Another use for Baye's Theorum

          Ever hear of Baye's Theorum? It's a scientific way of assigning probability to a hypothesis based on some evidence. It's often used to describe what our minds do when we see something we might have seen before.

         Without going into the details (mainly because I can't), it multiplies the prior probability of what you've experienced before, with the likelihood of its being the same this time.

         Which, for my money, seems like it applies to all the ordinary commercials we see on our TV sets and computers. The endless parade of spokespeople, celebrities, models with lustrous hair, diagrams of headache relief, serious announcers, and other silliness.

         In a second or two, your brain knows what's coming, knows it's seen this kind of stuff before, holds its nose, and tells your mind to wander off.

         Our brains are wonderful things. Do you think they want us to spend a moment on things that have nothing to do with us? Do you think they want to be cluttered with names and facts and ditties and memories that can't help us or even entertain us?

         Fortunately, our brains protect us from absorbing all but maybe 15 or 16 of the thousands of commercial messages we are bombarded with everywhere every day. Good thing. If it didn't, we'd go bonkers.

         In elementary school you undoubtedly learned who Americus Vespucci was. America was named after him. But why? And who cares? We don't remember him because he has little to do with our lives. The same principle goes for advertising.

         We in advertising should probably write this over our computers: "Remember Americus".  Hopefully it will help us keep in mind that our ads have to be important and relevant to people, or they're lost. Our commercials have to help people, or equip them with believable information, or let them in on something worth knowing. Even if it's just a good joke.

          If they don't, Mr. Baye's Theorum will instantly materialize and your audience will disappear. One day, perhaps for good.
 

Something to watch along with television.

           Here's a piece of research for you, thanks to the Wall Street Journal: a Nielsen study showed that 70% of tablet owners and 68% of smart phone operators said they used these devices while watching television.

           Now we're about to enjoy new apps to interact in even more ways. IntoNow, Showtime Social, and Shazam let you interact with what's on TV. Showtime Social polls viewers during the show, Shazam displays behind-the-scenes footage, and IntoNow features live discussions and social network updates.

          Each has different applications and limitations, but the idea is always the same. To help you get more involved in the television content, share it with others, ad enjoy the experience in a whole new way.

          How do you feel when you watch the show? Showtime Social lets you choose happy, shocked, sad, or angry. Shazam lets you know things about the content; the music, for example. IntoNow can give you football statistics.

          One question is how does this affect marketing, and more specifically, advertising?

          Do these apps really help you get more involved in the content, or do they pull you away from the content? I suppose in a football game, you can get your stats any time, between plays. Or would you access them during the break, when you could be watching the commercials? And to complicate things more, what happens to the commercials on the apps themselves? Will we watch them because we made an effort to get there, or will that be the time we go back to our TV sets?

         Is TV less personal than an app? Probably. If "the medium is the message", which will influence us more?

         With so many boring ads on television, I can understand reaching for your cellphone. Television is trying to become more personal, with so many channels and programs to choose from. But the commercials aren't. So when we try to reach people on their cellphones, they go to Facebook.

          When will we learn?

       

       

I need what I want.

          I was recently browsing in a psychology book, and the author asked this question: "Did you every buy an advertised product you really didn't need because of the persuasive appeal of the ad?"

          All of us could probably answer yes, because there are very few things we need. Marketing people say a need is a felt deprivation. We don't need clothes; we're not cold. We don't need food, and if we're hungry, we know exactly where to go for more calories. We most likely have shelter, even though we may not get along with our roommate.

         So first off, let's put aside needs and talk about wants. That reframes the question: "Did you ever buy an advertised product you really didn't want because of the persuasive appeal of the ad?"

         I doubt that any of us in advertising are that powerful. Maybe we can convince you that something is useful, and you then decide you want it. But we can't go from product to want directly --- we're not hypnotists.

         It's funny. That's the one thing advertising is accused of most often, and we're never that good. We have to tell you a story, or hire a celebrity to talk to you, or draw a cartoon, or dig up a testimonial or some arresting facts and figures. And then you still wouldn't buy it unless you wanted it. We have to charm you, tickle you, entrance you, promise you, scare you, warn you,  guarantee you, write a song for you, and whisper sweet nothings in your ear. And still the odds are against us.

         I'll give you a strange fact. Researchers have learned never to ask someone if they've been persuaded  by advertising to buy a certain product. People always say no, they're not pushovers.

         But ask them if other people are persuaded by advertising, and they invariably say yes, they are.

         Maybe we should all get a little deeper into a book on motivation.


     

Happy birthday, stinker.

         If you're a guy, how would you feel if someone gave you a holiday gift of Axe deodorant, a disposable razor, body wash and shampoo?

         If you're a woman, how about a Fabreze odor-eliminating candle, body wash, lotion, and a shower pouf? Excited, honored, awestruck?

         These are the kinds of products that were offered in December in gift sets --- assortments that sell for less than the total retail value of the products included. As a marketer, I really wonder about the idea. We're accustomed to offering what people really want. Why would they want gifts like these?

          I can't speak for the recipients, but apparently some shoppers like the idea.  It makes life a little easier for them. They can grab these, wrap them up, and have everything ready for the paper carrier, the letter carrier, and Uncle Harold from Cleveland.

          Some shoppers are very cagey about these assortments. They take the cellophane off, add some Christmas stickers or confetti, and re-wrap them in festive paper. Looks like a lot of thought went into these.

         Personally, I wouldn't mind an assortment of after shaves, but not the other stuff. It is a great way for manufacturers to sample their merchandise, but I'm still doubtful about how they're received.

        You're giving me deodorant, with all these companion products in exactly the same scent? Really, how sentimental. How come you didn't just get me room deodorizer and call it a day? Oh, you're saving that for my birthday. Thanks!

         We're trying to recover from a recession, and I'd like to reciprocate. How about a decanter of Head and Shoulders Dandruff Shampoo?

   

Are you worth it?

         Forty years ago, L'Oreal launched its tagline,"Because you're worth it". It seemed perfect for the feminist revolution, a self-esteem boosting cheer.

          The line was created by a copywriter at McCann-Erickson, part of the Interpublic Group of agencies, and it had an important secondary usefulness as well. L'Oreal cosmetics were priced higher than most of its competitors. The tagline helped women rationalize the purchase.

          Forty years have seen a few revolutions in marketing and advertising. Back then, taglines and slogans, mnemonic devices and jingles were everywhere. Today, not so much. Few copywriters even remember what taglines are for.

          The marketers at Procter & Gamble, the world's largest consumer products company, have a very precise definition: a tagline is a provocative, memorable set of words about an idea of substance about the product. Breaking it down, it has to be pokey enough to provoke attention. Memorable, which is why so many taglines are catchy, or use wordplay. It has to convey an important, believable idea about the product or company.

          Here's another way to look at it. A tagline is the conclusion you want the viewer to come to after she sees the commercial. It's useful because it helps position the product in the customer's mind.

          Think about "Just do it". How it means competition and success to so many people, each in their own personal lives.

          But then someone not nearly as good an ad thinker comes up with a boring non-tagline such as "I'm lovin' it" and everyone says "who needs taglines?"

          McDonald's, by the way, calls their line "journalistic". They say that means it can go with any kind of ad or commercial or video. That's exactly what's wrong with it. It has no strategy behind it.

          If you're trying to create a tagline, don't sweat it if you can't think of one right away. They're not easy. Most likely, it'll come to you as you do the advertising.  Or maybe even in a meeting, the way"Got Milk?" did.

         But don't do an advertising campaign without one. It's a valuable communications tool, and your work is worth it.

Fall into the Gap.

         The New York Times recently called the Gap "one of the great hot-to-not stories" of American retailing. In her article, Stephanie Clifford called it "a remarkable comedown for a chain that once seemed to dictate how America dressed".

         I've been intrigued by Gap's rise and fall and maybe inching-up again. I could never understand how they let Mickey Drexler leave. He's one of the great merchants of our time, and now c.e.o. of J. Crew and doing fabulously. Mickey was replaced at Gap by Glenn Murphy, former head of Canada's Shoppers Drug Mart.

        According to Ms. Clifford's article, Gap is on the verge of a renewal. Their store at the Grove, the outdoor upscale mall in Los Angeles, is a lab for renewing the brand and doing quite well.

       The article mentioned that Gap also replaced their advertising agency. That kind of surprised me. Their ads weren't all that great, but neither are their new ads. In my experience, the difference between good ads and ordinary ads is the client. A restrictive, conventional client will get restrictive, conventional work. The saying in the advertising business is that every client gets the ads they deserve.

       For Gap to start changing minds about the store, the ads will have to be edgier, provocative, and actually speak to people. Not just look like stills from "Glee". That will take guts. The kind of guts Levi's had when  it introduced the "501 Blues" and went from cowboys to the streets of New York. Levi's has since slipped back a bit in young people's consciousness, and Gap will, too, unless they shift into contemporary gear.

       Commenting on the L.A. store at the Grove, Ms. Clifford wrote, "This can't be a Gap. The mannequins look kind of happy."

       Hopefully, soon their financials will look kind of happy, too.

 

Read this before you recommend again.

         I ran into what I think is a fascinating fact. If you are asked to recommend something, you'll probably give it the best possible review. But if the recommendation is going to your friends, you're likely to be much more conservative. This is probably because you don't want to be responsible for a friend's entertainment.

         Recommendations, of course, are at the heart and soul of social media. You might have one group you trust for movie reviews, another for restaurants.

         Amazon is perfectly happy to recommend books on your previous choices, and to go one step further. Based on the thousands of people who bought the book you're buying, they'll recommend another book you might like. This is called "affinity marketing", surely a gift to marketers who knew the value of increasing purchases but didn't always know how to make it happen.

         The big question is what gets people to buy the original product in the first place. It might be a recommendation on social media, but that can't always be counted on.

         For example, did you ever get a social media site to recommend breath mints or a soft drink? Probably not. Movies can't wait a few weeks to get people to attend and a new age-defying makeup may never make it to baby boomers if the only media are online.

        That's why even though advertisers are using social media more and more heavily, and in more innovative ways, they still aren't giving up on traditional media budgets.

        Here's how I look at it. Social media offer amazing additions to the marketer's toolbox. They're additions, not substitutes. The astute marketer knows how to use each medium well, for its unique strengths. Good advertising is more than "messaging". It build brands that make products more valuable, just as social media can hasten the purchase and make it more immediate.

        Just do me a favor. Don't look this blog up on Yelp.