Commercial radio: how low can you go?

You can always count on commercial radio to debase public taste when there is a buck to be made. This ad is a stunning display of the 'bottom feeder' mentality of the industry: The listener/consumer/customer is presented as a "mature MILF"- with chicken's feet hands - clinging to a 'toy boy'. You, the advertiser, are invited to join him in separating our Baby Boomer MILF (look it up) from her money. No big deal, except that the Commercial Radio Industry is dogged by an image among advertisers of being less than elegant... tin pan alley, uncool, cheap. Why? Because it is all those things - from the bottom to the top. Breakfast crews strive to 'out gross' their competitors with stunts. It's official that commentators like Jones and Laws can be bribed to change their comments. To read the eulogies for Stan Zamanek, you'd think he was a decent human being when in fact he was a man who spread hatred and racial division. He had all the poison of a Jones, without the intelligence or the vocabulary. His tirades were aural sewerage. And so, he was a star of commercial radio. The commercial radio industry is a perfect example of a brand defining itself by its actions. The result: how many big brands use it? Name two. Look at this ad: would you spend money with the cool dudes who fell about laughing when the agency presented this 'big idea'? No? If I want manure, I'll buy a horse.

China threatens brands and consumers

China is bad for brands and threatens consumer safety. Why did Mattel executives grovel to the Chinese for damage done to the reputation of Chinese-made goods by its recall of millions of toys for safety reasons? The company now says it was its fault – a design problem. Don’t believe it.

Mattel generates much of its profit in China. So it is allowing the Chinese Government to rewrite the rules of product safety.

Mattel now says that it recalled too many products. It agreed with the Li Changjiang, head of China's product quality watchdog: "you cannot recall 10,000 products just because one is sub-standard". Yes you do. This is in fact gold standard product safety practice in the free world. Find a piece of glass in one jar; recall the lot.
What we are seeing is the dark side of dealing with China – people, brands, companies, nobody has rights in China. Everyone must bow down to the State. China is today still the same totalitarian dictatorship that it was under Mao Tse Tung. All that has changed is the “Open For Business” sign it has hung out.

Mattel clearly learned this lesson fast. So, if Mattel’s line is right, the makers of the tyres and toothpastes that were recalled also made ‘design faults’. Can food importers have design faults?

The language of the Mattel apology mimics that of “self criticism” speeches the victims of Chinese Communist regimes were forced to make to howling crowds just before they were dragged out and shot. (China today executes more of its citizens than any other nation on earth.)

So, when the rest of the world – chasing a buck – made China its manufacturing plant, it also outsourced control of customer safety and a bunch of other things, like massive pollution, sweatshop conditions for employees, and ultimately the reputations of its brands.

History tells us that China will not rise to meet our standards. We must descend to hers. The Chinese threat to the capitalist system is greater now than it ever was under Mao.

Increase your response 1000%

Hi,

Jiffy Lube increased response to a newspaper insert in the USA by offering to 'neutralise' the carbon emitted by the customer's vehicle over the period until the next scheduled service. It buys carbon credits for a few dollars (and probably include the cost in the bill). The psychological effect of a small gesture, at a certain time in the developing climate change awareness in the USA, can be extraordinary.

Cheers!

Michael

PS. No bank story today.

A service call from the NAB

Hi,

I had a moment of mirth this morning, thanks to my ex-bank, the NAB. I still have some cards with them, but we moved the business after years of being treated like sheep.

I took a call from someone at the bank’s call centre who was ID-ing me for the cards – giving me a password, etc. Just a few questions: what is your full name? Got that one right. Date of birth: I gave it. No, that’s not what I have here, said our ‘customer service officer’. “Well I aught to know my birth date better than you would,” I said.

Then came the punch line: “Now you’ll have to go to a branch and show them your driver’s licence and we can change our records.” I was dumbstruck. For half a second. “No, I won’t be going anywhere.” (It is 38km to the nearest town where there’s a sub-branch of said bank. We live in the bush.) “It’s your stuff up. You sort it out!” CSO: “I’ll have to speak to a manager.” By this time I had abandoned the phone to my wife who has endless resources of patience with ‘customer service’ people.

The CSO eventually called our ex-branch and someone there looked up the file and bingo! If the NAB got a basic fact like DOB wrong after more than a decade of doing business with us, what other data do they get wrong? My balance?

What can we conclude about my former bank from this incident? One: it is standard practice to force customers to go to a branch to verify their details when the bank gets it wrong. The call centre operator gave me the instruction without reference to a manager. The “Go To A Branch” instruction must be written into the bank’s call centre script. Standard practice. Two: It hasn't changed.

Future looks scary for Cataloguers and Aussie Post?

The British Government has brought down the chopper on dm by introducing ‘opt in’ for unaddressed mail and allowing consumers to opt out of receiving all forms of direct mail. The reason: reducing the waste stream, reduced emissions. Other governments will follow, responding to the same public opinion that is driving Britain to dismantle the infrastructure of hard copy dm.

Both Bush and Howard misread their publics over climate change. Australians lead the world for concern about climate change*. Americans are starting to freak out.** Public opinion has swung away from the two men who refused to ratify Kyoto. They were humilated at APEC by China's refusal to join a soft touch, 'aspirational' regime against the hard core, mandatory UN Kyoto system. Now both nations can't seem to be rid of them quick enough.

*Survey conducted by The Chicago Council on Global Affairs and WorldPublicOpinion.org, includes 17 countries—China, India, the United States, Indonesia, Russia, Thailand, Ukraine, Poland, Iran, Mexico, South Korea, the Philippines, Australia, Argentina, Peru, Israel, Armenia—and the Palestinian territories. These represent more than 5% of the world population.
The largest majority in favor of measures to combat global warming is found in Australia (92%). Eighty percent of respondents in the United States—the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases—also support taking such measures. In five countries, the most common view is: “Global warming is a serious and pressing problem. We should begin taking steps now even if this involves significant costs.” These include: Australia (69%), Argentina (63%), Israel (54%), the United States (43%), and Armenia (37%). Overwhelming majorities in all seven countries rate improving the global environment as at least an “important” goal and majorities in all call it a “very important” one: Australia, 99 percent (very 88%); South Korea, 96 percent (very 60%); the United States 93 percent (very 54%), Armenia 86 percent (very 54%), China, 85 percent (very 54%); Thailand, 83 percent (very 61%); and India, 79 percent (very 51%).

**A new Yale research survey reveals a significant shift in public attitudes toward the environment and global warming. Fully 83 percent of Americans now say global warming is a "serious" problem, up from 70 percent in 2004. 70 percent of Americans believe that President Bush doesn't do enough for the environment and should do more.

A Letter From Julian Potter, Macquarie Bank

Greetings, Fellow Toilers in the vineyard of marketing...

My Friend Fred received a letter from Julian Potter recently. Julian is Head of Macquarie Bank Cards. It was part of a mailpiece sent to shareholders to sell them a Platinum card. I was struck dumb by Julian's words.

"Dear Frederick, There comes a time when the old way of doing things needs to be re-evaluated. When convention has to be reconsidered. That time is now and we are making it easy." (Fred thinks: "What the f*** is this about?" I tell Fred it's not Julian, it's his copywriter having a fit of hysteria nervosa.) It goes on: "Introducing the Macquarie Bank Visa Platinum Card: the new form of currency." The new form of currency? Later it is described as "a Card that takes you beyond traditional currency." And in the brochure it says it 'redefines the notion of currency'. Don't all cards do that? Traditional currency being notes and coins. At the height of the copywriter's hysteria, we are to be "inspired by the thought of being part of a currency revolution". This is embarassing. Who wrote this sh**?

There is not a scrap of evidence for any of the claims made in this most unworthy mail piece, even though they fall like confetti. It is a card that 'makes others seem distinctly old fashioned.'It 'readdresses the idea of service. Shifts perceptions of reward experiences....". As a Visa Card, it 'redefines acceptance'. I've got a Visa Card. Macquarie's card doesn't redefine anything. "Travel reimagined" Here we go: "Your Card can take you on a journey that is genuinely inspirational. A voyage that's so personal you can get on any flight at any time on any airline you choose.*" (The asterix referred us to the back of the brochure: "*Subject to availability." Hold on: I can get on any flight on any airline at any time subject to availability.)

The exclusivity of this offer is also bullshit. As the letter says: "Macquarie Bank Shareholders are among the first to be offered our new Visa Platinum Credit Card with Founding Member Status." Who else is 'among the first'? And what does "Founding Member Status" mean? We aren't told. But wait, it gets better: "If you are not eligible to apply, we would be happy for you to pass this offer on to someone you know." We don't know if you are a shareholder or not. Anyway, this offer is so exclusive, you can pass it on to anyone you like.

Now Julian, I am sure you sniffed the bullshit when your people or the creative kids in Big Budget Agency were presenting this piece of crap to you. They were hugging themselves and congratulating each other on the brilliance of the copy, none of them having ever met a Mac Bank shareholder except you... You were swept up in the group hysteria. Or you were too busy to check it. Didn't see it?

Why am I being so aggressive about this? Because I wrote sh** like this for American Express Gold Card in the dark days at Ogilvy & Mather when Amex was in decline and choking on its own bullshit. (I resigned from the account - the only person in O&M's history to have ever done so.)

I have a great respect for Mac Bank, having been given extraordinary access to the Bank's culture and inner workings. I believe they are the best of the best. They are growing quickly. They take risks and mostly they succeed. But this mailpiece is unworthy of them.

Julian, your name appears under this piece of copy. Don't let them do it to you again. Even if this campaign works, it is not fair to inflict such compost on the shareholders and the brand. The copywriter should be forced to meet with 25 shareholders before sitting down to write. They should be forced to write the letter to one of the shareholders. Only then will the copy be authentic and powerful. Double your response rate.

I was once asked to quote on a project to teach the senior managers how to judge copy and the junior managers how to write it or commission it. They didn't proceed with the project. Shame. For you, Julian.

Michael
0417 280 540

PS. This copy goes into the finals of the WORLD'S WORST COPY EVER WRITTEN. Send me your entries.

A new segment emerges

Hi,

When I was playing in a rock band I got the roadies to take all the switches off my guitar bar one - the volume control. It made no difference to the sound, in fact I found I could control the sound by pressure on the strings and the neck of the guitar. This week I bought a new camera - x12 zoom, image stabilisation, Leica lens, a gazillion pixels. But setting it up and coming to grips with the functionality will require hours of study. I need simplicity. Manufacturers don't hire simplifers, only complicators, over-engineering products to amuse themselves. What is so smart about shutting people out through technical "sophistication" (which is in reality 'crude' and 'primitive') akin to an alien language. I don't believe I am a segment of one. There is a huge market of non-geeks. The 'single switch' people like me. Compulsory geekdom is the rule. Make a motsa. Simplify. Tap the silent, suffering mass market.

Cheers!

Michael

Forgetting the basics

Hi,

I judged the NSW Young Direct Marketer of the Year this week. The case studies the four finalists presented revealed that many of the basics of dm have to be relearned by every generation. Here are some examples:

1. Test only significant things. Testing minor elements of a mailpack does not pay dividends. One charity tested the direction donation amount options are presented: high amounts first vs low amounts first. (The traditional format of low amounts first won. It is one of the eternals of charity dm.)

2. Your logo is not a compelling argument for opening an envelope. One financial services operation delivered an amazing offer to frequent flyers (250,000 miles for shifting your mortgage) with no indication of the offer on the outer envelope, just the logo of the finance provider.

3. Focus on the 'purchase cycle' of the individual for mega-ROI results. One marketer of eye wear has a database of customers which includes purchase cycle data. Instead of a 'one-size-fits-all' approach to soliciting repurchase, it is now sending offers only when the customer is coming into their preferred buying period.

4. Some lists are too small. One luxury car company sent a very expensive mail piece to 10 existing customers based on their lease expiry dates. They sold 6 cars, so big ROI. But 10 customers could be personally visited by the dealer principal or simply telephoned to get the same effect.

Cheers!

MK

Getting out of your own way

Hi,

I was waiting for my car to be serviced, so I read the super-glossy magazine published at great expense by the company for its owners.

I recognised the senior executive who 'wrote' a short 'letter' to customers. It consisted of lots of good news: sales records were being broken and the company has won an unprecedented number of awards. This is typical of corporate newsletters and customer magazines. Management cannot help themselves. They imagine the customer is the same as them: interested mainly in sales figures. Hello! They don't give a [expletive deleted] about your sales figures.... unless they are getting something out of it.

"The Inner Game of Golf" teaches that to be a great golfer you must get out of your own way. Many teachers of eastern spiritual practices say we must get out of our own way if we are to become truly enlightened. Obviously our senior manager in charge of the marketing of cars like mine needs to get out of his own way. This means become less inward focussed and self-conscious of your role and responsibilities to the company. It means becoming more outward focussed and customer driven.

Managers can't do it by nature of their roles.

Cheers!

MK