The first article was put out by the 4A’s and was a fairly serious bit of research with more than a dozen citation references. The latter was an article that appeared in the Kansas City Star, and was based on a larger article that will appear in the August 2010 edition of Journal of Consumer Research. Interestingly, both validate what every reputable ad-person already knows: that logic will never win someone’s heart. But emotion, used logically, will. This has been the one indelible truth behind effective advertising since advertising became, well, effective so many moons ago.

I’m not slamming research, mind you. I’m all for the power of research and how it can inform the creation of a more effective ad. I’ve been in countless situations where good, actionable research absolutely made the creative effort better. But I’ve also been in countless situations where the research told us exactly what we already knew, and did almost nothing to inform a more compelling creative execution. So where’s the fine line?

There isn’t one. Because in today’s economy, all of our ideas need to be backed up by research – even if that research doesn’t really help the creative process. Why? Because with tighter ad spending, most clients will no longer buy an idea based solely on the perceived strength of an intangible, which an idea is. They need research to validate the idea.

Yet even with research, all purchases remain emotional. Even for things we need rather than want, some kind of emotional trigger invariably makes us choose product A over product B. As George Lois, one of advertising’s giants, correctly stated, “…advertising is an art that springs from intuition, from instinct and above all, from talent.” Emotional attributes that, when used properly, also create emotional responses in consumers.

So if research is required to validate our emotional triggers, bring it on. Because research will help sell and defend the creative better than an opinion will. Which means I’ve answered the question that the title of this missive asks (insert compelling music sting or laugh track here).

So what does advertising have to do with putting men on the moon? Everything. Because great ideas are what made Kennedy’s vision and this business, well, great. But great ideas are dying. And one reason why is social media.

Social media isn’t the only culprit. But it’s one of the main culprits. Google “Death of advertising” and you’ll see what I mean. Of the 153 million hits I received, most of the ones I clicked either prognosticated or heralded the demise of advertising as we know it in favor of social media. Which of course makes milk shoot out of my nose at high velocity for at least three reasons:

• Americans are watching more TV than ever before.*

• In Q3 2009, virtually 99% of all video viewing was done on a TV, only 1.6% of video viewing was done via a DVR (TiVo) , an even tinier 1.2% of video viewing was done on a computer. (includes all viral videos, YouTube, Hulu, Vimeo, etc.), and an infinitesimal .2% of video viewing was done on a mobile device (cell phone, iPod, etc.).**

• Radio reaches 92 million more people in a week than Google reaches in a month. Plus, radio has more than six times the amount of listeners that iPod and all other MP3 players have combined.***

Social media is a tactic, not an idea. It’s a delivery mechanism just like TV or radio is a delivery mechanism. And people don’t buy based on the delivery mechanism. They buy based on the idea contained within the delivery mechanism. Which is something most self-professed social media “gurus” are either unwilling or unable to grasp. All media is social media.

Now, if you think I absolutely hate what is being called social media these days, I don’t. Social media, when it’s based on a great idea and is used correctly, is terrific (think of the TMobile dance spot in Liverpool station – 17 million views in just 12 months and a 52% increase in phone sales).

Social media also opens up new niches for advertisers, which is a good thing – as long as agencies learn how to be nimble and relevant as consumers confront a proliferation of sources competing for their attention. Latching onto social media just because it’s the current flavor du jour isn’t enough. What is, and always will be, is making sure the message fits medium. Because a delivery mechanism is nothing without great ideas feeding it.

*http://bit.ly/LjE4H

**http://bit.ly/8yF9tE

***Nielsen, Council for Research Excellence, Ball State University, November, 2009.

The commercial for this furniture store first starting circulating across the Internet seven months ago, but it still makes V-8 juice shoot out of our noses every time we see it. Apparently, it has had a similar effect on the general population as well, who has viewed this spot more than two million times.

The obvious question is, why has it become so popular? It’s unflinchingly lame. Shot and casted unprofessionally. Ugly. And definitely bizarre. And therein lies its genius. After all, when’s the last time you saw a memorable furniture store ad? Never? Exactly! The territory is wide open, and these guys drove a truck through it.

Sure, this is a self-conscious spoof of the many poorly produced and aesthetically atrophied commercials that we’ve all seen advertising local small businesses on late-night television. But it’s also more than that. It’s an anti-racist message that uses race to sell the store. And a wake-up call (we hope) to businesses that produce crappy ads under the guise of creative brilliance. Which is another reason why we love this spot. It isn’t even trying to be good. And in so doing provides more entertainment and pass-along value than most $400,000 spots achieve.

Ironically, the ad has also caused more than a cult following. It’s caused many people to cry racism, despite the message of racial equality throughout the spot. Hmmm. Guess everyone’s got a cross to bear. Today, ours happens to be calling caca on virtually every other furniture store who cuts their messages from the same tragically uninspired cloth. But not so with the Red House. Their spot is about furniture AND racial harmony. And we love racial harmony. Even on the idiot-boy level.

More than half of respondents, 54%, believe the economy will improve in 2010, compared with 28% who thought the economy was heading for improvement last year. In addition, 51% of respondents plan to spend the same or more on the holidays this year, compared to 41% last year.

2009 holiday spending trends show that gift purchases will drop while other holiday-related purchases will rise. Consumers plan to spend an average of $452 on gifts this year, down 15% from $532 in 2008. However, consumers plan to spend an average of $1,145 on non-gift holiday spending such as socializing away from home and decorations, up 16% from approximately $985 in 2008.

Despite rising economic optimism, 66% of consumers still plan to shop differently this holiday season, with 74% intending to buy items on sale, 57% planning to buy lower-priced items, and 54% planning to use store coupons. Not surprisingly, discount stores were the most popular holiday shopping destination, favored by 59% of consumers. Following discount stores in popularity were online retailing (42%), the combined electronics office supply and computer store category (26%), and department stores (23%) .

I love Banquet fried chicken. I love its flavor. I love its convenience. And I love the fact that it goes perfectly with hot sauce and cold beer. So, like most consumers, my love of the product creates a trust with the Banquet brand itself: I give the brand my trust because they earned it with their chicken. It’s a simple equation. And it’s the reason brands like Banquet can extend their brands and product lines in the first place. It’s also the reason that I decided to give one of their entrees a try.

Bait and Switch! (Calling it bait is being generous.)

Now, food dressing is a big part of the food business. Food has to look good if we expect to sell it. However, what we as marketers and business people should avoid at all costs is dressing up our product so much that what is represented in our marketing bears no resemblance to what our customers will experience after they’ve handed over their money.

As you can see, the vast divide between the restaurant-quality dish the photograph promises and the gruel the company delivered was, to put it mildly, unacceptable. To put it less mildly, it was like taking home Angelina Jolie and waking up with her grandmother. [Hey hey hey: Angelina Jolie's grandmother is hawt. Ed.] Again, unacceptable.

Truth Will Make Us Better

All of us have had similar underwhelming experiences. The problem for Banquet — and other brands that over-promise and under-deliver — is that they try to do too much, be too much and offer too much. The result is that they set up their customers for disappointment and themselves for failure. Because the simple truth is this: Our success isn’t dependent upon how good our product is or whether or not our company delivers great service. Dollar Tree and Tiffany both do well. No, whether we retain or lose our customers depends squarely on whether or not we deliver on our promises. It’s as simple as that.

In the end, what we have to do is concede that we can’t be all things to all people. But we can be some things to some people. And we can do those things well. It’s all in the choices we make and the promises we keep. Look around your company. Are there places where you could promise less and deliver more?

I’m going to call caca and forge ahead. The reason why? Entertainment.

Every human being wants to be entertained. Sometimes, we pay money to do so by going to the movies, the theater, the opera, concerts, whatever. Other times, entertainment comes to us in the form of TV commercials.

“Omigod, did you see the latest E-Trade commercial with the talking babies? Or that Mac vs. PC spot where the PC guy has swollen like Violet Beauregarde in Willy Wonka?” Yes, folks. It’s about entertainment.

Now, I’m not advocating entertainment for entertainment’s sake. I’m advocating the merger of entertainment with consumer insight. Says Jon Bond of Kirshenbaum Bond & Partners, “Telling and selling doesn’t work as well as it used to because I’d literally just tune out the commercial. Because of that, the merger of entertainment and selling is inevitable. Unless there is entertainment value, why would I opt in?”

Bingo. Relevance is still important. But relevance alone won’t stick unless you entertain at the same time – something “the YouTube generation of advertising has forgotten,” states Peter Krivkovich, president and CEO of Cramer-Krasselt. “You can have a brilliant, unique, funny ad, but if it’s not coupled with insight it will be forgotten.”

Oh, but people aren’t watching TV anymore, you say? But they are – and at record levels.

In the last three months of 2008 alone, Nielsen reported that “the average American television viewer is watching more than 151 hours of television per month — an ‘all-time’ high — up from more than 145 hours during the same period the previous year.”

So why all the doom and gloom? Lots of reasons. But I have a strong suspicion that the main one is the current infatuation with “new media” and how it will kick old media’s caboose. But it won’t.

Remember when people were convinced that the VCR was going to kill TV? It didn’t. Or how TiVo was supposed to nail the TV coffin shut? Ummm, that didn’t happen, either. Or how new media will now push old media’s face into the mud and watch it flail, gurgle and die? Not gonna happen. Because in this business, it isn’t about the delivery mechanism. It’s about the message, delivered in an entertaining and memorable way. Always has been, always will be.

It ain’t rocket science. Because it all boils down to one indelible truth.

As long as there are TV shows people want to watch, the boob tube will be one of the first things people click on when they get home. And your ads, with their entertainment value, will be there, too. No matter what the disciples of doom say.

Today, however, smart brands have become much more consumer-focused than company-focused, which in my opinion is a good thing. Globalization, digitization, and commodization are the main reasons why. Cell phone technology, digital cameras, Internet shopping, facebook, twitter, downloadable music and video content, and real-time video conferencing from our laptops have created a remarkably different experience in our personal lives and the ways in which we communicate and shop. Exclusivity is no longer so exclusive, because any of us can buy anything (or communicate with anyone) from anywhere at any time. The world has gotten smaller. Branding, therefore, is no longer just about making a promise. It’s about making a promise personal.

Think of Apple Computer and how it has exploited this strategy brilliantly. Before they asked the world to “Think different,” Apple had about 5% of the personal computer market. Today, they have over 21% of that market.  Partly because their computer-centered advertising (dominated by the now ubiquitous “Mac vs. PC” campaign) is far and away the most memorable in that category – because it is personal, relevant, and hugely entertaining. It gets talked about. Which is what all brands should strive to do. By involving the consumer rather than just talking to the consumer.

Walk into any Apple store, and you’ll see what I mean. The customers in those stores aren’t just there to buy or talk with salespeople. They’re there to involve themselves with the brand at the point of sale, which is another brilliant brand-building move by Apple. No other retail store provides the same type of interaction, brand-through-experience dynamic and fun as Apple – which helps explain the party atmosphere inside their stores. Apple has made itself into more than a cool company; it has made itself into a socially relevant company and a uniquely fun retail destination. Not a bad place for a brand to be.

Apple is also a great example of how the entire dynamic of marketing has changed. It used to be that marketing pushed category advantages onto consumers and then expected consumers to buy. But smarter, more modern marketing pulls consumers into the product or service by creating interest and advocacy first. This is precisely what Apple has done, namely because the marketing advantages of their products are built into the products themselves. So exploiting them allows consumers to be part of the dialogue instead of tossing the dialogue at them. Nice.

Now, having said all of this, the intent of brands and branding hasn’t changed. A brand is still the collective buzz about what people say, feel, and think about your product, service or company. And branding is still what makes consumers want your product or service over someone else’s. It is still both the essence of the company’s personality and the promise that the company makes to the consumer. But to be successful in today’s market, a brand must do more than evoke a positive, unique emotion in the consumer’s mind – especially in categories where products are essentially alike. It must be personal.  And it must have entertainment value, which will be the subject of my next post.