• About

The Malcolm Auld Blog

~ Marketing Musings and More…

The Malcolm Auld Blog

Category Archives: Thought Leadership

WOW a 5-hour marketing seminar on a subject that doesn’t exist…

15 Tuesday Feb 2022

Posted by Malcolm Auld in Advertising, B2B Marketing, Content Marketing, Copywriting, Digital, Digital marketing, Direct Marketing, Email marketing, Marketing, Marketing Automation, Media, Remarketing, Thought Leadership

≈ 2 Comments

Well folks, the cyber-hustlers are at it again. Those digital doofuses who have no marketing expertise but call themselves marketers.

This image has been chasing me around social media for a while, promoting something that doesn’t exist in marketing ‘paid advertising‘.

The state of something that doesn’t exist…

Advertising by its very definition is media that has been paid for. The marketer buys time or space and controls the message content. I suspect the author really means “Paid Media”, but is not experienced enough to know the difference.

Here’s the modern marketing parlance for media labels:

Paid media – which is all advertising. Marketers pay for time or space and own the content of the advertisement in any media.

Owned media – which includes advertising but also websites, signage, sponsorship, events, trade stands, marketing collateral, sales presentations, point of sale etc – any analogue or digital marketing assets.

Earned media – traditionally public relations, but now includes any marketing content shared or commented about in analogue or digital channels, by experts, journalists, commentators and to a lesser extent in terms of credibility, influencers and social media connections.

And now, the aim of marketers is to get as much of your paid, owned and earned media to become shared media – in analogue and digital channels. To use another recent buzzword, this amplifies your message. There are many examples of brands earning $Millions and even $Billions of media value as a result of their marketing messages being shared, or ‘going viral’.

But let’s unpack the ‘paid advertising’ sponsored message, as it reveals amateurs played a big role in its creation:

The first sentence has a typo: “We’ve brought together some greatest minds…” – it should read: “We’ve brought together some of the greatest minds…“

But who are these minds you ask?

Why is the fact the author has studied a medium size advertising agency worth noting? $63 million and 19 accounts – agencies of this size have been operating for decades. What’s significant?

The final subheading differs from the rest: “The state of advertising in 2022” – what happened to “paid advertising“?

Just as headlines that start with “The art of <insert subject matter here>” are a complete waste of time, so too are headlines that start with “The state of <insert subject matter here>“

They are glib and weak, reflecting the fact no thought has gone into the piece of communication.

But given the declining expertise in modern marketers, many may not notice the errors. For all I know the event went well – though I suspect a better headline might have been:

“FREE 5-Hour Seinfeld workshop – the workshop about nothing”

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr

Like this:

Like Loading...

The second wave of stupidity proves it again – when consumers panic, brands don’t matter…

24 Wednesday Jun 2020

Posted by Malcolm Auld in Advertising, Branding, Marketing, Thought Leadership

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

advertising, branding, brands, marketing, Thought Leadership

A spike in the number of COVID-19 infections this week, in the State of Victoria in Australia, has led to a second wave of stupidity. Apparently, people are rushing their supermarkets and panic-buying bog rolls.

So I thought I’d republish this article, as it is the most popular of my posts in this crazy year. It reflects the simple adage, when common sense flies out the window and people panic, brands don’t matter…

Never underestimate the stupidity of the typical punter…

Now before you pile on dear readers, I am first and foremost a ‘brand man’. I’ve spent my career marketing brands and have just written an article for a trade publication on how those who continue to advertise during tough times, come out of the downturn faster and more profitable than those who don’t advertise.

But the human nature demonstrated in these last few weeks, seems to support that old classic – Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs – and we’ve just added a lower foundation level.

There has not been one person anywhere in the world, who wanted to buy toilet paper, say “oh that’s not my brand – I’ll leave this pack here for someone else and wait until my brand is in stock.”

Oh, this isn’t my favourite brand I won’t buy it…

The same with hand sanitiser, pasta, canned food, paper towels, vegetable seedlings, home gyms, et al.

Get your pasta, any-brand-will-do pasta…

When it comes to the survival of the fittest and the satisfaction of the most basic needs – brands don’t matter. People treat every brand as a commodity.

Last week, I asked my university students what brands, they or their parents, were buying during this pandemic. “Anything we can get our hands on, it doesn’t matter what brand it is – we don’t want to run out of toilet paper.”

The craziness will end though and when humans go back to the ‘new-normal’ and have time to shop at well-stocked stores with disposable income and job security – brands will matter.

So keep investing in your brand – you may have to find innovative ways to do so, such as the distillers making hand sanitiser. But don’t stand still – or you’ll be run over in the rush for essential commodities.

Gotta go, it’s lunchtime. Where’s that tin of no-frills beans…

Mmm no-frills beans…

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr

Like this:

Like Loading...

Communications degrees to double in price, when they should be halving…

19 Friday Jun 2020

Posted by Malcolm Auld in Copywriting, Marketing, Thought Leadership

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

communication, education, marketing

Last night, the Australian Federal Government announced a restructuring of university fees. It’s an attempt to attract more people to study for what the politicians believe will be the growth-jobs in the near future, as we emerge from the COVID-Crisis.

One decision they’ve made is to double the cost of a Communications Degree, as they believe communication skills won’t be in demand in the near term – go figure. I have to declare my hand here folks, as I lecture and tutor subjects in a Communications Degree, as well as a couple of other degrees. I also run a lot of training and education courses in the private sector.

My main concern about this decision is it’s lack of understanding about the average student’s ability to communicate, not to mention the typical blogger, community manager, content marketer, people publishing on LinkedIn, academics et al. They operate under one of two mistaken beliefs: “I type, therefore I can write” or “I talk, therefore I can teach“.

As I’ve written about in these pages before, The OECD International Adult Literacy Study revealed the following:

  • 48.5% of people have difficulty reading basic language
  • 32.7% of people have below average literacy ability

These people, who are struggling with basic language and literacy, are the people creating content for marketing purposes, among other things. It’s no wonder so much ‘content’ is completely ignored, or not understood.

And I recently read that the biggest fear of about 66% of graduates when starting a new job, is having to talk to colleagues. Our graduates fear conversations with humans – partly because they spend so much time staring at screens and texting rather than talking, they have little appetite for verbal communication.

Please don’t make me speak to my work colleagues…

The alarm bells should be ringing loud and clear – communication skills are an essential service in which we need to invest – now more than ever.

As Confucius said in the 5th century BC:

“If language is not correct, then what is said is not what is meant; if what is said is not what is meant, then what must be done remains undone; if this remains undone, morals and art will deteriorate; if justice goes astray, the people will stand about in helpless confusion. Hence there must be no arbitrariness in what is said. This matters above everything.”

Confucius was correct…

And Confucius was correct. Right now, our people are standing about in helpless confusion:

  • People don’t know if they have a job or can get a job in the near future.
  • People don’t know how long they will be supported financially by government assistance, if at all.
  • People are worried they can’t afford their rent or mortgages and may end up homeless.
  • Physical distancing rules are applied inconsistently.
  • Schools are open for students, but universities are not.
  • Borders are open/closed, while health advice is ‘spun’ for political purpose.
  • The bipartisan parliamentary support has evaporated, as politicians have turned the COVID-problem into a political football.

Confusion reigns!

I urge the politicians making these decisions to reconsider – after all, just look at the (lack of) communications skills of so many pollies. Reduce the cost of a Communications Degree, don’t increase the cost. We need more people who can communicate, just as much as we need more people studying nursing, psychology, agriculture, mathematics and so on.

Gotta go, I need to communicate some assignment results to my students. Maybe I’ll just email them…

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr

Like this:

Like Loading...

World’s longest infographic uses fake facts to prove infographics don’t work…

06 Friday Dec 2019

Posted by Malcolm Auld in Content Marketing, Copywriting, Digital, Digital marketing, Marketing, Social Media, social selling, Thought Leadership

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

content marketing, copywriting, digital marketing, infographics, marketing, social media, social selling, Thought Leadership

Well folks, another week and another bunch of fake facts and virtue signalling designed to create FOMO and con marketers into using the self-interested marketing miracle being touted.

And what is this week’s con? It’s an infographic promoting the virtues of video marketing (previously known as television advertising) but as advertisements produced on video now also run on digital channels, they must have a new name. Hence, video marketing.

Ironically, the promoters of video marketing, use an infographic to promote video marketing. They don’t use video to promote video marketing. Go figure?

But wait there’s more…

The video marketing infographic is roughly 21 feet long – that’s 6.5 metres – on my PC. And that’s before I ‘click to enlarge’ the screen. According to Digivizer we each scroll on average, 110 metres every day. So on its own, the world’s longest infographic is about 6% of your daily scrolling activity.

world’s longest infographic is at least 6.5 metres long…

But get this: one of the fake facts printed on the world’s longest infographic claims: “59% of executives prefer watching a video than reading the text content”.

So you have to ask the question: If the majority of the target audience allegedly doesn’t like reading, why publish the world’s longest infographic in the hope they’ll read it??

Another fake fact that will really amaze you – as it reveals human DNA has completely changed and the education problems of the world will now be easily solved. It’s this gem tucked away about one metre down the page:

“viewers retain 95% of a message when they watch it through video”

Who knew? Certainly not the TV industry, as it would never have the audacity to make such a false claim. But hallelujah, the solution to modern education and the future of the planet is video marketing.

Here we are criticising our teenagers for spending too much time watching videos on small screens. How wrong are we? Apparently, teens are learning at levels beyond the capacity of any humans in history. Homo Sapiens have evolved.

After all, according to the world’s longest infographic, our kids are retaining 95% of what they watch on video! Education problems solved! The future of the human population is assured.

Thank goodness for video marketers.

Teenagers enjoy retaining 95% of every video they view…

Fake facts are dotted throughout the world’s longest infographic. Take this amazing claim: “video consumption through mobile devices rises by 100% every year.” That’s a lot of percentages – every year…

Or this one: “72% of customers prefer learning about a product or service through a video.”

I’m not sure what to believe, as according to The Word Of Mouth Association: “77% of consumers are more likely to buy a new product when learning about it from friends or family.”

This must be what’s known as the WOM-Video Marketing Conundrum.

If you have a spare hour you can read the world’s longest infographic here.

But on a serious note…

I know video works – always has and always will – when designed well and when it reaches the right audience in the right channel.

But on all trust measurement surveys in the western world, marketing and advertising executives are the least or second-least trusted people on the planet.

Who do you trust – not advertising executives…

So if the marketing industry continues to lie to itself with self-interested promotions like the world’s longest infographic, what hope do we have of consumers ever trusting any messages we create?

These promoters of fake facts need to be removed from the industry, or at least their peers need to call them out and stop them from ruining the marketing industry’s already fragile reputation.

So I urge you, my fellow marketers, take action.

Marketers, take action…

Though I’m not holding my breath. A number of seemingly smart marketers ‘liked’ the world’s longest infographic when it was posted on social channels. Obviously, they are in the special 59% of the target audience and didn’t read it.

I’m off to change my data plan, I need more scrolling metres on my account…

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr

Like this:

Like Loading...

How your LinkedIn connections can lose you business…

01 Sunday Sep 2019

Posted by Malcolm Auld in B2B Marketing, Digital marketing, Marketing, social selling, Thought Leadership

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

B2B Marketing, endorsements, linkedin, linkfluencer, marketing, social selling, Thought Leadership

Prior to the invention of social media, your business card holder, Rolodex, or contact list was private property. Only you used the file and nobody else had access to it. Certainly, nobody could see who you were ‘connected’ to in your business life. It was your personal property and quite a valuable asset.

But then along came social media – and in the business world, LinkedIn.

Now, everyone you are connected to on LinkedIn is public property. You’re encouraged to make your contacts public knowledge, even praise them with ‘endorsements’ and promotion of their ‘skills’. The LinkedIn computers use algorithms to prompt you to connect with people, based on the profiles of your current connections.

Even worse, these machines suggest you wish your ‘connections’ happy birthday or happy anniversary – something most executives would never do if they didn’t have the online connection.

Almost everything you do on LinkedIn is public. Nothing is private any more. And that’s why you can lose business.

In my early days of creating a LinkedIn network, I decided to try a few of the ‘tools’. A client of mine (let’s call her Josie) with whom I’d worked a number of times in different roles in her career, asked me to recommend her on LinkedIn, as she was looking for a new role. I was a reference on her resume and had spoken with recruiters when she applied for previous roles. I thought “why not” – though I was a tad concerned about the public nature of my endorsement. But that’s just me.

So I wrote a glowing endorsement of her skills and expertise, and thought nothing more about it.

Once Josie started in a new role, she decided to review her agencies and invited my agency, along with others with whom she’d worked over the years, to present our credentials based on a real brief.

Obviously the incumbent agency wasn’t happy at the possibility of losing this piece of business. The principal of the agency, who I know well, checked Josie’s LinkedIn profile and noticed my recommendation.

He immediately contacted Josie’s boss and argued that the ‘pitch process’ was not a level playing field given the obvious relationship between Josie and myself. The boss agreed and Josie called me to say my agency was not allowed to pitch – despite the fact she has the upmost integrity and was reviewing more than one agency she had worked with previously. There was no guarantee my agency would get any business from her.

If I had simply remained a reference on her resume, this would never have happened. But because of the public nature of content on LinkedIn profiles, my endorsement had cost me a valuable business opportunity.

I’ve discussed this with others and they have had similar problems, where naive executives make decisions based on a few words in a LinkedIn profile. It’s why many of my C-Level contacts aren’t even on LinkedIn – they don’t need to be. And they don’t want others to know who is in their business network.

It’s why I no longer give public recommendations or endorsements to anyone on LinkedIn, though I do offer to be a reference as needed. For me, it’s not worth the loss of business or potential damage to my reputation.

This is certainly something none of the Linkfluencers and other fake LinkedIn ‘thought leaders‘ will share with you – as it’s not in their interest to do so. You may have a different experience dear reader, I suspect it’s horses for courses.

I have to go now and contact a bloke about a pitch – where’s my business card holder???

Oh, I nearly forgot – if you want to connect with me on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/malcolmauld/

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr

Like this:

Like Loading...

The silence of the fake influencers and lack-of-thought leaders is deafening…

19 Wednesday Sep 2018

Posted by Malcolm Auld in Advertising, Content Marketing, Digital, Digital marketing, Direct Marketing, Email marketing, Marketing, Marketing Automation, Social Media, social selling, Thought Leadership

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

digital marketing, influencers, linkfluencer, marketing, social media, Thought Leadership

Those who have read my missives or attended my seminars, are aware I’ve been calling out the online zealots and their snake-oil since the invention of the information superhighway. So here’s today’s polite rant.

The internet and all it brings, is one of the most positive developments in the marketing industry. Yet the industry has been infested with dodgy, dishonest and downright diabolical deceivers, the likes of which have never been seen before.

Though it’s been quite comforting to have a number of industry heavyweights step into the fray these last couple of years and join the cause for honesty and integrity in digital marketing.

But something struck me recently. Given the public revelation about the major players in the digital media landscape, and their lack of ethics around privacy, data usage and the real number of users, something was missing. To recap:

  • Facecrook – data dishonesty, deletion of almost 20% of all accounts as they were fake, lies about video viewership, the list goes on…
  • Google – preferential treatment of advertisers in search results, placement of ads on fake accounts through programmatic channels…
  • Instagram – fake accounts, fake followers, fake likes, fake comments, fake influencers…
  • TripAdviser – fake reatsurant becomes number one eatery in London via fake reviews…
  • Twitter – fake news, fake accounts, fake followers, minimal brand success…

And that’s just scratching the surface. I suggest Bob Hoffman’s book BadMen should be compulsory reading for all young graduates considering a career in marketing.

Despite all the overwhelming evidence about the lack of credibility in these channels and the ingrained dishonesty in the DNA of digital marketers, those who’ve arguably made the most money from naive punters – the alleged influencers and thought leaders – have been deathly silent in their condemnation.

To quote The Adventures of file clerk Ralph Mellish, “nothing happened“.

None have come forth to apologise for their false opinionations unsupported by facts. There has been no admittance of guilt by these cyber-hustlers who stole budgets from unsuspecting marketers and entrepreneurs.

Where is the mea culpa? Where is the “content marketing” repealing the dishonest deeds via blogs, newsletters, social posts and videos?

Have you heard any apologies? “ah sorry, the truth is out, I lied” or “yep, you caught me, I was a bandwagon jumper looking to make a fast buck“, or “sorry, I made fake claims, but hey there was too much money to be made on the back of your FOMO” or “don’t blame me, I believed Facecrook, after all it was online so it must be true.”

It seems the only marketers making noise about the problems are those who have always criticised the opinionators, then suffered the trolls and backlash for having the gall to do so.

So if you’ve subscribed to an alleged influencer’s “content” now is the time to unsubscribe. Stop listening to them, unless they apologise and share the honest facts with you. But don’t hold your breath.

Interestingly, I’ve noticed some are no longer sharing secret social sauce. Rather they’re discussing “purpose” (the latest way to make money from FOMO) or giving advice on management tips, or workplace wellbeing – anything but the digital baloney they’ve been hustling for the last few years.

The truth is, there is only one way to get rich online. It is to run a business telling suckers how to get rich online.

Otherwise the real way to get rich online, is to do what those who get rich offline always do. They make sure their marketing activity does at least one or all of the following – nothing else:

  • Create new customers
  • Get those customers spending more money with you more often
  • Keep those customers spending money with you for as long as possible

It doesn’t matter what tactics or channels you use, as long as they are profitable. Many won’t be. You’ll have to test and learn. Nothing new here. And if you don’t invest in your brand, well that’s another story…

Ignore the fake influencers and lack-of-thought leaders – even call them out publically. Ask for your money back if you feel you’ve been taken for a ride. If they are legitimate they’ll return it to you.

Then remember this simple fact – technology changes, people don’t. Certainly not in the short life of new marketing channels. People buy emotionally and justify their purchase rationally – regardless of the media or shopping channels involved. Always have, always will.

Gotta go now, I’m downloading this super-awesome definitive guide by a technology company. It’s tells the 63 mind-blowing money-making social media headlines and content secrets, used by ninja unicorn mega-marketers to help you retire early as a thought-leading power Linkfluencer and best-selling author…

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr

Like this:

Like Loading...

The definitive reason why definitive guides aren’t really definitive…

15 Thursday Mar 2018

Posted by Malcolm Auld in B2B Marketing, Content Marketing, Copywriting, Digital marketing, Direct Marketing, social selling, Thought Leadership

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

B2B Marketing, content marketing, copywriting, definitive guides, digital marketing, direct marketing, social selling, Thought Leadership

Let me share a personal secret with you dear reader. I’ll whisper it to you:

“I collect definitive guides”

It’s true. I download each one that arrives in my inbox and save them into a folder. And that’s where they stay, because I rarely read them. They’re usually so subjective and full of fluff, it takes too long to find any worthwhile stuff.

I use a false name and an email address I reserve just for subscriptions. It helps to redirect the inevitable automated follow-up by a computer, and in very few cases, by a human.

Nobody ever calls though. Last year, after using the “Premium” LinkedIn service without getting any benefit, I didn’t renew my subscription. Nobody called to ask why, or to re-sell it to me. Seems LinkedIn believes people don’t need to deal with people in B2B marketing.

Strangely, while I had the subscription, each time I opened my account, I was made an offer to subscribe to the Premium service to which I was already subscribed. One has to question LinkedIn’s marketing automation.

But back to definitive guides.

The following is typical of the opening paragraphs in many of these guides.

“With new marketing channels and technologies popping up every day, marketers must adapt and evolve their analytics strategies, skills, and solutions to survive. As big data becomes increasingly critical for informed decision-making, marketers and their organizations will find themselves along a spectrum of analytical maturity.”

That’s a concern. Nobody I know wants to find themselves on a spectrum of analytical maturity. Most, like me, have no idea what it even means.

But, given that everyone in the industry agrees we live in constantly changing times, with new marketing channels and technologies popping up every day, how can any guide be definitive? By definition, it’s out of date the day it’s published.

If you claim the reason for publishing a definitive guide is constant change, then the guide is only as current as the most recent change? By the publisher’s own reasoning, the guide cannot be definitive, except at a very small moment in time, or to justify the publisher’s self-serving purpose.

Maybe the name of these guides should be changed to reflect the truth? Here’s a suggestion:

Title: An Indefinitive Guide To <insert marketing topic>

Subhead: A self-serving opinion about <insert marketing topic> designed to convince you to buy our marketing stuff. Best before <insert date>

This is an honest description and puts a timeframe to indicate the guide’s currency, given it will be out of date pretty quickly and by definition, no longer definitive.

Hmmm. There could be an opportunity here. Maybe I could publish the definitive guide to publishing indefinitive guides?

Where’s my definitive guide on how to write…

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr

Like this:

Like Loading...

The simple reason digital marketing fails so badly – it’s not what you think…

13 Tuesday Mar 2018

Posted by Malcolm Auld in Advertising, BIG DATA, Branding, Digital, Digital marketing, Direct Marketing, Email marketing, Marketing, Media, Social Media, Thought Leadership

≈ 8 Comments

Tags

advertising, branding, digital marketing, direct marketing, marketing, media, media buying

Who’d call themselves a digital marketer these days? As the evidence continues to grow about the lies, deceit, appalling ROI, as well as agency bias towards digital at the expense of better performing channels, it’s become embarrassing to claim you only have digital marketing skills.

But we shouldn’t be surprised. Lone voices in the wilderness have been warning for more than a decade that the digital chooks would come home to roost. Though their voices have largely been ignored.

The real reason so much digital marketing fails is simple – the people working in it don’t have the right marketing skills.

The evidence is plain to see in the online advertising space. Most online ads are brand ads not direct response ads, yet the internet is a pure direct response channel.

Fact – the internet is primarily a direct response channel. Online marketing is just direct marketing, albeit at a much faster pace than analogue channels.

You wouldn’t run a brand ad in a newspaper or on TV, then measure its success using direct marketing metrics. So why run brand ads online and expect direct responses? But this is exactly what the brand marketers do every day.

FYI direct marketers are making money online – have been since day one. But they are not running brand advertising to do so. They have tested the different emerging channels and ads. They avoid those channels that don’t work. In most cases these are the social channels.

They rarely use programmatic buying. They deal direct with the publishers. This is how they’ve always worked with analogue channels, so they already have the expertise to succeed in online channels – evolution, not revolution.

But the marketers who dominate online advertising are mostly brand marketers and that digital peculiarity, the fake marketer. They were lured by the magic of its measurability.

The magic of measurability

Unlike direct marketers, they had no prior experience of direct response measurement. The “response drug” in the form of open-rates, click-through rates, time on page, downloads and (occasionally) sales, hooked them like teenagers having their first drink. This measurability stuff was the secret marketing hooch they craved.

And just because measurability was new to them, they assumed it was new to the world.

So they rushed headlong into the online advertising world completely ill-equipped for success. To cover up this lack of expertise, they created new buzzwords to describe alleged new marketing tactics – despite these tactics being centuries-old.

To help position themselves, they used virtue signals, to manufacture FOMO. Direct marketing was called old-fashioned, implying it was irrelevant. Some even made the stupid claim that DM no longer exists (really, some fools stated such crap). All it did was reflect their lack of marketing expertise.

For those who might be confused, direct marketing (or direct response advertising) is any marketing activity whereby you communicate directly to individual customers and prospects, or they respond directly to you, in any media channel. The outcome of the communication is that there is always a measured exchange, of either dollars or data, or both.

For example, the customer provides their credit card and in return they get a case of wine, or they provide their contact details, in exchange for an email newsletter.

Branding for branding’s sake, is a secondary priority with a direct response message.

But here’s the rub with direct marketing…

You are trying to get prospects who may or may not know your brand, to do what you want them to do, when you want them to do it – take immediate action and respond.

That’s hard shit and requires some specialist skills, the least of which is the ability to write persuasively.

Yet the majority of people working in digital marketing have no direct marketing expertise. If they did, they wouldn’t have invented fake vanity metrics such as likes, and shares, to justify their credibility.

The brand and fake marketers have misunderstood the digital channels

Direct response is definitely not the way to sell fast moving consumer goods, in single unit sales. Why it took P&G until last year, at a cost of $Billions, to realise this fact, is a mystery.

The only reason to use direct response for packaged goods, is to sell a continuity programme or subscription. For example, that digital darling, the Dollar Shaver Club is a direct marketer and uses direct response advertising to sell subscriptions. Both analogue and digital wine clubs also sell wine by subscription.

The process is known as “negative-option” and I’ve written about it before. The marketer delivers products on a regular basis, say monthly, until the customer says “stop”. This is a way of marketing that is more than 100 years old and goes back to the days of mail-order. It’s not new just because we have an internet.

The more they failed the more they created spreadsheets of bullshit

These “digital marketers” tried to justify the poor branding results with vanity metrics. They even created jargon such as “customer engagement” to make the metrics appear genuine. When the vanity metrics failed, they just increased their tracking to create even more spreadsheets of bullshit. They attempted to confuse the world with useless data to convince us they were legitimate.

Sorry folks, but data without dollars is just doo-doo.

Steaming pile of data doo-doo

The tracking eventually became stalking as they desperately tried to get sales, from ads that didn’t sell, to people who didn’t want to buy. Have you ever seen a grocer chase a customer out the door shouting offers at them, just because the customer picked up a lemon then put it back without buying? Welcome to the world of remarketing – placing cigarette burns on your customers long after they’ve left you.

Read Bob Hoffman’s brilliant Badmen for the appalling truth of the tracking, stalking and the fake world of online metrics.

Playing in the fringes

Any direct marketer will tell you, when you are marketing to a mass audience and chasing a response, you are always playing in the fringes. You don’t know when people are going to buy. That’s why you need to give them as much information as possible, plus some incentive, to help them make a decision in your favour.

Here’s an example. If a product is only bought once-a-year, then on average, in any single week, only 2% of the annual market is buying – 50 weeks PA x 2% = 100%.

This means if you deliver say, a direct response insurance ad to 100 people (and you don’t know their renewal date) then on a good day, you could expect at best maybe 2 people to buy – assuming you capture 100% of the 2% of people in the market that week. You’ll be partying like its 1999 just because you made two sales. It’s pretty obvious to see why trying to sell single bottles of shampoo via digital channels won’t be profitable.

Given this market reality and the complete lack of involvement in online ads by website visitors, marketers should not be surprised that online ads rarely get one tenth of sweet FA worth of clicks. Any direct marketer worth their salt could have told them these ads wouldn’t pay off.

If you’re a mass marketer, in most situations, you’re generally better off not running ads online.

 

If you really want to do brand advertising, change the way you buy media and dominate web pages for long periods to create awareness. Do not simply run an online brand ad and measure it by impressions or click-through rates. Measure it as you would the ads in other channels. And never rate vanity metrics such as likes or shares or customer engagement. You’ll just waste your money.

Once you build your database you can then encourage your customers and prospects to download your app. Then you can gradually reduce how much you spend with online advertising, as more of your audience migrates to your app. You’ll still need to advertise though – read Byron Sharp’s “How Brands Grow” to learn why.

To get your customers and prospects to switch to your app, you’ll obviously need an incentive.

Where are those steak knives?

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr

Like this:

Like Loading...

The most powerful word in marketing, it’s not a keyword, nor an AdWord…

08 Thursday Mar 2018

Posted by Malcolm Auld in Branding, Content Marketing, Copywriting, Digital, Digital marketing, Direct Marketing, Marketing, Sales Promotion, social selling, Telemarketing, Thought Leadership

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

copywriting, digital marketing, marketing

You’ll have probably noticed dear reader, the cancerous spread of fake marketers promoting their thought leadership, has resulted in an increase in the use of adjectives, particularly in headlines.

You see them everywhere. For example, you no longer need normal marketing tools, you need “killer” marketing tools. Or you can download “mind-blowing” secrets for your online success. Don’t you love how these aren’t just secrets, they’re mind-blowing secrets? How mind-blowing is it to sell something to someone who wants to buy it?

The problem with much of this digital dross, is that it rarely focuses on you, the customer – except the spurious claim about blowing your mind. The content is nearly always about the self-centred thought-leading internationally-published super-effluencing, fake marketer and their miracle secret sauce for digital success.

It’s never about you.

And “you” is the most powerful word you can use in your marketing messages.

The “You Rule“ is simple. Always use more of you, your, yours, you’re, you’ve than I, our, ours, us, we, we’re, we’ve, my and mine. People are only interested in one thing – themselves, so write from their point of view, not from yours.

There has always been some debate about whether “you” or “FREE‘ is more powerful.

When I was National Marketing Manager at TNT back in the dim dark 1980’s I ran a split-run test. I wanted to see which was the more powerful word for helping to generate a response.

This was the time in life when fancy digital calculators and branded business card holders, were all the rage as corporate gifts. I’m sure anthropologists in future centuries will just look at marketing incentives to determine a specific time in history. Digital calculators & Business Card Holders = 1980’s. iPods = 2000. USB sticks = 2005. iPads = 2010. Fidget spinners = 2015 and so on.

The test was in a direct mailpack, flogging the first-ever payroll software for desktop computers. It was in the heady days of disruption – when mainframe computers were being replaced by desktop computers. Sorry, that can’t be true – disruption was only invented by cyber hustlers and fake marketers in the last decade.

But I digress.

Heady days they were folks. The mailing had an insert. It promoted the incentive you would be given if you responded for a demonstration of this innovative and disruptive software.

The test was in the headline. We tested two different headlines, but kept the image and copy the same on both inserts.

Headline 1: FREE CALCULATOR

Headline 2: YOUR BONUS FOR TAKING THE INITIATIVE

My experience told me the first headline should get a better result. However, you guessed it, the second headline generated the higher response.

It addresses the reader and implies they’re smart. They’re taking an initiative, not just responding.

Then we combined the headlines for greater impact:

Headline: YOUR BONUS FOR TAKING THE INITIATIVE
Subhead: Complete the enclosed envelope and return it today for your FREE EXECUTIVE BUSINESS CARD HOLDER

I dug it out of the archives:

What an offer dear readers – how could you resist?

We then tested different headlines for some of the other divisions I was marketing. Here they are:

That’s the beauty of testing – you don’t have to decide, the market does it for you.

You have to love that, don’t you…

You think that’s too many you’s?

You’re right…

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr

Like this:

Like Loading...

Why most shared content has virtually no impact on your brand…

02 Friday Mar 2018

Posted by Malcolm Auld in Branding, Content Marketing, Digital marketing, Direct Marketing, Email marketing, Marketing, Marketing Automation, Media, Remarketing, Thought Leadership, Viral marketing

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

content marketing, copywriting, digital marketing, email marketing, Thought Leadership, viral marketing

Originally published 2016…

Any marketer, advertising agent, researcher or social scientist worth their salt, knows for any marketing content to resonate with, let alone influence, the typical punter, it must be consumed numerous times in a short space of time. Seeing something just once, rarely makes a serious impression (though it is rated as such in media terms – an impression that is).

Unless the message is designed as a direct response message, giving prospects all the information they need to ‘act now’, most marketing messages hardly penetrate our grey matter if only seen once.

Just look at the way we learn at school – through repetition. A message has to be repeatedly consumed for it to eventually make it through our distracted craniums and finally embed itself into our conscience. This is called learning. It’s a rare human indeed, who can read or view something only once and then remember the content.

raked-classroom1937

Information retention comes through repetition not from glancing at content

So what does this mean in the world of digital chewing gum for the brain? This is the world where the people mostly share content in social channels, which requires less than a metaphorical chew to consume. The receivers of said content quickly scan it, dismiss it, then start to chew on the next piece of content, ad infinitum.

digital chewing gum

The majority of content shared by consumers is mostly images, video, memes, jokes, fundraising appeals and personal stories. People rarely share words or phrases, particularly lots of words like those populating ebooks, whitepapers, brochures and the like. Of course people communicate back and forth using words, but it’s not sharing in the content marketing sense.

The act of sharing on social media often has less to do with the content being shared and more to do with narcissism. “Look at me, I’m sharing this before anyone else” or “look at me I’m sharing something – how many likes did it get?” or “look at me, I liked something”. Though sharing in business channels can have less selfish motivations.

The average adult attention span is now roughly 8 seconds (just less than a goldfish) and ASS Times keep getting shorter and shorter – less than 1 second for many image-based channels like Instagram. So the ability for any snack-size marketing content to resonate at all in the memory of consumers, is nigh impossible. Did you like that piece of digi-jargon – “snack-size”?

attention span

And what about all that thought leadership content floating in cyberspace? At best, much of it remains in the ‘download folder’ of computers, because we’re too busy to print it or consume it in any depth. It’s why good quality email messages to opt-in subscriber lists, along with blogs, are still the best performing content online.

Ironically the content marketing failure is being driven by the content itself and FOMO. I’ve talked about the infobesity problem before. The average punter is waterboarded with content from friends, strangers, government, institutions and brands every second of the day. Add to this deluge, the modern dilemma of FOMO forcing consumers to have minimal engagement with content, and you can see why brands gain almost zero benefit.

Consumers know there’s loads more content coming down the digital pipe and they don’t want to miss it. So they quickly and disengagingly ‘like’ something, or ignore it, before moving to the next set of pixels.

content hipster

Hipster training to consume marketing content…

Just as we chew gum without thinking and then spit it out, it’s the same with content. We consume it without thinking and with almost zero emotional engagement. We swipe, pause, swipe – in a constant process to churn through the non-stop current of content. And the pause is usually shorter than the time it takes to spell ‘pause’. And even if consumers do take a few seconds to read or view your content once, will it really make a lasting impression?

Hmmm that reminds me, I’d better check my emails. Oh look there’s a dog…

dog

P.S. Please feel free to share this content with as many as you like:)

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr

Like this:

Like Loading...
← Older posts

Recent Posts

  • WOW a 5-hour marketing seminar on a subject that doesn’t exist…
  • Good grief, now LinkedIn staff are sending unsolicited social selling spam…
  • Another example of social selling failure with marketing automation on LinkedIn…
  • Has COVID killed the culture cult…
  • Social selling has become the new spam…

Archives

  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • December 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • December 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • November 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012

Categories

  • Advertising
  • B2B Marketing
  • BIG DATA
  • Branding
  • Content Marketing
  • Copywriting
  • Culture
  • Customer Service
  • Digital
  • Digital marketing
  • Direct Marketing
  • Email marketing
  • Group Buying
  • Marketing
  • Marketing Automation
  • Media
  • Meetings
  • Mobile marketing
  • PPC
  • QR Codes
  • Remarketing
  • retail
  • Sales
  • Sales Promotion
  • SEM & SEO
  • small data
  • Social Media
  • social selling
  • Telemarketing
  • Thought Leadership
  • Uncategorized
  • Viral marketing

Meta

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.com

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Follow Following
    • The Malcolm Auld Blog
    • Join 542 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • The Malcolm Auld Blog
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...
 

    %d bloggers like this: