I’m so pleased by an email I received today, announcing my qualification after many years working in the marketing business, to be in the next edition of ‘Who’s Who’. Deeply, deeply honored. I immediately imagined the editors, clustered around a table, pouring over resumes and details of some of the finest executives in the world. Hours they’ve spent. Suddenly, my details appear. The mood in the room brightens. “Yes”, they say. “Yes! He’s the one, he’s a “Who”. We’ve got to get this guy “in”. Make him part of the club.” Quickly they send me a personal email invite, hoping and praying that I’ll accept this honor. I get the email, feeling slightly like President Obama must have felt when the Nobel folks called him up. Am I really that good? Am I really that famous?

Except …

I received about five emails inviting me.

They misspelled my name on three of them.

They seem to want to charge me for this honor, by asking me to buy the book.

Oh yeah … and I never applied.

Now don’t get me wrong – I’d like to be a Who. Actually, a member of The Who would be cool. Maybe even a member of that sad little town in Dr. Seuss’ tale of Grinches and Christmas.

But what makes ‘Who’s Who’ such a non-honor is what curses many marketers in their efforts to excite customers.

For a start, they communicated to me without my permission. In most cases, this means marketers hard work was wasted on a poor list, resulting in immediate exile to the junk bin.

Next, they kept on at me, albeit using poorly written, spelled, and targeted emails, a multitude of times. Sort of how various credit card companies used to (or still do?) behave before the recession of last year. “A war of attrition” is probably how some smart guy in credit card marketing described it before turning in his resignation to go and work for “Who’s Who”.

They put a catch implicit in the ‘honor’, a sting in the tail which, unfortunately, most consumers now automatically look for in many marketing communications. “You want me to get ALL THIS? What’s the catch, buddy?” is the implicit reaction brought on by too many years using one to one media to try and ‘sell stuff’ rather than persuade and win over customers.

Bottom line: be genuine, be honest and honorable, know who you’re contacting, check your facts. Pretend your marketing communication is the salesperson calling on this customer. Ask yourself if you find it compelling to deal with a salesperson who spends all her time telling you about herself and her company/brand, pushing an offer … and not listening.

“Who’s Who”? Who cares!

By now you’ve read all about Pepsi’s pullout from its 23 years of Super Bowl sponsorship. Instead, they’ll be running a social media program for the Pepsi Refresh Project, inviting consumers to create and vote support for thousands of worthwhile local community projects. Everyone seems to think this is a really important marketing move. But there’s little consensus on exactly why Pepsi is doing this, or what they hope to get out of it.

Reading all the press responses was like listening to the old story about the blind men and the elephant (one touched its side and said it was like a wall, a second touched its leg and said it’s like a tree, a third touched it tail and said it’s like a rope).
•    According to DM News, it’s a sign that “Direct marketing is now the centerpiece of all advertising.”
•    Advertising Age asks: “Is Pepsi’s Pass on Super Bowl an Offensive or Defensive Move?”
•    Business and technology group blog Techdirt is sure that online is the key factor: “Pepsi Drops Super Bowl Ads… Goes With Online Promotions Instead.”
•    Naturally, for Social Media Today, social media is what matters: “Pepsi Drops the Super Bowl for Social Media.”
•    For green business news site Environmental Leader, doing good is the core concept: “Pepsi Drops Super Bowl Ads in Favor of Cause Marketing.”

And so forth and so on. My R&M colleagues contributed some less biased, more insightful opinions:
•    Lowell pointed out the trade channel angle: “Since the dawn of Super Bowl advertising, in conference rooms all over the country there have been comments like: “We’ll get to take our best customers!” and “This is a great way for the sales guys to schmooze the customers.” But now Pepsi has signed merger agreements with Pepsi Bottling Group and PepsiAmericas – 80+% of their North American beverage volume. No need to schmooze your own people.”
•    Bob said Pepsi’s always been a copycat: “Pepsi looks at Coke on how to be a brand and then copies them. They act inferior, instead of having their own vision. But now that they’re doing something on their own, they’re doing a me-too again, copying the American Express Member Project program from a few years ago.”
•    And according to Alan: “What’s missing in a lot of what you read is what they really hope to accomplish in overall profitability, because between the cost of marketing and the cost of the Refresh program funding, they’re not saving any money. How does this work to build Pepsi business, and how will they know that it worked?”

We never thought we’d find ourselves classifying social media with Super Bowl advertising, but we’ve got to ask: Is this a big breakthrough for Pepsi (and other giant marketers)?  Or did the wheels just get too squeaky on the old Super Bowl bandwagon, so they jumped to the new social media bandwagon? When it you’re choosing something as simple as a cola, what’s the real driver: Clever and spectacular, or involving and relevant?

So what do you think? Is Pepsi’s pullout from Super Bowl advertising like a wall, or a tree, or a rope….or what? Comment, please.

I’ve been reading Richard Feynman lately – Nobel Prize physicist, artist, drummer, safecracker, decoder of the Mayan Codex, samba band musician, troublemaker at the Challenger disaster hearings, a person of towering intellect and perfect integrity and a master at cutting through crap.

And now I’m pleased to put my reading to work: In a recent DM News interview Stan Rapp said that the name “direct marketing” is an inadequate descriptor of what we do. I think he’s wrong.

His call for a new name reminds me of something that Feynman said about knowledge: “You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you’re finished, you’ll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird. So let’s look at the bird and see what it’s doing – that’s what counts. I learned very early the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something.”

Rapp talks about the impact of the Internet on direct marketing:
•    “Direct marketers were slow to see that we were looking at a totally transformed new marketing…”
•    “…reliance on intrusive TV ads as a dominant force in building brands and sales is fading…”
•    “…will interactive – sometimes referred to as digital – become the platform driving the new marketing, or will marketing directly be that platform?”

No disagreement from me. But when Rapp is asked if direct marketing is still the right name, he responds “No, it is not. The right term may be iDirect or it may be something else.”

Huh? Rename direct marketing because it’s changed? Here’s one definition the DMA uses for direct marketing: “Direct marketing is a database-driven process of directly communicating with targeted customers or prospects using any medium to obtain a measurable response or transaction via one or multiple channels.”

As far as I can tell, this still describes what we’re doing, even if how we’re doing it is gradually making a transition from paper to digital media.

Changing names means a lot of work for little measurable result (certainly not a fruitful pursuit for direct marketers). And it comes with some potentially troublesome baggage. The problem with giving something a new name is that it can fool you into thinking you have a new idea. Feynman also said: “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.”

A recent AP story highlights the not unexpected trend away from ‘mass’ direct mail.  With marketers realizing that indiscriminate mailing is proving costly as consumers tighten belts, it’s no surprise that the USPS is suffering – to the tune of over $200m less in ‘standard mail’ between 2007 and 2008, and probably more this year.

The ironic thing is not that it took a recession to wake up most marketers to the need to target more discriminately their mail solicitations.  Nor that tightening credit has re-focused credit companies on sorting out their customers before continuing the new customer acquisition path.  Or that catalog marketers are realizing they need to deliver something smaller than 96 page catalogs to achieve improved payback.

The irony is, response rates for direct mail, at least for clients we work with, seem to be on the incline.  With fewer items in the mailbox, and better targeting, people are responding.  And positively, if the message is right (you know, at the right time, with the right promotion, and above all to the right person).

As with many recession related stories, going counter to the herd – whether it’s buying a house, or holding onto stocks, or buying a car – often means getting a good deal.  And I think that’s the case at the moment for direct mail.  With the USPS suffering, with fewer of your competitors mailing stuff, with more and more tools available to refine who you send stuff to, and with plenty of creative talents adept at turning your brand message into direct response, maybe direct mail deserves another look in your marketing communications planning?