Attractive (and tortured) logic

Having written a fair amount of copy over time, I can sympathize with the necessity to edit, edit, edit, and then boil it down. Sometimes that's a fair excuse and we can give a message a pass, most of CPG ads for example. But, many messages suffer not from helpless "pithifying" but willfully sloppy or even misleading thought, i.e., intellectual dishonesty.

Take for example a current major oil company commercial. There are only 3 or 4 main components, and the images are clear and simple, the spokesperson forthright and believable. But strip away the images and here's the train of thought:
- The United States has problems with the economy and with energy.
- It may come as a surprise that we have a lot of resources right here.
- In fact, one of those resources can create thousands of jobs.
- And the resource can be as "clean" as resources are now.

First car is straightforward, pose the problem and the issue. Second car is promising and offers encouraging information. Third car (the wheels are losing touch), that resource happens to be in Canada and has been providing a resource boom for that part of our northern neighbor.

So (and the derail occurs here) those thousands of jobs already exist and - at least to a large extent - they exist in Canada, not the U.S. Finally, the claim that an oil sands resource can be as "clean" as many existing sources of oil is presented as a surprising benefit, a payoff whose claim is arguable in the least.

This exercise is not about the merits of oil companies presenting corporate advertising in support of their investments and operations. Nor is it about the merits of the oil sands and the resources and jobs they create.

What is in question is the - at minimum - practiced laziness of the argument. To pose that Canadian oil sands can help the U.S. with its economic and resource problems partly by creating thousands of jobs is logically faulty, if not willfully misleading, attractive images notwithstanding.

Epiphany

Contribution is the greater part of leadership. The rest is collaboration.

Competitive Car Insurance

So, once again we see the free market at work. Many insurance companies are providing quantifiable proof that their product/service/benefit equation is better than the next company's. Nicely done, let the buyer determine the balance between saving money and getting coverage.

However, a current campaign, ("Thanks for buying my husband a falcon") delivers a simple message. Women are astute, careful shoppers who make good, informed choices about financial products. About time, isn't it. But the flip side reeeaally flipped. Unfortunately, men are now mindless dopes who take the saved money and buy falcons, or little fire engines or moose heads or ancient Chinese armor (where'd he get that for $350?). Each guy on the street has some non sequitur possesion that he purchased as a result of economic prudence. Except that she apparently made the decision, saved the money and made the purchase. Confused?

New with a capital "D"
A LinkedIn group question posed, "why do 80% of all new products fail. What's wrong here?" Many balanced and serious replies from all over the world explored lots of different reasons - all probably correct to one extent or another. Many were complex with clever and detailed analyses. (The group is MRB, Market Research Bulletin.)

My reply was briefer. "Actually, nothing's wrong. To the extent that many - if not most - new (consumer products) are designed backwards, i.e. not responding to a consumer need or providing a salient consumer benefit, we should feel pretty good about batting .200. Which helps separate industrial products of which most - if not all - wouldn't survive the printer head without a differentiable, salient benefit. The literature also indicates that, over the long term, relatively high failure rates are correlated with "success" in new product results, giving rise to the maxim, "If you're not failing, you're not trying hard enough."

What we call new of course has many variations, but to my thinking, the one thing that is common to all is the differentiable portion, thus the capital "D." Whether we're talking about new to the world, say ipods, or extensions like ipod touches; whether its cheese filled, extruded pretzels or Life with cinnamon; whether it's a Volt or a turbo version of a Camaro, the single unifying element is always the same: some differentiable performance.

Obviously needing to be beneficial, performance also has to generate some premium, again coming in many forms, but that's a separate post. So if the premium is the successful result, the performance is the means to get there, and the differentiable nature is the common element, it provides a handy recipe for what new product ought to look like at their core.

Returning to the original question, there will never be a lack of discussion about why products fail, new or otherwise. But the question might be better posed in the context of the item's product environment rather than some discrete measure of newness. That is, what newness does the product bring to that environment that may be relevant, may even be differentiable? Or, as is often the case, may also be completely irrelevant, regardless of its newness.

Is Social Netowrking Antithetical to Web 2.0?

Say it ain’t so! The bluster of so many digi-pundits may prove to be little more than a panacea of short-term thinking. The nearly seamless technology that is allowing everyone from 3rd grade penguin watchers (many of whom pay for the privilege incidentally) to “transitioning” executives, and pregnant moms-to-be is creating the next marketing miracle . . . if only we can learn how to exploit it . . . or so these pundits would have us believe. Web companies from LinkedIn to FaceBook provide a gate into the unfettered and sometimes unregulated world of social networking, and cutting-edge web gurus claim that marketers need only to understand how to infiltrate this dense and freewheeling world of consumers. But a more jaundiced eye toward the dauntless browsers may be a more reasoned approach. Consider for a moment what gave rise to the phenomenon. The ability to post almost limitless amounts of information about oneself (much to the chagrin of parents and employers everywhere) has re-created the corner lamp post, the playground swings and basketball court, the local convenience store, the gym, even the after work neighborhood bar – and added a superscript to the numbers who can do the beneficial or ne’er-do-well hanging around. But what makes each of these locations both accessible and attractive is the lack of intrusion, organization, and yes, even regulation. Other than the occasional plinking ice-cream truck or laconic barkeep, the hanging out done at these locations is rarely interrupted by the intrusion of commerce, passive or otherwise. Short-lived is the high school parking lot hang out that is frequented by the local Sunny D viral networker or disguised Ab&Fitch “customer” breathlessly pumping hot air into a new outfit. Social networker are too cool, too hip, just plain too smart to fall in with the smarmy efforts of serendipitous marketers. Certainly, commercially sponsored networks have a place and will produce sincere, if narrowly gathered, feedback. It’s difficult not to think about “send us your best recipes” initiatives of the Betty Crocker world though. Sure, the collection is easier and more manipulate-able, but is the result any different than a juiced up list to send coupons and cookbook offers to? Recall that AOL and others were once closed communities. Research the likes of iVillage for thematic on-line neighborhoods. Each tried to combine the commercial with the social with obvious and laudable benefits from both. Each now struggles to achieve different and difficult to differentiate goals. What went begging was the social component, as real people distanced their own personal involvement and willingness to participate from the commercial core. Marketers should behave like guests in the social networking communities, lest they overstay their welcome before they can even log a post.