April 30th, 2009

Oh, come on. Really, twitter?

Posted by Michael Calienes in branding

After two days of Inbound Marketing Summit San Francisco, I called the twitter offices to see if I could stop in and say hi. Though there was no answer, I stopped in anyway. The door was locked, but I got the attention of a woman who opened it cautiously, asked me to identify myself, and let me in. She stopped me in the lobby and asked me nicely to wait there.

Seconds later, another woman appeared who told me — also very nicely — that they have a policy not to let people in without an appointment. She mentioned that about 80 people stop in every day just to say hi, which is why they made “no entry” a policy. (Apparently I wasn’t even supposed to be inside.)

Although I completely understand that the nature of their work is of a secretive nature, there’s something fundamentally wrong for a company who’s raison d’être is human connection to instate such a policy.

Seriously, twitter, if you’re getting that many people who want to just come say hi, do something so that the people who love you actually can. We all love you, but that’s a ridiculous policy. Perhaps next time I’ll bring some cupcakes and wear a wig:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnSamHj7F3w[/youtube]

April 29th, 2009

Consumers choose whether the door opens or closes.

Posted by Michael Calienes in ad commentary, branding, customer experience

img00207So your full page print ad is running this morning’s USA Today. You spent $189,400 for the privilege — hoping people will care. We don’t. We’re too busy not caring.

We’re making coffee. Checking email. Writing a blog post. Avoiding the swine flu.

Reaching consumers is no longer a matter of reach and frequency and CPM. Frankly, it’s not even a matter of reaching them, it’s about pulling them in — by creating smart, unique content that points them to their own little peephole. If you’ve done it right, they’ll look inside and open the door. Whenever they’re good and ready.

The cost to you? Strategy, passion, and effort.

Thoughts? Opinions? Love to hear ‘em.

April 24th, 2009

Why in the world would CurrentTV need an agency? (A response to @jkretch’s twitteRFP)

Posted by Michael Calienes in branding, non-transplant news, social media

An agency? Choosing an agency would be extremely unCurrent.

CurrentTV has built its brand and following by thinking beyond what’s current and executing in the now, because quite obviously, the time-space continuum prevents it from executing at any future point — where it actually belongs. (Perhaps CurrentTV will be the brand that obliterates this pesky obstacle.)

CurrentTV already owns massive media space, online space, mind space, and most impressively, attracts the kind of passionate  viewers who create its content. And you need an agency? I’m not buyin’ it.

CurrentTV simply needs to invest in best-of-breed individuals who are as passionate as the viewers are to generate ideas that fulfill the vision. CurrentTV already broke ground by releasing the RFP via twitter. Why go backwards and choose an agency?

You don’t need an agency. You need to remain Current.

What do you think?

April 21st, 2009

Speaking in Gainesville Thursday 4.23.09 from 12:00 to 1:00

Posted by Michael Calienes in branding

AdFed Gainesville/ Events:
http://tinyurl.com/dl5kv3

Steve’s Cafe Americain:
http://tinyurl.com/2bryjb
12 W University Ave
Gainesville, FL 32601
(352) 377-9337
http://tinyurl.com/2bryjb

April 7th, 2009

Newspapers acting like advertising agencies. (Or, biting the hands that help(ed) feed you.)

teethFrom time to time, I’ve placed ads in the Miami Herald newspaper for clients. To them, transplant (my company) is an advertising agency, so you can understand why I’m more than a little annoyed to have received the email below yesterday afternoon. In it, the Miami Herald openly offers businesses the very same guidance my company offers, placing them in direct competition with local and regional agencies like mine.

Aside from the body of the message, the email also included an article titled “PR Outranks Advertising in Improving Consumer Confidence in Banks” (both are shown below this post).

Problems:

  1. the Miami Herald sent an article about PR outranking advertising to an ad agency
  2. the Miami Herald included advertising functions like branding, direct mail, and print advertising as part of their offerings
  3. the Miami Herald uses the words “confused and ignorant” to describe “most people” (I can only assume they’re referring to readers)
  4. this email was sent to me by the very person I do (or more accurately, did) business with
  5. considering that advertising is in trouble alongside newspapers, perhaps partnering with agencies like mine to figure out a solution may be a better strategy

Below is the email message followed by the article. Love to hear your comments. Love to hear the Miami Herald’s too.

Hope you’re well.

———-

Let me know how we at The Miami Herald Media Company can partner with you to bring confidence to the local community by getting your message out with an intelligent marketing campaign utilizing a combination of print , Direct Marketing (email blast & direct mail) and our interactive network to include Yahoo! The Miami Herald Interactive Network partnership with Yahoo! provides choices to promote your brand in the Miami-Ft Lauderdale area through banner sponsorships and Behavioral Targeting in Yahoo!

How best to use us:

  • change perception with new message
  • promote products and services specific to your targeted audience
  • provide sound financial advice during this financial crisis…most people are confused and ignorant when it comes to finance
  • message can include testimonials from satisfied clients

When asked about their banks, insurance companies and investment firms, the study found that 55% of consumers who say they had seen more advertising for their financial institution reported having “complete confidence” in the financial health and soundness of their financial company. Among those who said they had seen less advertising, only 18% had “complete confidence” in their financial company and a significant 45% said they had “little or no confidence” in their company.

The report concludes that this supports the theory that companies that do not advertise are risking widespread public perception that they have failed or are on their way out, at a time when many financial companies are pulling back on their advertising and marketing efforts to cut costs and avoid the appearance of wasteful spending.

Nielsen also found that confidence was linked to age and affluence, as well as the amount of risk associated with the financial institution. Older adults ages 55+ and those with assets of more than $100K were more confident than the average. Overall, a minority of respondents said they had “complete confidence” in their financial institutions:

  • Less than 38% had confidence in their checking and savings bank
  • 28% were confident of the company that manages their investment or retirement accounts
  • 28% had confidence in their life insurance company

In response to what factors would increase confidence in the safety and soundness of their financial institution, respondents cited:

  • Reading positive stories in the press about that institution (44%)
  • Seeing regular advertising for that institution (25%)
  • Receiving regular mail or email offers from that institution (25%)
  • Regularly seeing internet offers/advertising from that institution (21%)
  • Year-over-year ad spending on financial services and insurance was down 13.4% in 2008 compared with 2007. The drop-off was even sharper for Q4 2008 vs. the same period in 2007.

picture-13

END