Steve Cuno
Steve Cuno Add Comment Readers of this blog know that I am a social media skeptic. I acknowledge that some social marketing successes have popped up. But they have not been replicated, which indicates that, so far, they are more likely the product of randomness than indicative of a hot new marketing tool. This week, Advertising Age reports results from the Edelman 2010 Trust Barometer, a study that asks people their level of trust in various media messages. Only 25% of people polled consider friends and peers as credible sources of consumer and business information. Now, I'm also skeptical of research that asks people to self-report their feelings. Such “research” often tells you much about respondents’ self-concept, and little about anything else. However, when this same study was done two years ago, that number was 45%. The decline gives pause, self-reporting notwithstanding. Perhaps marketing’s attempt to institutionalize word-of-mouth advertising has robbed it of its very power. Steve Cuno Like many Americans, I'm a sucker for an Australian accent. The sales guy who just showed up at my door had one. I stood entranced and listened to his entire pitch. I even asked a couple of questions, just so I could listen some more. I didn't buy. I'm not that big of a sucker. But since being heard is the first step toward a sale, I bet he scores more sales around here than the average Yank. If the accent was faked (after all, how would I know?), I say no harm no foul. He deserves his success all the more. Steve Cuno RESPONSE blog reader, fellow skeptic and public relations pro Michael Hartwell sent this note: I know you've written about the Super Bowl being an inefficient time to advertise, but I am seeing a lot of advertisements selling products to enhance the Super Bowl — mostly snack food and televisions. But instead of directly saying it's for the Super Bowl, they're saying it's for the "big game." I imagine this is due to some copyright concern. Is this "nickname" practice used in other situations, is there more at play here then copyright and is it fair to say these event-based advertisements are the real advertising success stories around the Super Bowl? Thanks, Michael. Let me break this down into two parts. 1. On advertising during the Super Bowl I wouldn't characterize the Super Bowl as an inefficient time to advertise. It draws a mass audience, a big chunk of which actually looks forward to watching the ads. If your objective is to put your message in front of a huge, receptive audience, the Super Bowl is ideal. But before spending the minimum $2.6 million for one 30-second exposure this year, you'd have been well-advised to weigh the benefits. A "receptive audience" in this case may mean "expecting to be entertained," not necessarily "open to making a decision to buy." And reaching a vast audience is no assurance that you'll sell anything to any of them. Running spots during the Super Bowl may make sense for certain advertisers. But I'd recommend a better success measure than how many people saw, recalled or liked the commercial. 2. On "Super Bowl" as a trademark Michael is right as to why advertisers tell you to stock up on their product for "the big game." Were they to come right out and say "for the Super Bowl," they'd hear from the big game's attorneys in no time. The Olympics get nasty in like fashion when you use the O word and, sometimes, even "Games." During the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, a ski resort ran billboards promoting the fact that no Olympic events were were taking place on their slopes. The idea was to attract locals seeking a crowd-free place to ski. The IOC made them remove "Olympics" from their billboards. My non-legal opinion is that both organizations are bullying and getting away with it. Companies name other companies in their ads all the time. Pepsi names Coke. Mac names Windows. GM names Toyota. But who wants to take on the Super Bowl or the Olympics in what would certainly prove a costly, years-long legal battle? Is it worth the fight, given that the Super Bowl arrives but once a year and the Olympics, counting summer and winter, arrives but every two? And who wants the PR liability of being the whiner who sued a beloved institution? Those are, I suspect, the reasons that no one bothers to call the bullies' bluff. Steve Cuno I had intended my recent Swift article to be an empowering piece on personal responsibility. I also wanted to bust a few myths about advertising’s alleged powers of control. Judging from many of the comments, it seems that some readers took the piece for a unilateral defense of marketing, abuses included, and a disavowal of marketers’ responsibilities for what and how they sell. Nope. I am an outspoken critic of marketing abuses. If you’d care to search my blog, you’ll find that I routinely take marketers to task for flimflam products, racism, sexism, non-promises, certain business practices, needless vitriol, and sticking flyers on my door, to name a few. And, yes, I routinely bring up personal responsibility as well. Fair is fair. Marketing abuses indeed occur and shouldn’t be tolerated. That should be an easy call in clear-cut cases, such as outright lying. But more often... (click here to read the rest) Comcast has done a good job of making their name a household word. Now they have announced plans to rebrand their internet, phone and cable TV services under the name Xfinity. I'm not sure what Xfinity means. "Formerly infinite," perhaps? Such so-called rebrands cost money. New signs, letterhead, business cards, vehicle IDs, etc., etc., are but the iceberg's tip. The real expense comes in retraining the masses to recognize you by, and trust you in association with, the new name. Which leads me wonder: what marketing problem does this so-called rebrand solve for Comcast? I refer to this as a "so-called" rebrand because a new name and logo do not a brand make. Those are marks. Brands are bigger and go deeper. (I deal with this extensively in my book.) Steve Cuno My newest article for the James Randi Educational Foundation's Swift is now online: Avoiding personal responsibility used to be clean and simple. Caught red-handed? The devil made you do it. End of story. But today we have a dizzying array of bogus blaming options. We can choose from rap music, movies, TV, video games, the Internet, Twinkies, genes, society, the neighbor’s kid, our upbringing, the booze talking, atheism, evolution, the definition of “is,” planets, stars, lunar phases, the ever-vague and passive “mistakes were made,” the economy, being an only child, not being an only child, and more. Just keeping track can exhaust the most adept excuse-maker. Call me extreme, but some days I wonder if it might be easier simply to say, “I made a mistake.” I saved the excuse that accuses my profession for last: “The advertising made me do it.” If you fed your kids fast food until your spouse mistook them for the minivan, blew the budget on a video game system, or bought trendy clothes you didn’t need and that went out of style as you were paying for them, take heart. You can blame us slick advertising people and our so-called hypnotic work. Just one problem... (To read the rest of this article, click here.) Here are some thoughts I shared with a company that recently approached us about rewriting their law firm client's website. It's sound advice for any professional services firm. Thanks for your email. I actually enjoy writing law firm copy. Other than that, I assure you that I am for the most part sane. I agree with your assessment of your client's site. It's typical law firm copy that covers the usual bases while utterly failing to engage. It is to your client's credit that they have requested a writer to produce copy that they wouldn't produce on their own. My experience has been that, the larger the law firm, the more the attorneys seem to obsess on "positioning" themselves as "the professionals." While we certainly don't want to be unprofessional, "the professionals" is no position at all. For one thing, it's redundant: attorneys are professionals by definition. For another, positioning has to do with setting yourself apart. If all law firms are "the professionals," not one of them has a position. A better approach is to write from the standpoint of what connects with the prospective client. When I recommend my business attorney, I do not say, "He's such a professional. He has great suits, dimples his tie and never speaks with contractions." Here's what I do say: "He's a bulldog. He bites my opponent on the leg and doesn't let go until I get my way." Invariably, the person I'm talking to says, "That's the guy I want," and calls him. Leg-biting is, of course, over the top for a website. (Or is it?) But if we expect people to read, we must at least engage them, and that means not writing the same old stuff they've seen on other sites. Otherwise, they will only skip-read, if even that. As I'm sure you know, the more attorneys who have approval/editing power, the weaker the copy will turn out. If the law firm's principals can discipline themselves to (1) limit review to one or two principals only and (2) resist the urge to rewrite and instead provide feedback, they will increase their odds of finishing with compelling copy. Steve Cuno Entrepreneurs have begun marketing T shirts and other memorabilia with the words "Who Dat" to football fans. But the NFL sent their attorneys after them. They claim that "Who Dat" is an NFL trademark, which makes it NFL property. Senator David VItter, R-La, has taken up the side of the entrepreneurs. I suspect that the entrepreneurs will prevail in this instance. But should the NFL prevail, I'm going to rush out and slap a trademark symbol next to all the popular phrases I can think of. Then I'll sue anyone who uses them. Consider this fair warning, readers! I now officially own "Oh yeah," "Oh baby," "All right," "What's up," "Thank you," and "Hubba hubba." Steve Cuno When I rant about flimflam products, I'm often asked what harm results as long as the product makes someone happy, say by providing hope or a placebo effect. Call me a softy, but I think that hundreds of human beings being blown to bits qualifies as harm. Despite scientific tests to the contrary, many people still believe in dousing — divining for water, oil, buried treasure, etc. Those who sell divining rods are either deluded (they truly believe their device works) or they are con artists. You decide which of those applies to Jim McCormick, of ATSC Ltd. McCormick recently sold the Iraqi government a supply of divining rods that he claimed could detect bombs — for $85,000,000. Since then, hundreds of people have been blown to smithereens as a direct result of believing his device "told" them they were safe. Deluded or con artist, McCormick is a mass murderer. I am pleased to say that McCormick was just arrested. I am not pleased to say that, while awaiting trial, he is free on bail. You might call this an extreme case. Agreed. But if we didn't indulge more "innocent" dousing devices — say, divining for water — the extremes would have no precedent to rely on. And, for the record, I do not agree that divining for anything can properly be dismissed as "innocent." But that's another blog. Steve Cuno |       Click here to read Steve Cuno's column in Deliver Magazine   ArchivesMarch 2012 Looking for older posts? CLICK HERE.
 Click here to read the official newsletter of the James Randi Educational Foundation, for which Steve Cuno is an occasional writer. |
RSS Feed
