Blog | The Tite Group

Who’s guilty? Advertising, Paris Hilton or me?

In yesterday’s post about Dr. Pepper Ten, I explored the need to rise above calling for the removal of sexist ads and instead, vote with our wallets. Today, I watched a trailer for the documentary “Miss Representation” which, I think, further proves the need to do this.

Written and directed by Jennifer Siebel Newsom, this film calls out the media and advertising for re-enforcing negative stereotypes of women. On one hand, I agree. On the other, I don’t.

Does advertising (and the content it pays for) illustrate women in ways that prevent women from rising above the past? Absolutely. Is it their fault? Maybe and maybe not. It’s kind of a chicken and egg thing. Let me explain.

While advertising certainly has done its fair share to contribute to the problem, the only thing that drives the use of negative imagery is success. Advertisers do it because it works. Trust me, if a “sexy” ad failed to drive sales, it would get yanked faster than Qwickster. So who’s guilty? The advertiser for doing it or the general public who reward the advertiser’s behaviour with sales and brand loyalty?

There was a time when corporations didn’t even think about greening their products. Only when the general public started rewarding those who went green did everyone else join in.
The answer is easy then, right?
Maybe not.

As the trailer points out, many men respond to such images because that’s what we’ve been taught our entire lives. By the media. And by advertising. When we buy magazines or watch TV or check out movies, we’re fed images that define what we should like and what we shouldn’t. So when we see Paris Hilton in a Carl’s Jr. spot, we’re immediately conditioned to think, “Blonde? Check. Thin? Check. Not intellectually sound? Check. Oh, right! I like this!! (or at least I’m supposed to).”

Is it my fault for responding or someone else’s fault because they taught me that that’s how I should respond? Or.. and here’s where it gets interesting.. Is it Paris’ fault for contributing to the problem simply for financial gain? Shouldn’t she be held at least partially accountable?

Many of you will point to the brilliant work done by Ogilvy Toronto for Dove’s “Real Beauty” campaign to say that clearly progressive forms of advertising work. Well, ya but don’t forget that the campaign targeted people who supported that type of brand communication much in the same way that parent company Unilever stands behind its work for Axe Body Spray. They work because their target connects with them.

Like or not, money drives decisions but it also represents a democracy. I absolutely hate Jersey Shore but man, there are a LOT of people who like it which proves it should exist. Who am I to impose my cultural beliefs on others? Instead of yanking it, wouldn’t it be better if there simply wasn’t a market for it?

I know I’m rambling. I guess this is my point: If we want to make advertising better, we have to rethink what we’re responding to and support those products (and the ads that represent them) regardless of price. And whether we’re Kim Kardashian or US Weekly or a Creative Director at a big agency, we need to make decisions based on our values, not on our bank accounts.

My good friend, Bill Sharpe, once told me, “A principle is only a principle if it costs you money.” I couldn’t agree more.

As a consumer and as a brand guy, I know I’m not perfect.
I’m just trying to do the right thing.

What do you think?

This Dr. Pepper campaign isn’t sexist. It’s bad.

Hello, ladies. Look at this ad. Now back to me. Now back at this ad. Sadly, we’re all a little bit sexist, aren’t we?

Dr. Pepper launched a new drink targeting guys called Dr. Pepper Ten. The spot is below.

While good brands massage their tone and messaging to appeal to a specific target, this one is kinda unique because it blatantly excludes females by saying, “Not for Women”. There’s even a Facebook page only visible to guys with such manly gems as The Manly Shooting Gallery and Name Your Sausage (I picked “Chorizo” which wasn’t the right answer.) As if that wasn’t enough, pop-up Man Caves will appear in select US cities.

People are kinda freaking out. Ad Chickadee is asking people to sign a petition to “remove this sexist ad” and respected AdRants said there was “…no reason to pit one sex against the other…”

Do I like this ad? No I do not.
As a guy, does it speak to me? No it does not.
Will I buy this product? No I will not.

But is it sexist? I guess it is by definition but when we still have gender imbalance in income levels and household duties and women are still marginalized by “babes in bikinis” for just about every beer brand on the planet, I think we have more important gender issues to fight for.

As a guy, I don’t connect with this campaign just as I fail to connect with manly ads for pickup trucks, meat-lovers pizza, and domestic beer. Sure, they don’t say, “Not for women” but they might as well. And what about the hundreds of CPG spots that depict the husband as bumbling idiots while their wives do that all-knowing wink to the camera? Are those sexist? Hell, even the toast of ad-town Old Spice claimed that if I stopped using lady scented body wash, I could smell like a chiseled former NFL player. Was it sexist or just targeting burly men who proudly define themselves as one?

I drive a Volvo. I’m not handy. I despise action movies. And I don’t own any Rock ‘em Sock ‘em Hockey DVDs. I can’t be further from the image of men depicted in most advertising. But I’m ok with it because I vote with my dollars by not purchasing those products. I don’t waste my time or space in gender discussions to complain about it. I just say “no thanks” and move on.

Good advertising should always connect with specific people. Some of those people are women who like traditional “girly stuff” or men who like “macho stuff”. And if there aren’t enough guys who relate to a soft drink that is exclusively male then sales will plummet, business will suffer, and people will get fired.

Ordering them to take it down seems foolish when it’ll come crashing down organically if people vote with their wallets.

Call me old school but I think Dr. Pepper should have the opportunity to fail just like the rest of us.

For part 2 of this, read the post Who’s guilty? Advertising, Paris Hilton, or me?

Stay hungry. Stay foolish.

I was working away tonight and had turned off all distractions when I got a text from my girlfriend.

“Did you hear Steve Jobs died?”

I didn’t know him. Never met him. I didn’t even have the opportunity to actually ever see him in person. He wasn’t Canadian. He didn’t attend my university. He didn’t share my ethnic heritage. He was simply the founder and CEO of a company based in another country on the other side of the continent.

But he influenced me.

For most of my life, I’ve worked as a creative in the advertising industry. And for all of those years, I was inspired by Steve Jobs.

Was it because creative departments proudly used his computers and software? No.
Was it because he was behind my favourite spot, “Think Different”? No.
Was it because he approved what is widely considered as the best and most effective TV spot of all time, “1984”? No.
Was it because he lead a company that is THE branding case study? No.
Was it because he created brilliant products that people didn’t even realize they wanted? No.
Was it because he completely overhauled his business model creating the most valuable company in the world? No.

It was because he did something that all of us who work in this business try to do every single day: He succeeded simply by doing what was right.

His ads were what all ads SHOULD be.
His design was what all design SHOULD be.
His business was what all businesses SHOULD be.
He proved that the really successful didn’t need to resort to sales, promotions, or starbursts. He proved that a corporation COULD connect with people emotionally.
He proved that good taste wasn’t just a creative thing, it was the right thing.

Even when I had a hand in creating some brilliant work – work that I am extremely proud of – I compared it to his. And it never measured up.

Thanks for the inspiration, Steve. Thanks for being that bar that all of us try to reach in every piece of communication we create.

I promise to stay hungry and stay foolish. And I’ll always remind myself to think different.
Something tells me that’s the way you would have wanted it.

Do you hear what I hear? Listen closely, brands.

This past weekend, I was lucky enough to spend a few days in Vancouver after delivering a keynote to a great group from RBC. I’m no BC resident but I’m there enough to know what a Japa Dog is, when to avoid post-game hockey demonstrations and most importantly, where to stay.

Normally, I stay at the Westin Grand. The service is great, the rooms are nice, the location is pretty central and – as weird as it may sound – I love looking out at the Public Library. This trip was extra special, though. At one point, I simply tweeted this:

I certainly wasn’t fishing for anything. Hell I didn’t even think they would be listening. Like all good brands, they were. This was their response.

When I informed them that I was there, they asked if they could do anything to make my stay more enjoyable (nice touch). I privately messaged them (no need to air dirty laundry) that housekeeping had failed to provide shampoo in the room. They immediately corrected the problem.

But they didn’t stop there.

Mid-afternoon, they sent someone up to my room with a huge carafe of ice water, a tray of fresh fruit and chocolate and this thoughtful note:

Brilliant! While all of us celebrate huge customer service stories like KLM and Mortons, it’s small responses like this that separate the brands who get it from those who don’t. Here’s why:

1. They were listening. And they responded.
A lot of brands use SM channels to solve problems and avert PR disasters (as they should) but the potential is so much greater. Your clients ARE talking about you and listening gives you a chance to learn, be proactive, and be brilliant.

2. Operational integration.
Conversing with some SM teams is like talking to a call centre in India. Sure, they’ll pass your message along but you never feel like they have any power to do anything. When your product has a live, face to face component, they should have the power to affect it. Westin’s SM team had the power to fix a problem AND send a gift to my room quickly. Nice.

3. Transparency.
Even though I privately messaged them with my tiny and insignificant issue, they actually responded publicly with an apology. They actually shared their oversight with the world even though I gave them the opportunity to keep it private. Top marks.

4. Dialogue continuation.
When my friend Warren Porter responded to my tweet, they engaged with him, too. They even complimented him on his glasses (they are pretty nice). The Westin was like the friend you like introducing to other friends. They could have got in and got out but instead, they were genuinely interested in the conversation and stayed around at the party long after the finger foods were gone.

Congratulations to the Westin Grand management and staff for providing a great lesson on what brands can do to create magic for their customers. As a result, they’ll be hearing even more positive comments in the future.

Warning!!! These ads will shock you.

Challenged with a cluttered marketplace, bad marketers (like the ones behind this ad for Fluid Hair Salon in Edmonton), shamefully take a marketing short cut by just shocking consumers to achieve breakthrough.

Am I offended? Absolutely.
But I’m offended as a marketer.

First of all, I totally can appreciate that this ad offends some people. Victims of domestic abuse don’t need to face a depiction of their horror blatantly used to help sell a $40 perm. Still, I don’t think it gets us beyond a “Yes it is / No it isn’t” debate. In the grand scheme of things, we have bigger fish to fry but if you want to complain or boycott or write a letter, go ahead.

Does this ad stand out? Yup. You bet.
You know what else would get them noticed? Repeatedly kicking a puppy in front of the salon. If it’s all about awareness then why not go all the way?

The point is, it’s NOT about standing out.

It should be about building a relevant, genuine, compelling and valuable brand and THEN communicating it in a unique way. Their campaign, “Look good in all you do” lacks real consumer insight and fails to communicate a clear product benefit or differentiation. It’s just lazy marketing in the same way that Dane Cook is lazy stand up comedy. Sure, it gets your attention but after the shock, you’re left realizing there’s not much substance behind it.

Funny enough, they do have some interesting things to say beyond domestic abuse. Apparently, they recycle hair for the production of oil spill mats. That’s kinda cool. And not something I’ve ever heard of before. Why not lead with that?

Benetton it’s not.
Remember this campaign?

Benetton created controversy with their advertising from the early 90’s. The difference between this stellar work and Fluid’s campaign is simple: Benetton stood for something positive. They believed in uniting colours. So while a photo of a white man kissing a black woman may have shocked some, it shouldn’t have. Their progressive social stance was clear and those who disagreed were able to make an appropriate and informed consumer choice.

I’m still not sure what Fluid believes in. Feminine strength in the face of adversity? Superficial composure in the face of adversity? Edgy communications for an edgy product?
After reading all the reports, blog posts, responses and media articles relating to this issue, here’s my final thought on this subject: I don’t think Fluid owner Sarah Cameron or her “creative consultant” Tiffany Jackson are horrible people.

They’re just horrible marketers.

Even in managing the response, it’s clear that they’re in over their heads. Sarah needs to turn to a real professional in Edmonton (I can provide some names) before this gets even worse.
Remember: A blunder like this can taint you but your response to it will define you.

The campaign states that you should “Look good in all you do”. It’s time for Fluid to follow their own advice.

Technology does not = innovation. Just ask a parking lot.

The other day, I had a meeting in an office tower I hadn’t been to. Don’t tell David Suzuki, but I drove. Luckily, there was parking in the building.

You all know how parking lots work: Pave or dig land and rent out the space for brief periods of time. (It’s like a short term motel without the bad drapes and naughty behaviour.) When someone enters, they punch a clock and when they leave, they pay someone sitting in a booth for their time. Simple enough.

How do you innovate such a simple system? Well, there’s a right way and a wrong way.

The wrong way to innovate
Some parking lots decided to invest in technology to cut costs by replacing the people with machines. Innovation! You grab a ticket when you enter, take it with you to the lobby and before you leave, insert it into a vending machine, pay your bill, and then insert the “I’ve paid” verified ticket on your way out without ever interacting with a human being.

That’s not innovation folks, that’s a recipe for decreased business.

Someone loses their job and the customer gets to do more work and experience more aggravation all so that an accounting line item is improved. Sure there are signs that remind us to take “Take your ticket with you” but you might as well say, “We’d like to make more dough. Please don’t screw this up.” Unless the savings are passed on to the consumer or re-invested in the product to add more value and differentiate you from the competition, it’s wrong. And it’s kind of evil.

The right way to innovate
Other parking lots have taken a different route. Enter your credit card when you enter, insert it again when you leave and you’re good to go. No muss, no fuss and no cursing yourself when you realize you’ve left your ticket in your car. While I don’t love that someone loses their job in the process, hopefully, the money saved can be re-invested to create other employment.

Now THAT’S innovation.
A win-win that satisfies the customer and decreases operating costs over time which can be reinvested to create even more value for the customer.

Who knew this much thought could go into a parking lot?

Don’t be a Polaroid.

I still remember the day.

I was wearing Montreal Alouette sneakers, a hand-me-down Adidas T-shirt, short-shorts, and an Expos hat on top of a homemade Lego haircut. It was the mid-70s and my mom gathered us four kids to take a picture. But she wasn’t just using a camera.

She was using a Polaroid.

I know, I know.. many of us consider Polaroid a retro brand who’s claim to fame is inspiring the Instagram format and the odd Outkast lyric.

But before you write it off, think about life BEFORE polaroid.

Your camera was horizontal Tetris piece and the flash was a vertical tower of power that connected to the top. It featured 12 little flint flashes that individually burst into flames when initiated. Then, you had to GET IN YOUR CAR and drop off your film to a pimply faced teen who sat in a Fotomat (fishing hut) in the middle of a mall parking lot. 2 months later, after a lab in russia developed them, you got your photos.

Then Polaroid showed up.

Talk about a life-changing innovation. It didn’t just make life a little better. It drastically changed consumer behaviour. People no longer had to drive. Labs no longer had to develop. And photos could be enjoyed instantly (well, almost instantly – first you had to shake it, shake it…)

What a wonder! What a truly brilliant innovation! What a company! What a brand!

Polaroid has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. Twice.

Sure, they were saved by a private equity group, have adequately licensed their name and currently feature a range of products including everything from sunglasses to printers. Hell, they even hired Lady Gaga as Creative Director. But I think you’ll agree that they literally (and legally) are a shell of their former selves.

There’s an important lesson in there:
It’s one thing to innovate. It’s quite another to keep on innovating.
The hot thing (and the profits that go along with it) may be great today but it can be one line of code away from being replaced by something else that makes consumers’ lives even easier.

It also applies to people.

You may be flying high and on top of your game one day and be obsolete the next simply because you didn’t change, adapt, or learn. People – not just brands – have to continue to innovate.

You may want to be many things. I just hope you don’t want to be a Polaroid.

This 71 year old knows more about social media than you and I do.

While various social media apps can help you be more effective or more productive or more accurate, a passionate desire to connect is far more powerful than any software package. A brand that has a genuine willingness to engage with their customers will trump one that doesn’t, regardless of the budget, websites, widgets or tools used.

You want proof? Don’t talk to the 21 year old social media evangelist who’s busy building their Google+ profile in the corner. Talk to 71 year old Evelyn Hannon.

Back when putting brochures online was considered breakthrough, Evelyn decided to launch a website for female travellers called JourneyWoman.com.

That was 1997.
And she hasn’t changed the design since.

Seriously. There’s no flash. No video. No HTML 5. Or, in her words, “…there’s no fancy shmancy”. Check it out. You’ll be amazed. It’s so old school, it’s retro. Her site is the Polaroid in a sea of iPhone 4 HD cameras. One look and you’ll think you got to it by putting a punch card into a mainframe.

What it does have, though, is a massive loyal community of active contributors.

• She has an e-newsletter with over 75,000 subscribers.
• She has 13,000 Twitter followers.
• She built a global database of female mentors.
• She’s been an imbedded blogger on a ship sailing around the world.
• People from over 200 countries follower her, read her and trust her.

She has no heavily researched strategy, she’s never checked out Google Analytics, she doesn’t read up on what the experts say she should do and her approach to engagement, refreshingly, doesn’t even use the word “engagement”.

All she does is care.

She cares about the subject of travel. She cares about helping women. She cares about being genuine.
She acts like a grandmother. Not surprising because, well, she is.

Evelyn reminds us that real communities don’t live on Twitter or Facebook. They camp out there. Real communities live because of a passion that is shared by those who belong to it. And when it’s strong enough, that community can exist anywhere.

Have a listen. You won’t just love Evelyn. You’ll love her approach.
Success may be a journey but this woman has figured out what to do along the way.

KLM gets it. Luckily, their passengers do, too.

When companies want to thank their loyal customers, the first thought is to bombard them with trinkets and trash – little gifts companies buy in mass quantities complete with logos, corporate colours and sadly, almost no value to the customer whatsoever. In the past, it was really difficult to really get to know individual customer interests so we were forced to purchase one gift for everyone and the lowest common denominator (and lowest price) ruled the day of customer appreciation. Luckily, we can kiss this approach (and the logoed golf shirts that came along with it) goodbye.

When you combine the new tools that give us greater access to our customers’ interests with the real time updates of their lives that are available, the potential to truly surprise and delight customers is unprecedented. And that’s not just good for customers. It’s also good for business.

KLM gets it. Do you?

Pizza Nova gets it. Pizza Pizza doesn’t.

Yesterday, I wrote about the customer service issue that Cammi Pham experienced with Canadian pizza retailer Pizza Pizza. Here’s Pizza Pizza’s response:

Good Afternoon Ron,
We’ve read your blog in regards to the social media driven, customer service issue. This customer’s complaint was handled immediately, complying several hours in advance of our 24 hour response guarantee. At this point, we are not able to release any further information with regards to this, as we take customer confidentiality very seriously. If there are any other issues directly pertaining to yourself that you would like to discuss we are open to chatting live. Thank you .

Pizza Pizza didn’t just fail to deliver a pizza to a hungry customer. They failed (and continue to fail) with their social media efforts, especially when compared to their competition. Here’s why:

No one wants to speak to a corporation.
Pizza Nova’s Twitter account is @PizzaNovaGuy. Whether it’s one person actually managing the stream or not, it certainly feels like it is. Pizza Pizza, on the other hand, tweets from the account @PizzaPizzaLtd. Yech. People like connecting with people. With corporations? Not so much. And the numbers prove it. Pizza Pizza has 587 more locations than Pizza Nova but close to 500 fewer followers.

Deals! Offers! Let’s talk about us!
One of the most common mistakes big brands make is using social media as a one-way bugle that provides a never-ending and piercing stream of infomercial-like offers, deals and promotions. On both Twitter and Facebook, Pizza Pizza excels at this. SM isn’t a commercial. It’s an operational service that listens, responds and keeps people interested and engaged. I’m getting tired of hearing it and saying it but clearly, this critical point still needs to be communicated.

We’ll deliver a response in 24 hours… or it’s free.
As noted above, Pizza Pizza gives themselves 24 hours to respond to a customer complaint. So, they can prepare, cook and deliver a pizza in under an hour but can’t respond to a complaint in less than 24? In the fast pace world of SM, that can be too long. I imagine (but can’t confirm) that Pizza Pizza’s community is managed by someone at their head office even though the bulk of their sales come after 6pm. If they serve their customers after normal work hours, they should respond to them then, too.

Focus
PIzza Nova doesn’t seem to maintain a Facebook presence at all. That’s a good thing. Facebook has proven be an unbelievable platform for brands but only when they have the resources to manage it. I’d rather a brand choose a platform that works for them and focus their time and energy into doing a good job there. To quote Steam Whistle, “Do one thing really, really well.”

Personality.
Let’s face it, pizza is a fun, easy and fast food. We don’t tuck linen napkins into our shirts when enjoying it and most of us want communications that are consistent with this. Take a look at this tweet from @PizzaNovaGuy:

Almost 25% of Pizza Pizza’s July tweets were template responses that seemed to be written by their legal department. And knowing what I know about large organizations, they probably were.

Clearly, people love the Pizza Nova brand. Of their 36 Tweets in the month of July, 29 were actually unprompted positive comments retweeted from other users. It’s amazing how easy social media can be when other people do the work for you.

Judging by the numerous complaints to @PizzaPizzaLtd, the passion for Pizza Pizza isn’t as strong. I think their social media process has a lot to do with that.

But it’s not the only thing.

As a huge organization, Pizza Pizza has a more difficult job. They have more drivers to keep in line, more locations to quality control and a ton more pizzas to deliver. They’re bound to make more mistakes. They have to dedicate more resources, provide more training and instill a culture of service from top to bottom.

Clearly, they have potential and hopefully, they can turn it around. They’re a successful organization, they have a great mobile app, and they do a lot of good for the communities they work in. They do have over 80,000 Facebook fans (which I guess is impressive) but as we all know, that doesn’t really indicate true engagement.

Get with it, Pizza Pizza. You’re an institution. I’d just prefer you didn’t act like one.

UPDATE: Here’s another Pizza fail.