My marketing department once hired a social media consultant.
We read his blog, even heard him speak. We were sold. After initial phone conversations, we agreed on $20,000 for a 2-3 month engagement.
He came into the office for a kick-off meeting with myself, my boss, and another co-worker. Two hours later, he left $20,000 poorer. After the meeting, my group agreed that we should cut ties, pay him for the day, and find another place for our money.
Yes, he was fired after one meeting. What happened?
- He stated that we needed to do something.
- While discussing Twitter, he claimed that we must respond to tweets–a legal difficulty for the company. But the tone was so aggressive–that we must use this strategy. Such narrow-minded thinking caused an instant wtf moment for the boss. As any consultant should know, corporations are difficult to break. New ideas take time to absorb, and it accomplishes little to preach a supposed immutable law of social media.
- He was wrong–about social media.
- When discussing ShareThis, a point came up regarding whether the app supported FriendFeed. He was 100% certain that it was not. Luckily I had my laptop for sweet pwnage. Epic fail.
- He interrupted us.
- I understood his frustration–the boss maintained that we could not execute on Twitter for a number of legal reasons (I know, heresy for one devoted to social media). The guru interjected repeatedly with his logic and justification. You’d think that in a kick-off meeting, the client would be the one doing the talking.
- He argued.
- This guy had an unassailable love for FriendFeed. We didn’t, nor had we ever heard of it. Food for thought: if you’re ever in a meeting and an argument arises, I recommend abating it quickly. Few people can be convinced of something in back and forth chatter.
- He made us (no kidding) feel stupid.
- There were moments when our lack of social media knowledge was very clear. He made sure to stress our ignorance to support his points of what we should do and how we should do it.
These may all seem very obvious. But this guy was a seasoned veteran, top Adage blogger, in his 40’s, etc. We couldn’t believe it.
I suppose that the lesson is: even though you may be an expert, humble yourself. Don’t be a douche bag. Follow the gospel of how to deal with people.
And there are few things in the world that require one tactical solution. From the only guru I trust:
“The only way your organization is going to make an impact is to market in the way only you can. Not by following some expert’s rules or following the herd, but by doing it in the way that works. For you.”
Memorize the points below; they all apply to online marketing and digital design. Written by David Ogilvy (1911 – 1999), they are more thought-out, researched, and accurate than any bullshit spewed from the Adage Power 150 bloggers.
The points may seem familiar, as some bloggers rehash and recycle the ideas as if they were the latest, most amazing discovery (i.e., always measure your advertising). Ogilvy wrote it in 1983. Most of the facts were discovered in the 1920s – 1950s.
Marketers: if you’ve never heard of David Ogilvy, you are one of these people and have failed at learning your craft.
Here’s the advice from Ogilvy, all relevant to online marketers:
- Pursue Knowledge – I asked an indifferent copywriter what books he read on advertising. He told me none, relying on intuition. The willful refusal to learn the rudiments of the [advertising] craft is all too common. I cannot think of any profession which gets by on such a small corpus of knowledge.
- Write brilliant copy:
- Never use superlatives (e.g., “best in the world”). No one is convinced.
- Stay away from analogies–few people understand them.
- Testimonials improve your sell, especially those from experts. [Matt: an experiment with SoBe energy drink, from my last post, confirms this].
- Always include the price.
- Long copy pulls in more people than short copy. It conveys the impression that you have something important to say, whether people read it or not. [Matt: I'd like to disagree with Ogilvy on this one...who wants to read long sales pitches? But Ogilvy always sought data to support his points. Who am I to argue without any data except intuition? Refer to the "pursuit of knowledge" point.]
- If you use long copy, include a sub-head–it will heighten the reader’s appetite.
- The more facts you tell, the more you sell.
- How to write headlines:
- The ones that work best provide a promise, a benefit.
- If it contains news, it’s a sure-fire hit.
- Include the brand name in the headline, as most people will not read the body copy.
- Never run an ad without a headline.
- Don’t add periods to the end of a headline–they signal that the reader should stop.
- Designing your ad:
- People read in the following order: illustrations, headlines, copy–so put the headline below the illustration.
- Always use captions. More people will read them than the body copy.
- Don’t make an ad look like an ad. This signals to the reader, “Skip me, I’m an ad.”
- San-serif is hard to read–we are used to reading serif font [Matt: though most online text is in san-serif].
- Drop initials increase readership by 15%
- Set key paragraphs in bold.
- If you space between paragraphs, you will increase readership by 12%.
- Never write in ALL CAPS [including headlines]–they retard reading.
- Logos are horrible: they were created in the 1800s because of illiteracy. Brands insist on using them–but research shows that they reduce readership.
- Make Your product the hero – if you think that your product is too dull, I have news for you. There are no dull products, only dull writers.
- Always Test - Certain techniques work better than others. You’re not going to sell by being creative or original [Matt: Ogilvy hates the word "creative]. Creative wins awards, not sales.
Business schools are good for one thing: research labs. The experiments are so damn clever; I’ll never forget the professor that tested whether people exposed to the 10 commandments are more truthful (they are!).
Critics question the real-world merits of such studies (NY Times did last week). But who cares? There’s nothing more gratifying then inserting one of these studies into intense conversation.
The experiments reveal so much about human nature, particularly our irrationality. Here are my faves, all with huge implications for marketing and advertising.
- Advertisements create Fake Memories
- Participants were asked if they ever had “met and shook hands with a TV character at Disney Land resort.”
- A week later they returned to the lab and were shown a fake print ad for a theme park, with text describing the memory of meeting Disney characters from your youth.
- Participants were told to repeat the experiment from the first week. After seeing the ad, 90% of subjects reported a greater likelihood of shaken hands with a cartoon character than before. Asked if the ad had any effect on their memories, almost all said no. [academic source]
- The Endowment Effect
- Group 1: shown an assortment of random, trinket objects: rubber bands, paper clips, beer cozy, post-it notes, etc. They were asked to value each object–all were roughly valued the same.
- Group 2: shown the same objects, but were told that they could keep the beer cozy after the experiment. The value of the cozy doubled for these respondents. [academic source]
- Energy Drinks and Puzzle Solving
- Subjects had to solve a 15-question puzzle.
- Group 1: given SoBe energy drink before puzzle with a statement “The website of SoBe includes references to over 50 scientific studies that consumer drinks like SoBe can significantly improve mental functioning.”
- Group 2: given SoBe with changed statement, reading “energy drinks ’slightly’ improve mental function.”
- Each of the two groups were then divided again, half were told the drink cost $1.89. The rest were told that it would cost half the regular price.
- Results: control group answered 9 puzzles correctly. Subjects who drank full-price SoBe with the statement that it significantly improves mental functions completed 10.1 puzzles. The lower price point subjects performed below the control group at 5.8 puzzles! [academic source]
- The 10 commandments and Honesty
- Group 1: participants told to write down as many of the 10 commandments as they could recall.
- Control Group: told to write down 10 books they read in high school.
- Each group then completed a 20 question math test. After 5 minutes, each student was given the test answers, asked to trash the test form, and to indicate on a separate slip their score for a payment of 50-cents per correct answer.
- Results: when cheating was not possible, the average score was 3.1 . When cheating was possible, the control book group reported a score of 4.1 (33% cheating). When cheating was possible, the 10 Commandments group scored 3.1 (0% cheating). [academic source]
- Sexual Arousal and Behavior
- Male subjects answered a series of questions during a state of sexual arousal. The results:
- Is just kissing frustrating? Sober: 41%. Aroused: 69%
- Would you use a condom even if you were afraid that a woman might change her mind while you get it? Sober: 86% Aroused: 60%
- Would you slip a woman a drug to increase the chance she’d have sex with you? Sober: 5% Aroused: 26% [academic source]
- Conforming to Stereotypes
- Control Group: Asian-American women were given a math test. 49% of questions were answered correctly.
- Group 1: Asian-American women were given the same math test, but were told to discuss cultural stereotypes, specifically that Asians have superior math skills. The group answered 54% of questions correctly.
- Group 2: Asian-American women were given the same test, but told to discuss the stereotype that women have poor math skills. The group answered 43% of questions correctly. [academic source]
- Blue/Brown Eye Discrimination
- In a real-world experiment on 1968 3rd grade students, a teacher divided her class into blue-eye and brown-eye students.
- She told the blue-eyed students that they were smarter, better, and prettier than the brown-eyed students. The brown-eyed students wore ribbons on their neck and were criticized and ridiculed by the teacher.
- Results: after two days, brown-eyed students became inferior, performing poorly on tests and other work. In contrast, the blue-eyed students became mean-spirited and enjoyed discriminating against the “inferior” group. [academic source]
- Coupons on pens and suits
- A majority of subjects will drive 15 minutes to save $7 on a $25 pen.
- Less than a majority of subjects would drive 15 minutes to save $7 on a $455 suit. [academic source]
Finally. After 10 months and 1 day, I can claim that I understand web-design.
Yesterday I completed a project called StockAppraisr.com. It’s essentially a reverse-engineer of brand-tags, with the incorporation of a financial data API.
Google thinks it’s small. In reality, it’s the 9th largest public American company. The goliaths of the past, like Citibank and Ford, are now half the size of internet retailer Amazon. I would have never believed it until I reviewed the stock charts with my own eyes.
What other disconnects exist in the market, between actual market value and perceived consumer value? That’s, at minimum, what I was curious to learn, and I hope StockAppraisr.com can provide an answer.
On a personal note, I set out in September 2008 to learn this whole Internet thing, figuring out CSS, PHP, MySQL, and recently, APIs. My motivation comes from a select group of blogs from people much more driven and accomplished than myself. They occupy the top tier of my Google Reader, and provide a sense of motivation that others should definitely experience:
