Coca-Cola Jumps the Shark!

Company offers ridiculously overpriced glass so you can drink Coke like fine wine. 

Just when you think things in the advertising business can’t get any nuttier, something like this pops up.

Legendary soft drink maker Coca-Cola has partnered with a snake oil company called Reidel that sells glasses which it claims will make your oh-so-expensive wines taste even better. 

Their shpiel is really slick. They have all kinds of artsy pop pseudo-science to back up their claims. And they apparently have lots of  customers who swear by their products. 

Unfortunately, there’s no real proof that the glasses do anything but make the drinker feel good. But their marketing is really incredible. I even referenced it in one of my other posts. 

Now, they’ve developed a glass tailored to the unique taste of Coke!

For only $20, you can get one of these primo super dee duper glasses to enjoy The Real Thing. 

The problem is that the whole thing sounds so ludicrous that people can’t tell if it’s a hoax or not. 

But real it is, and available now on the Riedel website. 

It will “create a magical sensoral experience,” and a corresponding magical hole in your wallet. 

I wonder if they’ll make slimmer versions for Diet Coke and Coke Zero?

But is it good marketing?

Hey, that’s a loaded question. For the Riedel faithful who buy into their "better glass = better taste" shtick (and who happen to like Coke) they just opened up a whole new market. Then there are the Coke fanatics who collect any and all memorabilia if it’s related to their hallowed beverage. 

So I’d say it’s a solid win from Riedel’s side. 

For Coca-Cola it’s a tougher call. They might make a few bucks in licensing and royalties, but c’mon - it's Coca-Cola. To them that’s not even pocket change. 

And there is a cost. The whole thing looks and sounds like it’s laughing either at Coke or at the people who drink it. And that may be all be in good fun, but it isn’t too Real in my book. 

What do you think? I’d love to hear!

Danny Kay is marketing and advertising professional as well as a designer and photographer with over 25 years of experience. He's worked with businesses and organizations of all sizes, up to Fortune 500.

He can be reached through his website, www.dannykaydesign.com, or at dannykay@outlook.com.

PS - This blog is now featured on http://Alltop.com, your source for all the top stories!

PPS - Follow me on TWITTER @dannykaydesign

© 2014 Danny Kay - All Rights Reserved

Back to the "Future?"

Or 

The more things change, the more they stay the same. 

With the growth of all things Social Media, it seems like we're seeing a return to the mindset that brought us the dot com bust of 1999-2000. 

All the same attitudes, rationalizations and excuses are being trotted out. And the same old suspects are trying to cash in. 

Big companies with deep pockets seem to have a propensity for behaving like slow witted game animals. 

Slick talking hucksters (i.e. their own marketing people) hang shiny things in front of them and they just can't resist following and being led to the slaughter (of their ad budgets).

In the "Roaring 90s" all you had to do was add an 'e' in front of your company's name, or a 'dot com' after it and you'd get tons of investment funding. 

EDairy. ETrucking. EPest Control. 

CreamCheese.com

LooseLeafPaper.com

TableSalt.com

Now we have new jargon to woo big money. 

"High click through rates!" 

"Astronomical numbers of views on YouTube!"

"Millions of friends on FaceBook!"

But the amount of money made from all of them is still the same. Nada. 

For all the money spent on "new media" they could probably produce some really good quality "old media" and reach more people more effectively and actually make a return on their investment. 

Someone wrote a piece after the SuperBowl, discussing what it cost to produce and air one 30 second spot during that hallowed time period. 

The total was somewhere between 5 and 10 million dollars. 

The author proceeded to list all of the alternate media choices that money could have purchased. 

- Writing, designing and publishing a couple of years of issues of a new magazine. 

- Publishing a high end book. 

- Running multiple ads in more affordable time slots, or about a gazillion ads online. 

- Running numerous joint marketing ventures with other companies, which could achieve much higher overall viewership and conversion. 

There's a video circulating online that purports to show how FaceBook itself is at least tacitly in cahoots with so-called "click farms." These places shower FaceBook ad pages with tens of thousands of Likes from fake profiles for a fee. Of course, on paid ads FB makes money per click, so it's in their own interest to allow these spurious Likes to go through. And apparently the click farms are now liking even stuff they're not paid for, as they use these other Likes to cover their digital tracks.

So what good are all those millions of phantom FB followers?

And am I honestly advocating ignoring Social Media?

In the first place, I believe that, in the absence of a cohesive overall marketing plan, millions of FB Likes really are pretty much worthless. 

Social Media, like any tool, must be wielded properly. If we've learned anything from the past few years of the internet advertising boom, simply blowing your brand all over everywhere doesn't work any better online than it does in print or on TV. 

While all the factors that influence online behavior may not be as carefully charted and documented as they are in traditional media, many of the same rules apply. And some apply to an even greater degree. 

For example, there are certain stores that use "high pressure" sales tactics to rack up sales. These are usually places with overpriced inferior merchandise (men's clothing outlets come to mind) where some fast talking, slick dressed guy attaches himself to you as soon as you walk in the door. 

I avoid those places like the Plague. Salespeople like that turn me off to an indescribable degree, especially when they try to act friendly in that smarmy, overbearing, "I've got your number" manner. 

I can't imagine that it does much to help their sales numbers, and yet they continue to lumber on year after year. 

But don't you know it's just the darnedest thing - I was searching for a highly specialized electronic item on Amazon one day - something for my photography equipment - and when I left the Amazon page, other sites I visited started showing ads for the very same item - on Amazon!

The overbearing salesman, in all his over-cologned pinky-ringed glory had made it onto the internet!

And I'm just as (un)likely to patronize him in cyberspace as I am in person. 

If I go into a store and they don't have what I want, do I want them stalking me up and down the street trying to coax me back into their shop?

I mean, really?

This is cyberstalking, and it's more than a little creepy. It’s like the dystopian future earth and spaceship Axiom in Pixar’s Wall.E, with those hundreds and thousands of screens all over the place that instantly display messages to the mindless masses.

The Axiom - "Big Brother" like you never imagined - or just Amazon in a few years?

What are Amazon et al thinking? How deeply into our brains and our lives do they imagine they can insert themselves before it starts to effect them in a really negative manner?

Personally, that experience has made me much more reluctant to turn to Amazon on a regular basis for shopping, certainly when I'm not on a "secure" computer where I've disabled cookies and pop ups and done whatever I can to prevent them from cyber peeping.

Brave New World?

I know this will sound facile and a little naive, but I'll say it anyway. 

People used to think that the spread of all this new technology would lead to a better world. Educational tools would be more evenly available and used more effectively. 

Greater access to knowledge would lower the barriers that divide us and create a true global society. 

Tech companies built a persona of being different and revolutionary, and being part of this new global culture. 

But you know what? Companies do these kinds of things - peeping into people's habits and lives and privacy -because they operate without any sense of morality beyond their own market valuation.

And the morals of today's jet set - the Zuckerbergs and the Bezos etc - are purely about what's good for them. And, come to think of it, that makes them not so different or revolutionary after all. 

So as a marketing person who had seen a lot of snake oil salesmen come and go, don't be sucked in by the shine and glitter of Social Media for its own sake. 

Use it on your own terms, as part of a practical, sustainable and profitable marketing strategy. 

What do you think? I’d love to hear!

Danny Kay is marketing and advertising professional as well as a designer and photographer with over 25 years of experience. He's worked with businesses and organizations of all sizes, up to Fortune 500.

He can be reached through his website, www.dannykaydesign.com, or at dannykay@outlook.com.

PS - This blog is now featured on http://Alltop.com, your source for all the top stories!

PPS - Follow me on TWITTER @dannykaydesign

© 2014 Danny Kay - All Rights Reserved

Why Branding Matters Now More Than Ever

We are living through one of the greatest economic and social upheavals in history. 

The flow of goods and information around the world is increasing at a pace so dizzying and frenetic that it's no wonder the average attention span can now be measured in seconds. 

The sheer volume and variety of the endless stream of stuff that is presented for our consumption is beyond imagination. 

And as the old saying goes, "You ain't seen nothin' yet!"

The great industrial might of the U.S. is being dwarfed by the mind bogglingly immense production capabilities that are continuing to evolve in Asia and other parts of the world. 

And the tremendous investment in those huge facilities means that they must produce! 

The result is ever more variety, available ever more cheaply. But the flip side is that it's ever more difficult to make money selling it. With more and more sources for similar or identical goods driving prices down, profit margins start to be measured in fractions of a percent. 

Cue the dramatic music. 

The answer is branding. 

That is what differentiates otherwise identical products in today's marketplace. 

Why buy a plain old "no name" widget for $9.99 when you can own a premium, all plastic, genuine Nonpareil Millennium™ Widget for only $39.99?

The fact that it's virtually identical to the regular model (except for a few cosmetic touches) will not matter to that segment of the market for whom brand and image are important. 

Therefore the end result is that, in lieu of a revolutionary product, today's innovation the is in creating and building a brand that the public will identify with and become engaged in. 

Thus we see the huge investment in social media and the bated-breath rush to find the next great marketing gimmick. 

It was with more than a little amusement that I read an article after this year's Super Bowl. For those who are unaware, the Super Bowl has become the annual 'place to be' for companies with lots of money to burn.

This article was positively euphoric in describing the unbelievable success that was seen by the companies who ponied up and paid obscene amounts of money for their Super Bowl face time. 

But the kicker was that the article didn't reference any conventional yardstick for determining success; it measured clicks. As in website clicks. 

Incredibly, this article talked about how thrilled advertisers were with their astronomical click counts, yet not one reference was mentioned about sales or ROI or profitability. 

It's like the 90s all over again!

"We don't care if you buy our stuff. But please friend us on FaceBook!"

Don't worry about nasty stuff like making money. Just get more page views and clicks on YouTube and everybody's good!

But I digress. For those of us who have to do without the virtually bottomless pockets that these big players enjoy, the bottom line is still what's important. 

Branding is crucial to differentiate your product from your competitor's offering. 

For a brand to properly do its job it must foster feelings in your customers by association. 

They must want an Acme toothbrush simply because having one will satisfy them in a way that no other toothbrush can. 

I know a fellow who used to work for a popular caterer, which we'll call "Smith's." At one point he got permission from his boss (Mr. Smith) to handle some smaller affairs himself, with food prepared in the main commissary. 

I attended a couple of "his" affairs and it was fascinating to listen to the comments.

One guy was heard to say to his friend, "Yeah the food's pretty good, but it's not Smith's!"

It was the same food! Cooked in the same kitchen!

But Smith's branding and reputation imbued any food he served with something 'extra.' People actually perceived that the food tasted better because of the brand name. 

It's a common phenomenon. Nowadays savvy businesses will routinely market different lines of nearly identical goods with radically different branding to appeal to different markets. 

Near where I work in Manhattan, there are a number of Thai restaurants in close proximity to one another. They each have slightly different menus, different designs, different price points and appeal to different demographics. But guess what? They're all owned by the same person.

A brand's image is replete with intangibles. The look and feel and materials in the packaging convey things about you to your customer. Are they the things you want to convey? Are you trying to be aloof and formal? Warm and friendly? High-tech and forward thinking? It's all there in how you present your company and your wares. Make sure the image your brand presents is the one you want the world to perceive. 

What do you think? I’d love to hear!

Danny Kay is marketing and advertising professional as well as a designer and photographer with over 25 years of experience. He's worked with businesses and organizations of all sizes, up to Fortune 500.

He can be reached through his website, www.dannykaydesign.com, or at dannykay@outlook.com.

PS - This blog is now featured on http://Alltop.com, your source for all the top stories!

PPS - Follow me on TWITTER @dannykaydesign

© 2014 Danny Kay - All Rights Reserved

The Need to Be Me or Why You Need Creatives

In other posts I've discussed the differences between creative and business oriented people. Sometimes I've done it with humor, and sometimes not. But one idea that I haven't yet explored in depth is the need to be unique. 

It's something much more common among creatives. They find it anathema to put their name on anything that they haven't built from the ground up. 

Clip art? Hah! I'll make it myself in Adobe Illustrator. 

Stock Photography? Feh! I have gorgeous shots from my vacation that are just what we need. If not, I'll go out and take some. 

I know that it sounds a lot like ego, but it's really not the same thing at all. It's a need to be distinct, a drive to be not-ordinary and to let the world know what they can do. 

Ego is wanting people to fawn on you and swoon over you and talk about how great you are. 

Creatives just want to be recognized for who they are and what they can do. They want to be validated. And more than that, they feel a need internally to create, even if no one notices. How many stories do you hear of artists who said they were “born” to dance, sing, paint, mime? It’s something that these people feel as a pressure inside themselves.

People who are in it only for money have no such considerations. They don't care whose widget they sell, or how good it is, as long as it's profitable. For the true Businessman, quality and innovation are nothing but marketing buzzwords. 

For the Creative, they're his primary considerations, since his product reflects the essence of who he is.

The Creative looks at the Businessman and asks, "Don't you want to create something? Don't you want to show the world what a cool, edgy, forward thinking company this is? So what if it costs money! Look at the payback!"

And with those last two sentences, his argument is lost. For the Businessman cares precisely and singularly about that cost. And any payback which isn't measured in near certain  immediate profit is simply irrelevant. Branding? Nah. Image? Who needs it! 

Of course there will always be mistakes and boondoggles. No business is immune. But certainly no money will be wasted on the frivolous word of some...artist. 

I actually spoke with someone a while ago whose firm tries to match up investors with startup ventures. He said that the hardest part of his job is that the creative people who come up with all the great ideas only know about their passion for their work and their product, and how it can “change the world,” whereas the investors are only interested in how it can make them some money. They’re not interested in the passion, and don’t really understand it. The creative people, on the other hand, can’t get away from it since it’’s an intrinsic part of who they are. In the Businessman’s eyes, the Creative becomes too emotionally attached to the cause (redefining an industry, feeding the poor, healing the sick, etc.), and isn’t focused enough (or at all) on the end game (making money).

I’ve had different versions of this conversation with many people over the years, and it’s usually ended off about here. Creative’s are hopeless dreamers who occasionally have inspired ideas that practical minded Businesspeople can then convert into viable enterprises.

But as I’ve gotten older and more experienced, I’ve begun to realize that there’s a piece missing in this picture.  The passion that drives so many Creatives, and that Businesspeople so cavalierly dismiss is far more relevant to the bottom line than most people seem to realize, at least for certain types of products.

In other words, possessing and understanding creative, artistic, innovative passion is not just a nice thing for the kid in your graphics department, it’s something that your senior marketing people need to have as well, for that is what will propel your business to true success. It is crucial to understand what makes people want to buy your products. And yet time after time I have seen Businesspeople dismiss and deride Creatives for suggesting business solutions based on their artistic insights. Or, worse yet, they take the kernel of a good idea and so dilute it with irrelevant puffery that the original concept is lost, which is then naturally blamed on the Creative who suggested it, and not the Businessguy who sandbagged it.

The Creative is the one who understands what compels people to innovate and create, and want that “next new thing,” and how to marry form and function into a product for which people are willing and happy to pay top dollar. The Creative understands the feeling deep in an artist’s gut that pushes him to compose a song or paint a painting or write a novel. And as mercenary as it sounds, it’s that same feeling that will motivate the artist to go out and buy a new guitar, or art supplies, or a new laptop. So it’s really important that there’s someone in the business world who “gets it.” That’s the Creative. 

I daresay that there are many fabulously profitable ideas that have never seen the light of day because of the language barrier between these two worlds, and it’s a real shame.

What do you think? I’d love to hear!

Danny Kay is marketing and advertising professional as well as a designer and photographer with over 25 years of experience. He's worked with businesses and organizations of all sizes, up to Fortune 500.

He can be reached through his website, www.dannykaydesign.com, or at dannykay@outlook.com.

PS - This blog is now featured on http://Alltop.com, your source for all the top stories!

PPS - Follow me on TWITTER @dannykaydesign

© 2014 Danny Kay - All Rights Reserved

Apple, Wall Street, the Press and You

I just finished reading another hatchet job from the AP after Apple announced its latest quarterly sales and earnings. 

Reading the AP, you'd think Apple was a few months away from some kind of crisis. The piece fairly drips with cognitive dissonance. On the one hand the Cupertino tech giant sold a record, massive 51 MILLION iPhones last quarter. And yet there was a sharp stock sell off because it wasn't 55 million, as some anonymous analysts predicted. 

Oh no! They only made 13 BILLION dollars this quarter! Quick! Time to sell every share we have before we lose our life savings!

Apple CEO Tim Cook was made to sound like some kind of errant schoolboy who simply can't get his lessons right. 

Doesn't he realize that people want cheaper smartphones with bigger screens? Anyone can see that Samsung and Google are cleaning Apple's RAM buffer!

Except that they're not. Just a couple of days ago there was a very quiet article about Samsung's dismal quarterly earnings. No one's talking about that, probably because it's not news. 

But to listen to the almighty press, you'd think it was Apple that was having a hard time. 

I've got a news flash for you. 

Apple is the most successful tech company in the world, 

whether you measure by profit or brand image. (I would also argue that their products are better, but that, at least, you may think is open to debate.)

So why do we have this constant drumbeat announcing Apple's demise? Well first of all it always makes good copy. It's like putting "man bites dog" on the cover of a tabloid. People know it's not true but they can't help wanting to read about it. 

The second reason is more sinister. Sadly, there are those sleazy individuals who engage in manipulation of the public's perception of Apple to affect its stock price, even if they have to make up bad news from thin air to do it. 

And that brings me to my next point.

In another post, I wrote a somewhat tongue-in-cheek comparison of creative people versus businessmen. I don't believe there is currently any more public venue in which to view this than the rivalry between Apple and the Samsung/Google-opoly. 

Steve Jobs, for all his well known flaws was someone who genuinely loved to create and innovate and inspire.

Apple has tried to remain faithful to that philosophy.

The other players in this drama are from an entirely different ethos. 

The beauty and elegance of Apple's products escapes them, as does the elemental appreciation of Apple’s blend of art and technology. 

They understand neither the feeling of accomplishment upon its creation nor the charm and satisfaction in its use. 

They understand only profit and functionality, or the lack thereof. 

Apple brought about a quantum leap in mobile phone and computing technology, introducing an entirely new set of standards, capabilities and expectations.

Samsung, by their own admission, analyzed and duplicated the iPhone as much as possible without giving any thought to innovating and creating their own distinctly different competing product. 

I know I prefer iOS devices because the overall experience is smoother and more polished than on Android or Windows. It simply appeals to my artistic nature.

You may ask, "So what's this got to do with me, and why should I care?”

Most people probably won't care any farther than it affects the price and features of their next smartphone. 

And hey, let's be honest. Apple is also in it for the money, too. Lots and lots and lots of money. And being creative and innovative doesn't make you some kind of Divine entity, immune to any and all criticism. 

And yet...

Maybe I'm just an idealistic dreamer, but I do think there is a quality and character about Apple's products and culture that speaks to me and reaches me on more than just a superficial level. 

And I'm obviously not the only one. 

And those cynical cold blooded individuals who trash Apple's - and other companies’ - images, bad mouth their products and spread malicious false information just to make a buck are doing it at the expense of something far better and nobler and more significant than they are. It's not all that different from the people who converge on natural disaster sites to pillage and rob the victims blind. Except that in this case they're actually creating the disaster first, and then doing their pillaging a la "Wolf of Wall Street."

And who are the victims? Well the most obvious ones are the shareholders who get clobbered. Then there are people who are turned off of purchasing Apple products due to the ceaseless negative publicity. (Yes they're out there. I've met some of them.) I classify them as victims since they are recipients of misinformation, which has formed the basis for some very strongly held biases. And of course Apple, and any other similarly victimized company suffers at least nominally from the bad PR. As successful as they are, there's no telling where they'd be without these miscreants nipping at their heels. 

So, again, why should you care?

Because I believe that when people are confronted with something that’s inherently, intrinsically, fundamentally wrong, and don’t react to it, it diminishes who they are as people. 

By reacting, I’m not talking about boycotts or letters to congressmen or demonstrations. I’m talking about reacting internally. You have to hold onto your internal barometer of what’s right and what’s wrong, no matter what ridiculous spin the media puts on things.

Otherwise each time it happens, a little bit of your humanity will be chipped away until we have a society in which this behavior is not just covertly allowed to happen, but openly flaunted and encouraged.

What do you think? I’d love to hear!

Danny Kay is marketing and advertising professional as well as a designer and photographer with over 25 years of experience. He's worked with businesses and organizations of all sizes, up to Fortune 500.

He can be reached through his website, www.dannykaydesign.com, or at dannykay@outlook.com.

PS - This blog is now featured on http://Alltop.com, your source for all the top stories!

PPS - Follow me on TWITTER @dannykaydesign

© 2014 Danny Kay - All Rights Reserved

What Over-Reliance on Metrics Has Done to Marketing

Or 

Revenge of the Nerds?

Marketing has become way over-metric-ized (with apologies to my English teachers and professors).

As David Ogilvy was fond of saying, 

"Agencies use research the way a drunk uses a lamppost ... For support, not illumination."

Bruno Aziza, a big data entrepreneur and author makes a similar point in this article on venturebeat.com, with a perspective that's a little more up to date. 

His point is that modern marketing people often get so caught up in the mechanics of their craft that they overlook the fact that they're supposed to be selling a product. 

It's roughly the equivalent of a doctor who becomes so engrossed in the surgery he's performing that he lets the patient bleed out on the operating table. 

I can just imagine a conversation at one of these companies between James, the CEO, and Lenny, the Chief Marketing Officer. 

CEO: "Hey, Lenny. I was just looking over our sales numbers for last month."

CMO: "Sure, Jim. By the way, how do like the new design of our logo? It did great in all our focus groups!"

CEO: "Uh, yeah. It's really terrific. Lot's of colors and fonts and stuff. But about those sales numbers...?"

CMO: "And did you see the latest redesign of the website? We've addressed every possible metric that our statistics people could come up with! You could be a middle income single dad of Eastern European background and you'll still feel right at home on our site. We've even got options to view it in Latvian or Standard Muscovite!"

CEO: "I thought 'Muscovite' was a kind of duck. Look, that website is so convoluted that my lawyer and my CPA couldn't figure it out! But forget all that. I want to know about these sales numbers. They're dead!!"

CMO: "Darnit, Jim! I'm a marketer not a salesman!"

Way back when I was in college I learned that, at some point, the purpose of any bureaucracy becomes its own propagation. At the risk of offending those whose job it is to gather and process all this data, I would like to suggest  that many in the marketing industry have reached this point. 

If you take time to peruse some modern tomes on marketing statistics (as I have done) you'll be astounded at the sheer breadth and depth of the information that marketing people think is useful. 

Does anyone really find it useful to know their product's Residual Elasticity?  Did anyone ever increase sales or marketshare by knowing their Gross Rating Points. Was some product propelled to the top of its industry because its maker's marketing department tracked its Brand Equity Metrics?

And yet untold hundreds of millions of dollars are flushed away every year collecting and analyzing this earth shatteringly valuable information. 

In the introduction of one particularly full-of-itself volume called Marketing Metrics, the authors cheerfully and arrogantly proclaim that, "For years corporate marketers have walked into budget meetings like neighborhood junkies."

They go on to say that those same poor marketing slobs could do nothing to show the value of what they'd spent any of the past money on, but they just wanted more dough to blow on expensive ad campaigns. 

But on the very next page, they go on to say that some of their own precious metrics "require data that may be approximate, incomplete or unavailable."

In other words, their metrics are nothing more than horse puckey. There's no magic. It's simply a smoke and mirrors trick to make corporate bean counters feel better about appropriating money. And it's a huge power grab for the statisticians. All of a sudden they're relevant! Those fuzzy headed marketing guys don't get all the glory anymore. 

The problem is that statistically, their mathematical approach to marketing doesn't work any better than the old way. If it did, than how would they account for all their missteps and screwups? If metrics are so infallible than how do they happen? 

If they're so darned right, how does Google (who slavishly collects and analyzes this type of data) ever make a mistake?

In Marketing Metrics they snidely comment that marketing can no longer be looked at as 'more art than science,' and that data should be king. 

Let me illustrate the fallacy of this doctrine with a story. 

I once read a self help book for making married couples happier. The author, who was also a counselor, related the following true story. 

A young newly married fellow attended a class on relationships. The lecturer stated that a key to a happy marriage is that women like to receive occasional gifts, such as bracelets or other types of jewelry. The well meaning newlywed went out and bought his wife a new bracelet. However, he wasn't too savvy at picking out jewelry and she really didn't like it very much. Instead of smiling and offering to exchange it for something she liked, he promptly threw a temper tantrum insisting that, according to the lecture he'd heard, she was supposed to like it! In other words, his objective data was supposed to trump her subjective opinion!

Let me put it another way.  My wife knows what kinds of foods I like to eat. She is in possession of that data in all it's minutiae. And yet on any given night can she accurately predict what I would prefer to eat for supper? (I'm a good husband so I eat whatever she makes. But that's beside the point.) 

People are analog, not digital, so it's as much a function of good sense as it is good data to get accurate results. 

In a way, this whole discussion actually hearkens back to the debate over whether or not artistic talent is purely innate, or can be acquired. 

Metrics mavens would like you to believe that marketing and advertising, up till now almost exclusively an area driven by artists and creatives, can be better served by statisticians. In other words, they're "paint by numbers" artists, filling in whatever type of content their data tells them is best. 

And that, by definition, means they are not innovators, dreamers or inventors. How can they be, when their whole model is based on what amounts to never-ending opinion polls. 

Even their attempts at innovation are rooted in their data. They look at what shocked and titilated before, try to make it even more shocking and offensive, and then call it innovative. 

Perhaps it's time for marketing people and their bosses to (gasp) once again use independent thought and sound judgement, rather than looking to cover their rear ends with endless reams of data, which anyway allow them to make only half baked guesses.

Maybe the dreamers and inventors need to be allowed a return to prominence and be permitted to develop effective solutions that take a holistic approach of inspired creativity that is guided by experience and relevant data.

In other words - come on guys, use a little common sense.

What do you think? I’d love to hear!

Danny Kay is marketing and advertising professional as well as a designer and photographer with over 25 years of experience. He's worked with businesses and organizations of all sizes, up to Fortune 500.

He can be reached through his website, www.dannykaydesign.com, or at dannykay@outlook.com.

PS - This blog is now featured on http://Alltop.com, your source for all the top stories!

© 2014 Danny Kay - All Rights Reserved

A Brand Building Primer

What is "Branding," and why is it important?

As icky as it is, the word "branding" hearkens back to the days when they used to physically brand cattle (with a branding iron) with the symbol of the ranch that owned them. This was done to prevent rustlers from, well, rustling them.

Throughout modern history, up until the Industrial Revolution, most people purchased basic items that were produced locally. Of course there was always an element of larger commerce, with goods that needed to be imported, but due to the difficulties involved in transporting goods across long distances, food staples, soap, and similar items were usually produced and marketed in localized areas.

As the Industrial Revolution in the U.S. gained traction, with stagecoach and ultimately railroad transport opening up larger and larger parts of the country transportation became much cheaper and quicker. Manufacturers now had more modern steam-powered factories and locomotives to transport their goods to far-flung regions. 

There was just one problem. Folks were used to buying things from their own neighborhood. This “imported” stuff just didn’t appeal to them. They didn’t trust it.

Hence the idea of “branding.” Companies realized that, if they were to convince people to buy their goods outside their traditional areas, they would have to convince them that their products could be trusted just as much as local ones.

Companies began to create identities for their products. Instead of generic fountain soda, Coca-Cola® was born. In fact, Coke, along with Campbell Soup, Juicy Fruit Gum and Quaker Oats were among the first trademarked brands in this vein in the U.S.

As the nineteenth century became the twentieth, brands continued to evolve. Advertising, which had been limited to print and billboards, moved into the media of film and radio. Some of the great shapers of modern advertising such as Claude Hopkins and John Caples applied their skill and genius to their craft. 

By the end of World War II, manufacturers and their ad agencies began to focus on their brands’ identity, e.g. using their brands’ images to identify their products as fun, luxurious, economical, etc.

This process continued to mature and develop throughout the latter part of the twentieth century and now even more so in the twenty-first.

Branding Today

Brands are becoming more and more hyper-focused on specific demographics (yay for technology!) such as young teen girls 12-15, or 25-30 year old male professionals. As they seek to differentiate themselves and carve out some market share, they use the ever-increasing piles of data that they’ve managed to accumulate on our habits to create finer and finer-tuned models for their branding efforts.

Do You Need to Brand Your Product?

It depends on a couple of variables. Are you trying to project an image to attract customers apart from any intrinsic value your product may offer?

If you’re making baked goods and selling them to local grocery stores and supermarkets, and you’re products are popular and experienceing acceptable growth year over year, then perhaps branding is not for you. You can continue to grow your business, even ultimately getting into major chains without doing much more than updating your packaging once in a while.

On the other hand, if you’re importing goods from China which are identical to what a hundred other merchants are selling, you need to do something to set yourself apart.

Do you want to make your products appeal to the luxury set? Slick packaging, nice imagery and up to date marketing lingo are all your friends.

If your goods are heading for Dollar Stores or other similar venues, the economy look and feel are where you should be heading.

But branding is more than just packaging. It’s the total message that your ads, your PR, your packaging, products, and website say about you, both figuratively and literally. 

- Do you have a sleek product backed by lousy customer service? FAIL. 

- Is your product line featured on an antiquated looking website, with annoying little Flash animations popping up all over the place? FAIL.

- Is your revolutionary new widget shipped with an impossible to understand manual? FAIL.

- Does your advertising oversell what your product actually delivers? FAIL.

It’s a complex and delicate process to build a multifaceted construct piece by piece from the ground up so that its pieces perfectly intertwine and complement one another.

But that’s exactly what branding is, when it’s done properly.

When it’s not, you wind up with a many headed hydra, each head snapping and spitting at the others. I’ve seen firsthand the results of incomplete and improperly done branding. It’s not pretty, and it’s NOT effective.

It can be a challenging, frustrating process, especially because much of the advertising field seems so subjective.

As someone once said, “I believe that I’m wasting half the money that I spend on advertising. The problem is I don’t know which half.”

When Absolut Vodka was introduced in the U.S. market, they shipped just 800 per month. Thanks to their iconic branding, they are now an internationally known brand. They freely admit that this incredible success is due in large part to their advertising and branding efforts, besides their having a great product.

To those of you who are struggling with these decisions, my most heartfelt advice would be to avoid these waters altogether unless you are absolutely committed to dedicating the resources (i.e. $$$) necessary to do this properly.

What do you think? I’d love to hear!

Danny Kay is marketing and advertising professional as well as a designer and photographer with over 25 years of experience. He's worked with businesses and organizations of all sizes, up to Fortune 500.

He can be reached through his website, www.dannykaydesign.com, or at dannykay@outlook.com.

PS - This blog is now featured on http://Alltop.com, your source for all the top stories!

© 2014 Danny Kay - All Rights Reserved