  This is the conundrum Toyota is in: do they ignore the situation and let it fade away or do they attack it head on trying to build their reputation back?  Apparently Toyota is going for the latter.

Given this, the problem with the current campaign is that the messaging and Toyota’s actions are the expected.   There is nothing new, novel, or worth talking about.  Toyota has massive recall –look we spend a lot on quality!  Toyota slips in quality ratings — look we have SMART teams!  While I don’t expect Toyota to spend millions of dollars on a campaign to say “We screwed up.” — the timing of the campaign will limit the effectiveness and the believability of the ads.

Safety Actions
So is there another way?  Maybe.  While I don’t think any one marketing action can wipe away the previous five months of turmoil, there may be actions Toyota can take in the future which will build back their reputation:

• Embrace Your Owners: This is probably the biggest missed opportunity Toyota had.  Stories from owners on how Toyota embraced the recall and exceeded expectations would go a long way shaping public perception.  Having dealerships open 24 hours until the last recall is fulfilled is not only an admirable business action to treat owners appropriately, but also makes for a great story owners can pass along (just please don’t create a cheesy commercial — let the word-of-mouth carry the story).
• Real Safety Enhancements: Toyota’s Star Safety System is just marketing speak ladened with industry acronyms (e.g. Brake Assist (BA), Anti-Lock Brake System (ABS), Electronic Brake Force Distribution (BFD?)) without clear tangible value.  There seems nothing new here, nor is there a differentiating product safety benefit.  If you truly have a safety story – a story that benefits the driver (e.g. think OnStar), then tell it, otherwise wait until the $1 million per hour produces something worth talking about.
• Stop Talking: As I write this Toyota just announced a recall for 137,000 Lexus vehicles in the U.S. for engine issues.  The multi-million dollar risk Toyota continues to run is there safet-vertising will be nullified by their own forced actions — another recall.

One million dollars will buy you a blip in the consumer conscious — on a good day.  Ten million is better — you can comfortably project awareness numbers, but it is  hardly break through.  With one hundred million you feel confident to gaurantee awareness, consideration, sales, and share.  The science of advertising, the models, inform us that the higher the budget, the higher the likelihood for success. 

As marketers, we have become lazy.  We try to buy our way into the consumer’s mind.  We don’t earn it.  We barrage consumers with frequent, unwanted communication in hopes media tonnage will compensate for lack of relevance.

This behavior is rooted in the science of advertising.  Media models, cost benefit analysis, and ROI calculations treat marketing experiences like their commodities.  We focus on the science in lieu of the art.

 Art does not require frequency.  True art requires only reaching the consumer one time.   “One” seems daunting—seems unattainable.  And for most marketers, it is because you cannot buy one.  It is not for sale—you need to build it.  One takes insight, creativity and persistence.  And a willingness to take risks.

As marketers, we need to strive for one.

The promise for iAds, per Steven Jobs, is to change the quality of advertising.  Currently, online ads provide an interactive brand experience, while television commercials provide an emotive experience.  The promise of iAds is to fill the white space between the two and provide an emotive, interactive experience.

A primary benefit of iAds is the lowers barrier of participation.  Since it is built into the new Apple operating system, the ads are a part of the mobile experience, therefore when someone engages with an ad, they do not lose their place.  iAds become a brand interlude within their mobile experience.

It all sounds good, except the iAd still hasn’t fixed one problem for many marketers: them.   While iAds lower the barriers of user participation in ads, the same people are making the ads.  Ads about product styling.  Ads about product features.  Ads about them.

In a recent blog (Some thoughts on creating the killer mobile app) I offered a perspective on core consumer ingredients to build successful mobile apps.  Three consumer tenants include:

• My Money, My Time:  Some people spend time to save time, others spend time to save money.  Apps that assist people in minimize time to save money will be beneficial to shoppers. 
• My Purchase: Shopping is about knowledge (not just information).   Knowledge is the synthesizing of personal needs with product information to determine the appropriate fit.  Thnik about apps combining personal information with product features to make recommendations.
• My Life: Macro digital experiences will accentuate my life (e.g. facebook, YouTube).  Most likely these ideas will be ubiquitous in a person’s life including a mobile experience. 

I would like to add another thought to this list, which is the promise of iAds: interactive entertainment.  I like the lean forward objective of interactive entertainment.  It is not passive – the promise turns the user from an “audience” to a “participant”.   Basic learning theory will tell you the more someone is engaged the more memorable the experience.

Ah, but there is a catch — entertainment is about the audience(not the marketer).  Think of successful Super Bowl ads — the most popular ones entertain the masses.  Successful mass interactive experiences follow the same formula (think Elf Yourself).  In both cases the marketer puts the person before the product.  This is not easy for many marketers who prefer to fill their commercials full of product features and benefits — they make it about them.  And to fulfill the iAd promise marketers must truly do Brandvertainment.  Not an easy chore for many.

I received an email today inviting me to try a new crispy chicken taco via facebook.  However, getting the coupon seems to be a little loco (their words, not mine). 

In reviewing Del Taco’s facebook presence, you can see they are trying hard to build their fanbase (currently at 96,300 fans) and engage them too.   Del Taco has created many facebook elements including a webisode (The Del Taco Special Show with Wes & Barry).

Unfortunately for Del Taco the facebook banter the past several days is more about the missing coupon then anything else.  To their credit the facebook admin is highly apologetic about the SNAFU.

As I reviewed in a past entry (Can I bribe you to be my brand fan?), coupons can be an immediate draw, but are brands truly attracting brand fans or the coupon fringe?

Tommy: Let’s think about this for a sec, Ted. Why would somebody put a guarantee on a box? Hmmm, very interesting.

Ted Nelson (Customer): Go on, I’m listening.

Tommy: Here’s the way I see it, Ted. Guy puts a fancy guarantee on a box ’cause he wants you to feel all warm and toasty inside.

Ted Nelson: Yeah, makes a man feel good.

Tommy: ’Course it does. Why shouldn’t it? Ya figure you put that little box under your pillow at night, the Guarantee Fairy might come by and leave a quarter, am I right, Ted?
[chuckles until he sees that Ted is not laughing]

Ted Nelson: [impatiently] What’s your point?

Tommy: The point is, how do you know the fairy isn’t a crazy glue sniffer? “Building model airplanes” says the little fairy; well, we’re not buying it. He sneaks into your house once, that’s all it takes. The next thing you know, there’s money missing off the dresser, and your daughter’s knocked up. I seen it a hundred times.

Ted Nelson: But why do they put a guarantee on the box?

Tommy: Because they know all they sold ya was a guaranteed piece of shit. That’s all it is, isn’t it? Hey, if you want me to take a dump in a box and mark it guaranteed, I will. I got spare time. But for now, for your customer’s sake, for your daughter’s sake, ya might wanna think about buying a quality product from me. 

Ted Nelson: Okay, I’ll buy from you.

Thinking past this humorous exchange, Buy Back Guarantees are an interesting debate is:  Is a guarantee a sign of brand confidence or brand insecurity?

Can you hear me now?
Currently Sprint is offering a 30-day money-back guarantee on their cell service.  Sprint’s share is 18%  in third place behind cellular giants AT&T and Verizon.  They are currently marketing their 4G network, and they own 75% share of the 4G market. 

It seems like they have a lot going for them.  Or do they?  In the battle of the maps (A simple map versus 2,000 postcards.) AT&T and Verizon are saturating the air waves with their claim to dominance.  Verizon owns the 3G map.  AT&T owns a (2G) map, speed, and iPhone exclusivity.  Sprint is (trying) to own 4G — a better, faster network.  Even though 4G is the future, some pundits are predicting Sprint’s market share will decline by over 50% in the next five years.

So why a guarantee?  My guess is Sprint is not getting through the massive noise created by AT&T’s and Verizon’s marketing.  Also, 4G is better, but it has been difficult to relate to consumers the difference 2G, 3G, and 4G.   Mobile consumers relate to monthly payments, dropped calls, and phone functionality. 

Speed is important, but it’s like buying a 200-plus MPH Lamborghini Murcielago to drive on our interstate highways – it’s nice to have, but you can never (legally) use the speed.  Similarly, the lightweight nature of mobile content does not require a lot of bandwidth (PC wireless users would benefit more, and they are a primary target for Sprint’s 4g network).  Mobile speed may be a core need for future mobile apps, but today a 2G network is more than sufficient for most mobile users.

Will a guarantee work? If a mobile customer were to think about the guarantee, it may seem like just a big hassle.  Moving your mobile service is a little like quitting your bank or cable company — the effort required dictates a permanent move not a 30-day test period.  If you are to switch mobile providers, you will move your number, account, and switch your phone.  Not pleasant.  To reverse it after 30-days seems like double the effort.  

A guarantee appeals most to shoppers who have apprehension with their future purchase.  Sprint’s goal would be to intercept and convert people within their switching window (e.g. expired contract or desire to switch phone/service).   Given this, if a shopper is concerned about Sprint’s service or phone functionality (e.g. think about someone moving from a regular mobile phone to a smart phone), the guarantee may put Sprint on the consideration list, and could result in a purchase if all other factors are equal.

Minivan or Bust
In February, Chrysler announced a Minivan Pledge which is a 60-day, money-back guarantee.   The premise of the pledge is (from the Chrysler site):

We’re giving you 60 days to experience all 2010 Chrysler Town & Country has to offer. Simply purchase a new Chrysler minivan. Enjoy it for 60 days. If you don’t absolutely love it, we pledge to take it back. It’s that simple. Or, whether you lease or buy, you may opt for $500 cash allowance instead. So give us a try. We know you’ll like Chrysler Town & Country so much you won’t want to give it up.

Like Sprint, Chrysler has a lot going for them.  Way back when, Chrysler pretty much invented the minivan, and have consistently been the innovator in the space (e.g. floor storage bins, Swivel and Go seating).   Even innovators can come with baggage.  You can argue the brand took one hell of a hit with the bail-out, bankruptcy, and revolving carousel of owners (i.e. Daimler, U.S. Government, Fiat). 

So why a guarantee?  It is hard to discern if this is a me-too strategy (e.g. GM recently promoted a 60-day money back guarantee), or a smart marketing ploy.  I would argue it is unnecessary.  The problem with the minivan brand is it’s differentiation — it is about the unpredictability of the brand.  A more appropriate guarantee would be a reverse-Hyundai, job loss, buy back guarantee:  If Chrylser becomes insolvent, (company X) will honor our warranty, our service, our great cars.  This mayaddress shopper concerns, but hardly a recommended strategy.

Will it work for Chrysler?  From the recent ads I have seen on television, Chrysler is not over-promoting the guarantee (there is no mention of the guarantee in the ads).  Therefore I would doubt it is being actively used to motivate minivan shoppers to add the Town & Country to their consideration list.  It seems like a more subtle tactic used to keep the Town & Country on the consideration list.   If a shopper is looking for a good product and security, the guarantee may appeal to them. 

There is a subtle tactic being used in the guarantee — the ability for a shopper to opt for $500 incentive.  I am not privy to the numbers, but I would venture to guess there is less financial risk in giving a new minivan buyer $500 than taking their vehicle back after 60 days.  In this case, Chrysler’s hope is the guarantee is the attention getter, while the $500 is the preferred choice.

Dentyne ICE has been trying to own the kiss for years.  Previous attempts included Get Fresh, Nothing’s Colder than ICE, Fresh Breath Changes Everything, Make Face Time,  and Cools Your Breath Twice. 

This campaign breaks through because it is simple, humorous, and relatable.  The ad uses several vignettes of men using Dentyne ICE to practice safe breath. The vignettes different stages of preparedness in a date: at the moment, before the date, and when you forget.  A nice subtext of “don’t be caught with bad breath” persists throughout.

The commercial also uses an accepted social norm.   Cognitively the “dating public” has been preached to practice safe sex since they were teens (or maybe even sooner). 

The dating public can relate to the mass benefit of fresh breath, or conversely the mass fear of bad breath.  While the condum may be representative icon for safe sex, Dentyne ICE is trying to insert itself as a marketing icon for Safe Breath. ]]> http://www.ericbowe.com/2010/04/safe-sex-social-norms-and-bad-breath/feed/ 0 http://www.ericbowe.com/2010/04/being-brand-naive-in-sweden/ http://www.ericbowe.com/2010/04/being-brand-naive-in-sweden/#comments Wed, 21 Apr 2010 12:11:33 +0000 Eric Bowe http://www.ericbowe.com/?p=492 Life throws you curve balls every so often.  My latest curve ball is in the shape of an ash cloud over Europe.  The result of the cloud has left me stranded in Trollhatten, Sweden — a sleepy city of 50,000 residents.  Also the birthplace of SAAB (the reason for my visit).  I feel lucky I am in a hotel and not a cot in the Frankfurt Airport. 

I have had the pleasure of frequenting many types of establishments during my (over)stay.  Restaurants, malls, grocery stores, and the occasional pub have filled my liesure time.  An interesting marketing reality set upon me recently — I have no clue what brands are mainstream, trendy, elite, or obsolete.   I am officially brand agnostic, well almost anyway.

Initially, I stared in amazement at the many choices.  Places to eat.  Clothes to buy.  Slowly but surely I began to decipher the brand code.  First subconsciously, then once I realized what was happening, I consciously paid attention.  My determined brand affinity is being shaped by existing American brands, brand association, price, and crowd.

Nike is Nike
Some things feel like home.  Seeing a familiar face is rare.  Seeing a familiar brands is not.  McDonald’s are dotted around the city.  You can find Nike and Puma  in the Stadium Sports Store.  You will find Sony, Samsung, and Toshiba within the Siba Electronics store.  And although I prefer the local draft beer, you can find Budweiser or Sierra Nevada at The Bishop Arms.

Like Brands
The second observation is relating brands in Sweden to brands I know — brands I have catalogued in my mind.  Some brands seem similar to brands I am used to.  Their branding is very similar, therefore I am cognitively drawing a conclusion the product is too.  For example, there is a restaurant here called Max which is a burger franchise.  My initial brand perspective was Max’s is like McDonalds, because of similarities in branding.  I don’t know how it stacks up to Mickey-Ds, but the similarities made the restaurant inviting.

Price to Price
The third perspective is relating products base on price.  The Swedish currency is Krona (kr) or Crowns.  Currently, the exchange rate is about 7 kr to one dollar (which is pretty weak).  If you can divide by seven, the conversion is pretty easy.  In my case there is an App for that, and I loaded the Converter App to my iPhone .   My initial reaction was a bit of price shock as I compared Swedish goods to those from home.  A pint of Spendrups beer is about $7 (49 kr).  A small pizza at one of 43 area pizzerias is $11 (79 kr).  A new Wii goes for just over $300 (2,190 kr).  A bottle of Coca-Cola is $3.50 (25 kr).

There are not many “deals” in Sweden, but once you get acclimated to the price difference from home, you start to relate  price product to product.   This is no different than at home.  If you find out a prime rib dinner is $8.99 or a pint of beer is $1, you may get suspicious to the quality of the product — the quality of the brand. 

Lemmings Rule
My last observation is the people walking around Trollhatten.  By taking note of people on the crowded streets you get the idea of what is fashionable.  By glancing in a restaurant, you can tell if it is popular — or not.  These visual queues begin to reform your brand impression.  You begin to connect brands that are popular by personality type, age, and social stratus.

The Inner Brand Voice
Over time these impression will weigh on your personality profile and begin to affect brand choice.  You begin to identify with brands based on who you are — your consumer underpinnings.  If your personality is “frugal”, you will begin to identify with less expensive brands and make choices accordingly.  If you consider yourself fashionable, you will want to identify with the latest trend.  This may be more difficult, because trendy in Sweden is a far cry from New York.  You will need to rethink your fashion choices.  You may go through all the different modes I described, and finally, just pay top Krona for something, assuming a high price equates to fashionable (an interesting form of brand insecurity).

In life we pass through life stages, like moving out of the parents house or having a child, and find ourselves in a naive situation — not knowing which brands to choose.  We build brand affinity based on queues in our life.  Sometimes we have the time to build brand knowledge.  Time to research.  Time to talk to people.  Time to choose the right brand based on who we are.  In other situations time is not a luxury — it is like we were dropped into a foreign country and we have to adapt.   Make choices quickly.  Rely on subconscious brand queues and behavioral underpinnings to make the choice.

In a Febraury blog entry, What is a facebook fan worth?, I dimensionalized a method for calculating the worth of a facebook fan, and outlined a three tier approach: recruitment, engagement, and advocacy.  Virtue’s calculation is a start.  As they state it is a measurement familiar to many online marketers: earned media or cost per impression. 

We all know the value of a fan goes much deeper.  Virtue caveats their calculations with this is only the tip of the iceberg.  I agree.