BizMktg Rag

The deed is done... so what now?

noreply@blogger.com (Nura Yusof) — Thu, 08 Nov 2012 06:07:00 +0000

Despite vigilance and effort, offensive ads do get made. Or tweets or Facebook posts et al. And predictably, backlash happens.

In some cases, enlightenment dawns and apologies are made. And rightly so, too.

But what about those brands that resolutely believe that what they put out was not wrong?

And despite the most public of denouncements by their intended target audience? A dilemma, to be sure.

Does the brand apologise? Or ride the storm to perdition?

But honestly, would it be complete and utter ruin for the brand? Probably not. But it'll be a bumpy road for a while.

What should the brand do then?

I think that despite the brand's assertion that it did not mean to cause any harm, it needs to consider its present position. If the brand has been known to be a no-holds barred, anything goes kinda brand like Benetton which thrives on sensationalism, then dust it off your shoulder and try again.

But if it is a brand known for thoughtful, culturally-sensitive and heartwarming ads, and have been so for many years to the point that its ads are looked forward to by many, then the brand has a problem.

And the problem is that it doesn't realise that 1) It no longer has full control over what people think about the brand and 2) it has a responsibility to its target audience over the kind of ads it is allowed to produce. It can even get more complicated when the brand decides to change itself.

But here's the pinch. Or maybe an old saying. Change doesn't happen overnight. And you sure as heck ain't gonna do it with an ad campaign.

Here in Malaysia, there's this brand that is going through precisely the same scenario. The brand has since issued a press statement stating their reasons for issuing such an ad. Nowhere does it mention the word apology or sorry. It's not working. The target audience is still incensed.

And it doesn't seem as if the brand will offer a proper apology or make any conciliatory gestures. It'll be interesting how this scene will pan out.

Is copying always a bad thing?

noreply@blogger.com (Nura Yusof) — Mon, 27 Aug 2012 07:00:00 +0000

They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Well, this past week, Apple was not flattered and Sammy was making big bucks imitating Apple without paying credit due (literally and figuratively).

Which got me to thinking. Is copying always a bad thing?

Advertising is the only industry I know of where the responsibility to not copy is perhaps the most heavy. For 3 different reasons.

Reason #1 : It's not cool to come up with something that's been done before. You won't win awards with that.

Reason #2 : If you copy, that means you're too lazy to come up with your own ideas. That kind of accusation hurts creative pride like no other.

Reason #3 : You will be found out. If not by your peers, then by your clients or clients' customers or the world and that's embarrassing. Especially in this digital age.

But advertising is massive in its volume. How on earth can any admen keep track of all the campaigns and ads that have run the world over?

Sammy blatantly and knowingly copied. Judgement is passed.

But what about this scenario? What if you thought of something cool, for example a touch screen. And someone else thought the same thing. And that someone launched first.

Question 1: Do you then stop development because someone beat you to it?

Question 2 : Are you obligated to stop or at best, forced to modify significantly?

And let's say by some sheer dumb twist of fate, you didn't know that someone else has done it and you went ahead to launch.

Question 3 : Are you then at fault for honestly not knowing that someone else beat you to the crunch?

This is the kind of conundrum that admen face.

Honestly, I don't have an answer.

Loyalty in the Workplace

noreply@blogger.com (Nura Yusof) — Tue, 03 May 2011 09:27:00 +0000

Read this article in the New York Times. It talks about how not many are staying loyal to their workplace. Seems aptly timed considering that it's the season of job-hopping here in Malaysia.

I always say that people leave their jobs because they are unhappy. Unhappy about the pay, unhappy about the workload, unhappy about the people...the list goes on. I mean, honestly, who in heck leaves their job, happy?

And I also always say that a job is an exercise in democracy. If you stayed with a job, it's coz' you "voted" for the company. That is, you're happy with the direction it's taking, you're happy with what it's doing, you're happy with what is in place.

But if you are leaving a job, it's coz' you "voted" against the company. You're unhappy with the pay, the powers that be, the people etc. etc. etc.

I see parallels of this with CRM. The very premise of CRM is to keep your existing customers happy. Happy so that they'll stay loyal with your brand. Happy so that they'll continue to buy your products or maybe buy even more of your products.

But something's got to give. With CRM, you've gotta give them something in return for that loyalty.

How is this different with loyalty in the workplace? Or maybe the correct question to ask is Why should it be different?

The answer is it shouldn't. Something's got to give.

The problem is most companies seem to take the easy way out when it comes to attempts at retaining staff. They start throwing money at you because (and they are right about this) the singular most common reason why people leave their jobs is money...or lack thereof.

But after awhile, once the allure of the dollar signs loses its potency, that's when the real reason surfaces. And that's harder to fix. Reasons like work that is not challenging or lack of managerial support or lack of training or the long hours etc. etc. etc.

The article I mentioned offered a remedy. It says that "employers need to make jobs more challenging and give workers more creative leeway". The sad part about this remedy is that a lot of companies will have to figure out what the definition of that would be.

Can there be something to learn from CRM? In a way, all the jobs in companies out there are already doing something similar to CRM, i.e. the longer you stay with us, we will reward you with salary increments, promotions or bonuses. But that's the old-fashioned way.

With CRM, no one is gonna stay with a brand just because they can get better discounts or birthday gifts. If it's a crappy product or service, you can bet people will say adios to the brand. Even after sales service or customer care service plays a huge part in keeping one with the brand.

The same goes with jobs. If a company doesn't do what it says it's gonna do, that can be reason enough to leave. If a company does not provide the tools of the trade or training that can improve an employee's productivity, that can be a reason to leave. If a company is doing something that is against one's principles, that too can be a reason to leave.

The reason to stay with something or someone or some company can be the most flimsiest of reasons but it's not flimsy to the person who chooses to stay. At the end of the day, it's all about relationships. The employer and the employee are in a relationship together. Both has to do their parts to make the relationship work.

Memorability : Then & Now

noreply@blogger.com (Nura Yusof) — Wed, 06 Apr 2011 09:45:00 +0000

Memories are the only thing we have to hold on to the past. It's our very own, in-built archive.

But are memories really truths? (Okay, you might ask, "Where in heck is she going with this? And what's that got to do business or marketing?").

Read the Editor's Note in the January issue of ADOI magazine today. In a nutshell, it's an ode to the past, a lamentation of glorious days gone by when ad legends did awesome work.

But what constitutes advertising awesome-ness? Aside from the dubiously-won awards attached to the work (as some may argue), the only thing I could think of that would give credit to the work would be if enough people remembered it.

I remember the "755-25-25" Pizza Hut jingle, the "Boh...ada ummmph!" ad for tea, "Maggi Mee Cepat Dimasak" jingle, "Minum Milo, anda jadi sihat & kuat" and much more. Many out there would remember them too. And because many remember them, you could say that those campaigns were considered great since they were so memorable......Not sure if they were successful though, because I don't really know whether they met ROIs and all that jazz.

But here's where memorability ain't all that. I know that the reason why I remembered all those jingles and TV ads is because I watched a lot of TV when I was a kid. There were no other screens to compete for my attention, there was no Pay TV with its gazillion channels, yet. No mobile phones with cool, time-wasting apps. No WiFi-enabled laptops that allows to surf in the loo. So, the ads stuck. Chances are it's the same for pretty much everyone.

So, is it really fair to say that those campaigns were great in the first place? Would they have been thought as good enough for today's media-fragmented, multiple-screen scene?

In those days, one had to create a truly creative piece of advertising that can enrapture the audience in under 30secs. That is a real skill, folks. Some may say it's fluff but it's got to be said that creating ads in those days was akin to alchemy, a combination of magic and science. So, it does take time to create such work.

But the time we have then is not the same as now. Brands do not have the time to languish and wait for agencies to come up with flashy, foot-tapping ads. As a result, the ads we see now are somehow diminished in quality and you've got old people like me lamenting about how come they're not as wonderful as the ads of old.

Nowadays, a brand has to be everywhere. And the place to be these days, is on the net. Coz' that's where everybody is at (okay....maybe not everybody, but still, it's a lot of people). And the brand has to continuously refresh its messages coz' each message can get pretty stale after a short while.

And that's how it keeps staying memorable these days. No longer with the one-off TV commercial, but continuous bombardment of messages, some carrying conversations with their target audience via social media tools.

Am I saying that messaging quality is compromised? Well, it ain't a fair apple-to-apple comparison.

But those old ads sure were something good.

"Friends" - An Earned Currency

noreply@blogger.com (Nura Yusof) — Wed, 12 Jan 2011 07:55:00 +0000

2010 was about social media. 2011 is going to be the same.

Any marketer worth his salt, would know that in the social media space, you need to make a lot of friends and that you wouldn't want to make a lot of people cheesed off.

But here's the rub. The player knows that he needs to keep the many happy. Meaning they're not gonna do something that'll make a lot of people upset. But what about the few that got played in a bad way? The very few who can't really effect significant bad action towards the marketer? The popular philosophy adopted by those using social media for marketing is that "Ya can't make everyone happy".

Does that mean that these very few are just collateral damage?

Well, you guessed right. This piece IS going to be a gripe. Let's face it. I do not have the social media influence of someone like Jeff Jarvis. He was unhappy with Dell, he wrote about it, his readers concurred and acted accordingly, much to the detriment of Dell. And of course, the rest is history.

But what if Jeff Jarvis wasn't such a famous blogger with a lot of followers? What if he's just someone who wrote about his unhappy experience with Dell on a blog that no one reads? Will his blog post then be considered as just a gripe and nothing else, not even worthy of attending to?

Right now, in the social media game, the ones with the most 'friends' are the targets of marketers. Even social media marketers themselves are collecting 'friends' left, right and center. These experts gain these 'friends' from the readers who read their blog posts, viewers who've watched their TV interviews, people who attended the seminars that these experts gave talks on, etc.etc.ad nauseum.

Some of these experts should read the book Trust Agents: Using the Web to Build Influence, Improve Reputation, and Earn Trust. If they did, they'd know that they're not supposed to collect 'friends' just for the sake of showing off that they've got a lot of 'friends', but they're supposed to build a relationship with every single one of them.

Here's an example. A few months ago, I was approached for a career opportunity. The usual happened. Talked to the guy. Read about him. Checked out his Facebook page and requested to be a friend, which happily he approved. (On hindsight now, I think not much thought went into approving me as an FB friend).

Anyways, the deal fell through. Didn't think I would get the job anyway. But a couple days ago, I was approached again by this same person. And it was very clear that he didn't remember who I was, much less the fact that he actually spoke to me already. Go figure.

"So what?!" you'd say. "He's a busy guy! He can't remember everybody he's met or spoken to!"

Agreed. So does that mean I shouldn't feel slighted at all? That I shouldn't feel less special because of this snafu?

I'm just one person. Completely not memorable as the above example shows. But if I were Jeff Jarvis, a famous blogger with thousands of followers, I doubt such a thing would go unnoticed.

Social Media is touted as THE medium that allows for real conversations between marketers and their customers. But marketers are still acting as if this medium is the same as traditional mediums. "Go after the ones with the zillions of followers!" "How do we get zillions to follow us?" "Ya can't make everyone happy but don't make a lot of them unhappy"

That doesn't sound like building relationships if those not important are cast aside because they don't matter in the social media sense, i.e. do not have many followers.

What is the point of collecting so many 'friends' when you can't remember who they are. Or what they've said or done.

But is what I'm saying realistic? Honestly, should marketers acknowledge every single gripe there is out there related to their products or service, be it coming from influential social media citizens down to the nobodies like me? Is it ok to ignore the nobodies simply because they can't really do much damage to the brand/product/service?

I dunno. What I do know, is that I'm a marketer ...and I still feel hurt.

A Matter of Trust

noreply@blogger.com (Nura Yusof) — Tue, 26 Oct 2010 02:20:00 +0000

Picked up a book again after many weeks of being utterly enamoured with my new iPhone 4. The book this time is called Trust Agents: Using the Web to Build Influence, Improve Reputation, and Earn Trust by Chris Brogan and Julien Smith.

Have read up to page 20 so far and I like what I'm reading.

Interesting reading on a subject that we somehow already have an inkling of what it's about and completely rely on. Trust is so important in every thing that we do. But can trust lead you in a direction that you may not want to be on?

I usually refer to reviews prior to buying a business book. And my sources tend to be 2: 1) reviews that appear on the book itself or found in news publications (like WSJ, for e.g.) and 2) the readers themselves (like those on Amazon or Virtual Bookshelf on Living Social). My decision on whether or not to purchase the book depends heavily on these reviews more so than on whether I like the book sypnosis or the first couple of pages. The number of glowing reviews must be far more than the scathing ones. In other words, I "trust" the reviews.

But a number of times, my "trust" seems misplaced. I'd read several glowing reviews and be persuaded to buy the book, only to discover upon reading several chapters that the book is utter crap.

Case in point, Waiting for Your Cat to Bark?: Persuading Customers When They Ignore Marketing. An utterly boring read with not much insight or new information and the funny part was it's supposed to have been written by people who are experts in copywriting (i.e. experts in making engaging copy). Go figure.

The point is, how can so many people be wrong? In my point of view that is, and that being how could these people find pleasure or knowledge in this book when I do not find them myself?

I felt....cheated. I had trusted these reviewers and shelled out money for a book which I later found to have no value for.

One might argue that I did not do my due diligence. That perhaps the sources of "trust" that I had were too narrow in scope and that I should've researched more.

Okay....can someone give me more time in the day to do that?

Advertising was supposed to be the purveyor of trust. Back before, all one had to do was look, listen or read those ads, "trust" the message and make the purchase. But soon, advertising were viewed with skepticism and other channels of "trust" were required. WOM, Social Media, reviews....all this were other sources of "trust" that we could depend on to make our decisions.

But just how much "trust" do we need to find before making that purchase? The one thing right now that I think advertising had going for it was the time factor. Back in its heyday, advertising did the job of convincing in very little time.

But because it became so untrustworthy, one had to look around for other ways to be convinced. And that's the thing...."had to look around" or search. And search takes time.

Time which not many of us have. If we had to spend so much time searching for trustworthy sources that can influence buying decisions....well, we might be better-informed....I would not have bought that book...but do I have all the time in the world? If everyone did that, nothing would get done.

So who do we trust? Where do we find them? But more importantly, do we have the time for the search?

In a way, I do miss how advertising works. Before, it took the guesswork out of the decision-making. I'm convinced and I buy....I didn't really have to spend so much time justifying why I believe the message is trustworthy.

And that's the downfall of advertising. If only it was more trustworthy, then books like the ones I mentioned above, would not have been necessary.

No Longer Yours

noreply@blogger.com (Nura Yusof) — Thu, 14 Oct 2010 02:05:00 +0000

The past week has seen news of brands making changes to their assets. First up, was Gap with their new logo. That only lasted a few short days, and then they went with the crowdsourcing idea to get people outside the organisation to volunteer their designs. Finally, all were scrapped and it's back to blue.

Needless to say, tonnes of moolah down the drain. And how on earth did that design got green-lighted in the first place? Ugh!

It's understandable that one would want to freshen things up around the house. And fix things up. But why fix things if it ain't broke?

The thing is as a brand, that last question is no longer a decision you can make. Because in this day and age, you no longer own the house.

The Gap fiasco is a perfect example of brand democratization. The public "voted" and the new design was killed.

In the past, the only way the public could express their dissatisfaction towards a brand/product/service was via their wallets. Now, you don't have to spend a dime.....yet. Just tell the world that you're unhappy, and if enough people agree with you, one can build a groundswell and things get changed.

Next up, the Burger King face-lift which actually started 2 years ago. A lot of money is going to go into this. Initial reaction is positive which of course means, a sales spike. However, some franchisees can't afford the hefty bill to refurbish.

But who knows? Maybe all they need to reconsider the investment is if enough customers demand for it.

The best thing about now, is that very quickly, brands can find out whether their customers "voted" for or against their branding decisions. It's really much better if their customers feel something (even if it's bad) than to feel nothing at all.

Consumer-Centric to Egocentric

noreply@blogger.com (Nura Yusof) — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 04:58:00 +0000

There's a new restaurant that opened up near where I work. A breath of fresh air, I thought. Had enough of the mamaks and nasi campur.

This restaurant served Western stuff, with bangers & mash, sandwiches and pasta. Sampled some and liked them. They were good, the portion was large and the price was reasonably good.

But yesterday, I ordered a roast beef sandwich and it was half the size it was before, on cheap bread (instead of pannini) and at the same price. Huh?!

Is this how an establishment expects to keep customers?

A pet peeve, this. It's a downright betrayal. You lure us in with promise of quality at reasonable price and then, you yank it all from under us by reducing your offering to the sub-standard version.

How many times have we come across products/services/authors/movies etc. that started out great but later reduced to just a shadow of their previously fabulous selves?

Malaysia Airlines is one such example. From 5-star airline to meal-in-a-box. Oh, the shame!

Seth Godin is another. Loved his earlier books but his later ones were just mediocre.

Why do they do this? Why do they compromise on quality? The official reasons could be cost of production, short deadlines given, blah blah blah.

Sounds to me they love themselves more than they love the customers.

But don't they know that in order to receive love, you have to give love?

The Lost Logo - A Review

noreply@blogger.com (Nura Yusof) — Fri, 03 Sep 2010 01:53:00 +0000

This book is probably much like Dan Brown's The Lost Symbol....that is, not as exciting as previous outings. But entertaining nonetheless.

In this one, Brown continues his attack on marketing norms with zingers like the chapter where Abby trashed (literally) works done by hired brand consultants, those "fee-padding con artists".

I especially liked the chapter where a Coke executive tried to cut a deal with Magill to include Coke branding in Dan Brown's next book. How utterly uncool it is for brands to latch on to money-making mediums like books, using the most flimsiest of connections and at times, not connection at all! Seems desperate and yet, so very real.
All in all, the ultimate message that Brown is trying to convey (in my opinion, at least) is that marketing is all about telling a compelling story. There was chapter where in essence, what Brown was saying was that writing is so essential to marketing. From the creation of cool, flavor-of-the-month marketing terms to ad slogans, words are the backbone of marketing. And words are what makes up a story, in most cases.

Managing Facebook Fan Page - A 24/7 Job!

noreply@blogger.com (Nura Yusof) — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 03:10:00 +0000

Seems like there's no stopping the Facebook juggernaut. While many may complain about privacy issues etc., it doesn't seem to stop others from signing up.

And where the crowd goes, that's where commerce will follow suit. Almost like locusts....good or bad, however you may see it.

For the past few weeks, I have been observing brands on how they manage their Facebook Fan Pages. To make a long story short, it's not as easy as one thinks and it is definitely, a 24/7 job.

Right now, every brand wants to be like Starbucks on Facebook. Generating more than 13 million fans, it's the envy of the branding world. For a look at the top 10 brands on Facebook, check out http://www.famecount.com/facebook-rank/Worldwide/all/Brand

Unlike a website, which is completely automated (for the most part) and can therefore, pretty much operate on it's own without human intervention or input, with Facebook, it ain't the case.

You've got fans that want answers because they're thinking, "Oh wow! My favourite brand has a Fan Page. That means they want us to talk to them, to tell them how we feel and they will answer!"........Note that the fans are not 'hoping' you will answer, they are expecting you to answer.

And that's the hidden trap that most brands find themselves in. Because half the time, they're not ready for a 24/7, round-the-clock conversation with their fans.

Gee, ain't that a shame? It's like you're in a relationship (which you initiated, mind you), and suddenly you find out that the other person is so desperately needy and you realise that you're not ready to deal with that much neediness.

And the worse part about this relationship is that, it could turn out really ugly if you decide to break it off. Like not answering calls (in FB case, comments), or worse, shut down the relationship completely (i.e. take down the Fan page). Like hell hath no fury, you can bet your marketing dollars, that the 'bad break up' is gonna be heard far and wide.

So what should brands do? Honestly? They need someone who understands their brand and product, has some writing skills (a PR background would handy) and.....is able to do nothing but monitor your Fan Page.

I think there's a market for this. Hmmmm.....may be I should get into that....

The Upside of Irrationality - A Review

noreply@blogger.com (Nura Yusof) — Sun, 29 Aug 2010 01:20:00 +0000

Yet another enjoyable and educational read from Dan Ariely.

A few observations :

1) On the 'agent' & 'principal' bit in the case of revenge chapter, I think that the reason why people would direct their revenge towards 'principals' even though it is their 'agents' that are at fault, could very well be that the 'principals' are thought to deserve punishment for employing those 'agents' in the first place. The 'rationale' could be "If you didn't hire these people, then I wouldn't be unhappy and therefore, would not feel the need to punish you."

2) Coming from an advertising background, I now know why some form of advertising can become blind spots. In the chapter on adaptation, because of our ability to adapt, it can cause us to, over time, pay less and less attention to things around us, which for me includes advertising, which would then render such things as unnoticeable. So note to self, do not come up with advertising that stays the same for a long period. Must vary.

3) Still on the chapter on adaptation, Ariely says that it's better to split up pleasurable experiences into bit sizes instead of indulging in long stretches. I think that's precisely what's happening with addicts, no matter the type. They need their regular fixes, and because their "pleasurable experiences' are constantly being disrupted (e.g. lack of money), they're always wanting to get back at it over and over again.

4) In the empathy and emotion chapter, Ariely cited the example of the American Cancer Society, which to me, felt like a successful ad campaign. The clever use of the word 'survivor' had the desired psychological effect in compelling large groups of people to donate more. And that's exactly what advertising does; change the behaviour of the target audience to get them to do something they don't normally do.

5) The long term effects of short term emotion chapters was particularly interesting from an advertising viewpoint. For many years, media buy is based on where most of your target audience would be. But it never takes into consideration the emotional state of the target audience. If you wanted people to be more receptive to your message, wouldn't it be better to ensure that your messages are placed in situations where your target audience may be in the right frame of mind to accept them?

EDM - Best Practice?

noreply@blogger.com (Nura Yusof) — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 01:13:00 +0000

For those not in the know, EDM is an abbreviation for electronic direct mail. It's one of the tools of the trade for marketers who want to spread their sales pitch en masse, electronically.

But we consumers either appreciate them because of its timely and useful information or hate them coz' they clog up our mailboxes.

Here's the funny thing. I'm in the communication business. So therefore, there's a particular formula or rule of thumb for some of the communication things that I do. EDM is not excluded.

Industry practice states that the best day to blast those blasted EDMs are either on Tuesdays or Wednesdays.

Well, it was Wednesday yesterday, and my mailbox was filled with EDMs from various places I've subscribed to and the sheer number of them was overwhelming me.

So, I delete without reading them. And who's to say that others don't do the same?

Everyone worth their marketing salt, is following this so-called "industry practice" blindly.

So, what day then is perfect, you might ask? I think it's different for different people.

You know what would be great? If, for example, I've been doing online research on augmented reality, let's say. And suddenly all those digital marketing e-newsletters I've subscribed to, fill up my mailbox with info/mail on.......augmented reality. It's like, they just know.

Now, that would be useful and timely.

Others may disagree coz' it smacks of "Big Brother".

Well, that's the beauty of the internet. To each, his own.

Official vs Unofficial

noreply@blogger.com (Nura Yusof) — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 02:48:00 +0000

A few months ago, I read in the trades about someone leaving somewhere and about how that someone leaving was all done amicably, that a replacement is being searched for, that that someone wanted to spread his/her wings etc.etc.ad nauseam.

This is the official story.

But in any industry, people talk and the unofficial story is usually the more interesting one. A bit more exaggerated, not entirely true (but where there's smoke, right?). I read somewhere we humans love the narrative, we love to tell stories. What's a few embellishments here and there when it can captivate your listeners?

hmmm.....sounds like advertising....but I digress.

But the point I'm trying to make here is that, in this day and age, such water cooler goss doesn't always stay within the confines of the 4 walls. It does get out to people who aren't suppose to hear about it.

I suppose that's why you need the official story. Goss is unofficial, can't be proved....it is, oh so, delicious!

Life's A Game

noreply@blogger.com (Nura Yusof) — Wed, 02 Jun 2010 05:57:00 +0000

Yesterday, I sat through a colleague's presentation on gaming. He was giving the lowdown on Jesse Schell's talk on how gaming is busting through to reality. The talk took place at the recent DICE 2010. You can view the video here. Schell made a prediction; a future where everything will be related to gaming.

Today, I came across an Advertising Age article which also talks about "game-ification of life". That article can be found here.

I don't know whether to be alarmed or excited about the future Jesse Schell predicted.

We're gonna see a lot more brands getting into games. We've seen before how branding got into computer games. And very soon, we'll be seeing a different kind of Farmville with advertisers in them.

My worry here is that some brands are gonna jump onto this bandwagon without thinking through whether they should. Gaming is expensive to develop. Not a decision to be made on a whim. Or just because everyone else is doing it.

I think the best bet could still be getting into a game as an advertiser. A popular game, I must qualify. And I think the new Farmville will be a new kind of advergame.

But it has to be the right game. From the article I mentioned above, Green Giant frozen vegetables is a perfect fit with Farmville. Chanel No. 5 in Farmville is not.

Back to Jesse Schell, in a way, the future is here already. I mean, we have loyalty cards. From the supermarket cards, frequent flyer miles to credit card points, we're already collecting points. It's just the whole thing is not marketed or has the appeal of a game.

And how about work? Win new accounts, score more billings....sounds like a game to me.

Even spiritual matters, it is in a way, a game. We're constantly extolled to do good. Collect enough brownie points and you go to heaven. Collect sins and it's hell for you.

The sad thing is that some 'games' may not be sexy enough to play. And those 'games' may be the ones that truly matter.

Network Marketing - A New Permutation

noreply@blogger.com (Nura Yusof) — Mon, 31 May 2010 06:46:00 +0000

I was invited to sit through a business presentation with a dear friend recently. Much to our dismay, it was a network marketing sales pitch.

It was the usual opening gambit. A rundown of the current economic scenario, a re-jigged slide on Robert Kiyosaki's Cashflow Quadrant, the benefits of working for yourself...blah, blah, blah.

We just stopped the poor guy mid-sentence and told him that network marketing was not for us. To his credit, he persisted in trying to convince us of the errors of our ways (which were for naught, as we remained unconvinced).

It was just another example of how desperate (in our views, anyway) some people are to get people to sign up as downliners. Pretty much anyone is the target, which just makes the whole business quite unsavoury for my liking.

What I've just described is a typical network marketing scenario. But of late, I've come to realise that network marketing has evolved into other areas as well.

Affiliate marketing is actually network marketing. You have a website, it's set up with ad banners of affiliate marketing businesses that you're a part of. A visitor to your website clicks on the banner, likes the offering, makes a purchase, and you get a percentage of the sales.

Sounds like network marketing to me.

But there is another form of what I think is network marketing. I have heard of many friends in ad agencies (particularly digital) who are coerced or the politically-correct term, "encouraged" to advertise a client's offering via their social network. Be it a game application or filling in a short survey or invites to a roadshow event, many ad people are "encouraged" to post such news on, say their Facebook walls, in order to drive up the necessary number of participants.

I never liked this nor will I ever like it. I do not like to impose this on others nor do I like it being imposed on me. And the worse part is that one does not get paid for putting up these ad messages on their Facebook walls. So unfair.

Some may argue to say that these 'messages' that they're putting up are actually useful to their network. Hey, everyone's entitled to their own opinion. You have yours and I have mine.

I disagree to the notion that ad people are expected to post such 'messages' on their walls in aid of their clients. Sure, I have KPIs to be met but do I really need to involve my friends in meeting these targets? I am totally affronted by this. Yet another may argue that no ad person is 'expected' to do whatever. Okay, I agree but I would counter that by saying, 'If that's so, then how could one even suggest such a tasteless thing?'. Coz' it has been suggested to me. Numerous times.

I'd like to think that Social Media is a very organic thing. The day that every single one of us is being made to put up these ad messages, is the day that Social Media failed.

Harsh words, I know. But honestly, when you meet a friend for a drink, are you gonna whip out a sales brochure to sell him stuff? I don't think so. Coz' if you do that, you are no friend but a scheming salesperson out to make a buck off your friend.

And here's another gripe. If one is so desperate to drive up numbers for their surveys, game applications, roadshow events et al, and the numbers are not encouraging, maybe the question to ask is not just 'How do I fix this?' but also, 'Would people really dig this?'.

Here it is one more time, marketing folks. For goodness' sake, do you really need to jump on the bandwagon just coz' everyone is on it?

Suicide in the Workplace

noreply@blogger.com (Nura Yusof) — Thu, 27 May 2010 08:19:00 +0000

10th suspected suicide at Foxconn based in China, the people who make the iPhones for Apple. Read more here.

The reasons cited were work ethics, managerial practices and poor salaries. Not to sound insensitive, but it just all seem so familiar.

There was a time when I used to envy the Americans or pretty much anyone who works in Europe, North America, Australia or New Zealand. I envied them coz' for their normal working hours. Those days, I used to think 'Gee, wouldn't it be nice to knock off at 5pm and go for a drink or two with your office buddies.'.

But looks like that world is fast becoming extinct.

Now, 'normal' working hours tends to be from 9am to 8pm, with the occasional late nights or weekenders.

And a lot more people are job-hopping, each in search of that 'ideal' working situation that no longer exists.

Technology was supposed to make things go faster. And it did. But with the speed, you also now have the ability to juggle more, meaning do more in a shorter period.

That's when things got crazy. Sigh.

Who has the balls to say "Stop"? Why does one have to leave the industry to get away from these kinds of conditions?

Let's look at doctors. Everybody knows that it's hard work to learn to be a doctor. That's why not many people are doing it. Therefore, there's not enough doctors.

It is dead easy to be an ad man, tho'. But once you clock in those hours and they take a toll on you, the thing to do was to jump ship. And it's usually either of these 3 options: 1) another agency, 2) go over to the Client's side or 3) leave the industry all together and develop a Zen-like existence.

These days, the 3rd option seems to be more popular. There is a dearth of ad people in this country. Or if they still exist, they usually set up their own gig and work at hours they're comfortable with.

But....there is a dearth. So, imagine if the same thing happens to other industries, where people take off to do their own thing?

How's an economy gonna function? But I'm exaggerating.

What is real of course, is that the workplace is becoming less humane and more ridiculous. Everything is about the deadline.

I have a favourite saying. "The Client only wants 3 things: Quality, Fast & Cheap". With shrinking profit margins, everyone is scrambling to put in more hours, for peanut shells. And usually, the quality gets compromised. So, go figure.

So, after all this rambling, am I suicidal? Far from it, but I do know where the windows are.

Going Crazy over POS Displays

noreply@blogger.com (Nura Yusof) — Wed, 26 May 2010 03:33:00 +0000

There's so many ways to communicate to the consumer or customer. Digital or social media is one of the new ways. Print Ads or TV commercials are part of the old way.

Today, I'm gonna write about those point-of-sale (POS) displays, the ones that you find in supermarkets.

I think all those POS people are being too overzealous that they're constantly thinking up new ways to maximise advertising on supermarket space to the point where they no longer question whether these new ad units really work or not.

Case in point, flaglines. You know, those that hang from the ceilings? Who ever reads those anyway? And if the artwork is too crammed with copy and completely messed up with all sorts of graphic elements, who on earth would bother to read such a big ol' mess? Even nice onces, get ignored. The only time they ever get any attention is when they're featured in the POS display merchants' catalogue which they use to convince marketers that they need those in their in-store arsenal.

Another example is those skirtings that dress up the lower portion of an island display. Would you actually look down to read up a book's worth of copy? Would you really do that and hold up traffic or worse, get hit by someone's shopping cart?

Many marketers seem to forget that they're consumers first before they're actually brand/product custodians. If they're not gonna be paying attention to those POS thingies themselves, why have them created in the first place?

The supermarket is already a place that overwhelms the senses and it's perhaps made as an even worse experience when the shopper is inundated with these garishly colorful POS displays that sometimes protrudes from shelves (and thus, blocking shopping cart movements).

And I think it could even make someone hate a brand of being too overzealous in their advertising.

Big Brother in the Office - Good or Bad?

noreply@blogger.com (Nura Yusof) — Mon, 24 May 2010 06:50:00 +0000

Sigh. I'm being blocked. I can't view any games sites in the office. And judging from this article, being spied on is not just about being blocked from certain sites.

I can understand employers' paranoia about keeping the lid on company secrets. Especially in such competitive times, who wouldn't want to keep their cards close to their chests?

But is it going overboard?

I'm in the communications business. And communications can be done via games, what with the advent of advergames and all that. So, therefore, I need to have a look at how things are being done in those games. And not just about the fun factor of these games but the technical side of things as well.

Being blocked does not help my job.

And about employees' posting their grievances on blogs, Facebook, Twitter et al, most times they do it coz' they're unhappy. Unhappy people talk about being unhappy. And with technology, they do so through social media. Give them a reason to be unhappy, and they'll tell the world how unhappy they are.

It's really that simple.

But of course, as with any relationship, it's a two-way street. It is the employees' responsibility to ensure that they maintain professionalism. Blabbing about how work sucks, or how the clients' crazy or worse, divulging company secrets are all blatant CLMs (Career Limiting Moves) and they should suffer the consequences.

What a lot of people don't get is that behaviour in the cyberworld is actually an extension of how they behave in real life. You wouldn't read someone's diary so why spy on people? You wouldn't tell your best friend's secrets so why spill the beans on company secrets?

Oh dear! Is anyone paying attention?

noreply@blogger.com (Nura Yusof) — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 03:52:00 +0000

Sigh. Read this article last week.

It's not the first time I've come across something similar to this. I've lost count the number of articles that have cropped up all over the place, all of them saying the same thing.

The old agency model is broken, big time. But is it beyond repair?
Many is saying that it's not, that it's just the matter of adopting new ways of doing things. But so far, what most agencies are doing are just adopting new tools of the trade, in which case, the new flavours of the century; digital, analytical and results-tracking capabilities.

When it comes to results-tracking, what this article is saying is that many ad agencies are not results-driven or do not have the necessary tools to track results.

Sigh, again. Admittedly, many agencies are still trying to re-live the 'good ol' days' when they can create expensive campaigns without any consequence, other than wasting client's money down the drain.

But that I think, applies to the traditional advertising scenario. All those print ads, TV and radio commercials, the outdoor medium...those that one can only guess at its efficacy.

But digital...that's where hope lies for agencies. Finally, a medium that an ad person can safely put hand on heart and say, "Mr. Client, you can use this and measure the results you want." And in real-time, too.

One can do that with CRM too, provided that the client is very clear in terms of the results they can measure. But then again, some clients don't get what CRM is all about. When they hear that CRM is measurable, they immediately think ROI and what it translates to sales. But CRM is not always used to garner sales.

Sigh...that's a whole other blog post.

So, is it doom and gloom for the advertising industry? Let's see now. I'm reminded by yet another article. It was quoted in that article "I start worrying about losing an account the minute I get it.” And this was in the 70s!

Agencies were worried back then and they're still worried now. Maybe they should stop worrying and do something...and that something had better not be about coming up with pretty words and pretty pictures that don't sell anything but the agencies themselves in their self-glorifying quest for meaningless awards.

Whatever pressure that is being put on agencies these days are actually self-inflicting wounds. An agency cannot consciously go into this business saying that they're there to help clients build sales and end up doing something else that doesn't help sales at all.

But somehow, no one's paying attention in class.....again.

Malcolm Gladwell & Branding

noreply@blogger.com (Nura Yusof) — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 09:49:00 +0000

Malcolm Gladwell was invited recently to give a talk at a seminar in Singapore for business and marketing people. His presentation can be found here.

I want to talk about his talk from a communications aspect. Now, seminars such as the one I've mentioned tend to be really dry and yawn-inducing. The endless powerpoint presentations with tables of data and charts of all shapes and sizes could really test an attendee's endurance. For me, it makes me want to slit my wrist.

Anyway, he came in to talk about branding. Okay, what could this Canadian journalist/author know anything about branding?

But when he opened his presentation by talking about Fleetwood Mac, I thought, "Hmm, he might not know much about what he's talking about but he certainly knows how to communicate and sell."

Why do I say this? First, he starts out talking about something that on the surface has no relation at all to branding. Fleetwood Mac? You can almost see everyone become more awake, eager for Gladwell to make the connection. Aaaaaah....the joy of having a captive audience...every marketer's dream come true.

He even manages to delicately plug his Outliers book.

He goes on to list the building blocks to branding success; time, compensation for weakness, experimentation and having the right partner. New terminology to tickle the interest of all the seasoned marketers in the room. Oh, how we love new terminology!

And that folks, is how someone who's not really an industry expert can give a talk about branding to a bunch of industry people. Be a well-known brand yourself, tell a story with an interesting hook, throw in some interesting, cool-sounding terms and voila! Captive audience.

Twilight Video Game - A Lost Opportunity?

noreply@blogger.com (Nura Yusof) — Mon, 05 Apr 2010 08:43:00 +0000

"Milk it for all its worth!"

The ideal situation to be in when you've got a winner in your hands. That's the ultimate business dream.

But does it always makes sense?

One writer is saying that Twilight the franchise is missing out on millions of moolah because they've yet to get into the video game scene. Check out his article here.

I don't agree. Twilight is essentially a love story, even though it's inter-species but a video game? What could the storyline be? Help Bella in her quest to be a vampire? It just doesn't work.

It's not like Harry Potter where there's tons of magical beings and magical people to make a game interesting. Harry had to kill off a bad guy. That itself is great video game storyline.

What would Bella have to do? The entire series is about her trying to snog a cute undead anyway, which does not make for an interesting premise for a video game.

If they had to make a video game, there has to be a storyline which would definitely deviate from the series. And in doing that, a lot of Twilighters are not gonna be too happy.

Maybe not a full blown video game like Harry Potter. If it's females that are the main target, games like Hidden Objects Game (HOGs) or those that involve some aspect of social networking would be a better fit. For more on female gaming demographics, read this.

Sad, True but Largely Ignored

noreply@blogger.com (Nura Yusof) — Mon, 05 Apr 2010 02:51:00 +0000

The Last Advertising Agency On Earth from FITC on Vimeo.

Saw this ad on one of my favourite blogs, Digital Buzz Blog. (Btw, really recommend this site to all interested with all things about digital communications).

Definitely attention-getting. Anyone from advertising that watches this, will say, "Yup, sad but true".

And it stops there.

That's when the message gets ignored. The thing is what this ad was trying to say, aside from selling the event seats, is not particularly new. Most experts have been talking about this for years.

And yet, despite all the talking, not much is being done to change things.

In another article, this time from WARC, Forrester research shows that agencies fail to adapt to new marketing era. New smaller set ups are picking up the mantle instead.

Having said that, not all blame should rest on the agency's shoulders. At the end of the day, an agency is being paid to provide what the client wants. If what the client wants is not exactly with the times, an agency has to deliver despite their protestations.

It's not easy being an ad man nowadays.

FMCG + CRM = ???

noreply@blogger.com (Nura Yusof) — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 11:05:00 +0000

I don't know much about CRM. The little I know is that a big customer database is the ultimate pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, the practitioners are dying to get hold of my personal details, and sometimes, I get personalised messages, mostly in print form and lately, digital.

What I'm working on right now is on developing a printed direct mailer for an FMCG brand.

So, here's where I'm not sure whether it'll work.

Most FMCG products we know don't cost that much. Rare are those that cost more than RM 100. And the sure thing about direct mailers is that :

1) One fancy pack can be expensive - the full color printing, the special paper, the postage

2) The response rate is notoriously low, a good average is somewhere between 5-10% and that's from a database of people who actually want to receive messages from you.

So, it begs the question, Why do it when the odds don't look good?

Some would argue that there's need to keep the conversation going. Here's a hypothetical. Let's say, Brand X is the best performing beauty brand in its category. It has a sizeable database, although about less than half can be considered as active members. And of this half, about 60% actually want to receive something in the mail from Brand X.

So here's the question. If I were an active member, why would I want to receive information from Brand X in the mail?

Personally, I would if I wanted more information about healthy food for healthy skin, make-up tips or price promos exclusively for members.

Or would I? I've just described what would typically go into a direct mailer specifically for a beauty product.

Let's take a different route. What would anyone want to receive in the mail these days?

In this day and age, it seems as if we get bad news a lot from the mail (also known as bills), some subscription stuff like magazines, birthday cards from old relatives (this too is becoming rare), maybe the oddly quaint handwritten letter (I haven't gotten one in years).

But strangely enough, I do look forward to getting that IKEA catalog every year. A cheque is even more welcomed. I do get vouchers sometimes but most of the time they are hardly worth the effort to use.

The thing is would I look forward to receiving a direct mailer which is a newsletter about beauty topics from Brand X? Would it really make Brand X more endearing to me?

Try as I might to wrap my head around it, I just don't see how this form of CRM is worth the money spent on it when it seems that it'll be a whole lot of wastage.

Facebook : 'Like' or 'Fan'?

noreply@blogger.com (Nura Yusof) — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 04:30:00 +0000

Read an interesting article recently from World Advertising Resource Center (WARC) which reported that Facebook has decided to drop the 'fan' term from client ads on Facebook which would direct users to specific brand pages.

Instead they'll be using the term 'like' as they've found through research, that FB users are twice more likely to 'like' something than be a 'fan' of something.

You can read more about this article here.

I have mixed feelings about this.

Most of us FB users are more likely to click on that 'like' button each time we see something we fancy. But usually, it's because we like someone's update, video, picture or some other thing our friends put up. That's the keyword here. Our friends, meaning they're already our friends.

But will the 'like' function work on an FB ad? Even if ultimately, results do prove that the 'like' function works better than 'fan', what about the long term? The objective for this change is to help advertisers clock in more opt-ins to their pages. The end result of course, should be higher customer retention, more sales etc. Whether or not these pages do all this, well that's a different blog post.

Sure, more opt-ins become possible, but would these people who 'like' you be committed to receiving your messages? They can easily switch off your updates using the 'hide' button.

In the end, it's the message that counts. Will the messages or updates be welcomed by the people who 'like' you?

I think that somehow 'fan' is better as it shows some kind of commitment to be a fan of something. 'Like' seems so tenuous. Being a 'fan' is little more like love than 'like'. And as a brand, you need to be loved than liked.

Wizard!: Harry Potter's Brand Magic - A Review

noreply@blogger.com (Nura Yusof) — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 02:45:00 +0000

A fun analysis of that marketing behemoth Harry Potter.

Stephen Brown is fast becoming one of my favorite marketing writers. He has a humorous and engaging writing style. Loved it when he tried to use the Crucio curse on Seth Godin. Funny haha.

And yes, liked the gimmick of using a mirror to read one of the chapters. Interesting, but a pain and yet it was a marketing message in itself. If you liked something so much, you'd do almost anything for it. For marketers, that is the ultimate response to get out of their customers.
The message is not new. Harry Potter's success is ultimately because it is a great story. We humans are biologically drawn to the narrative. Many brands have lost their narratives in their quest for the consumer dollar.

But the thing is, building a story cannot be based on a step-by-step formula. Yes, it may seem that Harry Potter was constructed that way, but it was done intuitively.

And I don't think that JK Rowling envisioned Harry Potter to be the marketing giant that it is. Everything happened because opportunities presented itself and sound decisions were made. And the most important thing was that it had to feel right.

Now that, is how magic happens.