I write a column for Swift, the newsletter of the James Randi Educational Foundation. Not a few of those readers recoil at the very mention of the word marketer. 

I have to admit, there are times I don't blame them. Every day, I see marketing practices that make me wince.

Not all. Marketing, like any discipline, can be used for good or bad, and for purposes landing in-between. Clearly at the end labeled "good" are campaigns urging people not to smoke. I'd also say that keeping the economy going—within reason—is a good thing. Honestly promoting product benefits so that consumers make informed choices is a good thing, too. Plus, evidence shows that international trade, which marketing fuels, is the best war-prevention program humanity has ever devised. 

We might argue over where on the continuum to place marketing that urges people to buy what they don't need, to choose the more costly brand, or to replace a car, cell phone or wardrobe when the old one still serves.

But some marketing activities land clearly at the polarity marked BAD. Shall I list a few? 

• Health products, claims and treatments that don't work. They hurt people by inflicting direct harm, or by lulling them from seeking real treatment for a serious condition. These include homeopathy, chiropractic, acupuncture, wrist magnets, most so-called "alternative" medical preparations (you know, the ones that "Big Pharma" and "Big Medicine" supposedly "don't want you to know about"), faith healing, misinformation spread by the likes of Kevin Trudeau, Suzanne Sommers and Jenny McCarthy.

• Products that don't work and can hurt people financially. Examples include: nonsense from the likes of (once again) Kevin Trudeau (he gets around), stock market prediction books and software, carefully worded (so as to be legal, yet still deceptive) investment schemes, most multi-level marketing schemes.

• Products that are pure flimflam, like psychic hotlines and religious scams.

• Carefully worded claims defended by bogus studies. As I've written elsewhere, I can cook up a study showing that hiring the RESPONSE Agency lowers your risk of cancer.

• Clintonian lies, defined as "technically accurate but designed to mislead." Examples: A recent promotion for new cars for just $88 down and $88 per month. Yeah, right, as long as you don't read the small type. After three months, the payments rocket up to cover what you didn't pay during that time, and to cost you a good deal more than market rates. Or weight loss products which, in the small type, tell you that their claims are "not typical" and that they only work when you diet and exercise (which means the product is moot). Or, until recently, credit card issuers that took you unawares with default rates and other abuses. Or, so-called free samples given only after you surrender a credit card number, later to find you're getting and being billed for shipments after the free one.

• Out-and-out lying. Going out of business! The world's best! Never undersold! 

• Making things look better than they really are. Gray area here, I admit. But we all know what it’s like to make a purchase only to find that the product isn’t what was conveyed. Marketers who do that don’t do it by accident.

What have I left out? Readers, please click COMMENTS (above) and add your own. And, please reward honest marketers with your business, and withhold it from those who abuse your trust.
 
Marketers, there are plenty of worthy products and causes out there to focus our talents on. Let's not stoop. 

—Steve Cuno

The phone rang this morning. From the caller's introduction, I assumed she wanted to sell me business services. I wasn't in the market, but I'm nice to salespeople. To do otherwise would be rather hypocritical of me. After all, I make sales calls myself. 

So we chatted about her home town, its nickname, and the weather there. We had fun. But, alas, the time came to get on with it, so I said, "I assume you're calling to sell me something." Nope. She was calling to inquire into retaining the agency.

I was completely surprised. And completely glad that I had been pleasant with her.

Years ago, when I worked for another agency, a fellow came to our office unannounced. We assumed he was a salesperson. My boss marched up and seethed, "I don't let my people show up without an appointment, and I'm not going to take it from you." Feeling that was unduly aggressive of my boss, I invited the fellow into my office. There, he apologized graciously for not arranging an appointment—and proceeded to say he had stopped in to see about hiring our shop. "You come highly recommended," he said.

My intercom buzzed. It was my boss telling me that if I didn't throw the fellow out, he would come in and do it himself. "He's a client," I said. My boss came slinking into my office, now cute, cuddly and apologetic. Amazingly, the fellow indeed hired us—and later sent my boss a bag of red hot jaw breakers to "go with his volatile temper." He was a great man. The client, not my boss.

So I'm sure you can see why I breathed a sigh of relief that, this morning, I hadn't followed my former employer's example.

But here's the thing. Regardless of whether you're being hired or sold to, nice is a good idea. We gain nothing by being nasty. On the contrary, we lose. Not only do we needlessly flay someone trying to make a living, we risk vandalizing our inner Dorian Gray.

Even if the caller is a tenacious jerk—it happens—the healthiest, most angst-free course is to skip the verbal assault and simply hang up.

So here's a New Years resolution to consider. Let's be pleasant in our business dealings. Genuinely pleasant. Whether or not we think it's going to fatten our wallet.

Happy New Year.

Steve Cuno

When I was the advertising manager of a decent-sized hospital chain, we used direct mail to invite people to tour our newly opened urgent care facility. Knowing that an incentive offer is the Number 2 strategic peg in successful direct mail (extra points for readers who can name Numbers 1 and 3), we promised each visitor a certificate for a free Baskin Robbins ice cream cone.

Within a few days, I received a note from an outraged consumer. He felt it was deplorable that “…a health care organization would encourage people to ingest ice cream.”

(Let me state here and now that I had no idea people were actually ingesting the stuff. We thought they would merely eat it.)

The outraged consumer’s helpful letter concluded with a suggestion that we offer bran muffins instead.

I’m not making this up.

The urgent care center was mobbed with visitors, and the nearest Baskin Robbins ran out of its most popular flavor. Clearly the promotion did its job. Bran muffins might have been healthier, but no one would have come to our party.

Steve Cuno

According to a new Adweek survey, 50% of respondents say that advertising "rarely" motivates them to switch brands, 11% say that advertising "never" influences their brand choices, and people 18-34 say they are most likely to be "swayed by ads." 

I suspect there may be some truth in Adweek's conclusions. But, if so, their methodology doesn't establish it.  

The worst way to learn what influences people is to ask them. People don't know what they do, why they do it, or what makes them do it. But they sure think they know! So, when you ask, they'll give you an answer, and most likely they will mean what they say. Trouble is, they are often mistaken. 

For a valid, reliable way to learn what influences people, put them in a real situation. Do not let them know that a test is afoot or that anyone is watching. Then note what they do. 

Our firm recently conducted such a test for the parent company of two national brands that you have heard of. They wanted to know which of the two brands was stronger. We divided their market into three segments. All three received identical offers; the only difference was whether the offers came from National Brand A, National Brand B, or Unknown Brand C. Then, we counted orders. All segments bought at the same rate. We repeated the test and obtained the same results. Post analysis showed that the brand made no difference; only the offer did.  

I might add that no one in the parent company was pleased. Some had championed one brand, some the other. The finding that neither brand had power offended both camps. Getting to the truth doesn't always make an agency popular. 

I should also add that this test in no way proved that brands are powerless in general. This was but one case. But it certainly suggests that you should challenge whether your brand has as much power as you'd like to believe.

Back to the research. Since I suspect Adweek was on to something, you might ask, why quibble over the methodology? The reason is that I can't be sure of a conclusion, even one that sounds reasonable, that is attained by faulty methodology. When I was in grade school, I heard that mixing yellow and blue paint makes green paint. I verified it by stealing my older brother's water color set (don't tell him—he still doesn't know) and mixing up some green for myself. I could have flipped a coin. Heads, yellow and blue make green; tails, they don't. I might have gotten the correct answer. But there would have been a 50% chance of getting the wrong one. 

I deal with the science behind fallacious versus reliable research in chapters 8 and 9 of my book Prove It Before You Promote It, so I'll stop here in deference to those who have read the book, and to try and influence those who haven't to buy copies for themselves and all of their friends. Right now, if you please.

Steve Cuno

If skepticism means "naysaying," we're already in trouble, since that's not how I use the word. 

For clarity's sake, then, I'll use the term "evidence-based thinking." EBT for short.

EBT is a marketer's silver bullet. It lets you rise above emotion and speculation as you evaluate a marketing effort from a scientific standpoint. Rather than rate a campaign by how well-liked it is by you, your focus groups, the Board of Directors, and the Board of Director's spouses, you can rate it in terms of (1) if it's making or costing money; (2) how it compares against other strategies; (3) how it performs down to cost-per-sale; (4) how to make it perform even better; and (5) reliable, projected future performance...