What is the best way to pitch a piece of business?
- Image via Wikipedia
Pitching new business is fun and annoying at the same time.
I remember my second ever job. Staying to 4:00AM working on a pitch. Making the creative perfect.
We were pitching a piece of business that would have added 40 people to the agency, and the agency had 80 people. That agency had a theory about pitching that went something like this:
30% of the presentation was strategy.
30% was creative.
30% was presentation.
The final 10% was gut. Energy could be spent on the thing that felt the best.
Why three equal parts?
The advertising pitch is like no other thing in business. A client puts out an RFP (Request for Proposal) and the pitch is the penultimate answer. The pitch is a blank slate, whereby the agency can do whatever they want. Often though, the client has a specific question.
What would you do to solve this. Or this. Or that.
Sometimes pitches are for parts of business. An unfortunate example is the rash of Social Media Agency of Record pitches. A thing I think is purely ridiculous. So lets take them in order.
Strategy: the thinking behind the message. These are the insights phase of the pitch. Where, based on little research, and lots of assumptions, the agency generates insights about the brand, the target market, the category and whatever else impacts the story.
I should stop here for a second. The reality of a pitch is simple: the pitchers aren’t privy to a lot of information about the brand. The brand will often hand over some data about the category, brand and target market, but since this is the ‘dating stage’ of the relationship, the brand doesn’t open up.
So this part is guessing. And yet it informs the next step.
Creative: This is spec creative. Spec creative is one of the things that are annoying about marketing. Spec creative is dumb because rarely is it on strategy (see above). It can’t be. Spec creative that wins a pitch rarely (if ever) becomes the campaign that runs because it’s rarely based on all the information. That said, we do spec creative and literally give away ideas and effort for almost nothing.
Presentation: The presentation is the thing a lot of places don’t think hard about. They should, and here’s why. The pitch team is an assembled team of people who will vote on the agency partner. That team consists of people from all over the brand, from the CMO to the CFO. It’s filled with people who come at the business from the specialty — which is important.
But those people need to remember the pitch. And frankly, the most memorable presentation will stand out. The presentation where a monkey flew across the room. Or someone danced. Or something happened that amazed, dumbfounded or startled.
Think I’m crazy? Presentations are based on Strategy and Creative. But they have to be remembered. If they aren’t then it doesn’t matter what is said.
It’s like an ad. Unless the ad gets people’s attention, it won’t be remembered. Unless the presentation is memorable, the good parts won’t be remembered.
Make the presentation memorable. The one that stands out. Then the ideas will.
Good luck. We’ll see you on the next RFP.
Related articles by Zemanta
- The Win Without Pitching Manifesto (thedenveregotist.com)
- Beware the Expensive, Dangerous Creative Shootout (advertising-agencies.suite101.com)
- 5 Secrets to Being Good at New Business Presentations (worob.com)
- A Better Way to Pitch (adage.com)
The internet is important. It’s important for business, and it’s important for people to stay informed.
I think the City of Buffalo should place itself apart from other cities by offering residents free internet access.
Take some of the money from Tourism and business developement, and use it to buy in bulk from the two suppliers in Buffalo. This would do a number of things:
1. It would be a fee break. You can all this a tax break, or a fee break, or whatever, but businesses and residents would pay less.
2. It would be national news. (Ergo, no need to spend money on biz development and tourism)
3. It would set Buffalo apart as a place to do business. We could position ourselves as a place where information matters, and is free. We already offer huge tax breaks for moving here. We have money in place to attract businesses. Why not spend it this way?
4. A wired city is a more connected city.
5. It would be a step to stop us being positioned as poor, and instead have us be positioned as moving into where business is going
6. If the City of Buffalo is a business, then it makes good business sense to collectively buy a service from one of (or both of) the service providers at a cumulative discount. If we pool our cash, we get more for less. That’s a concept of capitalism.
7. It would make the city of Buffalo and attractive place to live for young people from the suburbs.
8. It would make Buffalo relevant for the right reasons.
9. Since cities compete with each other for businesses, a city will do this eventually. Being second isn’t news.
10. As part of free internet, residents agree to add content to Buffalo websites designed to attract tourists. Sites like Yelp, Google places, we as Buffalonians can promote our favorite places online to people who are thinking of a vacation. There are great places to eat, walk, see in our city. Sure it has some warts, but in exchange for free internet access, the city asks that we accentuate the good. Promote ourselves.
Stand up and be heard.
What do you think?
Related articles by Zemanta
- Interesting Stuff: Buffalo Buffalo Buffalo Buffalo (anadder.com)
- Help us find a home for a night (or two) (ask.metafilter.com)
- Visit Buffalo, New York, for Architecture, Art, and Wings (new-york-travel.suite101.com)
- Devoted to Buffalo, However Far They Roam (cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com)
- FCC report finds broadband market not bringing high-speed Internet to Americans fast enough (taragana.com)
Five things to love about Old Spice
#1. It all came out of a good idea that was executed well. The TV spots are great. If you haven’t seen them, stop reading blogs.
#2. The video responses to people were true digital responses. They weren’t TV spots placed online.
#3. It took more than a creative team, it took an integrated team of people.
#4. Clients will want this. So they’ll have to look at their process. The ‘responses’ where approved on the spot. This is no small feat since the client is Proctor and Gamble, a huge company with what must be a massive approval process. Social media/digital thrives on speed. If a client wants this, it will have to change the way it operates.
#5. Agencies will want to do this: This is the end of the silo. The team at the agency wasn’t just a copywriter and an art director. It included more people with titles that didn’t exist 5 years ago.
A subservient chicken moment.
This is a moment where a big agency did something different for a big brand, and people took notice. This was brilliant, and different on so many levels. This can’t be emulated by a social media expert who has tens of thousands of follower. This can only be executed by a smart ad agency.
One that refocuses. I honestly think that the titles of people at agencies will change drastically in the next decade, and we’ll point to this summer, and even this event as the catalyst. I know that sounds like hyperbole, but I really think as clients demand ideas like this from agencies, they will have to retool.
In an age where the screens and choices consumers have are immense, the current model leaves all idea creation to two people, one who does the words, and one who does the pictures. I’m not saying they shouldn’t be involved, just saying that more people should be invited to the party.
Or the party will move elsewhere.
Related articles by Zemanta
- 5 Things @OldSpice Taught Us About Social Media (justbrand.me)
- Old Spice Ad becomes a meme (globalneighbourhoods.net)
- The Team Who Made Old Spice Smell Good Again Reveals What’s Behind Mustafa’s Towel (fastcompany.com)
My Journey to a free Taco
Step one, I see this ad in the stream on Digg.
Two things about this ad caught my eye:
1. We have some clients who are giving away free food.
2. The landing page is Facebook. (see the URL, it’s facebook.comdeltaco.com)
So I clicked and landed on Facebook.
And I like the page, which took me to one of those “Allow Del Taco to see your profile”, which generated, finally, this coupon with my name on it.
So there you go. From Digg.com, to a landing tab on Facebook, to a personalized coupon for a free Taco.
Some things I don’t like:
1. This interaction cost them money. And yet, the closest Del Taco appears to be hundreds of miles away from me (I can’t tell you, their mobile site didn’t work, and I can’t be bothered to look up to see locations). They could have easily Geo targeted this. Or maybe they couldn’t. Maybe Facebook wouldn’t let them exclude people from the offer. Still, that they bought Digg without buying locations seems like an epic fail. The click on Digg cost them money, and I ain’t gonna redeem this.
2. What’s with coupon #45? Am I the 45th person to take this journey? That seems low, but it’s also content that is irrelevant to the consumer. If you needed numbers for a hard count, start at 1021, and count from there. You know your code, don’t start at zero.
On tagging, and why it’s important
This is a basic primer on Tagging. So we’ll start with Wikipedia:
“In online computer systems terminology, a tag is a non-hierarchical keyword or term assigned to a piece of information (such as an Internet bookmark, digital image, or computer file). This kind of metadata helps describe an item and allows it to be found again by browsing or searching. Tags are generally chosen informally and personally by the item’s creator or by its viewer, depending on the system.
Wikipedia sometimes blows, so here’s another go:
Imagine a real library filled with books.
Since a real book can only occupy one part of space, the books are organized by the Dewey Decimal system, developed by Melvil Dewey in 1876. The Dewey Decimal system starts with ten sections ranging from 000 Computer science, information& general works to 900 – History, geography and biography.
Putting aside the fact that biography seems like history, and that this system was developed in 1876!, this is how books are classified in libraries.
And from there, it splits to 100 divisions and 1000 sections. A book I recently read called “Cognitive Surplus” has HM851.S5464 as the call number. I don’t know what those letters and numbers mean, but hunting it down means finding Humanities, and then Ethics, and then just counting up or down through the shelves to find the book.
Because a book is a physical thing, living on a physical shelf, it needs to have a home. The call numbers represent a map to the home. I assume that it’s a complicated call number because in 1876, Dewey didn’t forsee a book like “Cognitive Surplus” about Web 2.0 things, and ethics, and social science, and digital, etc.
Physical classification demands that things fit in one place.
On a smaller scale, names on real file folders (alphabetically organized) represents this notion in the office. The very concept of a file folder is that every file has one folder as a home.
When computers first came a long, the people who built it copied the real world (because there was no other world to copy).
Leaving us in a weird situation whereby we create digital folders and place digital files in them – even though we don’t. The folders on my desktop called Matt and Jobs aren’t physical. Nor is the content inside them, even though said content only appears in one place to us.
Indeed, this blog post your reading isn’t in a folder. And yet, it is.
Still with me?
I ‘tagged’ this post with all sorts of words ranging from “Social Media to The Dewey Decimal system.
So if you think of tagging as the digital version of “placing digital content in an infinite number of digital folders” then you’re beginning to understand tagging.
Tagging is classifying content in a place that isn’t bound by physics. A library can’t use tagging to classify a book because it has to adhere to the simple fact that a book has to be in one place.
Digital things don’t have to be in one place. Different tags put them in many places.
So why does that matter?
As people add more and more content, the manner in which we find it will have to change. With tagging, we can describe our content in infinite ways, offering infinite ways to find it. If the only way to find something is by the title, then the title has to be dead nuts perfect. If it can be found through tagging, then it’s better.
Related articles by Zemanta
- How to Organize Books for the Home Library (home-organization.suite101.com)
- Has the Dewey Decimal System finally outlived its usefulness? (timesunion.com)
- Encyclopaedias and the Dewey Decimal System: A Gen X Memoir of Research Papers (jenx67.com)
On LeBron James as a brand
LeBron James held a quasi reality TV show wherein he announced he would go to Miami. It was something he knew for a long time, but positioned it as something he just dreamed up. This is reality TV at its finest, but that’s not the point of this post (if you want to read more on the reality TV aspect, go here).
The point is, no one will care.
- Image via Wikipedia
We seem to care now. It’s not hard to find someone who’s written that this is terrible for brand LeBron. That he was the king of Cleveland, and a shiny marketing pitch man who stayed out of trouble and if only he stayed in Cleveland, he would be rich(er).
What is interesting though, and what I haven’t seen written in too many places is this: what if it works?
Three big time free agents got together and went to one team. They talked, and picked Miami.
This is new. Normally, big-time free agents are part of the marketplace, and they use each other as competition to get a higher salary, and/or be the man somewhere.
One can’t fault a first time free agent from leaving a place. Rookies in most sports don’t get to pick where they play. They get drafted (a term, that if applied to the US government, would feel uncomfortable).
When they finally ‘earn’ the right to be in demand free agents, they get to pick based on three elements:
- Salary. Who will pay the highest.
- Location. Where do they want to play?
- Chance of winning.
When you analyze the choices to James, it seems like a good choice. He got his money, he lives in Miami, and with Wade and Bosh, he has a chance of winning.
But it feels wrong. It feels like these three guys did something wrong. And tactically, they may have. The special was dumb. The treatment of Cleveland was dumb (as was the comic sans response from the ownership).
But again, what if it works? If it does, this move will be celebrated. It will be hoisted up across all sports as an example. And if they win, all three will be marketable, despite the bad reality TV show, the poor manners, and the narcissism.
Related articles by Zemanta
- LeBron James, Miami Heat and Co. Have NBA Owners Suspicious (bleacherreport.com)
- LeBron James Gives Cleveland the Royal Screw Job (bleacherreport.com)
- Giant LeBron mural removed in Cleveland (nba.com)
- Lebron James and “The Decision” are metaphors for the problems in this country (Cartoon) [Michael Haltman] (ecademy.com)
- LeBron James booed at Carmelo Anthony’s wedding (ballhype.com)
- LeBron James And The Deterioration of Sports Into a Reality TV Show (bleacherreport.com)
- You: Michael Jordan says Kobe Better than LeBron (sportsviews.com)
What business are you in – define it, or the people will
Quick, what is Starbucks to you?
When I was coming up in advertising, Starbucks was the classic product that didn’t use any advertising to launch. It spread on world-of-mouth, and not word of brand (a term I just made up to show that advertising helped tell the story).
Just as famously, Starbucks was in trouble in recent years because it wasn’t as easily able to differentiate itself from local coffee shops. Across the street from the closest Starbucks to my office is a local coffee joint that uses strange jargon to sell expensive coffee. Cafe Lattes are “on wheels”, meaning to go. People behind the counter shout to one another and there are many moving parts. Like Starbucks, it has free Wi-fi and music. And like Starbucks, it has passionate fans. Though I see the fan thing turning away from Starbucks.
To me, the Starbucks fan is an early adopter. They consider Starbucks the leader in the “good coffee” movement. At a time, Starbucks was the good coffee alternative to the bad coffee that needed a cream and two sugars to cover the taste.
Okay, to the point.
What is Social media isn’t really a new media platform. What if social media is a behavior, and not a new tool in the marketers toolbox? What if social media can define a brand while the brand isn’t looking?
Meaning, if we say X in advertising, but the people are saying Y in social media, then who will win? The people or the brand? And obviously, what brand wants to be in competition with its customer for the brand attributes?
I say all this because brands that don’t advertise run the risk of being identified in social media by the people.
What do you think?
Related articles by Zemanta
- Starbucks to Sell Beer and Wine at their Coffee Shops (nowpublic.com)
- Andy’s Answers: How Starbucks used social tools to launch VIA (smartblogs.com)
- Starbucks Wooes ‘Em Back With Free Wi-Fi (blogs.forbes.com)
Do clients need agencies?
Go here, and take a read. This is a post with lots of pretty pictures that essentially says clients won’t need us.
If you don’t fancy clicking, here’s the crux of the post:
“If clients only pay for the things they can’t do themselves, what does that mean when we work in a real-time, social web world?”
This is a debate going in many, many board rooms across many agency structures. It’s going on in some of the best ad agencies who are experimenting with executing the big idea in non-traditional places.
I’ve been putting together a competitive study of ‘social media agencies’ (or new media agencies) that are not only different companies but they might even have different models. I’ve been reading through their offerings, and trying to understand their pitches. Most lead with change.
Everything has changed.
If that’s true, then the traditional model of the ad agency is doomed. But maybe not.
Because its still all about marketing ideas. It used to be about ‘big ideas’ — the kind that had legs and could be executed across all mediums. It still is. But it’s also about many, many smart little ideas that come from all aspects of the business. Media ideas. PR ideas. That’s sort of the crux of the quote above. The client can come up with the ideas.
And while these new models (or even a model where the client does everything) seem to be hot, what they aren’t is just as important to discuss.
First, a little background: The first ad agency was started in 1812. Since then, it’s evolved from a reseller of media to a full service marketing department. Some of the greats ones aren’t just delivering ideas in new media, they are training their clients in these media.
So why will we still be around?
Because we can get the different skill sets in a room together to tackle the problems of the client. And the really creative people will still lean towards agencies because they are fun, creative, and interesting places to work.
Indeed, the client is generally conservative and needs a push from the agency to do something different, new, scary, intriguing. Taking all work client side is just different.
That said, we have to ensure we’re poised to offer the client more than just the things they can do. The old model is broken. People are holding onto the past. Both on the client side, and the agency side.
How is your agency poised for all this change?
Are all social networks niche?
Facebook has 450 million people in it. I’m connected to a little over 300 of them, and I’ve reached my tipping point, somewhere double where Robin Dunbar expected me to reside.
This blog post the future of niche social networking inspired me to think about niche social networks.
I think brands want Niche Social Networks, because when you break down that complicated sounding phrase, you could just call it a room with your best customers.
And that room wouldn’t be very big for most brands. It would be for coke. It won’t be for Johnny’s Pizza.
Johnny’s Pizza wants to invite their best customers into a room.
So do all brands.
So forget numbers. Unless the numbers are 80-20 — that old stand by about how 80% of business comes from 20% of the customers. Instead of massive numbers like 450 million, think about how many people make up the 20% of customers.
And invite them in. A Facebook page will not market to all 450 million people. It will market to the people in your niche. So will a Ning social network, the macdaddy of the niche social networks. So will a LinkedIn group.
That said, your website can be the social place for your network. And if it happens, you’ll not only ‘own’ the data, you’ll be able to market more effectively to your fans.
Think niche. Or better yet, think about your best customers, and focus on that niche.
Related articles by Zemanta
- Does a Successful Niche Social Network Threaten Facebook? (socialtimes.com)
- How to Use Niche Social Networks to Spread Your Message (e1evation.com)
- Manage Social Networks Through Your Email (e1evation.com)
Why do people like to share?
This blog is called “People like to share” because I think people like to share. That’s somewhat self-evident.
So in this post, I would like to argue why and how people like to share. In order to share, people need motive and opportunity. This motive and opportunity needs to then create a desire to share. So lets start with opportunity.
Opportunity.
We can cut to the chase pretty quick here. We’re more wired now then we were 6 months ago. In 6 months, we’ll be even more wired. As this growth continues, so will our access to the opportunity to share. Think about it: if I take a picture (or video) with my smart phone, I can share it on blogs, Facebook, Twitter, Flick, YouTube, and e-mail. And that’s just an image. I can now share my location, my bookmarks, my opinions, my reviews, and my fandom.
This opportunity will only increase as more people within our individual social circles embrace it. For example, Facebook took off because people asked “Are you on Facebook” so much that people got on Facebook, promoting them to ask “Are you on Facebook?” to their crowd, and so on.
Other sharing tools have the same chance to expand. From “You can see my photos on Flickr” to check out my bookmarks on Delicious, as people move to these tools, we’ll move to a more critical mass. And in this instance, mass means world.
Motive.
Just because people can do something, it doesn’t mean they will. People need to be motivated to share. And right now, we’re not at a critical acceptance (unless you happen to be a millennial, then you are motivated to share).
So the motive must be there, but I think it’s coming. I think people want to share. In his book, Cognitive Surplus, Clay Shirky talks about the accident of the last 50 years. The accident is that we didn’t live in a participatory culture, not that we’re currently living in one now. He asserts that people used to share a lot more before we gave all of our free time up to TV.
Indeed, even in an age where we give our time to TV, you’ll still find yourself sitting in a conversation with people sharing their opinions about shows. “did you see the show last night?” “Did you see that play?”
We still share. The difference is, we’ll be able to share with more people.
Finding your people.
Before the internet and social media, the thing that stopped the sharers from above was physical. As a fan of Arsenal FC, I can now find and talk to people about the games they play — online. This isn’t something that I can do in my home city. But it’s something that is easy online.
Finding your people is simple. Sharing with them is just as easy.
Related articles by Zemanta
