Author Archives: Dan Gershenson

Good Things to Declare War On.

A pretty cool mantra by Chris Brogan that I thought I would share with you. You can apply it to many things in life. Your next blog post or ad. Your approach to your personal life. Your next speech. If it’s the conventional status quo, it’s time to declare war on it. Preach on, Mr. Brogan.

War

I’m through with excuses.

I’m through with “good enough.”
I’m through with settling.
I’m through with justification.
I’m through with waste.
I’m through with fitting (and fitting in).
I’m through with nice (for nice’s sake).
I’m through with my assumptions.
I’m through with relying on what’s worked before.
I’m through with mistaking consistency for success.
I’m through with the word “will.”

I declare war. On everything above this line.

I do what I’m capable of doing.
I deliver excellence.
I create what’s next.
I am the echo.
I am the bonus round.
I am the “hard” difficulty setting.
I am the extra 20 pushups.
I am the success story.
I am love.
I am my story told loudly, regardless of the reaction.

It’s war.

What 99% of recruiters don’t do in social media (but should)

There are many good recruiters out there for a variety of positions – but in the world of social media, have you ever noticed how most of them sound the same?

“Great opportunity! Candidate must have X years of experience, be a self-starter…”

I get it. You have listings of jobs. And in our economy, that’s great to share. Really. But the strange thing that most recruiters don’t do via social media is guide candidates with:

  • Helpful advice for their resume or portfolio (if you’re in my field)
  • Good interview questions to ask
  • Tough interview questions to answer
  • Tools and technology related to job hunting

The opportunity to stretch from Recruiter to Career Sherpa is there for the taking. But few recruiters are taking it.

In my view, just listing an opportunity puts you in the same league as any other job site out there. Even if the job is unique. Because if you’re “all listings all the time,” you’re a commodity. On the other hand, if you have helpful career advice, I’m more apt to return to your site and subscribe to your blog.

That’s right. A blog. Of course you know what those are. And if you place a certain type of candidate in a very specific type of field (i.e. advertising and marketing, financial, CEOs, etc.), you have all the more reason to address that select group in a blog that shows you know how they think, what they’re looking for and the questions they’re likely to have. No matter what age, no matter what level of experience, they’re looking for a career coach. Not just the person with the online version of the classifieds.

How about video blog entries instead of text?

How about a Google Hangouts chat session with candidates on career advice?

How about a video interview with a hiring manager?

Writing up a job description is the easy part. I’ve done that myself in a recruitment advertising role and it didn’t take that long. Putting some real thought into your content takes work. But besides the upside of search engines finding you more often, there’s that moment when you get the referral from the person who you placed in a job and in the letter that former candidate says, “Just read her blog and you’ll see she’s the most knowledgeable recruiter in ______.”

Then you’ll be glad you gave your social media efforts that little something extra that most recruiters don’t do.

It’s Overthinking Season in North Dakota!

This is an ad for North Dakota’s tourism. It’s talking about having dinner, drinks and how the evening might just turn for the better.

We're guessing the people who think this ad is X-rated don't watch much True Blood.

Yet, the North Dakota Tourism Division had to pull it because it was too racy.

When I heard this, I thought maybe I was looking at a different ad. Not this one. I was wrong. This was the one, indeed.

“Dinner. Drinks. Decisions. Arrive a guest. Leave a legend.”

So please tell me what’s wrong with the ad.

Is it that guys are smiling at women? That can’t be it. If guys can’t flirt with women, we should ban all beer advertising, then. Good luck with that.

Is it that those guys are going to leave town as “legends?” Because if people talked endlessly about their exploits and adventures in North Dakota that would be…bad?     Because men and women don’t hook up and routinely talk about what happened last night to each other?

Come on. Vegas Tourism has been running ads for years about What Happens in Vegas Stays In Vegas, even if that means using a different identity along the way. There’s nothing here to suggest the scenario even goes that far.

Still, this ad was pulled. One person called it “sickening.” I’m guessing that person doesn’t own a television, read magazines or listen to the radio. And/or that he’s Amish.

Now, I’m not even going to speak to whether the ad is good or not. OK, scratch that. This is not the greatest ad. Partially because I’m not sure what it means to be a legend in North Dakota and partially because the cliche image could be anywhere in the world, giving me the impression that there’s nothing good to show in North Dakota. Wow, a place where men and women meet each other in a totally nondescript nightlife setting? Two tickets to North Dakota, please! I’m sure they could’ve found somewhere attractive in the state to shoot the ad. You can make any place look attractive with the right lighting and camera angles.

But let’s put ad critiques aside because there’s an even deeper problem here and it’s been going on forever.

“It really just takes one or two (negative comments) and then people jump on the bandwagon,” said Sara Otte Coleman, director of the ND tourism division.

Exactly, Sara. You get it. You see this lunacy for what it is. So the right move rather than pull the ad would be to recognize that this isn’t really some “will of the people” as much as a Loonie and Lemming Stew – a couple of people who overthink an ad and a lot more people who follow them into far-fetched judgment. All that’s missing is Fox News to capture the “Uproar in North Dakota” for a full overblown masterpiece.

No. No. No. We’ve got to draw the line. Now’s as good a time as any, so here goes.

I’m just tired of the overthinking.

I’m tired of the political correctness.

I’m tired of catering to people far outside of the target audience who are given too much credence because they happen to yell the loudest in the room.

And I’m tired of too much media influence from the next “Family Values For A Better Tomorrow Who Force Those Values On Everyone Without Asking” Group.

It’s time to stand up for Common Sense.

Brands tell stories that are intended for a certain group of people. Not everyone. Maybe not even your wife and kids. You may see the ad in the media, but that doesn’t mean it’s for you. It’s trying to please the people who would buy it.

But here’s the real interesting thing – if nothing else, that ad did far more than I ever would’ve expected for it in that it started a conversation across the web about North Dakota. People by and large couldn’t believe the thing got pulled. The tourism people were quoted. Comment boards were burning up.

Bam. Mission accomplished. If I was North Dakota tourism, I’d be sending those protesters of the ad a thank you note. Maybe they were planted and were working for the department of tourism all along (conspiracy?).

Point being that if the people protesting this ad had never done so in the first place, this ad would’ve passed like a ship in the night. It just wouldn’t have registered. Because this ad didn’t stir the pot. The protesting over the ad did. And that’s what every group that protests advertising fails to understand. The more you talk about it, the more offended you become, the more you go on talk shows voicing your anger,  the more attention you give to the very ad you want people to ignore. So if you really want to get people to ignore the ad, don’t talk about the ad on every news network you can find.

And if you’re a marketer, don’t give every voice on the web equal weight. Because it’s not true to say that every voice deserves that. Because you have to distinguish who your best customers are, who your best prospects are and who the people who’d never get within 50 miles of your product are.

I didn’t say completely ignore those naysayers either. Speak to them. Listen to their concerns and address them, whether it’s by phone, email or social media. See if they’re the kind of person who can be reasoned with in an intelligent conversation or they just want to hurl stones at your brand to call attention to themselves like uneducated, ignorant neanderthals.

Converse. Ask questions. Answer questions. Don’t be the brand that invites more drama by running from the questions. Be the brand that offers a helpful solution. You’d be amazed how rational people just want to be heard more than anything, even if it means they aren’t going to get their way.

“Have you ever tried our product?” “Would you like to?” “Why do you feel that way?” “What was the problem because maybe we can suggest a solution?” You’ll know fairly quickly if you’re dealing with a genuine customer who matters, a customer who can be saved or a whiner who never had any intention of buying your wares.

You don’t have to agree with them either – but explain your side in detail too.

Opposing opinions is what makes the world go round. Just remember whose opinion you’re trying to covet most. And whose you have to shake your head at.

When you’re faced with a dissenting opinion from someone over an ad you ran, whether it’s online or offline, how do you handle it? Ignore it? Address it? How do you go about it?

Going In-House Isn’t Always The Cost-Cutting Move You Think.

I recently got into an argument with another agency owner who seems to believe that cutting costs and doing great creative work can’t share the same place in a marketer’s mind. He felt that Chief Marketing Officers across the board are fine with settling for “good enough” work these days by bringing their team in-house rather than hiring an agency and that doing so is a cost-cutting move.

I can’t agree with that logic because CMOs have a short window of opportunity – less than 2 years on average. And in that window, it is unlikely that creative work deemed merely “good enough” is less likely to produce very positive results. Yet I won’t get into a subjective argument about which tends to be more creative and strategic, in-house or outside source because in some instances, the in-house route works out fine. More than fine, actually.

But I have a big problem with the uniform “in-house is cheaper” stance. That doesn’t always pan out, particularly if you value having a strong creative product across a variety of mediums. I also have a big argument with the notion that if one outside source doesn’t produce results, going in-house because you “can’t do any worse” is the way to go. Actually, in a lot of ways, you can do worse. Much worse.

Believe it or not, I’m not trying to sell you exclusively on doing things externally. But if you want it done right and want it done strong and consistent, getting positive results from an in-house agency requires building and maintaining a strong team. That costs money if you’re going to build a team of any sort of substance.

Beyond money, to build and maintain a strong in-house house team, you need talent and versatility.

Let’s start with the shell of a creative unit. Creative Director. Copywriter. Artist. Production Artist. Hire outside exceptional, dependable people for this. You can’t turn Bob in Accounting into an artist just because he took a Photoshop class at the local community college.

Planning on buying and negotiating media? Throw a Media Buyer onto the list. If the Creative Director’s going to wear that hat too, bump up their salary even more.

You plan on using the Internet in some capacity, correct? Let’s give you 2 web people, one who can do front-end web design and one who can do back-end programming. It’s rare to find a web person who can do both sides well and if you do, you’d better bring the bucks for that one. One of your artists can handle all manner of front-end web design? Good for you. Then bump up their salary even more.

At this point, you could conceivably be at at least $500,000 for the year and probably much more. And I haven’t touched upon a Strategic Planner/Account Planner, a very useful and important function to have.

Am I forgetting anything? That’s right, of course – the media you’re actually going to buy. That costs money too. But since you’ve spent as much as you have on staff overhead, cutting costs big-time here could very well mean cutting out entire media choices. Choices that offer reasonable avenues to connect with your target audience.

I also haven’t included the vast technological software your staff will continually need in order to create, research, plan and more. If you think those can be had for cheap, you obviously haven’t seen what a new copy of Adobe Creative Suite runs these days.

On the other hand, let’s say an outside source knocks on your door with creative talent, experience and all the other right things you’re looking for. They cost $5,000 a month for what you need, including talent and resources. But you’re spending $60,000 a year for their services vs. over $500,000 for your in-house team.

In this example I’ve outlined, if we’re looking at the argument on the basis of cost-cutting, you will put substantially more money into your in-house team than you will by hiring outside help.

Regardless, this debate is not as black-and-white as some would make it out to be. It doesn’t have to be an all “in-house” or all “external hire” situation, folks. In fact, a relationship that encompasses some in-house people collaborating with agencies or consultants just might be the best-of-both-worlds answer you’re looking for too.

 

I know you’re attractive media, but I’m just not that into you.

I’ve noticed that generally, the cycle of love for new forms of media often goes like this:

1. New media tool arrives.

2. A few reports suddenly trickle in about the potential of the media tool.

3. Everyone jumps on the bandwagon of those reports, proclaiming it as the best thing since sliced bread.

4. Everyone clamors to be seen as experts and evangelists to their clients about the new media tool (whether or not they actually understand it in reality is debatable).

5. A few reports suddenly trickle in about the negatives of the media tool.

6. Blogs and articles hop on the bandwagon of those reports, saying that maybe the new media tool isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.

7. Everyone clamors to become one of the first “I told you so” gurus in order to save face.

8. Everyone is on to looking for the next big thing.

This isn’t a post about whether or not a certain channel does or doesn’t work. It’s that there’s an evaluation of media in general happening that doesn’t work. And in a race to be the coolest/hottest/hippest, some forget that maybe our clients want us to evaluate what’s right for them – new or not new.

The fact is, too many communicators and marketers often set this wild up-and-down “what’s hot, what’s not” roller coaster in motion…when we really don’t have to. How? Pure and simple, as an industry we’re way too overzealous in our attraction to new things without first exploring them, understanding them, seeing how they fit into our client’s overall brand strategy, etc.

When it comes to evaluating The Next Big Thing, as an industry we fall in love too fast, too much and, when things start to sour just a tad, we can’t get out of the relationship fast enough.

The more we rush to proclaim one form of media as a game-changer and then rush back in the other direction to denounce that media, the more we look like wishy-washy practitioners. And that’s not good.

Look, some media choices have good long-term prospects. Some ultimately don’t. Along the way, there are absolutely ZERO forms of media that work for everybody. As we explore these choices, we should never apologize for attempting to understand the new things and how they relate to a client’s brand, whether it was user-generated content yesterday, Twittering today, 3-D digital imagery that allows for hologram interaction (also known as “augmented reality”) tomorrow and whatever else is invented in the near future.

What we should apologize for is blaming the useful tools themselves when the reality is that perhaps – just perhaps – some of us didn’t understand those tools that well to begin with, yet recommended them anyway to clients when we shouldn’t have. Truth be told, having more media tools in the toolbox is a wonderful opportunity for people who understand them and an awful thing for people who don’t understand how they fit into the overall picture (i.e. firms that make the recommendation that social media tools should always be at the center of a media strategy and nothing else matters). Media choices don’t kill brands. People that don’t know how to plan and select the right media choices kill brands (and if their creative sucks, that doesn’t help either).

How can we get off the roller coaster? I can think of a few steps:

1.    Stop acting like a ravenous dog when something new comes out.
It’s new. Remain calm. Study it. Get to know it. Does it fit into the behavioral mechanism of your client’s audience? It’s possible that – gasp – maybe it doesn’t fit after all. If so, the brand’s world will march on.

2.    That new thing is not for everybody.
Again, your client’s audience may fall into this category. And if so….

3.    Just because the new media tool doesn’t apply in certain cases, don’t rush to condemn it as a failure in an effort to make yourself look like a genius.
Please. Everything has its pros and cons. Maybe it’s not a failure but instead a case of where some misinformed people understand the tool better and realize it doesn’t fit into their overall media mix. And that’s really OK. A blanket statement about that medium can be dangerous, such as…

4.    Stop saying “(INSERT MEDIUM HERE) is dead.”
Traditional media’s role is changing but it’s not dead. Knock it off. We’re creators, not killers. I myself was guilty of saying a medium was dead not long ago in a blog post. My mistake because really all that medium did was re-surface in another life form. What’s “dead” to some prospective target audiences may be very much alive for other ones.

5.    With diversification of media, some choices will always work a little better than others.  
What clients don’t like to hear is that the only way something works is to try it, considering that exploration is on their dime. But even so, there’s a smart way of exploring results, as in testing selectively and monitoring results. If results are positive, expand the effort. If results are negative, adjust accordingly.

What we’re all searching for, clients and agencies alike, is a better way of connecting with a certain group of human beings. And since they’re human, they’re sophisticated. And since they’re sophisticated and often have a range of changing tastes, we have to remember that exploring new ways to find these connections isn’t brave but a necessity to being relevant in their world. The key is if we can enjoy the new tools responsibly like we would, say, a fine craft beer, wine or liquor and not be so drunk in our love for that particular new media right from the get-go, maybe we won’t end up potentially hurting ourselves and our clients later on.

Still, that new hologram thing is pretty cool. Just kidding.