Randy Parker

Archive for the ‘strategy’ Category

, , , , , , , , ,

New Charmin commercial wipes some the wrong way

In Advertising, advertising strategy, copywriting, creative, marketing, strategy, writing on February 11, 2010 at 2:10 pm

Medical commercials are bad enough. The ED commercials embarrass the devil out of me even as I wonder why anybody would have two separate bath tubs side-by-side. In a field, no less. But the new Charmin toilet tissue commercial? It just grosses me out. I’m talking about the one in which the bear mom examines the bear cub’s rear with a telescope. (Looking for asteroids, I assume.)

I have always disliked the overly cute bears and their butt-rubbing antics, but the newest spot is even worse. It goes into detail about how Charmin is stronger so it doesn’t leave bits of tissue you know where. Have any of us been all that concerned about it? Do you bring up this sort of thing to your friends?  Can we not have some decorum? Can we not infer that a stronger tissue is good without going into details?  Do we have to “draw a picture” for everything? On national television? Well, you might argue, it is a problem and they are in the tissue business. But something tells me they enjoy it just a little too much.

In fact, that’s where I really draw the line–at their new slogan: Enjoy the go!

Enjoy the go? Call me anal retentive, but that’s the last straw. And the last roll. Turn the other cheek? I don’t think so.

I’m switching to Northern.

, , ,

Advertorials: the genuine article

In Advertising, advertising strategy, copywriting, creative, marketing, strategy, writing on August 25, 2009 at 5:55 am

An advertorial is a hybrid of advertising and informative editorial content. At worst, it is created to deceive, to make the reader believe it is a journalistic addition to the publication. This, of course, is why you so often see the word “Advertisement” posted at the top of the article by the publication.  One recent example of advertorials gone amuck is the full page ad appearing in newspapers across America for miraculous flameless fireplaces housed in genuine Amish-crafted mantelpieces. Perhaps you’ve seen it. (And if you actually bought one, I’d love to hear about it!)

Their over-the-top approach probably worked to sell fireplaces, but it is no way to build a brand.

At its best, however, an advertorial can be an effective component of a marketing strategy, taking what might ordinarily be a conventional advertising space and using it to inform the reader about a product or service in more detail or, even better, to inform the reader about an issue or problem that’s important to him.

For several years, I have written an ongoing series of  advertorials for a bank in Nashville. It appears every month in the Nashville Business Journal and features a different bank expert who dispenses information and advice. Rather than just hawk the bank’s products and services, it focuses on issues that are important to  business owners, CFOs and the like–the people who read the Journal. For example, when the federal government increased FDIC insurance from $100,000 to $250,000, I worked with the expert to write an article about how the change would affect readers. In another article, we covered the escalating costs of real estate in Downtown Nashville and what it meant for developers and builders in need of financing.

These advertorials are easily recognized as bank ads. But they are a soft sell. They offer real content and added value to readers while positioning the bank and it’s employees as experts in the field and a ready resource of up-to-date financial information and services.

In an industry like banking in which competitors offer very similar services, interest rates, etc., success comes from relationship building. A good informative advertorial can be the foundation on which new relationships are built.

A compelling call to action

In Advertising, advertising strategy, copywriting, creative, strategy, writing on April 27, 2009 at 11:10 am

miami-pd

Found this at Good Slogan, Bad Slogan. Not a tagline that engenders confidence, perhaps, but it is fun.

, , , , ,

How NOT to promote your cause

In Advertising, LinkedIn, language, marketing, strategy on February 19, 2009 at 3:59 pm

Every once in a while, I check out the Answers section of LinkedIn and even chime in on questions about writing and advertising. One question was sort of a riddle:

“What is inappropriate with this statement in an advertising campaign: ‘A family with an autistic son.’”

There were answers ranging from “it’s an incomplete sentence,” to a more on-target response from someone whose son had Asperger’s Syndrome and thought there was nothing about it that was inappropriate.

My answer addressed what I see as the fundamental problem with the phrase, which is that the whole family doesn’t have a son, only the parents. A very good answer, in my opinion.

Soon I got an email from the questioner, who admitted that I had a point but then went on to explain “the main answer,” which was all about political correctness. “Autistic son” should have read “son with autism.” It’s about People First Language, I was admonished, putting the person ahead of the affliction.

I could argue about all that, about how an adjective doesn’t diminish the importance of the noun that it modifies. I could argue that you really need to get your language straight before you worry about how PC it is.

But the real problem for me was this. I was set up. The motive here was to educate people about People First Language, which is fine. But in the process, the questioner took a position of all-knowing superiority. He corrected me. This is not how you win friends and influence people.

As it was, only a very few people answered the question and got the “benefit” of his email. Many more, surely, read the question but chose not to answer. How many more people could he have reached had he taken a different tact? He would have served his cause better by going ahead and explaining People First Language from the start (including us in his cause rather than setting us up for failure) and then asking a legitimate question for the professionals on LinkedIn. He missed an opportunity to share and was condescending instead.

I am sure the questioner meant well and is probably a better person than I. But, unfortunately, he came across as —let me make sure I get this right—a person of arrogance.