Tom Martin's "Disruptive Thoughts."

A response to Tom Martin’s “Disruptive Thoughts.”

While I no longer read “Small Agency Diary,” aka SAD, a friend none the less sent me the latest pearls of wisdom from Tom Martin. Tom’s “Positively Disruptive Thoughts for Ad Agencies” is reminiscent of his “Agency of Future,” thoughts some time back. I did comment on that article then, as I will on his latest attempt to improve agency and client business. My comments on his latest article is not to criticize him, but to use his thoughts as a segue for taking about “Adver-Marketing,” where Marketers share their CRM data with their agency. CRM is Customer Relationship Management, and its importance addresses Tom Martin’s latest article on Disruptive Thoughts. I was amused that other readers were taking him to task, and he, Tom, defended himself in the same way he did with me. Our quarreling ended with me being banned from Ad Age, and his parting thoughts addressed to me of "good riddance."

The segue to his recent tripe is CRM and Adver-Marketing, where Marketers share strategic information with their Advertising Agency so they can be more effective.

Businesses have long used CRM to assess themselves and their products and services as to how they relate to their ‘customers’ and ‘consumers.’

A customer, also client, buyer or purchaser is the buyer or user of the paid products of an individual or organization, mostly called the supplier or seller. This is typically through purchasing or renting, goods or services.

The word derives from "custom," meaning "habit"; a customer was someone who frequented a particular shop, who made it a habit to purchase goods of the sort the shop sold there rather than elsewhere, and with whom the shopkeeper had to maintain a relationship to keep his or her "custom," meaning expected purchases in the future.

A Consumer is a broad label, it refers to any individual or household that uses goods and services generated within the economy. The concept of a consumer is used in different contexts, so that the usage and significance of the term may vary.
A consumer is a person who uses any product or service. Typically when business people and economists talk of consumers they are talking about person as consumer, an aggregated commodity item with little individuality other than that expressed in the buy/not-buy decision. However there is a trend in marketing to individualize the concept. Instead of generating broad demographic profile and psycho-graphic profiles of market segments, marketers are engaging in personalized marketing, permission marketing, and mass customization.

In free market or in capitalist economies, consumers are presumed to dictate what goods are produced and are generally considered the center of economic activity. Individual consumption of goods and services is primarily linked to the consumer's level of disposable income, and budget allocations are made to maximize the consumer's marginal utility. It is not businesses who dictate markets, but consumers, despite Martin's belief to the opposite.

The upshot of my response to Martin’s latest efforts is that he is correct about knowing the “Customer or Consumer,” but very wrong about how to go about it. Simply put, utilizing the client’s (or Marketer) database derived from their Customer Relation Management System (CRM). This client generated and CRM data provided to the agency gives insights into consumer and customer behavior that assists both the Marketer and Advertising Agency in developing strategies to affect changes in their behavior.

Tom inadvertently stumbled into a method of improving an Advertising Agency's relationship with its Clients (or Customers) and for understanding Consumer behavior to affect their Client's volume, sales and profits for the products or services that they provide. So, knowing the Client’s CRM, is a first step in identifying strategies to affect positive change. That and strategic category data that has been amassed by the client.

This applies not only to the Client’s business, but also to the agency’s business as well. Advertising Agencies can in fact practice CRM with their own clients to affect positive change in their business. This is why I am now commenting on Tom Martin’s latest and greatest. Agencies can practice CRM with their clients to understand what they want and require to continue using the agency's services.

These were my comments to Tom when he spoke of the Future of Advertising:

Dear Tom, Your statement: (...)"What will the world of advertising look like for small agencies in five years? More important, what will your agency look like in five years? My crystal ball says many of us are in for a rude awakening."(...) this is indicative of someone primarily focused on their own emotions devoid of any empirical evidence — operating solely on the primacy of their "feelings" — rather than on analysis supported by some type of evidence. You are clearly uncertain as to what constitutes reliable evidence, thus tend to use the most easily found sources uncritically -- you, by using the Keiretsu Model that has never appeared outside Japan, it appears that you have applied it to the larger agency models, but they lack the 'bank factor' to finance and bail-out members along with the cooperative nature of Keiretsu involving established and unrelated businesses that characterize the model. Characterizing large agency networks as Chinese Triads might be more appropriate, but still a stretch. But using an esoteric foreign organization to predict agencies of the future is goofy. It is a bizarre analogy to explain why large agencies acquire smaller ones and why larger businesses use them. The obvious reason is to buy the agency's clients and talent in a given market, and for large businesses, it is to take advantage of economies created by such large advertising organization.

And it appears you are convinced that no opinion is worth more than another after your recent discoveries: All views are equal after yours. Looking into your crystal ball is a good indicator that you are not really embarrassed at your lack of knowledge and skills for addressing key issues in advertising but instead offer hyperbole and opinion to feed on the fears of clueless individuals caught in the current flux in media advertising. Industry analysts collectively see the advertising industry in a period of change caused by the aftereffects of 9/11, consumer media use, and media fragmentation, which is when this downturn began. At that time advertisers cut their media advertising while increasing their trade promotions and while many mediums have rebounded clearly there is a shift in spending. This is well documented by Ad Age statistics. This coincides with a dramatic industry shift from manufacture to retailer dominance where more and more marketing dollars go to retailer promotions. Your "C" and "P" agency models exist now and are functioning just fine, as are other models such as the large holding networks to small creative boutiques. The models that work are the ones that answer their client's needs.

Scholars of advertising see a cooperative merger of the Marketing Director/or Senior executive and the Advertising Agency where they work cooperatively utilizing the knowledge and skills of each discipline rather than many of the overlapping and duplication of efforts seen now. Corporate CMOs understand that trade promotion is not enough to strategically differentiate their brand(s) within their operating category and unique local markets. One size does not fit all and they increasingly rely on agencies with local market or niche marketing expertise. For example, you could tell P&G of your local market knowledge and experience in New Orleans in the aftermath of Katrina. Assist it in marketing to the market you serve. Businesses have reams of historic data documenting media use and its effectiveness for their brands broken down by markets. Seldom does the Marketing Director share this information with its agency. It is their 'Holy Grail' and held as a secret. It is strategic and it is something they wouldn't want in their competitor's hands. More cooperative arrangements with marketer and agency and understanding of each will improve the effectiveness of both.

Clearly media is in a transition period and New Media is muddying-up the waters because no one has yet found a workable compensation model that equates to measurable results for marketers and agencies – especially advertising agencies. The well-documented fragmentation of media has put all mediums in a state of change. This transition period will include New Media as an important part for the promotional mix and marketing of brands. A good example of this was last year's Super Bowl. Here agencies used a mix of traditional TVC, promotions, with New Media to get more bang for the buck. In the near future New Media will be central to all brand promotion. In the very near future communication experts say that New Media will become the central marketing and promotion medium because of continued technological advances, consumer use growth and platform mergers/convergence. AT&T and several other companies have began marketing a single platform product for telecommunications, cable/broadcast entertainment and broadband/high speed Internet connection – it is being promoted as a consumer convenience that costs less – when convergence occurs, each will share content. Networks are streaming shows on-line and can show actual website hits as opposed to AC Nielsen voodoo metrics. As the transition between platforms becomes more seamless with technological advances, multimedia communications will become the standard for communications. With New Media's emergence as a primary lead promotional vehicle and with convergence, it is important that new media is integrated into the marketing/promotional mix of all brands now. Convergence will deliver once again, that critical mass that TV once did. Traditional Media fragmentation is making it more difficult to reach mass target audiences; and its costs are increasing as its effectiveness is decreasing. Traditional Media is feverously working to develop an Internet presence and for ways to interconnect the two for added revenues. Businesses have responded with more niche market products and services that can be reached and affected by niche media. Thus, media is in a transition period. Traditional advertising agencies have lost media revenues from the shift of media advertising to trade promotions and to advertisers who have switched their media buys to specialized Media Agencies who offer better planning, results and economy because of their huge buying capabilities. And then durables, packaged goods manufacturers, retailers and service businesses have taken control of their own websites with internal IT jealously guarding their domain to the chagrin of advertising agencies. All of these organizations need creative content and promotional methods to attract an audience - and that is the perfect entrée for agencies.

So not using a 'crystal ball' but instead looking at the realities around us, I'd say that the best strategy for any agency is to focus on their creative product and client responsiveness as well as their local market expertise and touting that to marketers and advertisers. Perhaps align themselves with a Media Agency that offers a commission, and utilize their expert planners and big buy economies for measurable results for medium and large clients. Retailers are threatening every aspect of consumer product and service brands by offering their own retailer generic brands. Marketers and advertising agencies need to work in concert to fend off this assault by practicing strategic branding to differentiate their brands within their category and market(s). With both understanding the realities of media in transition, and emerging New Media opportunities, together they need to develop metrics that assess both media and creative strategy effectiveness and work together to deliver quantifiable results.
The agency that is the most responsive to the needs of the businesses it serves, and can develop strategic creative that differentiates the brand and delivers sales, volume and profits to quantify it, will win in the future. Just as they are winning now. Those looking in crystal balls and not at the realities around them are sure to lose. Advertising has always been a custom-built approach for every client and market. Even though it may appear that everyone is doing the same thing, the reality is that winners in the marketing wars are quickly copied. So marketers have to be one step ahead of the competition. The same is true of agencies. Today, with the Internet and agencies needing to divulge everything about themselves and their innermost secret strategies, it isn't too difficult to see what the competition is up to. Prior to the Internet, agencies would get proposals from clients to help them understand what is out there. When I represented a client as agency of record, I told them that they should refer all promotional inquiries to me, and I would assess them and make monthly reports back to my clients if anything looked viable – thus saving my client's time. It worked too. They saved time and I learned what my competition was pitching. It is fairly easy to do the same now by surfing the web.

So your ideas on Role, Staffing, Compensation, seem pretty pedestrian to me. Role: the traditional generalist agency is coming to an end – if the traditional generalist agency has any size, it will do what it has always done: wait until a smaller agency develops it so they can suck it up like a big vacuum cleaner, and so on it goes to the largest agencies who have been known to share clients. They are going no where, it is business as usual for them – they just hire the expertise needed to keep relevant. Staffing: all agencies need what you describe now, not in the future. One-size-fits-all doesn't work in a custom design business. Each strategy is tailored for that unique client, as is the strategy. Compensation: Traditional fees and commissions will always be the rule. Compensation on a fee or percentage of profit basis is the reality of sophisticated marketing agencies that specialize in an particular industry and in branding within that industry. These Marketing Agencies bring new business segment expertise to business on a flat fee or percentage basis now. But I have not heard of an advertising agency that has taken a percentage of its client's revenues. Many wished they could.

So again, I think you have fairly described the current state of affairs in advertising offering little new insights or information. Theory and conjecture not backed up with some sort of empirical evidence, facts, or reference is little more than lip service and wishful thinking. Your Advertising 5.0 is as generic and as general as it can get. Good advice for an agency trying to remain relevant is to go to its clients and ask them where they'd like to be in five years and then design plans to meet their goals and objectives. Tell them how you can assist them in attaining these thresholds using your Role, Staffing, Compensation, as a start point to develop a strategic plan. If it is breakthrough, perhaps then you could get a piece of their pie. My belief was and is that this isn't about us, it is all about them – the client. –daryl orris, Minnetonka, MN

Dear Tom,
I disagree with everything you have said.

First, Time. There was a time when agencies set the agenda and schedules. As brand managers became better at statistical analysis and method management techniques they began to track and quantify their advertising results. They determined which media was effective, which creative strategy distinguished their brand(s) and moved product and services. Their quantitative management gave them the right to call all of the shots and take the power that agencies once had in post-war America. This brand history kept by them gives them the right to call the shots. So why fight them, why not join them?
When an agency works in concert or unison with Brand Directors and Managers timing can be progressive where several creative strategies are tested in trial or test markets before the effort is implemented on a larger and more costly basis. When agency and advertiser work in unison, the timeline can be from a quarter to an ongoing five-year plan where each year the creative strategy is assessed, adjusted and evaluated for the next year. Doing this, agencies have all the time in the world to come up with "the big idea," as you put it.

In the fifties ad agencies developed unique selling propositions using features and benefits to distinguish the product. Where selling and telling dominated advertising.

Remember Ogilvy's Hathaway Man with his black eye patch? This is the "Image Era" where agencies used features and benefits, and unique selling propositions to differentiate the product in its category and to make the product memorable.
Then in the seventies came the "Positioning Era" fostered by Al Ries and Jack Trout where finding a place in the consumer's mind that bring relationship mindsets to the Brand.

In the mid-seventies, Brands became popular, replacing widgets in U.S. business schools. This extended into the eighties and became known as the "Branding Era" that was pushed by Brand Managers on agencies who would have them leverage their brand in the category and in time reducing the perceived differences between brands. Agencies were still stuck on "Positioning" trying to merge the two.

The "Branding Era" continued into the nineties and into the 21st century where somehow positioning and branding merged into a new hybrid form. In 2008 it is the "Mindset Era," where branding is not about telling and selling but about making positive associations with the brand and strategically positioning the brand in its category to create a consumer-brand relationship where the brand is a lifestyle statement. It is just as Ries and Trout envisioned it only now with a distinct brand purpose tied to brand management. For example, take automobiles: what are the mindset relationships between a Honda Hybrid and a Mercedes Benz C Class? Each brand targets the same consumer and each is positioned differently in its respective category making positive brand associations with the target consumer's lifestyle. When it is time to purchase which way will the target consumer go – to the brand that made the positive Mindset Associations and had developed two-way communication with the consumer instead of one-way telling and selling. How do we get in the consumer's mindset first, or get them to switch? Being first is everything. Being second, is well, second best.

Time is a tool that when used to in conjunction with the brand manager's goals and objectives and the creative strategy of the agency can be an ongoing testing and modification of the creative strategy to affect sales, volume and profits. Advertising agencies like brand manager want the same thing, so find the time both need and dovetail strategic planning and creative strategy activities – by making them coordinated, controlled and timed. This way both have the time they need.
Technology. Form outweighs function? Do you mean poor message strategy or creative strategy can't be glossed over with production technology? To me, technology refers not to production but to mass communications. New Media is changing all media placing it in a state of transition while the Internet becomes more and more important to marketers. I was impressed by the convergence of media witnessed by broadcast to Internet assessments and the results that the more sophisticated marketers and advertisers got using a multi-media approach to the spectacle. One could only use terms such as "spectacular, spectacular, in evaluating the successes of the broadcast to Internet success stories. Technology in the form of production provided plenty of dazzling effects that kept viewer attention while luring them to the Internet. Technology rules.
Then your take on "Favor Impact over Impressions," statement. Where you said imagine today asking a client to spend over a million and then telling them is would only run once ... seems to me that was exactly what every agency did asked of advertisers. Hopefully they get more mileage out of the spots then the one time broadcast event provides, that with the Internet they'll on into infinity. I really scratched my head on this one. Not only could I imagine it, it is what every agency that produced spots did. To me it was a testimonial that advertising really does work.

Then "Leadership." Sounds like you're the one whining. Advertising is a growing industry. When looked at as a whole, it is an international growth industry. And all indicators suggest that it will continue to grow. It is mass communications primarily media that is in transition and in the midst of change that is changing how advertising agencies promote brands. But your comment about Agencies framing their work in terms business and not creative terms is surely the kiss of death. Advertising Agencies are about creativity. It is that creative product that they produce that catapults businesses to higher ground. And it is there ability to continually find this new ground through the methods and techniques previously stated that separates good agencies from bad. Ads are big ideas, and the concept of 'just an ad' is abhorrent to all of the creative advertising people I know. I don't know if I'd care to trust your 'informed' opinion unless you have a track record of success in my industry. This harkens back to what I said earlier about working in unison with Advertisers. Unless the client is new to the business they are in, they have the information you need – forming cohesive relationship with marketing and sales and finding the data they have amassed and harvesting it to yield new strategies is far better evidence than me-too recommendations with a creative spin.
Finally, Training. The best form of organization from a training standpoint is what the U.S. Army uses. When one leader takes one in the head, the next dummy jumps in to take their place. It is a pure form of communism where everyone has a place and everyone is being trained to assume the duty of the next in the chain of command. I'd hate to work at your agency where 'pushing' is the preferred method of encouraging creativity. Dr. Demmings book on management taught the Japanese in what is now called the Japanese miracle. Simply put it promoted working in groups where everyone makes contributions. Thus feeling an integral part of the group thus becoming more productive. Advertising agencies should be cohesive groups of "Individuals" who each bring ideas and solutions to the group, the creative teams or account services and creative production should be better than the suits and sandals sets. It is a known fact that today everyone at an advertising agency has to be "creative," looking for the next big idea and creative strategy to change our clients business or keep it where they want it – no matter where it comes from.

I believe that agencies should develop better relationships with higher education institutions that teach advertising – by providing two-way communication with them agencies can provide input as to the candidates that they want and in the process help educators and students better understand the realities of the advertising business. How many dreamy-eyed newcomers have entered the twilight zone when faced with agencies realities – this could be eliminated by better intern programs and with more two-way relationships between higher education and advertising agencies. –daryl orris, Minnetonka, MN

These comments, brings us to Tom Martin’s latest article. I have included the comments because many of them are as revealing as Tom’s article. I will comment following this article.

Positively Disrupting Thoughts for Ad Agencies
Go Ahead and Take Your Eye Off the Ball
Posted by Tom Martin on 04.16.09 @ 11:57 AM

If you're like most companies today, you're scared. The economy sucks, the financial world is chaotic and your 401(k) is getting smaller, not bigger. So what is a boy to do? Well, for starters, stop doing what you're doing now. Why? Because I'm guessing it is what you've been doing all along and, frankly, that isn't going to cut it these days.

So here are a few thoughts of my own. You can decide if they are helpful or not. And do me the favor of adding a few more of your own in the comments section below. If we all practice a little Intellectual Darwinism, we'll be better for it -- don't you agree?
. Customers are clueless. _Thinking about launching a new product or maybe an ad campaign? Thinking about convening focus groups to figure out what you should do? Save your money. The consumer doesn't know what he wants. If he did, he'd be working in your client's R&D department or maybe for your ad agency. The consumer is paying you to solve his problems before he even realizes he has them. Seriously. Did you ever think you needed the ability to carry your entire music library in your pocket before Steve Jobs created the iPod? Like Henry Ford was purported to say, "If I had asked them what they wanted, they would have said a faster horse." You're smarter than your customer. Act like it. _

. Ask the new guy._There are no new ideas, only people that can combine old ideas in new ways or connect dots in new and interesting configurations. Usually these "crazy" ideas come from folks who have no real experience in a category. Again, look at Apple and music. Lack of experience can be good because a newbie is often too dumb to know he isn't supposed to think that way. So invite smart new guys and girls into the conversation and then listen. You might just find your next big idea, product or strategy.

They're ambassadors, not customers._Customers are transactional. Ambassadors are for life. Just ask yourself how your business would act differently if the goal was to create ambassadors vs. customers. What would your product look like? What would your service look like? What about your pricing and your marketing? How would you respond to customer-services issues? Ambassadors have a lifetime value to your company and it isn't strictly about how much money they'll spend with you. It's about how much total value they can create directly and indirectly. Quit worrying about how you're going to sell to them and start thinking about how you're going to service them today and in the future.

Take your eye off the ball. _Back in the mid-'90s, 3-D "Magic Eye" pictures were all the rage. I can remember standing in front of those framed pictures trying desperately to see the picture. But that was the trick. The harder you tried, the less likely you were to see it. The answer, as I soon learned, was to look not at the picture but instead at your reflection in the glass in front of the picture. As soon as you did that, presto! Picture popped into focus. Too many companies think the answer to more success lies in looking harder at the same picture. Instead, lift your eyes and take in the sites and sounds around you.

Sometimes you need the help of an outside lens to bring the picture into focus. I promise you, it will be these moments when you take your eye off the ball that will fill you with insight and inspiration. So go to a ballgame, play with your kids, go for a run or throw a few back at the bar ... let your mind process the problem for you. And when it has the answer, it will let you know ... just make sure you have a pen and paper handy. _

In closing, remember what Einstein said. "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." If you're going to win tomorrow, start by thinking differently today.

~ ~ ~_Tom Martin is president of Zehnder Communications, with offices in New Orleans and Baton Rouge. He can be reached at Tom.Martin@z-comm.com. Or follow him at @TomMartin.

18 Comments

By StarRach | Lafayette, CO April 16, 2009 02:06:45 pm:
This is great. I enjoyed reading this article and feel your thoughts are right on target. The market is evolving and ever-so-quickly with this economy; we must adjust our "norms" to survive. I think it is a huge mistake for companies to think just laying people off or cutting salaries will do the trick; we must all change our ways.
Permalink

By bobsoft1 | Boston, MA April 16, 2009 02:20:30 pm:
If companies were smarter than their customers, we wouldn't have support lines, because we'd know what our customers wanted us to improve in our products/product lines.

The concept of customer evangelists has been around for how long, now? Twenty years? Do we really need to keep parroting it?

Finally, I really hope that the use of "sites" instead of "sights", by the president of a communications firm no less, was intended as a pun.
Permalink

By Tom Martin | NEW ORLEANS, LA April 16, 2009 02:50:11 pm:
Bobsoft1 - companies have support lines because it is a fact of life that if you make a product or deliver a service, you will fail the customer at some point. Perfection is an illusion and unattainable. Support lines aren't R&D, they're for support after the sale when the customer is having that problem.

As for the typo, they happen. Great catch and thanks, but truly a shame that was all you had to contribute to the conversation.
@TomMartin
Permalink

By bobsoft1 | Boston, MA April 16, 2009 03:08:04 pm:
Companies everywhere are taking advantage of the ideas and improvements coming in over their support lines, hence the comment. Note focus groups, customer beta tests and trials, crowdsourcing. The idea that we know more than our customers is ludicrous. We know how to provide some good or service that meets some demand, but we - a tiny subset ourselves of the massive entity known as the consumer market - absolutely are not "smarter". Innovation, particularly over the last two decades (as we only now have the infrastructures in place to support such a shift), has largely come through customer feedback, NOT corporate genius.

Your choice of phrases - calling customers clueless, referring to newbies as being too dumb (and then talking about hiring smart people... wow) - is what sent me, one individual reader, immediately into the negative. Perhaps we could add a fifth point to the article titled, "Positive communication is strong communication, and if you can't communicate strongly, just shut up."
Permalink

By HLyeth | paramus, NJ April 16, 2009 04:12:18 pm:
Well done, Tom.

When it comes to product development and new campaigns, many customers tell you want they want to see and that's great if you want to meet expectations. If you want to blow them away you have to show them something they never imagined or expected. It's important to listen to the customer but I think it's important to limit what you take from it.
Permalink

By calebadams | VISALIA, CA April 16, 2009 04:47:15 pm:
soft bob,

With all due respect, spare us the sensitivity to "offensive" phrases and flip-flopped homonyms.

RE: clueless customers
The point is that agencies shouldn't be order takers.

RE: newbies are dumb
If we're so sensitive that "dumb" is offensive, then we're in the wrong industry. Henry Ford said, "I am looking for a lot of men who have an infinite capacity to not know what can't be done." Certainly, you know that veterans can often (naturally) learn what can't be done.

RE: customers are evangelists
A 20-year problem is still a problem. Agencies still haven't figured out how to treat customers.

Cheers.
Permalink

By tej_arora | Bangalore April 17, 2009 06:43:38 am:
Disagree completely with "Customers are clueless". Your use of Henry Ford's quote is meaningless - "If I had asked them what they wanted, they would have said a faster horse.".. Do you know if Henry Ford asked his Customers??. Henry Ford was surely self-confident. What makes you assume he was right?. That quote means nothing. You're using it to suit your message.

"Did you ever think you needed the ability to carry your entire music library in your pocket before Steve Jobs created the iPod?". You bet!. Again, Did Steve Jobs every ask customers what they want?. Maybe he did. Maybe he didn't. Who knows. I'm not saying every customer is savvy enough to spell out unmet needs... but there are definitely some out there with ideas to kill for. If you don't ask, you'll never know.

Using history where there is no precedent of asking customers for what they'd want, to advise action in a future where there are platforms to involve customers, isn't exactly sound!.
Permalink

By wandawoo | Murfreesboro, TN April 17, 2009 08:50:35 am:
Geesh! All the man was trying to do was to offer a litte insight and some pointers about surviving in a down economy. Some of these comments are just down right mean which leads me to believe that the commentators are still bogged down in negativity and will never, ever see the picture within the picture.

Lighten up. It's advertising, not nuclear science.
Permalink

By sidvision | GREENSBORO, NC April 17, 2009 08:52:04 am:
I disagree with most of this article.
Customers are not clueless. It's usually the agency or brand that is clueless in the fact that they can't determine how to build meaningful relationships with them. A guy using the wrong "pickup" line can't call the chick stupid if she doesn't respond the way he wants. We're in the age of the "sellsumer" where consumers are creating products and selling them. We're in the age of co-creation uniting brands and consumers to create the best products. People should stop peddling the "customers is stupid" line. Don't forget, you're a customer too.

There are always "new" ideas. Ever hear of the car? The computer? The television? Radio? The issue is that some agencies and brands fail to consistently think of new ideas and therefore decide nothing is new for the majority.

You can't create ambassadors out of people you deem stupid. Enough said.

I do agree with the last comment. It's when we relax, take a breather and just let things happen when some of the greatest idea moments can occur.

Cheers!
Permalink

By pashby | Weston-s-Mare April 17, 2009 09:22:05 am:
Another interesting article from Tom and certainly thought provoking.
However I disagree with the dismissal of the consumer as a valuable source of inspiration. Surely "The Long Tail" gives the answer to the Wisdom of Crowds!

Today consumers don't like ad infested terrestrial TV what they do like is the opportunity to express an opinion, they like, in other words, voice.

Due to a lack of understanding of the communication process we have created a media society during the past 40 or 50 years, where the whole process has been de-humanised.

There has been an extraordinary reduction in interaction because conventional advertising and marketing have become a one-way practice whereby information is disseminated in a passive form. Thankfully that is changing.

We must always remember that people still have this desire to be taken account of. To affect change, to learn and personalise their relationship with their environment. There are a phenomenal number of reasons that cause people to interact, going far beyond just giving them things.
When people agree to participate in truly interactive marketing programmes they are told that their efforts and feedback are of positive help to the advertisers.

Consequently, because they are being involved in the process of developing the product or service, it starts to re- personalise their relationship with the advertiser and their products.

This takes the consumer through the barrier of not wanting to address change and takes that compromise, the anxiety and worry that perhaps the decision was not the best or the right one, out of the equation. In other words, there is no reason why they should not change from their usual brand in favour of this alternative that they have now learned, fulfils their needs better.
All of this is discussed in my book "Television Killed Advertising" which also includes the results of $10m of independent research on the effectiveness of just one exposure to Social Advertising Media (SAM). Want to discuss this further please contact me on paul.ashby@yahoo.com
Permalink

By jjrusch | DES PLAINES, IL April 17, 2009 09:23:01 am:
Keep doing what you've always done and you get what you've always got, is exactly the point! Companies, agencies, media and consumers. Let's get over the semantics of Tom's metaphors - his points are right on. My personal favorite: service, aka quality.

I'd also like to add one more point: You are the consumer.
I'm more than annoyed that the ice cream manufacturers all got together one day (or so it seems) and decided to sell 1.75 quarts of ice cream instead of 1/2 gallons and then topped off their unilateral decision with a price increase - or was the price increase strictly a retailer thing? In any case, less value for higher prices is not a good thing in any market.

If you really want to know what consumers are thinking, stop thinking like the marketer who's trying to figure out what they're thinking and "be the ball".
Permalink

By patrick | Minneapolis, MN April 17, 2009 09:40:43 am:
The economy sucks? I cannot believe there are really educated adults that use this word in professional discourse. Unbelievable.
Permalink

By erikrwagner | CHICAGO, IL April 17, 2009 10:29:42 am:
tej_arora - Nearly all quotes are subjective. Further to your point, when would effective use of a quote NOT suit your message?

To the objections of 'clueless customers' or 'dumb' new guys, let's read between the lines a bit. Going back a year ago to being a newbie at my agency, I had valuable ideas to contribute but wasn't utilized. Being new to an industry or a category and embracing the "I don't know what I don't know" attitude can lead to those big ideas that Tom mentioned. The focus ends with "...invite smart new guys and girls into the conversation and then listen." I'd say that's the true intent of "Ask the new guy."

@erikrwagner
Permalink

By craigcooper | craigcooper.com, NY April 17, 2009 11:16:52 am:
Rather than say "customers are clueless," I think "customers are indifferent" might be a more apt description.

We were all quite content before cell phones came along; now it's difficult to imagine life without them.

The thought that "The consumer is paying you to solve his problems before he even realizes he has them" is bang on in this respect.

As for the Jobs-love -- I had at least two different MP3 players long before the iPod came out.

Apple's real contribution has been to bring style to technology.
Permalink

By diedonner | New York, NY April 17, 2009 11:28:21 am:
Henry Ford said "If I asked them what they wanted they would have said a faster horse."

Isn't that kind of what he gave them anyway?
Permalink

By dcsw | BELLINGHAM, WA April 17, 2009 12:51:06 pm:
I like Tom's column and generally he's got good points. I'm not here to attack him, but I have to take offense, as a customer, to point #1. These are my opinions so they're worth what you paid for them, perhaps.

The "Customers are clueless" is exactly the type arrogance that has caused consumers to stop listening to (lots of) agencies. Marketers who continue to ignore customer insight do so at their own peril. Or as I said in a blog post earlier this week: They're the proverbial frog on the stove.

Hundreds of times a day, clueless customers are creating user generated content that outpaces and out performs "professionally-created" content in many industries world wide.

As for other points such as "Ask the new [gal]", I'd agree in theory, with your point. Agencies like Chris Clarke's Nitro Group don't care if their employees have advertising experience or not. Why? They don't compete in the advertising space. They look more broadly at business problems; a skill many an agency could learn from and emulate.

Harvesting talent from consulting firms like McKinsey and Price Waterhouse, Nitro looks for marketing solutions outside a strict marketing discipline. Non-marketers solving marketing problems!? That's sacrilege in many offices along Madison Avenue. Very different than the closed fraternity and pedigree that advertising has typically enjoyed.

Nitro has figured out that talent from a different discipline is not dumb—it's a new world view—and that's smart. Otherwise we apply so many filters that we only see our narrow field of vision. Nicolas Kristof, of the NY Times calls it "The Daily Me".

David Wiggs http://marketinghitch.com
Permalink

By Tom Martin | NEW ORLEANS, LA April 17, 2009 01:32:11 pm:
wandawoo - thanks for the defense, but no need. I was trying to provoke with this post. Glad to see it worked. Some really great conversation here, once you get past some of the personal attacks.

Patrick: yes I use sucks. As in it sucks when someone's only addition to the conversation doesn't make me or the other readers any smarter, challenge our POV or invite us to see through a different lens. Ad Age gives you a voice. Why would you waste it? Hmmmm.

CraigCooper: very, very interesting and salient point. I too owned MP3 players prior to iPod and biggest challenge was having to reload them to change the music. Basically was a digital version of a CD player. BUT -- where I think Jobs and crew went from merely incremental to order of magnitude improvement was the creation and linkage with iTunes. Jobs realized that Napster users weren't just motivated by "free" there were many that would gladly pay 99 cents for a song but would balk at paying $15 for an entire CD, most of which they didn't want. To me, that was the silver iPod bullet. And now he's repeated with the App store and iPhones. The phone is great but the apps, that is what makes the phone more valuable every day.

And Pashby - "thought provoking" is what I strive for. Nice to know I hit pay dirt with this one. Appreciate the hat tip.

@Tom Martin
Permalink

By JEFF | SAN CLEMENTE, CA April 17, 2009 04:04:37 pm:
1. What's old is new. We often forget that before album rock and the seventies - the driving force in music were 'singles'. I know some of us remember 45's. It really proves Tom's point: it's our job to see new opportunity in an old problem. Apple found a nice way to use their technology, design and marketing smarts to exploit it.

2. Lighten up, people. Between Tom's today and Welch's yesterday people are in bad form. Don't take it out on the columnist, it's their job to be provocative. You know, provoke an actual thought and, if lucky, a response.

3. I really enjoy the collection of 'Small Agency' here. It's good to have someone else's smart thoughts bouncing around my noggin once in a while.

So everyone remember - Don't believe everything you read.

Just because it's written doesn't make it true. That was true 100 years ago and will be 100 years from now.

Best and success,

Jeff @ SwiftMedia.net
Permalink


ORRIS Comments to Tom Martin's latest blog:

I could go on and dissect Martin's current article, but that criticism is much the same as I have already written. So instead of repeating my thoughts of Mr. Martin's writings and thoughts, I will instead focus on the segue to Adver-Marketing, the cooperation between Advertiser (Marketer) and Advertising Agency.

What I had previously said was that:

Scholars of advertising see a cooperative merger of the Marketing Director/or Senior executive and the Advertising Agency where they work cooperatively utilizing the knowledge and skills of each discipline rather than many of the overlapping and duplication of efforts seen now. Corporate CMOs understand that trade promotion is not enough to strategically differentiate their brand(s) within their operating category and unique local markets. One size does not fit all and they increasingly rely on agencies with local market or niche marketing expertise. For example, you could tell P&G of your local market knowledge and experience in New Orleans in the aftermath of Katrina. Assist it in marketing to the market you serve. Businesses have reams of historic data documenting media use and its effectiveness for their brands broken down by markets. Seldom does the Marketing Director share this information with its agency. It is their 'Holy Grail' and held as a secret. It is strategic and it is something they wouldn't want in their competitor's hands. More cooperative arrangements with marketer and agency and understanding of each will improve the effectiveness of both.

Clearly media is in a transition period and New Media is muddying-up the waters because no one has yet found a workable compensation model that equates to measurable results for marketers and agencies – especially advertising agencies. The well-documented fragmentation of media has put all mediums in a state of change. This transition period will include New Media as an important part for the promotional mix and marketing of brands. A good example of this was last year's Super Bowl. Here agencies used a mix of traditional TVC, promotions, with New Media to get more bang for the buck. In the near future New Media will be central to all brand promotion. In the very near future communication experts say that New Media will become the central marketing and promotion medium because of continued technological advances, consumer use growth and platform mergers/convergence. AT&T and several other companies have began marketing a single platform product for telecommunications, cable/broadcast entertainment and broadband/high speed Internet connection – it is being promoted as a consumer convenience that costs less – when convergence occurs, each will share content. Networks are streaming shows on-line and can show actual website hits as opposed to AC Nielsen voodoo metrics. As the transition between platforms becomes more seamless with technological advances, multimedia communications will become the standard for communications. With New Media's emergence as a primary lead promotional vehicle and with convergence, it is important that new media is integrated into the marketing/promotional mix of all brands now. Convergence will deliver once again, that critical mass that TV once did. Traditional Media fragmentation is making it more difficult to reach mass target audiences; and its costs are increasing as its effectiveness is decreasing. Traditional Media is feverously working to develop an Internet presence and for ways to interconnect the two for added revenues. Businesses have responded with more niche market products and services that can be reached and affected by niche media. Thus, media is in a transition period. Traditional advertising agencies have lost media revenues from the shift of media advertising to trade promotions and to advertisers who have switched their media buys to specialized Media Agencies who offer better planning, results and economy because of their huge buying capabilities. And then durables, packaged goods manufacturers, retailers and service businesses have taken control of their own websites with internal IT jealously guarding their domain to the chagrin of advertising agencies. All of these organizations need creative content and promotional methods to attract an audience - and that is the perfect entrée for agencies.

So not using a 'crystal ball' but instead looking at the realities around us, I'd say that the best strategy for any agency is to focus on their creative product and client responsiveness as well as their local market expertise and touting that to marketers and advertisers. Perhaps align themselves with a Media Agency that offers a commission, and utilize their expert planners and big buy economies for measurable results for medium and large clients. Retailers are threatening every aspect of consumer product and service brands by offering their own retailer generic brands. Marketers and advertising agencies need to work in concert to fend off this assault by practicing strategic branding to differentiate their brands within their category and market(s). With both understanding the realities of media in transition, and emerging New Media opportunities, together they need to develop metrics that assess both media and creative strategy effectiveness and work together to deliver quantifiable results.
The agency that is the most responsive to the needs of the businesses it serves, and can develop strategic creative that differentiates the brand and delivers sales, volume and profits to quantify it, will win in the future. Just as they are winning now. Those looking in crystal balls and not at the realities around them are sure to lose. Advertising has always been a custom-built approach for every client and market. Even though it may appear that everyone is doing the same thing, the reality is that winners in the marketing wars are quickly copied. So marketers have to be one step ahead of the competition. The same is true of agencies. Today, with the Internet and agencies needing to divulge everything about themselves and their innermost secret strategies, it isn't too difficult to see what the competition is up to. Prior to the Internet, agencies would get proposals from clients to help them understand what is out there. When I represented a client as agency of record, I told them that they should refer all promotional inquiries to me, and I would assess them and make monthly reports back to my clients if anything looked viable – thus saving my client's time. It worked too. They saved time and I learned what my competition was pitching. It is fairly easy to do the same now by surfing the web.

So your (Tom Martin) ideas on Role, Staffing, Compensation, seem pretty pedestrian to me. Role: the traditional generalist agency is coming to an end – if the traditional generalist agency has any size, it will do what it has always done: wait until a smaller agency develops it so they can suck it up like a big vacuum cleaner, and so on it goes to the largest agencies who have been known to share clients. They are going no where, it is business as usual for them – they just hire the expertise needed to keep relevant. Staffing: all agencies need what you describe now, not in the future. One-size-fits-all doesn't work in a custom design business. Each strategy is tailored for that unique client, as is the strategy. Compensation: Traditional fees and commissions will always be the rule. Compensation on a fee or percentage of profit basis is the reality of sophisticated marketing agencies that specialize in an particular industry and in branding within that industry. These Marketing Agencies bring new business segment expertise to business on a flat fee or percentage basis now. But I have not heard of an advertising agency that has taken a percentage of its client's revenues. Many wished they could.

So again, I think you (Martin) have fairly described the current state of affairs in advertising offering little new insights or information. Theory and conjecture not backed up with some sort of empirical evidence, facts, or reference is little more than lip service and wishful thinking. Your Advertising 5.0 is as generic and as general as it can get, as are your current thoughts. Good advice for an agency trying to remain relevant is to go to its clients and ask them where they'd like to be in five years and then design plans to meet their goals and objectives. Tell them how you can assist them in attaining these thresholds using your Role, Staffing, Compensation, as a start point to develop a strategic plan. If it is breakthrough, perhaps then you could get a piece of their pie. My belief was and is that this isn't about us, it is all about them – the client. –daryl orris, Minnetonka, MN

This is a good segue into my thoughts on “Adver-Marketing,” which is a cooperative relationship between Marketer and Advertising Agency whereby the Marketer shares CRM and other marketing data and strategic plans with the agency.

But first a quick review on Tom Martin’s latest comments:

Customers are Clueless.

Ask the New Guy.

There’re Ambassadors not Customers.

Take Your Eye Off of the Ball.

Wow, what this guy doesn’t understand about CRM could fill a book. I had written to Tom Martin before saying this: “This is indicative of someone primarily focused on their own emotions devoid of any empirical evidence — operating solely on the primacy of their "feelings" — rather than on analysis supported by some type of evidence. You (Tom Martin) are clearly uncertain as to what constitutes reliable evidence, thus he tends to use the most easily found sources uncritically.” Unfortunately, these thoughts continue to be his own.

Here again, Tom’s unique way of seeing the obvious reveals much more about him then it does about anything to do with Advertising.

In his own incredibly naive way Tom Martin was attempting to generate ideas for breathing new life into his Customer’s Business and then by default, his own or other advertising businesses. I believe that this is an inept and naive attempt to talk about Customer Relationship Management from two perspectives: The Client, the Client’s Consumers, and how this all applies to the agency's business as well.

Practice CRM as an Advertising Agency with your own Clients. And request your Client’s CRM data about its Customers (trade buyers) and the Consumers it serves.

This is part of Adver-Marketing, and a method to improve Agency sales, volume, profits, and its effectiveness for its Clients. That is, to use your client's strategic information which is category data and Customer Relationship MAnagement data to develop strategic creative to impact the category and the consumer. So Tom was, indirectly correct, but again, missed the methods to affect change.

Sorry Tom, but if you persist in promoting nonsense as it applies to agencies and Advertising, I must persist on commenting to counter it. Truth will prevail, despite all of your efforts to the contrary. I would like to suggest that in the future you ask someone to read your writings prior to publication. Perhaps hearing what you've written might save you future embarrassment.