Marketing Tea Party by Ron Shevlin

Adweek recently ran an article titled Why So Few TV Ads Are Viral Hits. According to the article:

The Holy Grail for many marketers is having their big-budget TV spot become a viral hit online, providing millions of dollars worth of free exposure from consumer pass-along.”

Market research firm Millward Brown (MB) found, however, that just 15% of the 102 TV ads they studied became viral hits, and concluded that:

Even those spots that do achieve viral success don’t necessarily mean consumers get the intended commercial message.”

I can’t imagine that you’ll be surprised to learn that MB is now offering a “creative viral potential measurement” service as part of the copy-testing process. The firm has “crafted 10 tips for making a TV spot viral,  including great creativity, wide dissemination, good search optimization and, perhaps most important, the need to ‘cross your fingers’.”

To summarize: 1) Few spots go viral; 2) Going viral is no guarantee of success; but 3) MB will still charge you money to help you determine if your spot has (oh let’s just call it) viralocity.

Adweek misnamed the article — it never says why so few TV ads go viral. I’ve got a few theories, though. Few TV ads go viral because so many of them:

1. Suck. On second thought, while it might be true that many ads suck, it’s actually not the reason they don’t go viral. After all, that “Charlie Bit My Finger” video went viral, and it sucked.

2. Don’t connect emotionally and authentically. There are two common threads to ads and videos that go viral: First of all, they connect with people on an emotional level. That emotion could be humor, sympathy, nostalgia, whatever, I don’t know.  But while many TV ads try to evoke emotion, emotion isn’t enough. The second common element is authenticity. Viral ads and videos don’t try to go viral. The ones that do tend to have a quirky appeal to them. Agency-done ads don’t have that quality.

3. Aren’t supposed to go viral. This might be hard logic for advertisers to follow, but readers of this blog will have no trouble getting it: Many ads are designed to accomplish specific business objectives, which results in them being written in a way that doesn’t lend itself to becoming a viral ad. In other words, by not going viral they actually have a better chance of accomplishing their business goals.

This whole topic of viral TV ads is ridiculous. The “millions of dollars of free exposure” you’d get is only helpful if you reduced your ad budget by millions of dollars. But that’s not going to happen, is it?

And how fleeting are these viral videos, anyway? Can you remember the hot video from three months ago? (OK, granted, I remembered Charlie Bit My Finger, but mostly because I thought it was so stupid).

And is this so-called extra exposure really that valuable? While direct marketers measure their effectiveness by calculating incremental sales, advertisers count exposure, even if the same 10 million people see their ads over and over again.

And what’s with this “cross your fingers” business? The fact that MB is going to “evaluate” ads’ viralocity pretty much guarantees that ads won’t become viral, since that will pretty much kill any hope of authenticity.

So why all the interest and focus on viralocity among the advertising community? The answer can be summed up in one word: Ego. It isn’t about driving business results, it’s about creating bragging rights.

Is it any wonder I harbor a disrespect for the advertising industry?

Apologies for the sports analogy which I know so many of you hate.

But there it was — the easy layup, the slow ball just waiting for me to knock out of the park….and I blew it. Whiffed. Failed to sink the basket. On the CU Chat Up the other day, @clagett set me up, and I failed to deliver.

He asked:

What do PFM (personal financial management) providers need to provide?”

My response was that PFM providers had to help FIs understand: 1) the ROI of PFM investments, and/or 2) the role of PFM as a component of a customer relationship infrastructure.

Maybe that wasn’t a terrible answer, but it wasn’t the best answer.

The better answer: PFM providers need to help FIs understand how to use the data. How to get the data out, how to store it, how to deploy it, and when to deploy it.

The challenge isn’t simply a technology challenge, it’s a business challenge. Many marketers are used to determining what offers to make based on demographic and purchase data, so they don’t know: 1) how to incorporate behavioral data, and/or 2) how to provide advice or guidance messages (and not just offers).

Unica recently released the results of a study of marketers that found that 75% of respondents say they use — or plan to use — online behavioral data when making decisions about marketing offers (15% of respondents were banks). I would have been interested in seeing what percent are currently using online behavioral data. I would bet the percentage is a lot lower, and “planning” to use it is not something I’d take to the bank (pun intended).

The PFM market is in its really early stages. Way too early to call winners and losers. But the ability to use the data will become a competitive factor.

Anyway, had to set the record straight here. My answer’s been bugging me.

Imagine that there are two groups of credit unions. We’ll call one group the HPs (for high-performers), and the other group we’ll call…the other group.

Over the past two years, average membership growth for the HPs has been three times higher than that of the other group. Further, the HPs’ two-year loan and net-worth growth have been nearly twice as high, and their growth in market share has been 20% higher than the market share growth of the other group.

Which group would you want your credit union to be in?

Duh.

The more important question, of course, is what did the HPs do differently?

Based on research on 54 credit unions that participated in a research study Aite Group recently conducted, I can tell you that: 1) We did find two groups, and 2) There is (at least) one very important difference between the two groups worth noting.

That difference? How the HPs manage IT.

I know you’d like to believe that it was their use of social media, or their focus on Gen Y or whatever other technology or product you champion, but I really don’t think that’s it. Because the HPs probably wouldn’t have made that investment in social media, or in other technologies, if it weren’t for how they manage IT.

When I talk about how they manage IT, I’m referring specifically to three dimensions: 1) IT risk tolerance; 2) executive support for IT; and 3) IT/business coordination.

Credit unions that show a tolerance for IT risk, have strong executive support, and enjoy excellent coordination between IT and the business outperform other credit unions — regardless of which technologies they invest in.

I’ve seen a lot of discussion online among credit union people about how to get their management team fired up about — or even remotely interested in — social media. Some of the recommendations from people revolve around “showing them the ROI.”

The paradox of the situation is that while there may very well be an ROI — or at least some tangible business benefit — the problem is that many management teams aren’t inclined to make the investment because they’re not tolerant of risk and/or don’t have a fundamental belief in the value of technology as a business enabler or competitive differentiator.

In other words, it doesn’t matter what the ROI is.

So, before you start advocating for Twitter, blogs, Facebook, etc., at your CU, ask yourself if your CU has a history of being comfortable with IT risk, executive support for IT, and coordination between IT and other departments. If not, you’ve got some work to do.

Apparently, Twitter disappointed the SXSW crowd by not unveiling Twitter’s new ad platform. It’s just as well: An ad platform from Twitter is doomed to fail.

Here’s why:

Back in the day, TV advertising was pretty effective. You know why? Combination of captive audience and the right delivery mechanism.

Back before Tivo and the remote control, lazy ass Americans (like me) stayed on the couch when commercials came on. I wasn’t getting up to change the channel, that’s for sure. Advertisers knew we weren’t going anywhere.

But in order to make sure their messages got through to us, they did something else, that in hindsight, was brilliant: They read (or performed, or even sang) their messages to us.

It’s not inconceivable to think that advertisers could have chosen to display the text of ads on the screen for us to read. After all, in the previous medium, radio, messages had to be read to the audience. Seems plausible to me that someone could have said “Phew! We don’t have to read ads to people anymore! They can read it for themselves.”

That didn’t happen, of course. If it had happened, TV advertising — and TV as an advertising-supported medium — would not have succeeded.

Roll the clock forward to 2010, and TV advertisers don’t have it so good. There’s no captive audience. Technology advancement and channel proliferation have freed us from advertising captivity. [We're still lazy and don't get up from the couch, though. OK, well I don't].

And so marketers have turned their attention to alternative channels, and most recently, to Twitter.

But Twitter can’t — and won’t — ever succeed as an advertising channel.

First of all, we don’t want to read. It’s too much effort. TV and radio ads — and increasingly online ads — are verbal. Print ads are predominantly visual. Sure, there are many good text-intensive print ads, but those are typically for certain types of products.

There is another reason, perhaps not as important as the previous one, that helps to convince me that an ad platform from Twitter won’t succeed: People on Twitter aren’t there to listen to what anybody else has to say.

I’ve concluded that most — OK, maybe not most, but a lot of — people on Twitter are just bored, attention-starved egotists with nothing better to do than broadcast every thought that passes through their heads. That wouldn’t be so bad if they took the time to listen to what other people were saying. But they don’t.

You might think that I’m offending some people by characterizing them as attention-starved egotists. Doesn’t matter. I’m not offending any of you. By definition. The fact that you’re reading this separates you from them.

What convinces me that so many Twits aren’t listening is this: I have 976 Twitter followers, and (on a good day) 77 subscribers to this blog.

Assuming all the blog subscribers are Twitter followers, why are there 900 people so keen to follow me on Twitter — where I say absolutely nothing of redeeming value — but unwilling to read what I write on this blog?

The answer is that they could care less what I have to say. They follow me strictly in the hope that I will reciprocate and follow back. They follow me in the hope that I will listen to them, even though they have no intention on listening to me.

And if they won’t read what I write here, or on Twitter for that matter, why do you, dear marketers and advertisers, think they’re going to read what you tweet?

No willingness to read + no willingness to listen = No advertising platform success for Twitter.

[Disclaimer: Any resemblance to any real marketing executive is purely coincidental.]

If advertising worked…

…products would fly off the shelf as consumers spent wildly on products (cuz God knows advertising never tells consumers to not buy)…

…inventory levels would soon be depleted causing manufacturers to increase production capacity…

…causing manufacturers to obtain new capital and loans to finance the creation of new production capacity…

…which would cause a capital shortage within financial institutions who have limited capital to invest…

…which would cause interest rates to skyrocket…

…which would reduce corporations profitability….

…which would cause the stock market to decrease…

….and cause firms to lay off workers…

….all of which would reduce consumers’ income and net worth….

….and cause the economy to collapse.

If advertising worked…

…products would fly off the shelf as consumers spent wildly on products (cuz God knows advertising never tells consumers to not buy)…

…which would cause consumers to spend beyond their means…

…which would force consumers to take out loans to finance their spending….

…which they would not get, because all of the capital would have already been lent to manufacturers…

…which would limit consumers’ ability to spend….

…which would hurt companies’ profitability…

…and exacerbate layoffs…

…and further cause the economy to collapse.

Good thing advertising doesn’t work, eh?

If you haven’t voted in the Young & Free “Money In The Bank” contest yet, please watch the video below, go to the Young & Free site, and vote for #6.

I had the opportunity to interview the stars of the video, K-Dawg and Lil’ K.

Marketing Tea Party (MTP): Why did you do the Money In The Bank video?

K-Dawg: Lil’ K and I are strong believers in the credit union movement, and we wanted to use our influence within the Gen Y community to get the word out about credit unions.

Lil’ K: We wanted to win the iPad, you fool.

MTP: Are “K-Dawg” and “Lil’ K” your real names?

K-Dawg: What are you, stupid?

MTP: Which of the two of you wrote the lyrics to “Money In The Bank”?

Lil’ K: Wasn’t me. My mom wouldn’t let me waste my time on stuff like that.

K-Dawg: Yeah, we got us a team of writers who write our music for us.

MTP: Did you guys watch any of the other entries to the contest?

K-Dawg and Lil’ K: YES! SOPHIA IS SO CUTE!!!!

Now go vote.

A recent Nielsen study offered recommendations to marketers on how to reach and appeal to the generations:

• Greatest Generation: “Stores should offer better signage, more forgiving package design…”
• Boomers: “Pursue the upsell into prescription medication…”
• Gen X: “Time is a precious commodity for these busy young families, so reduce deadline pressure by offering…little indulgences like lattes to make shopping less onerous.”
• Millenials: “Consider upgrading piped-in music in stores to current hits to attract contemporary shoppers…”

Hmmm. I didn’t know that stores had control over package design. And I thought that everyone already offered prescription medication to Boomers (I get my prescription meds from some dude at the local Jiffy Lube. Oh wait, never mind, those aren’t prescription meds). And I’m sure that upgrading piped-in music will get Gen Yers flocking to Sears.

But the recommendation that put me over the edge was this one:

Marketers seeking to promote products and services to the “Baby Boom” generation would do well to remember that Boomers are still vital and evolving even as they approach retirement age.”

Spare me. Baby Boomers range in age from about 47 to 65. In other words, they’ve been adults for the past 30 to 45 years.

What the hell have marketers been doing all that time? Why are so many marketers waking up in 2010 trying to figure out how to appeal to a generation that has been “evolving” for the past 30 to 45 years?

The lunacy of these proclamations and recommendations is their insinuation that they’re revelations, revealing to us the heretofore unknown mysteries of the generations.

You know those “deadline pressures” the Gen Xers face? They’re the same pressures Boomers faced 10-20 years ago when Boomers were Gen Xers’ age.  The “vitality” of Boomers? My parents and their friends — of decidedly Greatest Generation age — play tennis and golf, and travel domestically and internationally, constantly. The Boomers didn’t invent the “vital” retirement.

Guess what’s going to happen in 10 years. Today’s Gen Yers are going to be 10 years older, have kids, have jobs, vote Republican (you’ll see) and will face — yep, you got it — the pressure of deadlines as they cope with their busy little families.

And you know what else is going to happen in ten years? Some newly-minted marketing expert is going to discover that Gen Z craves instant gratification and wants to recharge their jet pack at the latte bar.

And in 25 years, we will have hit the end of the alphabet and we won’t be able to figure out what to call the new emerging generation. Thankfully.

[NOTE: I was kidding about Jiffy Lube. They're a very reputable organization, and there's no one at my local JL doing anything illegal. Well, not to my knowledge, anyway. It was a joke. Please don't sue me, Jiffy Lube. Feel free to send me coupons, though -- I hear Boomers love online coupons.]

The title of this post is the title of an Aite Group report I recently published.

I’ve been an analyst for 11 of the past 13 years, and throughout that time I have done everything in my power to avoid making predictions. I’m a prescriptive kind of guy, not a predictive one.

So when I say that 2010 will be the year of PFM (personal financial management), you know that I believe it. Sure, social media and mobile (or as @jpunishill proposes to call it: Mocial) will garner more press and attention, but the smart bankers (and credit union execs), while experimenting with social media, will make serious investments in 2010 to build PFM capabilities.

Why am I so convinced? Here are some of the highlights of the report:

PFM is having a significant impact on users’ financial lives. An overwhelming percentage of users say PFM has given them control over their financial lives, many are saying that they’re saving more money as a result of using PFM (and a majority of Gen Y users, I might add), and a good chunk are paying less in overdraft fees, late fees, and interest.

PFM is having a positive impact on users’ relationship with their banks (and credit unions). This is true, even though the vast majority of those we surveyed don’t use PFM on their bank or credit union’s site. Those who do use PFM on their FI’s site are even more likely to cite positive benefits to the relationship.

PFM offers banks and credit unions an opportunity to meaningfully engage with customers (and members). Facebook and Twitter are nice tools, but FIs need ways of interacting with customers in the context of their financial decisions. As consumers use PFM to not just aggregate accounts and track spending, but to assess their financial performance and look for advice and guidance on making smart decisions, PFM offers FIs a platform for engagement that Facebook and Twitter can’t offer.

If you have any interest in PFM, you should register for a webinar I’m presenting with Yodlee on March 10.

I know what you’re thinking: Who died and put me in charge of Twitter etiquette?

No one. I’m exercising the inalienable right granted to me by the blogosphere to express every opinion I have, whether you asked for it or not, and whether I know what I’m talking about or not.

Today’s rant is about two Twitter behaviors — both regarding retweeting — that really need to stop.

The first involves Follow Friday behavior. If someone recommends you in a #FF tweet, congratulations. Feel free to thank the referrer in a direct message. A “@referrer  Thanks for the #FF!” tweet is even OK (just don’t overdo it).

But, for God’s sake, do NOT retweet the original #FF tweet. You look like a self-serving, egotistical jerk when you do that. I mean, really, are you that starved for attention?

The second behavior is even more deplorable than the first.

Some people maintain multiple twitter IDs. If you do that, you probably have a good reason why. But do you think that those of us who follow you don’t know that the tweets from the multiple IDs are coming from the same person?

You do know that? Then why the hell do you retweet your own tweets? Who do you think you’re fooling?

Is this a ploy to increase your Twitter rank, Twitter score, or some other completely misguided methodology designed to make you think your tweets are insightful and deceive you into thinking that you are somehow influential?

If you do either of these things….wait, what am I saying, of course you don’t do these things. Nobody who reads this blog would do those things.

So, if you know someone who commits these retweeting faux pas (damn, what’s the plural of faux pas?), please show them this blog post.

Next up in the Twitterquette series: How to deal with stupid-ass tweets like:

“PREDICTION: Old media that doesn’t innovate and/or collaborate with new media will be extinct media in the next 5 years.”

(Hat tip to @WorkingOnStep2 for alerting me to the above crime).

Your suggestions for correcting bad Twitter behavior are welcomed.