One of the things I enjoy about travel is the chance to dip into the world of big-company messaging and watch for trends. At home, I tend not to buy a lot of the mainstream brands so I don’t know what they’re up to.

My breakfast this morning included items from General Mills (Cheerios) and Lipton, both of which left me scratching my head in wonder that in this day and age, and with all the resources at their disposal, so many big companies still don’t have a clue.

General Mills greets me with a big banner on the front of the box telling me that I can win a free box of Cheerios if I turn over the box.

On the back, it directs me to go register on a website, and hints that there’s some connection to heart health (which Cheerios has used as a marketing point for many years).

I give General Mills points for figuring out how to reach the target audience. Presumably, pretty much everyone reading the back of a Cheerios box is a consumer and/or purchaser of the product. Also, General Mills scores points for attempting at least some weak level of consumer involvement.

But the offer is too weak. Let me get this straight: you want me to take time out of my day, type in a 21-character domain name, and then register on your site…for the possibility (not certainty) that I might be lucky enough to win a $3 box of cereal? For that, I’m going to take time away from productive work and expose myself to marketing messages from now until Doomsday?

The offer is not compelling enough for me, at least. The benefits are theoretical but the cost to me is real. You want my registration for a giveaway? Make it worth my while. A chance to win an iPad might coax my name and e-mail out of me. A sweepstakes for a box of cereal, not so much.

Oddly enough, the site itself makes a better offer: $4 in coupons for everyone registering, AND the chance to win a cereal box.

Part 2 of my breakfast: a cup of Lipton peppermint tea. On the teabag tag: this trademarked phrase: “Lipton tea can do that.”

Huh?? Now I’m the one who has no clue. What can it do? For whom? Who cares? This one was not even compelling enough to get me to click over to lipton.com in the interest of research (to write about what I found there in this blog). It is so lame I’m not even going to bother.

Adding to my resistance: on the tea bag envelope, it says “Feel everything becoming alright.”

First of all, proper English is important to me. “Alright” is not proper. When discussing making things better, it should be “all right.” But again, there’s nothing here to convince me to click. Where’s the call to action? Where’s anything that relates to me as a peppermint tea drinker, an herbal tea drinker, or even a tea drinker? Where’s the differentiation?

Not to pick on these two companies–I could name hundreds of examples of companies whose marketing departments utterly squander their chance to move the discourse forward. But to have two in the same breakfast struck me as worth writing about.

(Cheerios and the Lipton slogan are trademarks of their respective owners.)

Branding Lessons at Breakfast (What Not to Do) #blogboost is a post from: Principled Profit

Guest post by Steve Ostrow

[Editor's note: I was sent a review copy of this book, and enjoyed its playful approach to an intimidating subject. So when I was asked if I'd give Steve a forum during his launch, I gladly agreed.]

Congress has spoken! Anti-telemarketing legislation has been passed. Under reasonable restrictions, certain tactics by telemarketers are prohibited and court actionable. Violations can be enforced by the State via the attorney general’s office, the public via class action lawsuits or private lawsuits, and individuals via the small claims court.

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) started the ball rolling. Congress was torn between the special interest lobbyists and the people’s vote. The green cash of the lobbyists stalled the legislature for numerous years, but eventually the annoyance of the telemarketing industry became too much. The door opened and the unfettered invasion of free speech was outweighed by the consumer’s right to privacy. After strong objection and outrage by consumers groups, the common sense legislation protecting the privacy of one’s own home was long overdue.

The 1991 original law was pretty weak and without sharp teeth. A free bite at the apple was given and the first offense by a telemarketer to a residence was forgiven with only a simple apology. A second offense was required in order to make an unsolicited commercial call actionable. Basically business did not change under the original law. In 2003, over great objection from the special interest groups, came the National Do Not Call Registry. Yes, 2003 was a great year for the peace and quiet in a consumer’s home. Instead of a consumer requesting individual companies from not calling the home telephone soliciting their service, a residential consumer could sign up at one location and prohibit almost all telemarketers from calling the home phone number. The burden shifted to the telemarketing companies to check “the registry” rather than having the consumer contact the merchant and opt out. Penalties were instituted which are collectible by attorney generals, lawyers, and individuals through the small claims process.
Under the TCPA and the Do Not Call Registry, there are several different violations which are collectible. The most popular ones are:
1. Calling a residential telephone number that is on the National Do Not Call Registry;
2. Using a pre-recorded dialing device to initiate a commercial sale;
3. Using a blocked telephone number when initiating a commercial sale;
4. Soliciting a consumer before 8am or after 9pm;
5. Failure to provide a copy of the company’s Do Not Call Manual after demand for a copy.

Each violation is actionable separately, or can be “stacked” together when multiple infractions are incurred. Even though the courts are supposed to punish each violation with a $500 penalty, different judges will approach cases differently. Some judges will allow you to “stack” as many violations into one case as possible. Others may limit you to one, two, or three causes of action. Regardless of the amount of the judgment, you are able to prosecute the invasion of your peace and privacy in your home through the small claim courts.

Penalties under the TCPA may be “trebled” when the court finds that the violation is intentional. It can be tedious to understand when a telemarketing violation is intentional and when it is not. Rationally thinking, all solicitations by telemarketers are intentional; they are intentionally picking up the phone at their boiler rooms and randomly telephoning as many people as possible making their commercial pitch. It is not accidental that your number may be called, just random bad luck. I guess the easiest way to understand the intentional tripling of damages is using the playoff basketball foul analogy. Some fouls are hard basketball fouls, some are flagrant one fouls, and others flagrant two. Sometimes you just shoot free throws, other times you get ejected from the game. Sometimes the court awards you $500; sometimes the atrocious call telephone solicitation can be awarded $1,500. It’s all up to the ref.

If you are a Democrat and you get a telephone solicitation from a Republican candidate, slow down before you start licking your lips about bringing the opposing political party to its knees. Under the TCPA, certain types of speech are exempted from lawsuits under the Act. Always remember, the violations under the TCPA were balanced with the First Amendment Right of Freedom of Speech. Certain solicitation exceptions are specifically carved out:
1. Tax exempt non-profit organizations, including political parties and campaigns;
2. Organizations with which you’ve had a prior business relationship;
3. Organizations with which you’ve given prior written permission and not expressly revoked;
4. Calls which are NOT COMMERCIAL.

Convenience is a big part of our lives. All of us would like to nail these pesky telemarketers; sometimes it is easier just to hang up the telephone. However, if you are in the mood to make some cash and fight back against these commercial parasites, the good news about small claims court litigation is that it can prosecuted in our home backyard. Since the violation occurred at our telephone, the proper jurisdiction for the action would be our local court.

Steve Ostrow is an attorney, celebrity impersonator and the author of the new book How To Sue A Telemarketer: A Manual for Restoring Peace On Earth One Phone Call At A Time. To date, Steve has successfully sued, or settled, won and collected, over 10 judgments against telemarketers. To find out more and order his book, go to www.howtosueatelemarketer.com

How To Sue A Telemarketer In Small Claims Court is a post from: Principled Profit

Editor’s note: I like to say that my blog “covers the intersections of ethics, politics, media, marketing, and sustainability.” But I think this may be the first post in six years of blogging that touches on all five.

Levi’s “Go Forth” Ad

Chris Brogan’s blog brought my attention to a Levi’s ad called “Go Forth”—one of the most thought-provoking ads I’ve ever seen.

“A long time ago, things got broken here. People got sad, and left. Maybe the world breaks on purpose—so we can have work to do.” The young girl narrator says this, and a bunch of stuff about the pioneer/frontier spirit.

The ad shows a lot of images of a distressed town, Braddock, Pennsylvania—but also images and especially narration of hope and achievement. The people in the ad are not professional actors, but Braddock residents, apparently.

How I reacted

To, me this ad was about a company wanting to make a difference in a town. Yes, I noticed everyone was wearing Levi’s—but I didn’t pick up a message that I should buy its blue jeans. I got the message that it’s my job to make a difference in the world, no matter what I happen to wear.

Now, I confess—As an entrepreneur motivated more by creating social and environmental change than by making a monetary fortune, I am exactly who this ad is directed at. And I was fascinated. I took the rare step of typing in the link that was displayed on the video to find out more: Levisgoforth.com.

[Side note: In my book, Guerrilla Marketing Goes Green, I attack the conventional wisdom that you need seven or more touchpoints to create action. I argue instead that if you match message to market exactly, even a single impression may be enough. In this case, I took action immediately, on my first exposure.]

The Shocking Call to Action

Fully expecting a corporate rah-rah site about how Levi was helping communities, I was rather shocked to find a third-party site about the project, and one that was fairly critical of the company (click on the Go Forth and Facts pages). The site is anonymous, though there is a contact-the-site-creator link, which brings up an e-mail address for someone named Brett. Obviously, this link was added later, and not by Levi’s.

Apparently, Levi’s made a one-time million-dollar investment in the community, which is being put to good use creating artist spaces and the like. The effort has the active support of the mayor, but apparently is somewhat controversial in town. But the site attacks Levi’s for treatment of workers, shipping all its manufacturing jobs overseas, and environmental violations, as well as for trying to make the problems go away with a one-time infusion of cash. It says, “We all want to see Braddock Prosper we just have different solutions” (punctuation and capitalization are from the original).

What’s really odd to me is that this third-party intervention is the only call to action. Why didn’t Levi’s have one of its own? They get me all worked up with a feel-good surge of “I can do something,” and then utterly drop the ball.

If you’ve followed my work, you’ll know I’m not usually a fan of image-only advertising (though I’ve seen it serve some powerful purposes, even on campaigns I’ve been involved with). I believe strongly in having a call to action. That is particularly true when you use such deep emotional hooks as this ad does. Why leave people with no place to go? Why not harness that energy?

A Different Reaction

I asked my wife, novelist Dina Friedman, to view the ad. Although she teaches in a business school, she’s not an entrepreneur. But like me, she is an activist. Her reaction was quite negative: “They’re trying to tell me that their blue jeans are a way out of poverty. If they want to show corporate responsibility, why not run an ad highlighting what they’re doing for this community.”

How About You?

View the video. visit the go forth site. And tell me what you think. Please post your comment below.

A Brilliant Ad for CSR…A Puzzling Call to Action is a post from: Principled Profit

Yankee Candle’s world headquarters is a few miles up the road from me. Today’s paper had a short article about recruiting people to dance in one of their commercials, to be filmed in the flagship store, in an attempt to go viral and be shared around thousands of times on YouTube.

The company is modeling the attempt after the very popular series of videos of performances appearing to erupt spontaneously in public places, such as the massive dance rendition of Do Re Me in the Antwerp, Belgium central train station, which has accumulated 18,245,307 views since March 2009 (an average of 1,140,332 views per month).

But I think the company fails to grasp something important: you can’t force social media, and it’s very hard to deliberately get a commercial to go viral. The ones that do, like Honda’s “The Cog” video, are innately interesting and only secondarily promoting a product or brand.

Interestingly, even that famous example has only had 759,774 views, 11 months after it was posted. I’d have expected several million at least. This was a commercial that must have cost a fortune to engineer and set up, and who knows how many takes to get everything in the two-minute sequence working perfectly. Yet only an average of 69,070 people are seeing it in a typical month. hen you consider that several million probably watched it as it aired on TV, that’s rather pathetic, ultimately.

Of course, I haven’t seen Yankee Candle’s commercial yet; it’s still being filmed. But I doubt it will have anything like the power of the Antwerp dance.

Why Do I Think this WON’T Go Viral? is a post from: Principled Profit

Note From Shel Horowitz, Owner of this Blog:

I’m posting this not because I agree with everything Jim says, but because I don’t. I’m not going to tell you which parts I agree with and which I’d argue with, at least not yet. I’d like you to have your say first, and when I return from vacation (this post is being scheduled ahead), I might choose to add to the dialogue.

I proudly call myself a marketer. The problem with doing that is that a lot of people think that marketer=scumbag. I get it. Consumers have been burned before and they blame the marketing most of the time.

But that doesn’t make it right.

There’s a big difference between good marketers and bad marketers. Good marketers want to get your attention and make you aware of their wares, whatever that might be. Bad marketers want to deceive you into buying something that you don’t need for profit.

Good marketing is good business. Too often business owners don’t want to do effective marketing because they don’t want to be lumped in with the scammers out there. Here’s a few examples.

In the online world there are people called information marketers. They sell things like membership program and eBooks, and “systems”. These often come as something like a 22-disc DVD set, or online training program. To sell these products, they use tactics like long-page sales letters. You’ve seen those pages before perhaps? Is the page that is one big single column and you have to scroll 20 times to get to the buy button at the bottom. The page is filled with testimonials and bullet points about why the product/service is so awesome, etc… Then it’s got a ton of bonus items.

Here’s the secret to those pages. Know why you see them so often? Because they work… really, really well. As a matter of fact, pages like that are often the top converting page on the Internet today. And in the Internet business, conversion is job #1. If you don’t convert well, you’re losing the battle.

Does marketing with long sales pages letters make them scammy? Not at all. It’s a tactic, and yes, some of the people who sell those types of products are out to rip you off. However, most of them have really good products to sell you. The problem is that because of the tactic they use, they get lumped in with a certain mindset of consumers who will never buy from them.

What about those annoying late-night infomercials you see online? You know what I’m talking about. The late Billy Mays selling OxyClean or Vince selling a Slapchop. Ever notice the “but wait, there’s more” at the end of every tv spot where you get a “bonus” item for ordering now? Again, it seems kind of marketing wrong, right? Actually, it’s there because it works, really, really well.

The point is this. As a business owner, it is your job to drive more sales, leads or publicity to your business. Bottom line. Good business is good marketing. Don’t leave marketing tactics on the table because you’re worried about how you’ll look. At the end of the day, you’re going to need to find a way to improve your business and beat your competition. It might be time to start looking around at new ways to do that.

For over 15-years, Jim Kukral has helped small businesses and large companies like Fedex, Sherwin Williams, Ernst & Young and Progressive Auto Insurance understand how find success on the Web. Jim is the author of the book, “Attention! This Book Will Make You Money”, as well as a professional speaker, blogger and Web business consultant. Find out more by visiting www.JimKukral.com. You can also follow Jim on Twitter @JimKukral.

Good Marketing Is Good Business (Guest Post by Jim Kukral) is a post from: Principled Profit

In the Great Advertising Debate, branding vs. direct response, I’ve always come down on the side of direct response. Every marketing message (not just ads) should have a call to action, a way of moving the reader/viewer/listener forward.

With the Internet making it very easy to remove material from its original context and share it, I see a lost opportunity in this spoof ad by an environmental group attacking Royal Bank of Canada for its funding of highly polluting and environmentally destructive oil extraction from Canadian tar sands. Here is this stunning video, as flawlessly produced as anything from Madison Avenue.

On the original page, the action is clear:

Email RBC’s CEO Gordon Nixon and ask him to stop financing dirty tar sands oil and start funding a clean energy future.

But inevitably, there will be versions of this video circulating by e-mail or posted on other websites. All they needed to do was have a slide at the end with the URL to take action. That chance will be lost. People will see this video, with no action step at the end, and they won’t know what to do about it. They’ll be a bit more educated on the issue, but will have no place to channel their new concern.

Also, the letter text itself is another lost opportunity. Mired in passive language and bureaucratic tone, it takes some doing to extract (pun intentional) the actual message. Yes, there’s the opportunity to edit the letter, but the complete rewrite that’s called for will be too time consuming and most people won’t bother. I confess, I didn’t bother.

Here’s the first paragraph; tar sands don’t even come up until paragraph 2:

Amidst an unprecedented transformation in the banking sector, RBC clings to the outdated idea that social responsibility is separate from core banking activities. This letter is to encourage you to update its social and environmental practices to meet modern standards.

This was probably a deliberate choice, to talk to a banker in banker’s language. But I think it’s a wrong choice. I’d have gone for a much more direct lead, like

RBC’s continued funding of environmentally devastating tar sands oil extraction is not acceptable to stakeholders, and won’t be acceptable in the courts.

I’m going to use the email contact on their website to send these suggestions, so the page may have been fixed by the time you see it. If so, more power to them. I think Rainforest Action Network does great work, and my goal is to educate, not to embarrass. I’m dong it publicly because I see many worthwhile messages and opportunities similarly lost in the inability to step out of the branding mindset. Next time you send out a political action message, I hope your call to action will be clear and thoroughly integrated.

Great Ad…Missed Opportunity to Increase Effectiveness is a post from: Principled Profit

Tonight I was reviewing the PowerPoint for the talk on Green Marketing I’m giving next week in Davos, Switzerland. And I was struck yet again by the big case study in my talk: a company that has been producing products from recycled paper for 60 years, but only bothered to tell anyone within the last decade.

What a marketing advantage they would have had, if they had made this commitment the centerpiece of their marketing–especially in the old days, when it was hard to find recycled paper goods at any price, and their pricepoint was competitive with non-recycled brands.

Instead, they actually went bankrupt before the turnaround management team rebranded the company and emphasized saving a million trees.

The lesson: if you’re gong to do the right thing, harness the marketing leverage it gives you! This is something I discuss extensively in my eighth book, Guerrilla Marketing Goes Green: Winning Strategies to Improve Your Profits and Your Planet (co-authored with Jay Conrad Levinson), BTW.

If You Don’t Tell Them, How Will They Know You’re Doing the Right Thing? is a post from: Principled Profit

Visiting my father in Florida, we treated him and his ladyfriend to lunch on fashionable Ocean Drive in Miami Beach’s South Beach deco district. Lots of lessons here on how to deal with a saturated market.

First of all, almost every restaurant (and they are numerous), not only on Ocean Drive but on several of the surrounding streets, like Lincoln Mall and Española Way, hires shills: people to stand outside, engage anyone walking by, and try to get them to stop and eat. Most of the restaurants have at least one, some have several (for the most part, pretty young women, many with European accents. I guess it must be effective, but after a while, it feels like running the gauntlet.

Second, recognizing that the consumer benefits from comparison shopping, many of the establishments print up postcards with their (for the most part very similar) offers. To us as consumers, this was very helpful, because after walking three or four blocks along the strip, we had a basis for remembering which ones had seemed like the best choices (and in fact returned to one to actually eat on the basis of the postcard).

Third, when you’re doing popular loss-leaders, you make up the revenue in other ways. We were offered $4.95 breakfasts and $8.95 to $9.95 lunches all up and down the street. The food was actually quite good—but a simple cup of tea was $3.50!

Finally, one to avoid: unpleasant surprises. When we were seated, the shill had told us she could to the advertised prices or 20 percent off the specials on display. My father asked the price of the steak special: $65! “I didn’t want to buy the cow,” he said, ordering instead one of the $4.95 breakfast deals: a huge omelet with meat, cheese, and vegetables.

We saw this same strategy in some of the retail shops, where some items were really, really cheap, and others were wildly overpriced a shelf or two over.

On the steak dinners, I imagine a fair number of people order one of the displayed specials without bothering to learn the price, and suffer major sticker shock when the bill arrives (or maybe after the drink specials, they’re too gone to notice). Considering that the same restaurant is using the same term to describe both its loss-leaders and its top-line offerings, I think this could be a disaster. It doesn’t strike me as a good way to make up revenue. In a crowded market, the last thing you want is a customer loudly arguing about the bill, especially in an open-air café that faces directly out on the street. Yes, of course, there are many places where you can pay $65 for a steak dinner and feel fine about it, but those are not restaurants that get you in the door on the basis of a $9.95 entrée. Different market, different clientele, different expectations, and no price resistance.

Interestingly, our dinner choices for two of our three nights were restaurants with no shill. In both cases, we had excellent, reasonably priced food, and the place was certainly busy enough.

Shills and Specials: Running the Gauntlet on Ocean Drive is a post from: Principled Profit

Respect your prospect’s intelligence! It’s one of the points I make repeatedly in Principled Profit: Marketing That Puts People First–and with good reason. To succeed in business, you need long-term relationships. And you don’t get them by insulting people.

I could list bad-practice examples from now until the end of time. Every once in a while, I find one that just pisses me off because it seems to shout, “Hey, Stupid! Send us money!” The one that landed in my postal mailbox today was one of them.

It was a plain, typed envelope–with a sprayed barcode and a nonprofit bulkrate stamp. No return address.Yeah, I opened it–after all, Google’s AdSense checks can’t be identified from the outside.

Inside, a post-it with this text in a very UNconvincing handwriting font:

Shel,
have you
seen this?
Brian

Yes, three lines of text all lined up, and the name about under the question mark.

The sticky note was attached to (and amazingly precisely lined up with) a piece of newsprint. The front had an ad for a charity I’ve heard of but don’t contribute to. The back was a fake news story about the same charity.

No clue about who Brian might be, except that the fake article mentions the CEO’s first name happens to be Brian.

So just how stupid does this charity think I am? Am I supposed to be fooled into thinking this is from someone I actually know? That despite the bulk stamp and barcode, I was individually selected? Does a “news story” with no byline, no identifier about the paper it might have ran in? Or that the article and the ad just happened to be back-to-back and fit perfectly with no wasted space? Puh-leeze! Stopping only to be humiliated in this blog post, this mailing goes straight to the recycle bin.

Why, after all these years, do marketers continue to write, design, and distribute this crap? Do they really think we’re going to be fooled? Do they actually want dumb-as-a-slug contributors or customers who won’t ask embarrassing questions?

Earth to Marketers: Don’t Act Like We’re Stupid! is a post from: Principled Profit

Latest idiocy in my inbox:

Avoid the PR Spam Blacklist

Last week a well-regarded blogger published and blacklisted the names of individual PR firms and publicists who have sent ”unsolicited (and almost always irrelevant) product pitches.”

While we know that you do not set out deliberately to “spam” journalists, it is clear that the practices that we have relied on in the past are no longer effective for engaging today’s media. Many of these practices are, in fact, counterproductive.

Our industry is changing.  And as professionals, we must adapt to the way that our audience – the media – is doing business today. Journalists want story ideas they can use. Journalists don’t want an email box full of spam.

New rules require new tools. And we think our application…(Named product and sales pitch begin here)

Hello–how did this happen to get into my in-box? If you guessed as a spam, you’re right. I have no prior relationship with this company, and if spamming me with a message about how spamming is ineffective is any indication of their intelligence, I’m not going to have a relationship with them.

Do These People Even Read Their Own Copy? is a post from: Principled Profit