If you’re in marketing, or if your idea of a good time is following privacy issues beyond just those associated with Facebook and Instagram, you’ve certainly heard the phrase “remarketing” in 2012.  From a marketing perspective, remarketing is a dream.  It’s the web world’s automated equivalent of a salesperson getting the phone number of a prospect who visited the “store” in order to contact the person at a later date — except remarketing does not know anything about the person to whom the sales messages will be delivered, other than that the person had visited a coded website, and remarketing simply feeds ads to the prospects as they peruse various websites fed by Google ads.

In a nutshell, once someone visits your site, a code from your site is placed on the person’s browser that allows Google to feed your remarketing ads to the person at a schedule you create.  These can be pay-per-click ads, so it only cost you money if the person clicks on the ad.  Even better is that if, while on your site, the person does what you want him to do (ie purchases, signs up for a class, fills in a contact form, etc.), the remarketing code can be removed automatically.  The thought is, why spend money marketing to someone who just bought?  Then again, your remarketing dollars to that person can be spent on getting a testimonial from the buyer.  Pretty cool, huh?

Here’s Google’s webinar on remarketing.  It’s one hour long, but worth it if you want to understand how it works.

Consumers like to think that they make buying decisions with their heads.  Some are adamant, even without provocation. But advertisers know better.

While at dinner parties and social business events, I’ve had more than one fork of food stall on its way to my open mouth as I tried to digest a stinging comment from someone I didn’t even know about how my chosen profession is “full of bad art without any real purpose”.  “C’mon, you got a couple in separate bathtubs . . .out in the woods . . . holding hands . . . why would anyone in their right mind think that a commercial like that could sell a pill for Erectile Dysfunction?”  My lack of response, coupled with raised eyebrows, is misunderstood as signs that I’m actually looking for another example.

“Or that gecko . . . selling car insurance. . . I know people like the little creature, but how many stupid people are there who would buy insurance because some lizard says they should?” (click this link to see the type of person I’m describing).

Well, a lot of people.  And they’re not stupid.  They’re, well, people.  They’re human, and they react to human things that appeal to the most persuadable parts of their minds — their emotions.  Rarely do we buy based on our intelligent minds.

Successful advertisements aren’t trying to win debates.  They’re not even trying to be logical.  Instead, they’re trying to cut through all of the clutter that has filled a viewer’s mind, connect with a need the viewer has, and associate the product or service with the successful fulfillment of that need.  Logic has nothing to do with this, and neither does passing along valuable knowledge. Indeed, as proven in the medical community, having a whole lot of knowledge about a subject has nothing to do with how a person views the subject.

In research published by the Journal of Internal Medicine titled “Healthcare and Lifestyle Practices of Healthcare Workers: Do Healthcare Workers Practice What They Preach?”, it was shown that the lifestyles of healthcare workers were basically no different than the general population when it came to important medical concerns like weight control, binge drinking, and cigarette smoking.  Amazing, right?  Despite all of the facts and knowledge they have on these subjects, and all of the deadly reminders they see daily, healthcare workers act, in general, no different than those with much less knowledge of the dangers of these lifestyles.  They’re fat, drunk and stinky just like everyone else.

Clearly, knowing the facts doesn’t sway people.  Knowing that 60-something % of smokers will, in fact, die from smoking doesn’t stop people from smoking — not even healthcare workers.  These people are choosing to follow unhealthy lifestyles, despite knowing clearly the risks they are taking.  The decisions they make have nothing to do with knowledge.

What persuades people, what overrides all logic and rationale thinking in the minds of all people, is when a clear message gets wrapped up in an emotion that resonates within the population. How else can you explain a brand of flavored carbonated water selling for five times the price of a no-name brand?  Logically, it’s just a drink; but emotionally, it’s so much more.  Indeed, it’s “The Real Thing,” whatever that means.

“We’ve taught over 10,000 people how to play the piano in just three months!” has nothing on “Everybody laughed when I sat down at the piano, but then I began to play . . .”  One gives facts — big, ho-hum facts.  The other hits an emotional nerve — “man, I’d love to impress people by playing the piano.”

All advertising, including healthcare, connects better with the audience when it involves emotion.  “Our Retina Center Has More Modern Technology Than Anyone In The State” cannot compete with “Jimmy’s Parents Feared That He Would Never See Again. Then They Saw Us.” I was able to add even more emotion, and thus more power, to the second headline by simply adding a child.  “More Technology” is a brain phrase for “better”.  However, “Fear” is an emotional word for “do something”, which really is the point of the ad.  The first headline explains.  The second headline gives hope. People react to hope.  They want opportunity.  They don’t want knowledge because they really don’t know what to do with it.  And I think the health habits of our medical community prove this fact.

Maybe the next time I’m confronted at a dinner party, I’ll point out that the Erectile Dysfunction ad was aimed at men, giving them hope by talking to their pleasure centers.  I’ll then ask my “friend” if he would prefer that the ad say honestly and factually,  “This pill has thrilled millions of men and, at the same time, aggravated millions of wives”.

Nah.  Let them believe they buy using their brains.  We advertisers know better. I’ll just try not to choke on my food when the subject comes up.

When it comes to healthcare and real estate marketing, I’m not sure which tool is most misunderstood by clients:  apps or social media.  Yes, both are glitzy and get a lot of press.  And yes, both are now being “demanded” by those in the C-suite who understand these tools the least.  But just because they’re the hot topics right now, marketers shouldn’t jump in head first into these projects like a teenager in love.  While at least some form of social media can play a role in marketing almost every business (if used correctly, and that’s where social media is misunderstood), dedicated apps aimed at consumers, on the other hand, have little to offer most local businesses no matter how you look at them.  In fact, I argue that before creating an app for your business, you really must create and fine tune a mobile website.    Here’s why:

Who needs this app?

Apps are only available on certain smartphones, yet mobile websites are accessiblefrom any web-enabled phone.  While both user bases are growing, the mobile website market is much larger and easier to reach since everyone in it can immediately access your mobile website without downloading any special tool. Your app isn’t so ubiquitous.  In fact, your app is meant for the local market that knows you and that’s it, whereas your mobile website can be seen at a moment’s notice by out of town visitors who simply enter your url into their browsers.

Now think about how infrequently your local market actually needs you (thus, needs your app) and you’ll see that most potential customers or patients won’t bother dropping your app onto their devices simply because they won’t remember to use it. Sure, if you’re a grocery store, someone may use your app to keep track of their shopping list.  Plus, your app can use the phone’s built-in technology (like scanning bar codes to populate the list) to give more value than a mobile website.  That’s a good app, simply because people can use it often and it has benefits that a mobile site cannot offer.  But if you’re not needed often, and you cannot use the phone’s advanced features in a way that benefits your customers/patients, you really have no need for an app, do you?  If so, let me know.  I haven’t seen one yet.

Then there’s the fact that there are over 100,000 apps available for download.  In retail terms, you will need to find ways to stand out on the store shelf — or market your app all on your own.  This is not easy.  In other words, it’s not worth the trouble.

Why take on WebMD's app?

But the biggest reason NOT to create an app is that most businesses have absolutely nothing to offer in one that cannot be handled by a mobile website (which, as mentioned, has a larger audience that can automatically be redirected to the mobile site from your server).  I’ve seen hospitals with apps that promote their Emergency Room and Immediate Care Center wait times.  Big deal.  A mobile site can do that.  I’ve seen a hospital with an app that allows you to input symptoms to see what’s wrong.  What a waste.  Virtually the same information can be found on WebMD’s app — and their mobile website.  Not only does WebMD have a more powerful brand, but they also pay to update the information.  Who is going to do that at this hospital?

I’ve seen builders with apps designed to help users find the home that’s right for them.  Why?  There are dozens of apps that do the same thing, only with thousands of listings rather than a handful.  The builder is better off getting his home listed on another company’s app — an app that is not dedicated to the client.

The question any business should ask is “why would anyone want to download my app?”  If you could come up with a good answer that doesn’t already exist, then you might have something.  I bet you can’t.  On the other hand, there’s absolutely no reason not to have a mobile website.

But don’t rule out dedicated apps in the future.  As smartphone technology gets more advanced, there WILL be uses.  Augmented reality might have value to guide people through your hospital, or to help people easily get information on homes they pass on your streets.  Right now, though, the technology doesn’t allow you to be so targeted.

And don’t forget that you do not have to create apps to market your products and services to just consumers.  Right now, apps may have more value to your dedicated network of employees, vendors and supporters.  For hospitals, a dedicated app might have value if it connects staff physicians to you and each other.  Indeed, they use you often, so the need might be there.  But how can you help them with an app?  What can your app provide to your physician groups?

Or a builder with many communities may create an app that pulls construction info on each home for their vendors in order to keep everyone on the same page.  Sure, the home buyer might be offered the app to keep track of your progress — and this is a marketable use.  But as before, I wonder why this cannot be handled by a mobile website.

So don’t get sucked into the app craze right now.  In most cases, it’s just not right for you and will only waste your time and money.  Instead, think mobile website.  You’ll get a much better return on the investment.

Harris Interactive just released the results from research they conducted for Buddy Media that studied the most effective tactics for reaching local market customers.  Are you surprised that having Fans on Facebook is low on the list?  I’m not.  Fans of a business either work at the company, or are looking for sales and coupons.  In general, advertising to Fans is like advertising to those who are already in your “store”.  Yes, you need to do it — they are part of your social network and play an important role as Brand Ambassadors.  But the point is that you shouldn’t expect to get too many fresh new customers via your Facebook wall unless you’re allowing your fans to forward coupons and promotions.

The study concluded that the most influential tactic used to reach the local market was putting local content on your website or blog.  In fact, 69% of Brand Managers thought this tactic was effective, 62% believed print advertising was effective, and 59% believed that hosting an event was effective.  What’s important to note here is that the only tactic that does not cost much money at all is posting local content.

So what does posting local content have to do with selling your product to a local market?  Well, not much, directly.  Writing about an upcoming charity race is not going to lead people into your business.  What it does do, however, is give your business (your brand) a local personality.  It tells readers you’re an active part of their community.  It gives them confidence in your reputation, and that you treat people well.  And it provides readers with a virtual introduction to what you do and how you can help them, either now or in the future.

So when it comes to promoting yourself via social media and on the web, don’t just think in terms of pushing your products or services.  Think about your market’s desire to see you as one of them, serving their needs and their neighbor’s needs in any way you can help.

Recently the Daily Herald in suburban Chicago ran a front page story exposing “the tactics” of one local candidate who used interns to post positive comments online.  I’m surprised that anyone is surprised.

While I think it is wrong for volunteers to post multiple comments as if they came from more than one person, or to lie in their comments, I don’t have any problem with supporters going online in droves to support their candidate.  The forums exist because the online sites created them.  So why complain when they’re used legitimately? Plus, I’d rather have them posting things than filling my mailbox.

I also think there are plenty of other things wrong with campaigning that makes complaining about this “tactic” seem silly.  Recorded calls come to mind first, but that’s only because if I take the time to get the phone, there better be someone real on the other end.  I don’t even like getting recorded notices that my photos are ready.  Send me an email!  Campaign advertising in general is extremely suspect, simply because they cannot cover all the issues.  Rather than try to clear the murky waters by telling us why the candidate is good, they instead use fear to try to convince us that the other candidate is bad.  They say it works, but I think that’s because no candidate has the guts to stick to a 100% positive campaign (if you’re out there, give us a call because we’d love to represent you!)

Basically, I’m always looking for a good, honest person who will stand by his/her convictions, especially in the face of some hard attacks.  But in today’s world fear seems to be the only clear catalyst for voters.

These online comments mean nothing to me, regardless of their quality or quantity.  Both sides have their supporters, and both sides can put their messages everywhere.  I’m not buying any of it.  After all, how do we know those supporters know anything about any of the issues? Indeed, nearly all of them demonstrate that they’re not like me (hopelessly adrift in the gray middle ground) simply by being such an ardent supporter of one side.  Their passion is a bit disturbing.

But when it comes to promoting businesses, online comments are very powerful.  Readers of those comments are not so jaded, likely because other than a few companies who’ve been caught paying people to promote them online, the comment section is somewhat innocent and often helpful.  Sure, some people are overly supportive while others are overly negative.  As reported in another post, those on the extremes tend to wipe themselves out, lending more credibility to the less passionate reviewers who tend to be specific in their reviews about what they liked or didn’t like.  In fact, if a comment seems helpful (whether positive or negative), the reader might soak it in, accept it, and maybe even spread it.  Plus, business reviews aren’t so complex.  You either like it or you don’t.  The less selling readers see, the more likely they are to accept it.  Maybe our trust of these straight-forward reviewers is based on the idea that they are like us — they were unsure of the product or service as well, took a chance and tried it, and are now telling us about their experience.

So go ahead and ask those satisfied customers to post their opinions online and tell them to be totally honest.  You can even recommend the sites that could help you the most.  I wouldn’t publish a list for all to see (no sense giving disgruntled customers a forum), but I wouldn’t hesitate to ask for help from those who like me.  Heck, I often ask clients to talk with potential clients about my work.  Why not ask them to do it online?  After all, it’s 2010.  Technology and information rule.

More important than having online reviews, however, is adding links back to your site in posts related to what you do.  If there’s a story about prostate cancer screening, why shouldn’t a hospital post a comment promoting their screening facility?  It’s helpful information, right there at the readers’ fingertips.  Don’t forget to track the link and send people to the right page, preferably one with an appointment scheduler.  If you’re writing these comments, be yourself.  There’s no need to be anonymous, nor is there any need to paint yourself as a happy patient — even if you are.  Instead, tell them you work there (it’s the ethical thing to do) and would like to invite them to your facility.  Simple as that.

I can assure you that this works — and it costs nothing compared to buying an ad on the same site or in the print version.  We do this all the time, with much success.  I think the value here is that our posts are directly associated with an unbiased report.  It’s a lot like having an ad for a mosquito repellent on the same page as a story about the upcoming attack of the little blood suckers — except you didn’t pay for the space.  What’s more, although you’re promoting your product or service, you also look helpful to the reader, so long as you’re honest about your intentions and don’t oversell.

So don’t hesitate to comment online to promote your business.  It’s not the bad thing political campaigns are making it out to be, and it is extremely cost effective.

According to the July, 2010 issue of Scientific American, online ratings sites are not exactly fair, with the writer even declaring that their “judgments are inaccurate at best, fraudulent at worst.”  Whoa, that’s a pretty hard slap in the face.

What drives this opinion is some pretty good research combined with some good old common sense.

Eric K. Clemons, Professor of Operations and Systems Management at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, says there are quite a few inherent biases in online ranking systems.  The first one is that people who rate a purchase already made the purchase so they already are slanted toward liking the product.  The best example of this is consumer reviews of books.  In general, people who buy a book when it’s first released already have some knowledge of the writer or subject.  They may even be a fan.  So the first consumer reviews to come out are normally positive.  These high ratings lead other people who may never have considered the book to give it a try.  If they end up hating the book, it may be because their expectations were too high.  But instead of leaving well enough alone, these dissatisfied readers might post a negative review just to balance out the positive ones.

Glenn Beck Book Review on Amazon -- Click to Enlarge

Then there’s the point that “people tend not to review things they find merely satisfactory.  They evangelize what they love and trash things they hate.”  That’s why most ratings are not in the middle, despite the fact that true opinions follow a bell curve, where “ratings cluster around three or four, with fewer scores of two and almost no ones and fives.”  So basically, those with the most emotional connectivity to a product tend to do the most reviewing.

But it gets worse.

In a 2009 study of more than 20,000 items on Amazon, researchers “found that a small percentage of users accounted for a huge majority of the reviews.”  They’re called “super reviewers” and they’re even given a “Top Reviewer” badge by Amazon and then pitted against one another to promote even more participation.  But who says this overly enthusiastic crowd is any good at what they are doing?  What credentials do they have, other than a lengthy list of products they reviewed?  And why do consumers see these reviewers’ badges and think they have some sound advice?  In general, 95% of Amazon reviewers have rated fewer than 8 products, yet consumers put less weight in what this majority says.

Fortunately, these “Top Reviewers” are not paid by the companies whose products they review — at least as far as any researchers can tell.  Plus, ratings sites in general use automated filters to search out and purge extremely positive or negative reviews, especially if the reviewer has little on his list of review.  So while the reviews shouldn’t be trusted, it’s not because anyone is tampering with the system.

But the story points out that there are fair review sites out there, it just depends on the products and the audience.  RateBeer.com has 3,000 members who have rated at least 100 beers each, with just about all beers being reviewed hundreds, if not thousands of times.  These reviewers are passionate about their beer, and so are the readers of the site.  In fact, the reviewers tend to post on all beers they try, rather than just those they love or hate.

So what’s a business to do about review sites?  Take them seriously, regardless of how inaccurate they are, and treat review sites as an opportunity to engage readers in your brand.  Because while the system may have flaws, most readers do not know it; thus, they read the reviews and believe what they read.

So treat review sites like a dinner party where the conversation turns negative about your company or product, and respond professionally.

Apparently your Fans and Followers aren’t just there to spread your news.

According to an online study of over 1,500 consumers on Feb 8th and 9th by market research firm Chadwick Martin Bailey and iModerate Research Technologies, 60% of Facebook fans and 79% of Twitter followers are more likely to recommend those brands to others since becoming a fan or follower. And 51% of Facebook fans and 67% of Twitter followers are more likely to buy the brands they follow or are a fan of.

This data was collected from 1,504 adults aged 18 and over through a nationally representative online survey questionnaire.

So the point is that while many people may see your Facebook page or see your tweets, a good goal is to get them to Fan or Follow you.  Sure, we understand that’s easier said than done.  But when you see the connection between Fans/Followers and Sales, it just makes sense to put more energy into growing your fan base  rather than just pushing content you hope your network will help to spread.

Do you want to see how we’re doing it?  Visit our social media site at www.sparking.demicooper.com.

Wow, I’m embarrassed to be part of the world-wide advertising industry after confirming this story.

It seems that in Belgium, agency people are bothered that advertisers (clients) aren’t following some sort of old “charter” that defined how new business pitches should be conducted.  So they went on a one week strike.

While protesting in the streets, the cooperating agencies also changed their websites to a simple page that explained their frustration with the new process and explained why it was bad for everyone.

That’s crazy.

Look, these agencies are not upset because they get their hopes up, spend some money and do their best work on pitches just to find out that they wasted their time.  Rather, these agencies are upset mainly because they say the clients are inviting too many agencies to pitch, sometimes bringing in ten or more different agencies for one account, which reduces their chances of winning the business down to oh, say 10%.  Egads, what logic!  It’s like advertising pitches are now following a lottery system.

How silly.

Our agency is invited to pitch for business many times throughout the year.  In fact, we work very hard just to make sure we’re included in the process.  While I know that math says if ten agencies are involved, each has a 10% chance of winning; however, I can’t help but remember that this logic doesn’t apply when I’m at Arlington Park putting ten dollars down on the 25-1 shot in a six horse race.

The truth is that nothing out there is fair and equal.  Heck, I don’t believe there even is a solid universal “truth”.  Really.  Everyone’s realities are so different, how can there be one truth?

So when it comes to pitches, who says the agency people can or should make the rules?  Sure, they could try, but why would any client follow them?  Last I saw, clients liked to have the final say on their accounts and how they are handled, starting from the pitch.

So our goal is to be invited to every pitch.  That’s right, we want to be invited to every single one.  Why not? It cost us nothing really for the invitation, and we get to know a few new contacts. Plus, it’s good for morale.

However, once we’re included in the pitch, it is totally up to us to decide whether we want to participate.  Sometimes the RFP makes it clear that a lot will be expected from us for little in return — unless we win.  Do we take the chance?  How well do we know the client, market and industry?  Who’s in the pitch with us and what are their strengths and weaknesses?  Are we a 25-1 shot, or more even money?

New businesses pitches should be a thrill for agencies.  After all, WE are our client at the time; so we cannot complain that the client made us change this, or the client said they didn’t have the budget for that.  Everything is up to us.  How cool is that?

But advertising is a business, and pitches require time, money and discipline.  You cannot and should not go after everything and anything; therefore, any responsible agency has to decide when to take a chance and when to sit one out.  Often this decision does not come down to money or time, but rather styles and approaches — meaning, do the client and agency mesh?  That to me is the biggest reason we’re hired — we’re on the same page as the client — and it’s the most valuable factor when it comes to determining whether we will pitch an account.

So what do you think about agencies claiming that clients aren’t playing fair?  Think this could happen here in the U.S.?  While agencies certainly are competitive with each other,  I don’t think we’re organized or powerful enough as an industry to pull anything like this off.  And anyway, we’d just look stupid and greedy for trying it.  Plus, U.S. clients know what they’re doing, and most are too busy to waste their own time meeting so many different agencies.

Oh well.  At least I’m proud to be in advertising in this country.

VibrantNation.com recently surveyed “successful women aged 50 and over” and concluded that while this market has more faith in their own abilities to handle difficult situations in all facets of their lives (80% believe they have become more resilient with age), they are also less interested in turning to traditional sources of help such as religious and financial institutions.

In fact, 67% of respondents said they do not trust their financial advisors (33% saying they trust them less than before the recession and another 33% saying they never trusted them).  That’s right.  almost 7 out of 10 “successful” women aged 50 and over do not trust their financial advisors.  Wow.

What might be at the root of this is that 62% of respondents said they were “increasingly worried” about their futures when questioned about Social Security and Medicare benefits.  They do not believe they will be receiving nearly what their parents received.  Could it be that a shaky foundation with government programs is leading people to question the stability of their financial foundations in general?  Do women over 50 see government programs as the foundation to their financial security?

If so, maybe financial institutions should focus their marketing messages on total solutions that include the role of government programs in their plans?  Ah, but do banks want to work that hard?  My feeling is they must, simply because financial advisors have too much too lose by not addressing these concerns.

Then there’s this market’s spiritual needs and their perceived lack of support from traditional religious institutions.

According to the study, only 23% of this market feels their current religious community can meet their spiritual needs, and only 8% of those who are happy are finding spiritual solace in the religious communities in which they were raised.  Instead, 44% are turning to books, coaches, speakers and workshops independent of traditional religion, while 50% are turning to personal prayer and meditation.

But this market is not jumping on the “be positive” approach to live espoused by “The Secret” and other books and programs.  Indeed, only 26% believe that positive thinking creates their reality.  Instead, more often this market prefers to accept that they have far less power to influence what happens to them since much of life is outside their control.

So what’s a marketer to do?

Tap a chord in this market’s nerve center by associating your drive and resiliency with theirs and build on the foundation that they themselves are getting stronger and wiser with age.

Avoid messages that say you can get what you want if you just believe.

Acknowledge that your firm likely cannot provide all the answers, but that you will always be there for support — whatever that may be.

Let them know that you believe they know what’s best for themselves, and that your role is to help them find it and secure it.

Apple recently introduced an updated iPhoto application that will search your photos to identify people in them whose faces match the initial photo you tag.   It’s called “Facial Recognition Technology”, and now an Israeli firm has taken this technology one step further by applying it to all the images found on Facebook.

It’s called “Photo Tagger“, and it relies on this new technology to automatically identify and tag faces within the million of photos found on Facebook. It puts the photos into groups and suggests tags for you. Then, following privacy settings, the confirmed tags are pushed directly onto Facebook, returning to the user an album of tagged photos.

Photo Tagger

Facial recognition has some detractors who are concerned about “big brother” and other privacy issues.  In fact, Coca-Cola recently tried to use a similar technology in a marketing promotion. Their “Coke Zero Facial Profiler” application on Facebook invited users to upload their photos to a database that would match people’s faces for them. The campaign aimed to emphasize that the no-calorie Coke Zero tastes just like the real thing, but reports say some consumers were more annoyed than engaged, and were rather vocal about it.
In addition to making tagging faster and more streamlined, Photo Tagger also utilizes the Face Alerts system that could help with any misunderstanding.  Instead of only getting a notification when you are tagged in a photograph by a Facebook user, Face Alerts identifies individuals even untagged photos. You can then link to those photos and confirm its authenticity or untag the image if you desire.

What do you think?  Is Facial Recognition Technology a good thing?  Will it eventually make its way to videos?  While my first reaction is that this is a good thing, simply because it helps us do our jobs faster and better, I fear mistakes in the online world.  I get uncomfortable when I hear that someone has mistaken me for someone else, and that’s to my face.  Seeing my name tagged onto someone else’s photo would be troublesome — especially if the photo is one that ends up in those chain emails that everyone laughs about.