"Naomi Klein: Marketer of the Decade"

The latest issue of Canadian Business Magazine to hit the stores contains a very interesting article, in which author Andrew Porter declares Naomi Klein (No Logo), Marketer of the Decade.

Mr. Porter asserts that it is Ms. Klein's insightful analysis of branding and the youth culture which made No Logo "the most influential marketing manual of its time." The branding landscape was forever changed when the first edition of this exposé on "brand bullies" and our consumerist culture first hit the bookstore shelves 10 years ago.

I concur with Mr. Porter's assessment of this remarkable work and extend my heartfelt gratitude to Ms. Klein for having the courage to write it. Ms. Klein, I am certain, never expected this type of response to her work, and likely does not appreciate how corporate interests have taken her input and incorporated it into their marketing initiatives.

Personally, I am glad to see that her lessons did not go unheeded. There is much that can be learned, if one is prepared to listen to their critics. Ms. Klein criticized companies whose brand messages were inconsistent with their actions, and held them accountable for the discrepancies. Today, companies are being much more careful about removing any difference between their rhetoric and reality. She also railed against companies for "dominating our mental environment and...colonizing our sense of self" - referring to the extent to which one's social status is defined by the brands one consumes. This is still the case, but to a lesser degree as more importance is being attached to the meaning behind the brand, than to the brand itself.

Perhaps the most significant contribution Ms. Klein has made to the field of marketing is her lengthy discussion of popular culture, and their "anti-brand activities." As Mr. Porter so eloquently explains, companies today have begun to successfully incorporate the very same guerrilla marketing tactics, culture jamming and Reclaim the Streets initiatives that anti-brand activists once used.

If you haven't already picked up a copy, Mr. Porter's article is worth the read...as is Ms. Klein' s book. I thank Ms. Klein, Marketer of the Decade, for writing No Logo and sharing your insights with the world. I also applaud the open-mindedness of those companies who have read No Logo and taken the lessons contained therein to heart. It is not an easy thing to do, but, as I am sure you can attest, well worth the effort.

Enough monkey business!

I am imploring Subway Sandwiches to re-evaluate their decision to use a monkey as their mascot and reassess the reasoning behind their recent campaign strategies. As a marketer, as an animal-lover, and as a potential customer, I am deeply disturbed by the use of a monkey in their recent advertisements.

For one thing, who exactly is it Subway is trying to target with these ads? Logically, one would have to believe that the advertisements and messages are best directed to adults. In which case, typically, one would not use cartoon-like characters when addressing audiences over the age of 6 or 7. Furthermore, as there is no such thing as a "scientist-monkey" or a "science of sandwiches" to what are viewers supposed to relate when watching these commercials? As disturbing as is the creation of a non-existent occupation for a cartoon monkey, even more disconcerting is the association of a primate with a sandwich.

Still more vexing than attempting to discern their intended audience is deciphering the message Subway Sandwiches is attempting to convey to their viewers. At the onset, the monkey was highlighting unhealthy meal options and offering Subway Sandwiches as a healthy alternative, an obvious strategy to compete based on values, and more specifically, health. More recently, the monkey's role has evolved into that of a scientist who is asking viewers to perform a math calculation to show that one can purchase a Subway Sandwich at an affordable price. A radical and confusing shift in focus from health to cost.

Although I admit that I am not privy to the information on which these decisions were based, it would appear that Subway Sandwiches has truly lost the focus and direction of their marketing message. I understand that Subway executives see that “the monkey is more of an icon of continuity rather than a spokesperson," but it is difficult for others to see him as anything besides an annoyance and source of clutter and confusion. It is virtually impossible to ascertain whom they are targeting and what they are trying to say. Because of this, most of the goodwill created by Jarred Fogle when he was Subway's spokesman has been lost. People trusted Jarred. They related to him, to his honesty and took pride in his successes. One can not trust, relate to nor take pride in, a cartoon "scientist-monkey" who cannot decide which is more important...health or low cost.

If I were trying to market Subway Sandwiches, I would start by revisiting their value proposition, and from there re-establish the relationship between customers and the company by developing a marketing strategy which would reinforce a single, relevant message to a well-defined, well-researched target market.

For goodness sakes, Subway, whether you decide to take my advice or not, whatever you do, please, stop monkeying around!

"We learn from history that we learn nothing from history"

They say "those who can not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." I fear that we are on the precipice of repeating one of the biggest marketing mistakes of all time...Network Marketing (aka Multi-Level Marketing).

For the benefit of those who may be unfamiliar with network marketing, the concept is predicated on the theory that a company can best market their product by having their consumers promote and sell it directly to their family members and friends. These are the most sacrosanct of all human relationships, and organizations involved in this practice sought to exploit them for financial gain.

What these companies failed to realize was the negative impact such a strategy had on the very relationships from which they were so anxious to profit. As the product continued to dominate their consumers' daily discourse, their audience would quickly lose interest and gradually sever their association.

As distressing as the egregious misuse of the term "marketing" is when used in this context, even more repugnant is the deliberate abuse of a person's social circle inherent in the implementation of such a tactic. While a consumer's network was considered a terrible thing to waste from the perspective of the organization, access did not come without a very high price. The consumer ultimately lost their friends and family members while the company lost these formerly very loyal consumers and all their future sales. Eventually society came to this same conclusion, and the concept of multi-level marketing quickly lost favour amongst most marketers (although small movements still exist which endeavour to restore this practice to its former "glory").

Today, while not specifically called "network marketing" or "multi-level marketing" some organizations are attempting to implement what can be only be characterized as online network marketing...the exploitation of social networks to sell products/services to friends and family...a rose by any other name still has thorns, and I would caution people to avoid getting pricked again!

I find it astonishing and rather disturbing that companies would attempt to blatantly violate the trust of these relationships and exploit these social networks for commercial gain. They actively recruit employees with extensive social networks and a familiarity with the most popular sites to achieve their goals. Do they honestly believe that if their employees and other members of these same online communities write/blog/tweet/digg etc. about their product that this will somehow compel anyone who reads them to go out and buy it? Have they considered how they would they feel if their friends or family members discussed a product incessantly and tried repeatedly to sell it to them? Has history taught them nothing of the disastrous implications of pursuing such a course of action?

There is, however, a solution for those organizations looking to incorporate social network marketing into their overall marketing strategies. In the same way that people tell their friends/family members about a song on the radio they really like, marketers today need only to ensure that the audience hears their hit song, and allow listeners to spread the word virally throughout all the various social networks. The most successful social network marketing strategies are those which are driven by internal compulsion and not external pressures.

Quotes provided by http://www.wisdomquotes.com/cat_history.html

"Coke Lore"

With the Holiday Season now essentially behind us and everyone focusing on the arrival of the next decade, I am consumed by thoughts of the origins of the most beloved symbol of this season...Santa Claus. A seemingly peculiar subject for a marketing blog to some, it may come as quite a surprise to learn that this year marks the 78th anniversary of the modern-day Santa Claus!

According to "Coke Lore", in the beginning, depictions of St. Nicholas, the Bishop of Myra, varied widely. Gradually, they were refined and evolved from many stories from countries around the world until finally, in 1931, the depiction of the large, jolly, and benevolent elderly man in his red suit was created by artist Haddon Sundblom and incorporated into Coca Cola magazine ads.

For decades afterwards, Sundblom's portraits further solidified the modern-day image of Santa Claus in the hearts and minds of people young and old the world over and were the foundation of the Coca-Cola ads which featured "Santa delivering (and playing!) with toys, pausing to read a letter and enjoy a Coke, playing with children who stayed up to greet him and raiding the refrigerators at a number of homes."

The Coca-Cola Company even reports that those years where discrepancies in this representation of Santa Claus were noted, they were inundated with feedback from customers: "People loved the Coca-Cola Santa images and paid such close attention to them, that when anything changed, they sent letters to The Coca-Cola Company. One year, Santa's large belt was backwards (perhaps because artist Haddon Sundblom used himself as a model and painted by looking in a mirror). Another year, Santa Claus appeared without a wedding ring, causing fans to write asking what happened to Mrs. Claus."

While I am well aware of the impact that effective advertising can have on the target market, I was astonished to learn that the Coca-Cola Christmas campaigns had such a profound impact on contemporary culture. Today, though no longer appearing in Coca-Cola commercials, Santa Claus can be seen spreading his message of commercialism and kindness for other companies around the world.

Thanks to the Coca-Cola Company , Santa Claus has emerged as a symbol of consumerism and the Christmas spirit. Children of all faiths and nationalities recognize his famous "Ho Ho Ho!", pack the streets along their respective Santa Claus Parade routes with their families and friends to celebrate the commencement of the Christmas season, and arrive in droves at their local shopping centers to have their pictures taken with him and ask for something special.

Though they cannot take responsibility for the conception of Santa Claus, there is no denying the role The Coca-Cola Company's advertisements and efforts played in his emergence as the "icon of contemporary commercial culture" we all know and love.

**information provided by http://www.thecoca-colacompany.com/heritage/cokelore_santa.html and http://www.stnicholascenter.org/Brix?pageID=35

Common misconceptions about marketing

Ever since I decided to pursue a career in marketing, I was astounded by the ambiguity that surrounds the discipline and those who practice it. To paraphrase the most common misconceptions, it would appear that marketing is perceived as the act of convincing someone to do something they would not do otherwise. Sadly, I have spent as much time defending my craft, as I have studying it, and this got me thinking. I came to a startling revelation. Most people have no idea what marketing is, and what a marketer does!

Most people equate marketing with advertising and sales because the latter are both common elements of most marketing strategies, and those to which they have direct exposure. However, marketing as a whole, is a much more complex and involved discipline. Marketing is the act of conveying a clear, honest and concise message to a well-defined, well-researched and targeted audience.

Good marketers will often begin the marketing process by becoming familiar with the product or service that is to be the focus of the campaign. Who will use it? Why will they use it? How will they use it? Most importantly, what sets it apart from competing offerings?

Once the answers to these questions are established, the next phase is to gain an in-depth understanding of the answer to who will use it. Who are these people? What are their likes and dislikes? Where do they shop? How do they spend their time? What publications do they read?

These insights will ultimately form the basis of all marketing strategy decisions from this point forward. Every tactic (including sales and advertisements) is designed to make sure that the right message is reaching the right people where they need it, when they need it, and how they want it.

Effective marketing is capable of capturing the popular imagination, raising the collective consciousness of the intended audience, and inspiring a specific action. The mix of marketing elements selected for a campaign has the ability to unite people towards a common goal, effortlessly identify and solve a defined problem and provide the essentials for informed decision-making.

Thus, marketing (contrary to popular belief) is not akin to sales or advertising, nor a form of blatant manipulation, but rather the result of careful study of both product and audience and the implementation of creative and captivating strategies to deliver pertinent information about the former to the latter so as to elicit a specific response.

A big cheer to Cheerios!

If ever there was an example of integrated marketing communications (IMC) done right, let the Cheerios "Send A Cheer to Our Athletes" campaign be it! For years, I have watched as various companies have attempted to integrate their online marketing efforts into their overall marketing strategies with varying degrees of success...

CNN incorporates their television presence with their website, CNN Mobile, podcasts and social media outlets like Twitter and Facebook to reach their audience while also increasing viewer participation through iReports.

Molson Canadian launched the Molson Canadian Facebook Photo Contest Campaign which required facebook members to submit photos to enter a draw for a trip to Cancun. Unfortunately, the campaign was seen as promoting irresponsible drinking and was cancelled only after the company realized the detrimental impact and repercussions of this campaign on the brand and their image.

While both are examples of integrated marketing communications, the former can be seen as a long-term, well defined marketing strategy while the latter can be perceived as an attempt at exploiting social media. Not so with the Cheerios "Send A Cheer to Our Athletes" campaign.

VANOC (the Vancouver Olympic Comittee) and General Mills got together with the goal of generating interest and enthusiasm for the Olympic Games and support for our Olympic athletes. Expanding on these themes was a new box design and multiple websites. The culmination of this campaign (set to run until the Olympics begin in February) will be a cheer wall in the Olympic Village. If you have not seen the commercial, click here, or to send your cheer, pick up a box of Cheerios or visit www.sendyourcheer.ca.

What makes this campaign so remarkable is the incorporation of so many marketing elements and strategies. From printed material (new boxes), to advertising (TV, radio, print), to online media (websites), to a unique partnership with Canada Post, to the launch of the "Aspiring Olympian" program, this campaign truly solidifies General Mills Canada as a proudly Canadian operation and supporter of our Olympic athletes!

For the first time I truly feel that we, as marketers, now have something against which we can measure ourselves and our results. We now have an example of truly effective, commercially-driven, integrated marketing communications! To VANOC, Dale Storey, Jason Doolan, and the entire General Mills marketing team, I say congratulations on a campaign well run!