One day a friend in the direct mail business opened an industry magazine and pointed out to me a photo of its editor. She happened to be youngish-looking and attractive. "This," he said, "is why this magazine has no credibility." How could a publisher expect readers to take this "girl" seriously?

My friend would have taken umbrage had you suggested that he was sexist. He was merely being "real." Much like a vendor, no longer welcome in our offices, who took umbrage when I told him that calling a female employee "voluptuous" constituted sexual harassment and had better stop. He was merely "complimenting" her. Much like the past associate who took umbrage when I changed his use of "weatherman" in copy to "weather caster." He was merely avoiding taking "this politically correct crap" too far.

Being free from prejudice, and from harmful language and actions, takes conscious effort and painfully honest self-scrutiny. I have blown it myself from time to time. I suspect we all do. But if we remain willing to listen and grow, there's still hope.

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
 
 
A popular marketing blog recently listed 100 ways to measure social media. But before you get excited, I should warn you. The author seems to be liberal in his use of the word “measure.”

A sampling of his “measures,” drawn at random, includes: “volume of consumer-created buzz for a brand based on number of posts,” “shift in buzz over time,” “sentiment by volume of posts,” “number of chat room participants,” and “Wiki contributors.”

Help me out here. Exactly where on the P&L statement should the accounting firm list buzz, sentiment, chat participants and Wiki contributors?

Call me a stickler, but nowhere on the list did I find “units sold.” This strikes me as a major oversight. Rave about buzz all you like, but buzz ain’t sales.

I associate “measure” with empirical stuff. “The board is 10 feet long.” That’s empirical. But by the blogger’s standard, I suppose I could infer that the board must be the right length based on how many people talked about seeing it leaning against the shed.

To be fair, there have been documented cases of cold, hard sales attributable to social media campaigns. Moreover, I’m sure that direct marketers (alas, not branders) will unlock secrets for making the social media pay on a reliable, measurable, consistent basis.

But so far, most of the buzz about buzz is nothing but buzz.

Getting worked up over non-measures isn’t new. Ad agencies have been doing it for decades by ballyhooing recall and awareness scores. The ad industry loves to argue that when awareness or buzz is up, sales follow. Which is fine, unless you care about things like facts. Think back to the biggest nerd in your high school. He had high awareness and generated lots of buzz. Yet no one asked him to the Sadie Hawkins Dance.

Steve Cuno

 
 
One of the best times to get a customer to buy from you ... is right after that customer has bought from you. 

We just created a program for a client to take advantage of that. On the heels of any purchase, his Top and Second Tier customers receive an offer by mail. Conventional wisdom might tell you that we're mailing too soon, but experience shows otherwise. The mailing brings back 42% of Top Tier customers within a month, and 28% of Second Tier customers.

Anytime a customer makes a significant purchase, send an email or, better yet, a snail mail that (1) thanks the customer and (2) suggests an additional purchase. If you're a fundraiser, bring up a need and suggest an additional donation.

Steve Cuno
 
 
Standing on the rim of the Grand Canyon with my tour group, I was treated to an interesting lesson in communication.

Millions of years worth of geology, natural history and physics stretched before us. We thrilled at the sight. Our guide held us rapt with his description of the powerful forces attested by the wonder at our feet.

Until, that is, someone spied a speck on the Colorado River about a mile below. “There’s a boat!” he called out. Canyon and tour guide were instantly forgotten as heads and binoculars turned to the speck. The group debated what kind of boat it was, how many people were in it, were they fishing, and could you see what they were wearing.

The guide and I looked at each other, helpless. There was no getting the crowd’s attention back. They were busy trying to make out the logo on the hat the guy in the front of the boat was wearing.

The communication lesson is that people are easily distracted. And once they are, you won’t get them back.

When you write and design an ad, every detail must be designed to get readers where you want them. The slightest extraneous detail has the power to send them irretrievably off in the wrong direction.

Good ad writers and designers resist the urge to add words or elements just because “they’re cool.” Just as a speck of a boat can take a crowd’s attention from the world-famous, awe-inspiring, majestic sight they traveled thousands of miles to see, any device that doesn’t actively contribute to your advertising objective has the potential to undo it.

Steve Cuno

 
 
 
Readers of this blog have probably noticed that I am a proponent of evidence-based and critical thinking. On rare occasions, I even pull off engaging in it myself.

So you can imagine the honor I felt when I was invited to become a columnist for Swift, the official online publication of the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF). 

The JFEF is best known for its standing million-dollar offer to anyone who can prove a paranormal or supernatural claim. Its aim is "to promote critical thinking by reaching out to the public and media with reliable information about paranormal and supernatural ideas so widespread in our society today."

Any fantastic claim is fair game—from the paranormal, to alien abductions, miracle cures, mind reading, alternative medicine, you name it. As you might imagine, this inevitably means they do a lot of debunking. This doesn't always make the JREF popular with well-intentioned people who hold irrational beliefs dear. It makes them even less popular with con artists. Either way, it provides a valuable service.

If you'd like to read my first effort for Swift, please click here. (Also check out the reader comments. Quite a few of them unwittingly demonstrate the very behavior that I urge readers to avoid.) And check back often. I'll be contributing monthly, and plenty of other writers add good stuff daily.

Steve Cuno

 
 
A new poll shows that a majority of Utahans do not like President Obama's health care proposal. Unless, that is, you remove his name and just show them the features. Then the majority will tell you it's just dandy. 

This is not new. Most Americans say they loved Ronald Reagan's policies. But show the policies without his name on them, and most express disapproval.

The lesson is that branding works. Even in politics. 

It is the one area where I wish branding could be disallowed. (Were it possible, that is, which it is not.) When a brand image leads you to choose a hand soap that disappoints, there is little potential harm. Not so when it comes to choosing political leaders.

Of course, Americans generally have no clue when they vote for a brand more than for issues and ideologies. Tell them, and they will vehemently deny it. Or they will concede that others vote that way, but not them.

Steve Cuno
 
 
I'm pleased to report that good copy still matters.

For one client, we had done about all we could think of with the database and the offers, and with good results. The copy was already strong, but we wanted to see if we could make it work harder. So, we made the headlines more intriguing. We gave the body copy more personal appeal, capitalizing on people's aversion to missing out.

Sales went up.

Technological wizardy matters. But technology's ultimate goal is to drive people to a selling proposition. Copy necessarily drives that proposition. Always give it your best.

Steve Cuno
 
 
When an ad campaign fails, the smart, responsible thing to do is retire it. Especially if you and I happen to be paying for it with our tax dollars.

But not according to the National Dairy Council. After all, though "Got Milk?" hasn't increased milk sales, it's like, you know, really popular. Stars line up to have their picture taken with a white mustache. Heck, there's even a coffee table book of the posters. If that doesn't spell "success," what does? 

Still, there's that sticky problem of sagging milk sales. But instead of trying to come up with a new campaign that might actually work, or quit throwing good money after bad and concede that milk will never topple cola or coffee, the National Dairy Council has a new tactic. They want school lunch programs to push—drum roll please—chocolate milk.

The tortured logic is that chocolate milk is healthier than soda pop. 

At the risk of quibbling, it might be more accurate to say, "less bad for you when consumed in small quantities."

Improving health by pushing chocolate milk in place of pop is like pushing low-tar cigarettes on kids who smoke. Can anyone say "false dichotomy"? 

Steve Cuno
 
Word Abuse 11/05/2009
 
I just heard a radio spot for a law firm “specializing” in “over 50 areas of law.” Hmm. Sounds more like “generalizing” to me.