The boys in the scout troop nodded solemnly as the scoutmaster explained that the most important part of their uniform was none other than the scarf. It said so, right there, in the manual. You could use it to make a bandage, carry things, shade yourself, etc., etc.

But at lesson review time, the scoutmaster had the misfortune to ask my brother Pete, then 11, which part of the uniform was most important. Quickly jerking his mind back from elsewhere, Pete said, "The pants." 

"No," said the scoutmaster, "the scarf."

It was a snowy January night in upstate New York, Land of Unforgiving Winters. Pete said, "Let's go outside. I'll wear pants. You wear a scarf. Let's see who lasts longer."

I would call that an example of critical thinking trumping Argument from Authority. 

It pays never to let down your critical thinking guard. This is good advice for life in general, including marketing. Be especially suspicious when the accepted wisdom smacks of magic. (For instance, "If it's truly creative, it will sell.") Ask questions like, "How do we know that's true?" And beware answers like, "Because everybody knows." Everyone knew the earth was the center of the universe, too.

Steve Cuno
Add Comment
 
Lying for Zicam 01/06/2010
 
Some people assume that a career in advertising means lying for a living. Until more of us learn to say NO to products that don't work, our profession will have a hard time taking umbrage at such accusations. To wit: The makers of Zicam just awarded their advertising account to the Cramer-Krasselt agency in Phoenix. I wish Cramer-Krasselt had turned them down flat. I wish all other agencies would, too.  

Why? Something about lying to make a buck. And, in this case, selling something harmful. Call me a pollyanna, but these don't sit well with me.

How Zicam is medically harmful. Please read this excellent post by Steven Novella, MD, a leader in science-based medicine. Just the opening paragraph is harrowing: "On June 16th the FDA issued a warning advising consumers not to use Zicam Nasal Gel or Nasal Swabs because of reports that it can damage the sense of smell, a condition called anosmia. This event highlights some problems with current regulations of health products." 

Now, back to lying for Zicam. Consider this blurb, taken verbatim from the Zicam website: "Zicam Cold Remedy is an over-the-counter homeopathic medicine that actually reduces the duration and severity of the common cold when taken at the first sign of cold symptoms." 

How does this mislead thee? Let me count the ways. Astute readers will surely point out more. 

1. Zicam is not a "remedy," in that it cures nothing. 

2. Homeopathic preparations are "medicines" only in the loosest sense. No scientifically valid test has ever shown homeopathy to have any effect. (Unless you count the placebo effect. But a placebo effect does not constitute healing or recovery. It simply indicates that the patient imagines lessened symptoms.) 

3. Zicam does not reduce the duration of a cold. No remedy on earth has been shown to do that.  

4. "When taken at the first sign of cold symptoms" is a weasel. It provides a convenient out for Zicam when it fails to perform, which is every time. ("You must have started too late. Your fault, not Zicam's.") 

Four big lies from just one FAQ. If you visit the site, you'll find oodles more. Especially odious are the testimonials from people who mistakenly (and, let's hope, innocently) believe that Zicam worked for them. As a direct marketer, I know that testimonials convince. But testimonials are not evidence. Moreover, those who share them can be and often are mistaken. 

I am aware that the Zicam site features "studies." There are studies, and there are studies. I can do a study that shows that hiring the RESPONSE Agency reduces your risk of dying from lung cancer. 

If you would like to know what does help you beat a cold, the answer is: time. People who use Zicam and other preparations recover neither faster nor more slowly than those who use nothing at all. Save your money.

Let's be honest. Some agencies know darn well when they're spinning falsehoods. But many don't. Few agency people are scientists, making it easy for us to be duped by client-paid PhDs. I regret to say that I have thrice fallen into that trap myself. Twice I learned about the misrepresentations only after the account relationship had ended. The one time I that learned about it in-process, I resigned the business.  

Either way, agencies, show some balls. Turn down prospective products that don't work, and resign any that you may have already taken on. As one who doesn't believe in karma, I won't promise you rewards from the Universe. But, tomorrow morning, you might have a little more respect for the person staring back at you from the bathroom mirror. 

Steve Cuno
1 Comment
 
 
My son Jeff performed his earliest recorded scientific experiment at age five.

After hearing about a friend’s punishment, Jeff wondered if washing one’s mouth with soap really did make it impossible to swear. So he walked into our main bathroom, treated his mouth to a generous helping of Dove, and, to his amazement, found he could still say “damn.” A myth was busted, and a healthy skeptic was born.

Marketers could learn a thing or two from Jeff. Next time you hear someone say “no one reads copy any more” or “upscale people don’t respond to obnoxious late-night TV spots,” or “if your advertising is truly creative it will sell,” don’t just buy it. Check it out. Test it. You may find that “what you’ve always heard” ain’t, in the immortal words of Porgy, necessarily so.

Who knows. Upon completing your experiment, you may, like Jeff, shake your head in wonder and say, “damn.”

Add Comment
 
 
Mr. Cuno deserves high praise for his speech at the James Randi “Amaz!ng Meeting Roundup” held this past summer in Las Vegas. The recent James Randi Educational Foundation Quarterly Newsletter included the comment, “Thank you to our many speakers, especially Steve Cuno, who came roaring out of left field and stole the show.”

Congrats to Mr. Cuno, and a big thanks to the JREF for such a gracious comment.

Joe Szymanski, Agency Principal
Add Comment
 
 
Today I received an invitation to the American Advertising Federation’s 2010 conference. I speak at AAF events, so I hesitate to criticize. But what the heck. They’re big kids. They can take it. 

Besides, I doubt they read my blog.

The invitation reads:

“Okay, we’ll say it. Conferences can be dull. That’s why this conference will be unlike any conference you’ve ever been to. No boring case studies. No mind-numbing speeches. No hard metal chairs. In marketing, it’s always been about the 'big idea.' How do you come up with one? Once you have one, how do you grow it? Manage it? Make it profitable? AAF National Conference 2010 will explore the 'idea' from inception to execution, and everywhere in between. Want to explore? Sign up for the 'Scavenger Hunt,' a workshop that will send you on a hunt for the next big idea. How far can you stretch a penny? Our speakers will help you discover innovative and efficient ways to address conservative budgets in today’s marketplace. Can you think on your feet? Take an improv workshop to boost your creativity and quick-thinking skills.” 

If you plan to attend, don’t show that to your clients. When it comes to client complaints about agencies, limited scavenger hunting and improv skills don’t exactly top the list. 

As for the Big Idea? Overrated. Creative people would do better to brush up on building a rock-solid strategy—from which sound ideas flow. Sound needn’t be “Big” to pay out big. No one would accuse the old Ginsu Knife ads or, more recently, the Snuggie ads of featuring a Big Idea. Moreover, lots of Big Ideas flop when it comes to sales. The Taco Bell Chihuahua. The Milk Mustache. Man Law.

A worthwhile event should challenge thinking, broaden horizons, sharpen skills and improve measurable outcomes. The upcoming AAF conference may well be a great one. But, unfortunately, the promo I received makes it sound more like play time designed to validate the myth that creativity is some elusive, etherial je ne sais quoi, rather than a discipline you can develop.

To be fair, the session on penny-stretching might be worthwhile.

Steve Cuno  
Add Comment
 
 
These days it's fashionable to lambast companies for not selling something healthier or more useful. 

Could Hostess sell something healthier than Twinkies? Yup. Could Harlequin publish something better than mindless drivel? Yup. 

Should they? Not for me to say. Moreover, this line of reasoning inevitably leads to questions as to where to draw the proverbial line. Suppose Hostess gave up Twinkies and went into the fresh produce business. The fault-finding wouldn’t cease. (“They should import asparagus only from countries that treat their llamas better.”) Same thing if Harlequin switched to publishing classics. (“How dare they publish Crime and Punishment? The central character is a cold-blooded killer who questions the existence of God.”)

Instead of blaming marketers for what they sell, perhaps it’s time to accept responsibility for what we consume. No one, not even the alleged but non-existent powers of so-called subliminal advertising, can force you to buy against your will. 

So if you object to a product, here's a revolutionary idea: don’t buy it. Nor must you buy your kids every toy they see on TV. Even if they can't tell a commercial from programming, I know of no law of physics preventing you from teaching your kids that nagging is impolite and that not getting everything they want is part of life.

Should some products be banned? Sure. Trouble is, that's a can of worms. What I would cheerfully disallow (acupuncture, chiropractic and assault weapons, for starters), others would vehemently defend. And vice versa.

Meanwhile, what is legal to buy should be legal to market. The two kind of go together. 

As a side note, if you’re a marketer who objects to a product, I suggest declining helping to sell it. That is, provided you have that luxury. I have it, and I exercise it. Products of would-be clients I have declined include software purporting to predict stock prices (impossible), a multi-level company (generally a fraudulent system but for a few notable exceptions), an alternative “medicine” company (quackery, and downright dangerous at that), and a right-wing political organization bordering on fascism (let’s just say they’d have made the KKK proud).

Steve Cuno
Add Comment
 
 
Picture
Old Pepsi logo
Picture
New Pepsi logo
You may know that Pepsi updated its logo this past year. What you may not know is how much Pepsi paid the design firm for the update. 

One. Million. Bucks.

Note to Pepsi: we'd have cheerfully done it for half that.

The design firm defends their epic work (and equally epic price tag) on the grounds that the new logo calls to mind the Earth's magnetic fields and the sun's radiation, thus evoking "...emotive forces [that] shape the gestalt of the brand identity." 

Er, yeah. Right. Got that.

Furthermore, this wasn't the sort of thing a designer could just dream up in a studio. No, no. He had to travel the world to meditate in myriad different settings.

How can any rational person effectively argue with any of the above logic?

Steve Cuno
1 Comment
 
 
Dominating the headlines this week: another rich, powerful, good-looking public figure had an affair. Once again, we collectively express our shock and disgust. Yet it appears that neither our shock nor our disgust keeps us from voraciously gobbling up one incarnation after another of this non-story. Thus the media continue serving generous portions.

Come on, country. Being shocked at dalliances of the rich and powerful is like being shocked anew every time it’s revealed that fast food ain’t all that healthy. A rich, powerful, good-looking celebrity who has never cheated—that would be news.

What’s more, the outraged public is largely hypocritical. If you don’t believe me, check the infidelity statistics of non-public figures. Or, for that matter, check how many decriers of fast food actually live on the stuff.

I don’t blame the media for escalating the Woods story, despite the war, the recession, human rights and other issues. To survive, the media must market themselves like any other profit-making enterprise. Marketing consists of delivering what the public wants. It’s not the media’s job to make us eat our vegetables.

People who express disgust at what the media purvey misplace their disgust. If the public didn’t willingly consume sensationalistic tripe, overnight the media would cease delivering it.

Steve Cuno
3 Comments
 
 
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
2 Comments
 
 
Ever since 1957, when James Vicary lied about splicing subliminal messages into a movie to incease Coke and popcorn sales, it has been fashionable—and handy—to accuse advertising of having powers it doesn't possess, and of causing society's ills. 

Enough. We don't know how to manipulate you or your kids against your will. And though I know of no advertisers who use subliminal practices, if there are cranks who attempt it, don't let them scare you. Scientifically valid testing has shown that subliminal advertising has no effect. At all. (Yes, I am aware of so-called tests that allegedly say otherwise. The tests are based on flawed methodology and are invalid.) (Speaking of matters sublimimal, those tapes that play while you’re asleep? Pure flimflam.)

As I write, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) is pushing legislation to “eliminate the tax deductibility of fast food and junk food advertising directed at children.”

Advertising is a business expense. What is legal to sell should be legal to advertise. If you object to a product, seek to have it banned, not to make it harder to sell.

Meanwhile, try personal responsibility as a parent for a change. Yes, shocking as it may sound, I am suggesting teaching values in your home. You can use those dreaded media messages as launch points for great, values-centered conversations.

Do not blame your and your kids' bad habits on the media. No one is obese because the media made them that way. People get fat when they eat more than they burn. Kids get fat when parents don't ensure they get a balanced diet. Certainly the why behind a compulsive overeating problem is a more involved question, but ads are not part of the answer.

Ads suggest. You still get to decide what to do with the suggestion. And you remain accountable for the decision, no matter whom you try to blame.

Some related thoughts:
 
• Ever notice the double standards used by ad-blamers? Most will tell you that they are not controlled by ads; it's everyone else they're worried about. 
 
• People claim that fast food ads cause obesity. Yet people also claim that skinny models in ads cause anorexia and bulimia. Come on, folks. Pick one.

• Programming is far less regulated than advertising. You will see actors drink booze in movies and TV shows, but never in a TV commercial. It's illegal, even in a booze ad. Remember the old Playtex commercials that showed bras on mannequins but not on real women? That was because, until a couple of decades ago, you could show a lingerie-clad woman in programming—even naked, in a movie—but not in a commercial.

• If you want to save lives, I suggest raising your voice against Jenny McCarthy’s anti-vaccination crusade. Kids may be getting plump at McDonald’s, but McCarthy's actions are killing tens of thousands of children right now, with the potential to kill hundreds of thousands or more in the near future. And, sadly, someday putting them on a diet won’t save these kids.
Steve Cuno
1 Comment