Tom Fishburne: Marketoonist

make the logo bigger

(to instantly license this week's cartoon, click here)

The quickest way to rankle a creative director is to ask to make the logo bigger. It's an age-old feud that has existed since the dawn of advertising. It's often the first piece of feedback shared, and has even led to its own song: 

"Make the logo as big as you can.
And make the logo bigger.
I don't want to tell you how to do your job.
But, could you make the logo bigger?
Bigger, bigger, make it big.
Make the logo bigger." 

A bigger logo won't fix a small brand. It won't make a brand more remarkable. There is no direct correlation between the size of a logo and the effectiveness of an ad. But, in the qualitative world of creative review, it's a tangible, quantitative response. So, marketers give this feedback a lot, even if it's superficial and even if it detracts from the strength of the creative execution.

The deeper issue is usually that the ad doesn't link closely enough to the brand, but the debate often devolves into a tug-o-war on logo size.

That said, branding has to be prominent enough to link a creative message to a brand. There is a difference between advertising and pure entertainment after all. Sometimes, a creative director, possibly anticipating a tug-o-war over logo size, starts off with an execution where the branding is so understated that consumers will never take away which brand was affiliated with it, no matter how entertaining the ad was. 

One creative director tellingly puts it this way, "Little does the client realize that your final allegiance is not to them, but to the quality of the work, something that you cannot in good conscience permit them to jeopardize with their lack of taste." He goes on to advise a sneaky con game on "How to make your client's logo bigger without making their logo bigger" that somewhat resembles this other cartoon I drew in 2007.

(to instantly license this cartoon, click here)  

In a classic Mexican stand-off like this, no one wins. Get past the standoff, and instead of arguing about something as superficial as logo size, you'll have time to come up with ways to make your brand more impactful.

post-production

(to instantly license this week's cartoon, click here)

If you're ever on a video shoot, you'll no doubt hear someone say, "we'll fix it in post-production".  This usually happens toward the end of a long day, when everyone is tired and there's a sticking point preventing everyone from going home.  Sometimes the client hasn't seen what they're looking for.  Sometimes there's a stalemate on art direction. The promise to fix "in post-production" allows everyone to break and address the problem later.

But it's usually an empty promise.  Post-production isn't a magic wand.  It can fine-tune, but it can't resolve fundamental differences of opinion.  It also can't fix massive mistakes. When there's a real sticking point, it's better to buck up, make another pot of coffee, and do another take.

Contrast that approach with this 2003 Honda advert, Cog.  It's a 2-minute advert where disassembled pieces of a Honda Accord are laid out on a floor and an elaborate chain reaction is set in motion by one transmission bearing.  What's particularly stunning is that the team forced themselves to make the ad in two uninterrupted 60-second takes, without CGI.  This required accuracy to a 16th of an inch and they had to overcome changes in ambient temperature and settling dust.  It took 90 minutes just to get the first transmission bearing to roll correctly into the second.  The whole piece required 606 takes, but the result is pure magic.

This ad wouldn't have been nearly so remarkable had they faked it.  Partly as a result of their exacting discipline to get it right on set, this Honda ad received more awards than any commercial in history.

In a general sense, businesses often operate as if there is post-production to rely on. There is a manufactured wall between how a business operates internally and how it is designed to be seen by the outside world.

I once heard someone say that working in the best businesses was like working on live TV. There's no opportunity for post-production so you'd better be authentic the first time around. Remarkable things happen on live TV. The best brands brand from the inside out. And consumers are increasingly savvy enough to figure out the difference.

the large print giveth

Whenever I need a marketing wake-up call, I listen to the classic Tom Waits' song, “Step Right Up.” It is an anthem for bad marketing.  In this brilliant song, Tom Waits cobbles together every cliché marketing pitch.

"We got a year-end clearance, we got a white sale
And a smoke-damaged furniture, you can drive it away today
Act now, act now, and receive as our gift, our gift to you
They come in all colors, one size fits all
No muss, no fuss, no spills, you're tired of kitchen drudgery
Everything must go, going out of business, going out of business
Going out of business sale
Fifty percent off original retail price, skip the middle man
Don't settle for less
How do we do it? how do we do it? volume, volume, turn up the volume
Now you've heard it advertised, don't hesitate”

Toward the end, he quips, “you got it buddy: the large print giveth and the small print taketh away.”

It’s a striking reminder that this is how most consumers perceive marketing. And for good reason. Even though consumers are savvier than ever and resistant to marketing clutter, most marketing communication still falls in this huckster camp.

To spread the word about your brand, this is the marketing clutter that that you have to break through. You won't break through by turning up the volume. You break through with remarkable products, disarming authenticity, and not sounding like hawkers and hucksters.

Tom Waits had it right 30 years ago. Here’s a vintage 1979 live performance:

the agency bid

 
Several of my agency friends have complained that client negotiations have gotten more cutthroat recently.  As companies look for ways to trim expenses, many are putting agencies through the same purchasing wringer as their commodity suppliers, often using the same central purchasing team they use for things like catering and industrial bleach.

While I'm sure there's some efficiency to be found (particularly with agencies that work across many businesses within a large client), I think some of the heavy-handed tactics are short-sighted.

Unlike something like soybeans, agencies vary widely in ability, talent, and potential to help ignite your business.

If you treat your agency like a commodity, don't be surprised if you end up with commodity results.  All agencies have "A teams" and "B teams" (and even "C teams").  The "A teams" rarely go to accounts that shunt off the agency through centralized purchasing.

If you want your agency to deliver exceptional results, you have to treat your agencies exceptionally.  It is (and should be) a combined effort.  Clients are often quick to scapegoat the agency for mediocre work, but the first look should be in the mirror.

It reminds me of something I read by Adam Morgan a few years ago.  He was describing the phenomenon that one agency can produce provocative work for some clients while only producing safe and predictable work for others.  Sometimes the safe client complains that he never sees any provocative work.  Yet, when shown provocative work, that same client will water down the idea until it looks safe and predictable.

Adam compared this phenomenon to a kitchen, which inspired this other cartoon a few years ago.

urban spam

 
I was in Paris over the long weekend for the first time in eight years. It's my favorite city in the world and my favorite activity is to leisurely people-watch at the outdoor cafés.

In France, there's a lot of talk about the "American McDonaldization" of culture and I was curious to see what had changed in eight years. The last time I was here, we wondered if Starbucks would eventually take over and ruin the quintessential French café culture. While I only saw one or two Starbucks on this trip (and only in the touristy areas), what struck me was how many cafés have now resorted to advertising on every available surface. The French café has "Starbucked" itself; it didn't need Seattle.

This may not be new, but it surprised me to have an espresso in a quiet cafe overlooking an ancient market square, only to notice that my tabletop was composed of a loud consumer products ad for a sweetener now containing folic acid that can be found at your local supermarché.

As a marketer, I respected the connection between this coffee ritual and a sweetener brand, and that this would be a nice "aperture" to reach my target consumer. But, as a consumer (albeit a temporary one), I saw it as an unwelcome interruption. If the café had actually offered this sweetener in addition to the sugar, I might have appreciated the implied endorsement. But, it was just an ad like any other. It just happened to be on my table.

It all got me thinking about "urban spam", a term I discovered via Russell Davies (who had these cards designed to give out to urban spammers). In the land grab to advertise on every available space, it's a slippery slope to the the world feeling like a Ryan Air cabin. And because most of these ads are largely generic, they just add to the clutter.

When an ad feels like an unwelcome interruption or even just ambient noise, is it really doing the brand any favors? I think the key, like everything else, is to be remarkable in execution.

The beauty brand, Yes to Carrots, recently launched in Paris, and they executed a one-day stunt using media space that had never been used before. Paris has an automated system of bicycles that Parisians can rent by the hour to get around town. Each bike has a basket to use for groceries. The bikes are unbranded, but ubiquitous. A Yes to Carrots team turned up early one morning and filled every bicycle basket in Paris with free carrots and information on their launch in Sephora. It wasn't technically legal, so they rode bicycles over to the proper ministry afterwards to pay a fine (which was built into the cost of the promotion).

I found this stunt pretty remarkable. While it was a form of interruption, it feels like a welcome one. The free carrots were a gift (many Parisians use the bikes for grocery shopping anyway), and it was unexpected because it hadn't been done before.

Yet, it now becomes just one more media space frontier that has been crossed. Once Paris starts to officially sell bicycle media space, a bicycle basket ad alone will no longer be remarkable. Not intrinsically anyway. It will become as commonplace as advertising on a grocery cart basket. It will become even more "urban spam". The definition of what's remarkable is a moving bar. And if you can't be remarkable at it, I think you have to question whether it's really worth doing.

recession washing

I stumbled across "recession washing" as a useful expression in this presentation and thought it captured so much of the advertising bandwagon right now.

Six months ago, I was at a conference on marketing in the credit crunch and several speakers stressed the importance of showing empathy to consumers.  Of course, sincerity is crucial too.  Empathy without sincerity can do more harm than good.

The last two years, agencies were flooded with "green briefs".  Many businesses tasked their agencies to come up with advertising to communicate sustainability (whether or not there was any actual substance there). 

This year, it feels like "green briefs" have been replaced with "value briefs."

In their presentation, the agency scenarioDNA ranked a few examples of recession washing and recommended a few tips on what not to do:

1. Don't be Mother Theresa. Empower consumers to stand on two feet.
2. Don't over-empathize. Respect boundaries.  Allow breathing room.
3. Don't be overly reactive. Roll with punches but keep on thinking.
4. Don't count on loyalty. Be prepared for consumer boot strapping.
5. Don't only help when they're down. Always be consistent.
6. Don't get stuck in the mud. Be flexible. Help consumers transcend.
7. Don't over-promise. Help relearn the ideals of patience.

bogo till we drop

I've had price promotions on my mind lately.

With bad news on the doorstep, there sure is a lot of pressure to start discounting like crazy.  Consumer confidence is shaken.  Whole Foods is down.  Wal-Mart is up.  Every retailer meeting I've been to lately seems to include a discussion on increased frequency and depth of promotion spending to address the current economic climate.

A walk down a grocery aisle feels more and more like a discount bazaar lately.  I visited a relatively premium grocer last week and saw BOGO (buy one get one) deals on every single endcap and the inline shelves too.  Brands of every level of premium seemed to be participating.

Of course it makes sense to offer value, particularly in an economy where consumers are watching their pennies.  But, I think it's dangerous for premium brands to play this same game in the same way.  Because, it effectively trains to consumers to look for you only on deal. 

And, if you act enough like a commodity, sooner or later consumers will treat you like one.

traditional marketing mix

Jackie Huba and Ben McConnell asked me to share the "marketing mix" for method in my recent interview with them.  And I've been in the throws of 2009 marketing planning lately.  So, I've had "marketing mix" on the mind, which always makes me think of a mixing bowl for some reason.

I've worked with large traditional brands and small challenger brands, and I started thinking about marketing planning for each.  I played around with cooking as a metaphor, and this cartoon idea popped out.

In traditional marketing planning, I think far too often there's a product that isn't that differentiated but that you try to save with heavy media spending.  With so much advertising clutter, media spending is becoming less and less effective.  So, it's harder and harder to save a mediocre product and lackluster ideas just with media spending alone.

The answer isn't too add more dough, of course.  It's to start with something worth sharing and not to skimp on the yeast.  I think that brands that have a remarkable product and a remarkable message get shared no matter what they're spending.

evolution of marketing

This cartoon was inspired by a question from Jackie Huba and Ben McConnell.  Jackie and Ben are interviewing me as part of the Post2Post blogging book tour I'm doing this week.  They asked: " Is branding dead and if so, where do we bury the body?"

I definitely don't think branding is extinct, but I do think it's evolved.  So, I decided to use the evolution metaphor to play with a couple stereotypes in the noble profession of marketing.

Doctors have Hippocrates.  Even lawyers have Atticus Finch.  But, ask most consumers what archetypes they think of for marketers and the snakeoil salesman comes to mind.

I think that's because much of the history of marketing and branding has been about concocting a story consumers wanted to hear, even if the story was a wee bit phony. Charles Revson, founder of Revlon, famously quipped: "In our factories, we make cosmetics. In the store, we sell hope."

Nowadays, consumers are often in the marketer's seat.  Consumers have always been the best source for what your brand means (not what's on a brand architecture tacked up in the office).  But, the power used to be with the marketer to sculpt and shape that message.  The question to ask now is no longer how your consumers play back the message you told them.  It's what message are they spreading to others.

With rise of social media, consumers are quick and empowered to share brands they like.  But, they are also quick and empowered to point out hypocritical stuff they they don't like. (Jackie and Ben wrote about this phenomenon in their book, Citizen Marketers).

I think the key is to tell an authentic brand story (but careful that you don't overdo that like the authenticity hawker in the cartoon).

And then find ways to enable your consumers to advocate on your behalf. 

I love how the gDiapers brand has found a way to recruit consumers to even do in-store demos and go to local events on behalf of the brand.  Now that's powerful.  If you want to know what the gDiapers brand means, just ask these moms.  You can be sure they're not snakeoil salesmen.

If you'd like the full interview, Jackie and Ben are posting it on Tuesday on their Church of the Customer blog.

the cause marketing brandwagon

I think that cause marketing, when done right, can be extremely positive. I once worked on Yoplait and saw first-hand how powerful their “save lids to save lives” campaign with the Susan G. Komen foundation was in raising awareness and creating donations.

But I’ve been feeling a little cause marketing fatigue lately. I like corporate philanthropy and I think it’s great that more and more companies and brands are embracing cause marketing. I think that business can be a real agent of change.  But, it’s easy to come across as flippant, disingenuous, or gratuitous.

Consumers can see right through it.  If done wrong, it can create a lot more skepticism than good will.  Like this mock ad lampooning Product(Red) from buylesscrap.org.  And the campaign Think Before You Pink.

I think the key is to pick a cause that fits with your brand, that fits with your consumers, and where you are able to uniquely do something that other brands can't.  And, or course, can make a genuine impact.  I think it's OK to benefit financially, but that can't overshadow the event (such as spending much more on advertising than the actual donation).

Probably my favorite ever cause marketing event is the Big Knit, from smoothie-maker innocent. 

I've blogged about the Big Knit before.  They recruit people to knit little woolen hats for their smoothie bottles, which then appear in Sainsbury's all across the UK. The funds then go to a charity called Age Concern to help elderly people during the cold winter months. Last year, over 230,000 hats were donated and put onto smoothies, resulting in a £115,000 donation.

It's quirky, involves the people they are trying to help (who knit a lot of the hats themselves), fits totally with their brand and their consumers, addresses an often under-looked charity, and you absolutely remember that innocent was behind it.

And they didn't run over-the-top advertising that costs more than the actual donation.