Think of some of the trendy food ingredients we’ve seen rise and fall in popularity in the past decade or so: Oat bran, zinc, green tea, omega 3 fatty acid, fiber, whole grain, sea salt, and even dark chocolate.

And now there’s bacon. Bacon? That doesn’t fit on this list. All the other trendy ingredients and supplements are good for you. Or at least they’re supposed to be, even if they’re delivered in shampoo or moisturizing lotion.

Bacon is greasy and fatty and salty and full of cholesterol. No one would argue that it’s good for you. But it is the ultimate food and ingredient! In the past few years it’s become a popular ingredient and flavoring in things you’d never expect. Things like drinks (bacon flavored Vodka!) and desserts, as reported in Time magazine and on Salon.com. According to the The Poynter Institute, an online organization dedicated to the discussion of current trends in the world of journalism, bacon is a hot topic in social media networks. It’s even got some people saying, “I’m a vegetarian. Except for bacon.” And it’s inspired a roster of non-food bacon “accessories.”

So why has bacon become so popular? Is it the National Pork Board’s marketing/branding efforts?
Is it the result of rolling out high visibility fast food products that include bacon, like Wendy’s six-strip Baconator sandwich?
Is it because it’s salty, bringing out the other tastes in foods?
Does it symbolize success, as in “bringing home the bacon? “
Does is remind us of traditional comfort foods in a time of economic uncertainty?
Or is it that everything with bacon or bacon fat just taste and smells better?
Or maybe for me, it’s because after growing up in a kosher household I’m making up for lost time?
Is it a legitimate ingredient for fine dining, or just the upscale version of deep-fried Snickers Bars from a state fair concessionaire?

We tend to agree with Mr. Baconpants, who believes that the bacon trend is a long overdue rebellion against the politically and nutritionally correct “foodies.”  I mean, anything with bacon tastes and smells better, right?

While enjoying Mike’s post on the King of All (Social) Media, I thought I could hear echoes of the past or was I just experiencing a little deja vu? Today it seems like all marketers talk about is social media this and social media that. Everyone is talking it up, trying to find a way to jump in on it, looking to exploit it or rummaging around to find a way to make money off of it. But such wild exuberance should give wise marketers pause … especially if they remember the dot com hey days of the 90′s.

“Twitter has no current revenue stream to balance costs.”

Those were the words of Gartner Inc. analyst Allen Weiner in the May 26th Wall Street Journal. Sounds more like a hobby than a business. Then on Thursday morning I caught the interview with the Twitter founders at the All Things Digital D7 conference in Carlsbad. It didn’t reassure me that they know what the end game is. They also looked a bit concerned when the interviewer cited some recent research showing that 51% of Twitter members use it less than once a month and less than 1/5th use it at least once a day. Might be the old 20/80 rule without knowing much about the 20.

Is my Webvan account still active?

While listening to Evan and Biz I closed my eyes for a moment and thought I heard voices from the past. Just like in the 90′s the goal is to have an idea, run with it, convince investors to give you carloads of cash and then sell it for bigger carloads. Back then anything with a dot com after it was a money magnet. Seemingly smart folks with finance MBAs from the finest schools threw piles of cash at sock puppets selling pet supplies and grocery retailers with no stores … and no customers. Most of these ideas were sold with ginned up research and cute little anecdotes. As the bubble burst investors wished they had paid some attention to the man behind the curtain. But it was good for the consulting firms that harvested huge fees for months on end taking clients “on line.” To the cleaners may have been more accurate for many. How many of them are trying the same shell game with social media? How many agencies are?

2 questions and 1 simple sentence

Before following the other lemmings over the edge you might be well advised to ask a couple of questions when considering social media. The first one is To what end? It happened in the 90′s as everyone jumped on board the train without stopping to figure out if it was taking them somewhere they really wanted to go. Advertising people and marketers were sure it was a place called “cool”. During a recession it’s best to make profit the ultimate destination.

The second question is What else could I invest the money in? If you think of marketing as an investment, you always ask this one. But don’t fall into the cost-per-click ROMI model/trap. Use the only metric that counts: sales.

Finally, it’s always a good idea to follow the lead of someone with demonstrated success. The man that alternates between the top 2 spots on the richest in the world list might be a good choice. Before Warren Buffett makes any investment the acid test is one simple sentence that first appeared in his 1977 Letter to Shareholders. It described the businesses he would invest in or acquire outright. It has helped him make billions and reads,”We want the business to be one that we can understand, with favorable long-term prospects, operated by honest and competent people, and available at a very attractive price.” Come to think of it, it sounds like a pretty good way to select marketing tools or an agency.

If you would like to learn more from Berkshire Hathaway, here’s a white paper you might enjoy.

Later.

No, not Howard Stern, but his boss, Sirius XM CEO Mel Karmazin.  At today’s Sirius XM annual shareholder meeting Mel indicated that social media sites (Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, YouTube) will be a major key to subscriber growth, as reported by Dan Frommer at the Business Insider.

Huh…Wonder how he plans to do that exactly?  Wouldn’t somebody inclined to join a Sirius XM Facebook fan page or to follow Sirius XM on Twitter already be a fan of Sirius XM? And thus wouldn’t they either already be a subscriber or unwilling or unable to subscribe (perhaps due to a job loss for example?).  That seems to be the connundrum in this case.  I mean are there really that many Facebook fans of American Idol who never actually watch the show? Kinda shallow new subscriber pool isn’t it?

But maybe YouTube specifically might be a key to Mel’s success.  After all, any of Howard’s former terrestrial radio fans must’ve thought about giving Sirius XM a second look after Bababooey’s infamous first pitch at a recent Mets game knowing the amount of uh…”teasing” he would (and did!) receive on the show.

But if Mel is able to demonstrate measurable subscriber growth through Social Media, it will be a very interesting case study for us marketers. In any event, this screenshot of the new Sirius XM Apple iPhone App looks pretty cool!

1793: Marie Antoinette, queen of France, is informed that the peasants are starving because they have no bread. She replies: “Let them eat cake.”

2009: Advertising Age announces that Alex Bogusky and Jeff Goodby – big agency principals – will be co-chairs of the judging panel for Ad Age’s Best Small Agency of the Year and Best Small Agency Campaign of the Year awards.

The bad news: Once again large agencies get an “A” for arrogance, as they presume that bigger automatically means better at judging other people’s work. The good news: At least they’re a little less arrogant than Marie Antoinette; they’re offering us some of their cake.

But no thanks. I think small agencies like ours can get by just fine without crumbs from the kings and queens of advertising.

Our small agency serves mostly large Fortune 500 clients; over the past 40+ years we’ve worked with, or parallel to, their much larger lead agencies. We’ve observed that small agencies like ours bring clients:

Accelerated speed to market. We’re nimble enough to respond rapidly to client needs without layer upon layer of approval process.
More innovation. Many clients choose us because we’re willing to take the risk of breaking the rules (starting with the rule that says the core of every campaign must be TV advertising).
Less attitude. Clients know that we know marketing. But they don’t ever hear that “we know better than you.”
Better talent. We get to choose from all the creative and strategic thinkers who can’t stand big agency politics any more.
Access to agency leadership. We call it “the principal difference.” Clients know that top level agency decision makers work directly on their campaigns, and respond directly to client (not stockholder) needs.
Cost control. We’re not carrying the enormous overhead of big agencies, and we work faster. So our clients see results faster and pay less.

In addition to their “A” for arrogance, large agencies receive a “B” for blindness. They don’t even know they’re arrogant. Example: We worked alongside a famous-name large lead agency, in an ongoing direct marketing initiative for a Fortune 500 consumer products company. After a few months, it became obvious that we were outshining the big agency in creativity, speed, cost-control and program results. The big agency’s response: They complained to the client, because our small agency was threatening their large agency’s client relationship by making them look bad.

What do you think? Are the Advertising Age Best Small Agency of the Year and Best Small Agency Campaign of the Year awards an opportunity for small agencies or an exercise in big agency arrogance? And are we just as arrogant, for questioning the awards, and for pointing out all the small agency advantages?

I think we marketers are all in the discovery phase of how to effectively use social media marketing to build brands.  It’s just not something that there’s much history with yet.

But I will say this…if Comcast is crediting Twitter with helping increase its customer satisfaction rate by 9% in the first quarter, then that should make all of us stand up and take notice.  Especially considering that “improved customer satisfaction” and “cable companies” rarely appear in the same sentence.

To brand or to discount? That is the recession question. Many marketers choose to discount and protect their share from their discounting competitors and generics. But they may do so at the expense of branding, eroding the product’s image and perceived value.

However, you can give consumers generous incentives while maintaining your brand’s integrity. Here are a few tactics to consider:

Tie-ins – Offer your mustard brand with their hot dog brand and get secondary signage in the store for both, while you share the offer costs. It may still say “Save!” but consumers see it more as a partnership of two quality brands.

Same for retail – Spend $50 at The Sports King, get a $10 gift card at The Vitamin King. By splitting the difference, you’ve turned the traditional 10% retail discount into a 20% offer at the same cost. And it’s a gift card, not a discount. (See “Premiums” below.)

Sweeps – Don’t make them visit your website or create a Youtube video to win. Make them buy your product, or at least, visit your store. Put the prize announcement on or in the product package.

Sweepstakes are totally accountable with the fixed costs of the prize, administration and delivery. And unlike coupon redemptions, 99+% of sweeps participants go unrewarded – just like the lottery. Plus, a sweeps can reinforce your brand’s image. Regarding the “No Purchase Necessary” law, have a write-in postcard alternative.

Premiums – Keep the full retail price, but offer something free or greatly discounted with purchase.

Liquor brands offer free custom glasses with purchase. Cheerios offered a free Pez dispenser in the box. Pez probably supplied it for free to get the candy-refill sales. It also worked famously during the Great Depression when theaters gave away collectible glassware. Caution: Make sure your premium is in high demand. (See “Tie-in” above.)

Purchase decision assurance – Some auto makers are offering guaranteed relief should you lose your job during this recession. Source an insurance provider.

20% more – Give consumers a bonus size box with more product. Your cost is some repackaging and the extra product, while the consumer perceives this as a far greater value than your cost of goods. They also perceive it as a bonus instead of a discount.

Buy-one–get one – Or buy one, get one at half-price. Again, you’re giving the cost of your goods, which is far less than the value the consumer perceives. If a 99¢ sponge costs you 20¢, you’ve given the consumer a 99¢ deal for 20¢.

Bundle – The consumer perception is you can sell for less because you’re selling more stuff. It’s more of a deal than a discount. And you can extend your brand’s trial or line extension sales – get this flavor with that flavor, get two yard lights with our mower, get our eye liner with our nail polish.

Gift Cards If You… – Gift cards sound like ‘gifts’ rather than discounts. And they have greater dividends. For one, consumers have to return again and buy more (and 50-70% of purchase decisions are in the store – impulse). Second, they have to earn the gift card by purchasing the qualifying item or dollar amount.

Cause – Don’t discount. Instead, offer to help those suffering in this recession. Plus, it’s a write-off. Most importantly, it’s doing the right thing.

This is a marketing tale that happens to be true. Once upon a time, the customers of a cable company, a bank and a utility were satisfied, sure that the companies valued their business. But then they started seeing headlines like these:
•    “Cable Internet Just $19.99 A Month – New Customers Only”
•    “$1000 Off Your Closing Costs – New Customers Only”
•    “Reduce Home Heating Costs – New Customers Only”

It’s as if these marketers were giving all the goodies to the greedy, ugly stepsisters who never bought anything, and leaving valuable, faithful Cinderella to sit in the ashes.

Here are a couple of real life examples – a cable company and a utility. And here is a UK marketer who recognized the problem and used it as the basis for a TV campaign.

Why isn’t there a lot more debate in the marketing community about this questionable practice? It contradicts everything we’re supposed to know about the value of new vs. current customers, and the relative cost of marketing to them.

The not-so-charming princes here are mainly consumer service providers such as cable TV and satellite TV companies, telecoms, ISPs, financial services companies and utilities.  As service providers they have the advantage of being able to distinguish between new and current customers.

Richer customer offers are not the problem. The real problem that they’re out there in mass media where current customers are sure to see them and wonder why they can’t get in on the goodies. But consumer services marketers need to attract a stream of new customers. How can they do it without risking that a dissatisfied Cinderella will find a Prince Charming – another cable company, bank or utility?

It’s not so difficult. Business to business marketers have been advertising richer offers to prospects for years without antagonizing their current customers. The difference: They don’t use mass media to flaunt their rich offers in the faces of current customers. Instead they use direct marketing to target best prospects, one on one.

Of course, this brings up another risk: Will direct marketing to an enormous consumer audience pay out, vs. the cost of the mass media they’re using now? We can’t know the answer to that, but we welcome comments that will bring this marketing tale to a happy ending for everyone.

Seems these days tapping into pent-up anger is an acceptable means of communication between brands and consumers.  According to a recent article in the NY Times, more and more brands are ‘tapping’ the latent desire of many consumers to rip into somebody … anybody … especially ‘the man’!   Directing anger at corporate fat cats or Wall Street as a convenient scapegoat for the ills of the Great Recession is nothing new – from the Teapot Dome scandal to the monopolists of the Robber Baron era, Americans are adept when times turn south to find a culprit, real or imagined.  Yet when Madison Avenue sees it as a ‘quick buck’ means of tapping into the national psyche, aren’t we at risk of the backlash turning towards the promoting brands themselves?  Trying to cozy up to consumers by engaging in conversation, and in turn sharing a common mistrust or hatred, risks alienating the promoting brands themselves.  Unless the brand has earned the ‘right’ to critique, and gained entre into the consumer’s space, it’s dead in the water … and more so if the brand has it’s own ‘fat cats’, bailout recipients, or questionable practices as skeltons in it’s closet.  Tread carefully, Madison Avenue, tread carefully.  The mob can turn quickly.

It’s good to see that a leading voice in marketing is thinking along the same lines as I am. On April 17 I posted “Pharma Marketing: Too Much ‘Me Too.” The May 11 issue of Advertising Age ran a lengthy article headlined titled “Big Pharma Finally Taking Big Steps to Reach Patients With Digital Media.”

The article’s key points include:
•    Pharmas increased measured spending on internet media 36% to $137 million in 2008.
•    Pharmas’ preferred social media include blogs, Twitter, YouTube.
•    Fear of FDA regulation slows pharmas’ progress into social media.
•    Building relationships is the primary benefit of social media marketing.

Loreen Babcock, CEO of Omnicom Group’s Unit 7, sees social media as a way to rebuild trust between consumers and the pharmaceutical industry. “Look, there’s probably not an industry that could use and embrace the transparency and authenticity of social media right now more than pharmaceuticals,” Ms. Babcock said.

The Progress: Our original post started with the fact that pharmaceutical companies rank just above tobacco companies in consumer trust. But this new move into social media could change all that.
•    Ideally, genuine, benefit-oriented relationship-building content should build brand identity and preference.
•    And social media will be targeted toward actual prospects and customers instead of “all TV viewers.”

The Problems: However, a quick overview of some pharma’s digital initiatives reveals that:
•    The Johnson & Johnson Blog and Novartis Twitter initiative are well done, but they function as broad-based corporate news outlets, not as relationship-building marketing for specific products.  On the other hand, the Acorda I Walk Because site is specifically targeted to a tightly-defined community of MS patients.
•    Pharma’s social media measurement is primarily hits, submissions and click-throughs. Like virtually every other marketer using social media, they have not discovered how to directly measure impact on sales.

Starting with Southwest Airlines, and continuing with Sheraton Hotels and others, we’ve seen “no hidden fees” become a key point of marketing differentiation over the past year or so. They’re a response to other marketers’:

•    “Tire fees” and “privilege fees” on rental cars.
•    “Franchise fees” on cable TV service.
•    “Processing fees” on event ticket purchases.
•    “Towel fees” and “in-room safe fees” at hotels.
•    “Fees for calling customer service” on debit cards.
•    “Baggage fees” on airlines. (At least these are highly visible, thanks to extensive media coverage.)

The list goes on and on. These marketers running scared, taking on the long-term risk of alienating customers rather than face up to the short-term risk of raising the listed, advertised price in a very price-conscious economy.  The idea is that customers notice the list, advertised price, but rarely notice the hidden fees tacked on when they actually make a purchase.

Marketers who advertise “no hidden fees” find themselves in the same position as Richard Nixon when he proclaimed “I am not a crook.” Fortunately, the marketers telling the truth – or most of them are. But both Nixon and the marketers end up with an implied “we won’t screw you” as a very dubious differentiating claim.

So which do you think is worse? Should you bite the bullet now, by adding on hidden fees into the price and thus raising the advertised list price? Or keep adding on hidden fees and bite the bullet later, when customers rise up in resentment?

Oh boy…Gary Dell’Abate First Pitch

Poor Gary.  At least Sirius XM is getting a lot of publicity and buzz out of it.  If Sirius XM was trying to get a viral campaign going, they succeeded!

New Dog, Old Tricks

Here’s a test question most of my Loyola Grad School students get wrong in my promotional marketing course, even though I explicitly tell them this will be on the final exam. True or False: “The on-going advancement of Internet marketing is resulting in new breakthrough promotional tactics that are replacing traditional tactics.”

False. Those who choose True are confusing media with tactics. Yes, the Internet, blogging, tweeting, Facebooking, You Tubing, etc. have ushered in a few new promotional tactical capabilities. But by and large, traditional tactics are being delivered in new wrapping – digital media.

The fact is, retail match-the-display-and-win is the same as match-the-site’s-code-and-win; retail collector cards are the same as web-based point programs; print coupons are the same as web coupons, only less viral (and more accountable).

Before interactive and user-generated promotions there was the Pillsbury Bakeoff. In fact, the Bakeoff may generate more bottom line profits because it’s driving purchases rather than website visits.

There’s even a reverse trend – retailers are increasingly refocusing efforts toward store traffic programs versus web-only visits because incremental impulse sales are 50-70% at retail. When they’re in the store, they purchase more.

Check out the attached promotion oldie. The match-&-win tactic drives participants right to the product, coupon in hand, where they examine the actual product to see if they win. And they can still win an unclaimed prize when they redeem the coupon. That’s an interactive promotion designed for in-store sales versus website visits.

Bottom line, the operating promotional principles remain the same, and if you want a breakthrough digital generation promotion, you might first revisit the masters – the original print-delivered promotions.

Maybe using a Wendy’s line to query a McDonald’s promotion in London is a bit off kilter, but the point is clear – what does it have to do with selling hamburgers?  Is there a promotion at the McDonald’s on Shaftesbury Avenue or Regent Street, offering those who take a picture to a special meal deal?  Or is this just another ‘hey here’s a neat stunt that we can film, involving mainly foreign tourists’?  Reminds me of the seaside boards where you pose with the face inside the image, only with a mobile phone spin on it.  And about as impactful at shifting hamburgers and fries, I’d have thought.  But I challenge  McDonalds to prove me wrong on this one!

Some interesting research out of my alma mater, Duke University, observes that consumers who are given the choice of a few healthy menu items on an otherwise unhealthy menu invariably make THE WRONG CHOICE!  In a controlled test, the researchers postulated that the presence of healthy options ‘liberated’ consumers to choose the more unhealthy foods.  This raises some interesting questions about consumer psychology and the need for ‘feel good’ items of choice to drive sales of ‘regular’ items.  Could it apply to high ticket items?  For example, a mid-market clothing retailer who displays high fashion garments at extortionate prices  – will they move the needle on regular items?  Electronics retailers wanting to move mainstream brands  – would they do well to stock a Bang & Olufsen or two?  Okay, maybe not as B&O only sells via their dealers, but the point is clear – maybe we need more understanding of how consumers think in individual retail settings, and what triggers choice.

Burger and Fries

The following is another example of what my colleague Lowell Wallace talked about in his April 15 post, “Smart Marketers Shine In Recession.”

The smart marketer here is Goodwill Industries, the world’s largest nonprofit provider of education, training, and career services for people with disadvantages,. Their collection trucks and parking lot collection boxes have kept me vaguely aware of them for as long as I can remember, but there was never any reason to think of them in a marketing context.

Resale, revived.

Until now. Last night, lounging on the sofa with the TV on, I suddenly realized that the hip, musical “Monique is ravishing” women’s fashions commercial I was watching was for Goodwill resale shops, not at T.J. Maxx or Marshall’s or Old Navy.

What! Have Goodwill’s dusty, fusty old resale shops suddenly become hot shopping destinations for fashionistas? In a way they have, in part of because of marketing initiatives by national Goodwill Industries, and also because of a television campaign launched by Goodwill Industries of Central Indiana. Their two dozen TV commercials are now syndicated to more than fifty Goodwill organizations across the U.S. and Canada. One result: Within 8 months, sales increased 7%  at Goodwill stores.

And a TV campaign is just one way that Goodwill is building consumer awareness and traffic as it sheds its dusty, fusty image. For example: Goodwill of San Francisco worked with Joe Boxer to create a new clothing line. Goodwill of Greater Washington runs a webcast fashion show. And Goodwill Industries International partners with Levis, FLW Outdoors, and Bon Ton Stores.

What Lowell said about Allen Edmonds shoes is true for Goodwill too: “This is a great way to respond to the chaos of the recession — building business instead of just cutting costs.”

Stop Talking Marketing…and start talking business. If you want to get CEO and CFO support for your marketing initiatives, speak C-level language. That’s the idea summarized so well in Michael Radigan’s advocacy of a better way to measure marketing.

Stop talking about response rates, click-throughs, viewership levels, readership scores, survey results and so forth. And start talking to the “C Suite” about what they understand: Money. Their rise or fall – and your budget – is determined by sales and profits, not by the marketing department’s deems metrics.

On a daily basis, The “C Suite” make investment decisions, showing how to allocate the company’s resources to maximize sales and profits. Help them decide in your favor by demonstrating ROMI – -Return On Marketing Investment. Show them how each dollar spent on past or proposed marketing programs generates more than one dollar in sales.

Sounds simple, doesn’t it? But how many marketers are actually doing it? And why are the rest not doing it? We’d like to hear from you, and learn how you’re using ROMI as the key metric for marketing decisions. The new breed of Super CMO’s uses ROMI as their foundation.
Do You?

Having been a Mr. Boffo fan for a very long time, I enjoyed today’s offering. It’s a problem a lot of companies face and the reason so many will barely limp out of the recession. You don’t head marketing; you’re the only one left in the department.

One of the better lectures (although a little long) on the application of social media to enterprises by Andrew McAfee at Harvard’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society.  Check it out:   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NN3uej7IMs.