Community

By guest blogger Pamela Springer, Manta Media

It’s National Small Business Week and with 80 percent of U.S. businesses being small businesses (less than nine employees) – it actually is big business!!

Why should you care? Small business drives the economy: they hire employees (two out of every three people hired are by a small business), they purchase goods and really care about growing their business. These entities are very special, but finding them requires a very tailored approach.

The ‘one size fits all’ method doesn’t work when it comes to connecting with small business owners.

Areas on which to focus that help small business owners notice you have to do with:

1) How your service helps the business owner stand out, in other wordspromotion
2) How your service helps the business owner find new customers

As you think about how to message to these business owners, don’t use generic “large company” titles such as “marketing director” or “purchasing agent.” Employees of small businesses wear many hats and have many generalists working at them – everyone needing to pitch in to cover the tasks at hand in order to grow their business.

Speak to how your product or service will help them “be found” or drive more revenue – near and dear to all of us, but especially to the small business person.

Understanding that 50 percent of small businesses with less than five employees don’t have a website, you have to think about how to best reach these business owners as well. While they may not have a website, they do subscribe to industry trade journals, meet with peers and use online services to stay competitive. Even though they might not be on the bleeding edge of technology adoption, as they are busy running their company, small businesses definitely look to find new ways of reaching customers.

Introducing your products and services through targeted ad placement is one approach for connecting with this group, another is providing useful information that helps a small business owner stay competitive. Become a champion of this group – provide resources and participate in the conversation where small business owners are.

So what can you quickly do to connect to the SMB audience? I’d suggest participating in these sites where small businesses are actively present:

o Manta (www.manta.com)- allows for specialized/targeted advertising to small businesses and decision makers by revenue, employee size, industry, etc

o LinkedIn (www.linkedin.com) – allows for finding business professionals by industry

o Present.ly (www.presently.com) – allows individuals within a company to post short, frequent updates that are tracked or "followed" by others. Unlike Twitter, it provides a secure and private way to share updates among members of a company, without them being visible to the general public

o TalkBizNow (www.talkbiznow.com) – allows networking while visualizing the small-world phenomenon by displaying how each member is connected to any other member

Posted by John at 5:24 PM | Permalink

Guest Blogger Kathleen Kusek of Firehouse Marketing Services predicts a new focus and form for focus groups.

For those of us who saw The Brady Bunch when it ran in prime time, today's focus groups are shockingly familiar to those at the beginning of our careers. Same one-way glass. Same semi-retired, ex-brand manager/mother of 1.5 children "moderating" the same group of target consumers gathered using more or less the same screening technique. Sure--now we can watch the action on webcam and we can check our emails and Facebook pages while our people are being interviewed...but I might suggest those advances don't really improve our ability to glean insight. Did anyone think we'd have evolved to a better way of understand our precious target audiences' needs and motivations by now?

The focus groups of the future should look different in the following ways:

--We won't spend 10 to 20% of our precious time with moderators and respondents introducing themselves to each other so they can feel "comfortable" answering questions honestly. Come on--in this era of "consumers in charge," focus group respondents are not the least bit hesitant to tell us what they think and will be even less so in the future. Painful as it can be, the people we pay to talk about our products or ideas aren't generally looking to tell us what we want to hear. Cocktail party pleasantries are a thing of the past--these people are telling us what they think. In fact, just as an experiment, have the moderator introduce his/herself (the "his" is just a PC throwaway--focus group moderators are mostly from the pink ghetto) as the CEO of the company you represent. I'd bet my ranch that the respondents will answer as honestly, or perhaps even more honestly, than when they hear the same "I'm a completely objective observer" spiel delivered by 90% of focus group moderators across the country for the last 20 years. Just for fun, check out the respondents during that familiar 5-minute monologue and watch their lips move along to each word from the moderator's mouth. Save yourself time by skipping this step. Instead, start by asking respondents a specific question to which you'd like an answer. Promise that they'll be able to play along.

--We won't have 7-10 respondents for 90 to 120 minutes (I swear, some people are STILL doing 2-hour focus groups) anymore. In too many cases, the meaning of "focus" has been lost in our focus groups. Instead they've become a catch all for every wild hare that the extended marketing team may have--a faster (though not cheaper or better) way to answer important questions that can and should be addressed quantitatively. Respondents don't want to focus on the things we care about for 120 minutes and we shouldn't try to make them. In fact, if we can't hone our questions to be answered in 60 minutes, the problem is likely on our side. Wasn't it Einstein that said a problem well defined is half solved? He was no dummy. The focus groups of the future will have fewer people for shorter amounts of time.
Parenthetically, with wide-spread internet access, it's the back room that is really hurting for focus lately. The time and expense tenured marketing execs incur to attend focus groups in person, only to be immersed in work at the home front and respond with "what was that, again?" when respondents address key questions on the table, continues to amaze.
I don't mean to be pointing the finger here--most of us suffer from Back Room ADD. It's dark, fun people are gathered in a small space and candy is abundant. It's basically entrapment. No news here--it was always tough to focus in the back room.
But the new variable is Internet access. As a key amenity, focus group facilities of the future should tout the absence of conductivity. It's a scary premise to agree to, but we should hold hands and take the jump. We'll learn more from the people who matter most and generate a better ROR (that's return on research, in case you were wondering).

--We'll elevate the position of "moderator" to Consumer Scientist (lab coat optional). This person (though a betting person would say he/she is still more likely to be a female, because we really do listen better, don't we ;-)?) will be trained in psychology to analyze not only what respondents say, but what they mean. This trained professional will know how to understand what our participants say, and be able to read their silences and their expressions and their interaction with information and the other respondents, resulting in an equation that equals insight not otherwise gleaned from the verbal answers. If we are just looking for an unanalyzed response from an appropriately screened respondent, we can easily get the answer online for a fraction of the time and cost, never ever requiring a middle seat on the redeye. Our Consumer Scientist of the future will share true insights based on their superior understanding of things like neuroplasticity and stress created by the delta between ideals and reality and other aspects of psychology that aren't taught in top business schools. But we'll be the ones on the hook to translate those insights into motivating messaging, innovation and product improvement, arguably the hard part.

What's the timeline of the more focused focus group? I hope it's tomorrow, generously giving ourselves a full day to soak up all these pearls. Some marketers are making great strides already (you know who you are--so please take a moment to feel appropriately self satisfied). The optimist in me says five years, paying no attention to where we are now versus two decades ago. If I'm right, I'll be richly rewarded with "free" M&Ms and unbearable self satisfaction.

Kathleen Kusek is a consumer researcher and the principal of Firehouse Marketing Services (www.firehousemarketingsf.com). She can be reached at FirehouseMarketingServices@gmail.com.

Posted by Allison at 9:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Winner
ABC’s Lost has shown us that even in the increasingly uncertain world of television, content is still king. Lost never forgot its Target Market and never forgot that it had to remain top quality entertainment.

The show’s finale and the anticipation of its outstanding viewer numbers also underscore that “event” broadcasting has great power.

Fact is, human beings crave communal events and a common experience that can be shared simultaneously. The future of visual entertainment might be on-demand, Internet-sourced video, but big “events” like the Lost finale, shown at a specific day and time, deliver this sought-after communal experience.

Event broadcasting builds up excitement for a brand and allows for other programming and experiences to be built around it. For instance, Jimmy Kimmel, a Lost fan, is doing a special with the cast of the show, and many Lost parties are being held around the country.

Lost has built its brand tirelessly, and my guess is the content and interest in the show will continue to be a successful commercial presence for years to come.

Loser
This won’t be popular, but I’ve got to say it: Rand Paul is no Ronald Reagan.

You simply can’t carry too much complexity into the public square, especially against a hostile press. In other words, off camera and off mic, a politician can and should be complex, but keep the message simple when you’re being quoted.

It’s a romantic myth that the only person fit for political office is the man right off the street with no political experience, à la Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith goes to Washington.

We might scorn the idea of politics as a profession, but the truth is: politics is a profession, and like any profession, it takes time and talent to learn its ways. Even the founding fathers, often cast as political outsiders, had significant experience in colonial legislatures.

Ronald Reagan was a professional politician, and because of that, he was able to turn his core philosophy of limited government, strong defense and a business-friendly America into political reality.

As a politician, you must be careful of the words that you use, because words are almost all that you have to convey your ideas, positions and identity to the electorate.

Words are the arrows in your quiver. They must be precise and precisely targeted. Ronald Reagan used words to unite, to inspire and to clarify. But he also knew the value of not using words and when it was smart to avoid commenting all together. (Remember his famous “I can’t hear the question” walks to the helicopter?)

The problem is that too many words conveying too many different ideas will make a politician seem conflicted and unsure of what he or she stands for.

Rand Paul is learning this now and will need to nail down his approach before the elections this fall if he hopes to win. This means going through his libertarian ideas and testing them step-by-step against big issues, interest groups and judicial/legislative history —and then determining appropriate public positions and simplifying his message accordingly.

But there is a larger problem here, and that problem is with the Tea Party that helped make his primary victory possible.

The Tea Party is like a 500-pound gorilla in the room that’s ripping everything off the walls: its energy is awe-inspiring and its rage is understandable, but it’s unfocused. More than that, this gorilla is impossible to focus —meaning the only way to deal with the gorilla is to calm him down. The problem is, once calm, all the gorilla’s energy is gone and the force for change vanishes.

To put this in marketing terms, can the Tea Party brand be effectively extended if it’s just a whole lot of energy, without a way to be channeled? I’m doubtful. Fact is, the core characteristics of the Tea Party movement simply seem incompatible with genuine political, institutional change. In many respects, the emotion of the Tea Party is negative, and its ideals are political “Uncola.” This reactionary approach has nothing in common with Ronald Reagan’s positive affirmation of the great potential of our country and the clear road map he presented for achieving that potential.

If the Tea Party has a genuine, politically productive future, it will be discovered the moment a politically experienced visionary —someone who hews to conservative ideals but knows how politics really works— comes along. If this happens, though, it will be the members of the Tea Party supporting him or her and not the other way around.

And remember, things are always easier when you keep marketing and branding in mind.
TODAY'S TANTILLO TAKEAWAY -

In politics, your brand can be complex, but your message must be simple.

Posted by John at 10:02 AM | Permalink

Six Flags mascot Mr. Six may be a dancing fool, but you can bet Six Flags investors aren't so happy. The company had a rough 2009 - attendance fell 6% and revenue overall dropped a staggering 11%.

Six Flags isn't alone. Theme park attendance overall fell about 1% in North America last season according to a report from the Themed Entertainment Association. The economy's been enough of a wild ride, so consumers aren't as interested in spending a lot of money to hit up roller coasters and water slides.

This week's Marketing News Exclusives e-newsletter includes a story exploring how Six Flags and Palace Entertainment, parent to such parks as Kennywood in Pennsylvania, are rethinking price promotions to get more people through their gates. Six Flags for instance is offering the lowest season pass prices in 18 years at its park near Chicago and introducing variations of season passes at some parks that come with less benefits but also cost less money, available for a limited time to better ensure sales. Palace is trying to refrain from discounting, instead opting for better value packages, such as buy a ticket, get in free the rest of the summer deals. People typically only come once a year anyway, Brett Petit, senior vice president of marketing for Palace, told me, but such deals might inspire people to come back and spend more inside the parks during repeat visits.

Amusement park companies are also giving social media a spin. Palace hired two social media consultants this spring, and various park social media sites are reaching out to fans and hosting contests online, Petit says. Six Flags had an NCAA-style Tournament of Thrills social media contest last year pitting the parks' megacoasters against each other, but this year the fans themselves will be more prominenently featured in a Tournament of Thrills-style contest, where one person with the most accurate bracket will win a prize, says Jackie Gagne, director of digital and direct marketing.

The companies are also working to attract groups and companies to host events at their parks this season. Palace is promoting more affordable menu packages as well as special rates for special dates deals, amongst other promotions, Petit says. Six Flags is conducting B-to-B marketing through radio promotions, such as contests to win a company picnic, and the company's head of group sales has written an editorial for a human resources magazine in an effort to reach out to key event decision makers at companies, says Jessica Sokolowski, Six Flags' senior director of advertising.

If these efforts and others help to reverse sales declines, you can bet amusement park investors will be sharing in Mr. Six's merriment. But if consumers ignore the deals and steer clear of costly days out, these companies are going to be in for a long and bumpy ride.

Read more about the price promotion strategy in Marketing News Exclusives May 20th edition. Find the issue and others by clicking here.

Posted by Piet at 9:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Without further ado…

Winner:
About a year ago, when many were proclaiming the end of GM, I asked this question over at Fox: What will they say when GM makes a profit?

At the time, many people –especially the all-seeing pundits of doom out there— seemed to believe that the company was finished. But the marketing lens said otherwise.

The marketing lens told me that GM has always been a company built around brands. That is, people buy brands not companies and GM, despite its myriad problems is a company with terrific brands that people continue to want.

Basically, my argument (you can read it here) was that as long as GM continued to focus on its brands, a trend that had been taking hold months before the government bailout, it would re-emerge stronger than ever.

Well, GM has just made its first profit since 2007. $865 million on revenue that had increased by 40%. Not bad for a company that just a few months ago was considered on death’s door.

Now to be fair to the naysayers and full disclosure, my full prediction was not just about GM making a profit (which it now has) but ultimately making a profit for taxpayers –after all, Treasury still owns 61% of the company.

Many people are still skeptical, but I believe they are missing the key element here. The problem with GM was never a marketing problem, it was a management and financial problem. The company was encumbered by unwieldy pension obligations, et cetera, most of that’s all cleared up now, letting the brands which have been getting better and better over the past decade be free to run.

Bottom line: it’s time to repeat the prediction for this week’s winner: What will they say when GM makes a profit for the taxpayer? Because, folks, it’s only a matter of time.

Loser:
I usually don’t like to revisit a brand so soon after writing about them, but this week’s loser is last week’s loser.

Why?

Because BP’s CEO, Tony Hayward, managed to make a very bad situation even worse by opening his mouth.

As footage of his company’s mistake staining the waters off the United States circled the globe, Hayward said: "The Gulf of Mexico is a very big ocean. The amount of volume of oil and dispersant we are putting into it is tiny in relation to the total water volume."

This is utter verbal catastrophe and shows a lack of marketing strategy that makes me think that even if BP hadn’t faced this disaster, the company wasted millions on that “green” energy advertising campaign they’ve been running for years.

I say wasted, because to have the top man in an organization show such incredible ignorance of the general perception of this event–even if he is under oil-geyser like pressure that few of us can imagine— shows that there is no top to bottom, bottom to top marketing philosophy driving this company. I don’t like to say this, but this is madness! Period. End of story.

Let’s talk Tylenol for a minute (Hayward probably needs to take a few). I’m not talking about Tylenol’s recent challenges, but the Tylenol crisis of two and a half decades ago.

When Tylenol faced its greatest challenge during the tragic poisonings, their approach set the standard for how a company needs to have marketing in its DNA.

The marketing I’m talking about isn’t the smoke and mirrors, let’s sell product at any cost variety. No. The kind of marketing that the folks behind Tylenol showed they knew was the kind of brand-caring, long-term, Target-market sensitive value building that lies behind the best companies.

In Tylenol’s case, even though they knew that the poisoning could have happened to almost any packaged goods company, they didn’t dwell on this fact (i.e., no defensiveness, no the gulf’s a “very big ocean”). Instead, they decided that among other superb marketing outreach tactics to restore confidence in their products by consumers, they would make the world safer for everyone by pioneering tamper-resistant packaging.

In short, they took the high road. The best marketing always does.

If BP’s listening, here are three takeaways to be gleaned from Tylenol:

Immediately announce that BP will be “adopting” the Gulf of Mexico and going to make things cleaner than before –in other words, show that the company is making a long-term effect to shore eco systems and the fishing industry. Perhaps develop partnerships within the environmental community and the fishing industry to foster long-term change;
Name whatever ingenious device you come up with to stop the spill something like “The BP Enviro-safe Solution”. Then make this proprietary technology available to all oil companies. Also, announce that the company will be making available The BP Spill Response Handbook which will be compiled from the findings of an expert panel that months from now will be able to provide valuable, environmentally protective lessons from this event.
Announce plans to create a second expert program to evaluate the accident causes thoroughly. This and the findings from step #2 might result in the development of other devices like universal fail safes (named after BP), methods and protocols. Again, BP will be sharing this intellectual property, even possibly giving the devices away or selling at cost, to the rest of the industry (mining, drilling and other resource companies).

Bottom line, BP can turn this situation around for itself and the world. It can take control of the story by having a long-term plan for past, present and future environmental responsibility.

Fact is that the company is already in a very large ocean of trouble. People can forgive accidents and will –you don’t need to defend your brand against this and defensiveness only serves to make you look guilty. But they’ll always applaud the underdog turning bad circumstances into a benefit for everyone.

And, remember, things are always easier when you keep marketing and branding in mind.

Today's Tantillo Takeaway

The best marketing is about taking the high road.

Posted by John at 9:36 AM | Permalink

It’s always exciting for me to talk with chapter leaders who attend AMA’s annual Leadership Summit here in Chicago.

We’ll be spotlighting chapters community involvement projects in Marketing News' November issue, so if your chapter is doing something noteworthy to help your local community please let us know about it.

In the meantime, here’s a link to pictures from the summit, see if your recognize yourself or some chapter buddies.

Posted by John at 10:43 AM | Permalink

This week has been so crammed with marketing losers that I don’t have any room for a winner. I’ve even had to add two extra losers.

Loser #1
Drilling 5000 feet beneath the ocean surface is an extraordinarily complicated feat. I sympathize with the difficulties and certainly with the tragic loss of life, but if you are an oil company trying to maintain a brand identity in a world that is very hostile to your core business, you simply can’t let this kind of mishap happen.

For years, BP has been advertising itself as a green energy company and promoting its environmentally friendly ethic to the American people. All of that has been effectively undone by the reality of this disaster.

Moreover, no amount of advertising will undo it.

Fact is, advertising is only one component of marketing, and marketing always begins with what your company actually is and what it does. In other words, advertising should be seen not as a smoke-screen tactic or spin but as a means of communicating what your company’s identity is and what it has to offer. Simply put, when advertising is done right, it is the truth well told.

In this case, BP’s chief marketing problem actually seems to be a central business problem. The story circulating now is that BP sub-contracted out some of the most delicate and dangerous deep-sea drilling work to someone else (Halliburton). If this is the case, the advertising might have said we care and we are responsible—but the drilling reality says we’ve outsourced that responsibility (and outsourcing says we don’t care enough).

BP’s redemption rests on the current rescue. How thoroughly will the company become and remain involved? How forcefully and responsibly will they lead?

BP’s response to this crisis is the best opportunity to promote its brand, but they’re also going to need to confront the impression that corners might have been cut.

Loser #2
The American Stock Market (mainly NYSE and Nasdaq) earns loser spot #2 for the breath-taking 1000-point drop last week.

Sure, markets go up and markets go down, but volatility is different from instability. This is another example of how marketing starts with getting your core business reality down.

In recent years, both NYSE and Nasdaq have done a lot of advertising aimed at building their image. What’s the use of advertising when the very reason your business exists can be questioned? The thousand-point drop did exactly that. The best stock markets are transparent and accountable. That is, while prices go up and prices go down, everyone playing the game knows that there is a basically orderly process of bidding and asking that controls how prices move.

Last week, both major exchanges went banana republic, and the fact that several days later we still don’t know what happened (was it a computer glitch? A human error?) doesn’t build confidence —and confidence is key.

Both Nasdaq and NYSE have made some good initial steps at brand damage control by voiding some of the transactions during the worst part of the chaos, but the crucial thing is making sure this doesn’t happen again.

If it does happen again, Fuggedaboutit! The long-term brand damage to these established exchanges could be irreparable. Hopefully, the folks in charge of the exchanges will clarify things at their meeting with regulators Monday. No matter what happens, they have to let investors and the general public know through action and promotion that the trading system is solid. We can only hope that the geniuses on Wall Street finally understand that marketing demands understanding of your clients’ needs.

Loser #3
Last week, Newsweek was put up for sale and, no surprise, no one’s clamoring to buy it. I’ve written a lot about newspapers and their future (same basic premise —here’s one sample).

There’s not much more I can say. Even though everyone could see this one coming, it’s still a shock to see such a venerable brand lose its brand equity so quickly.

Circulation numbers have fallen for the 2nd largest news periodical in the United States for some time. Part of the problem is being blamed on the increasingly niche nature of news readership and the fact that weekly roundups of the type that Newsweek delivers are simply not appealing in the age of the Internet.

That may be so, but every great brand that fails ultimately has itself to blame for failure. If Newsweek’s failure to adapt isn’t an example of not responding to the needs of your customers, I don’t know what is. When an industry changes for good, you must change to survive no matter what you feel about it. Buggy whip, anyone?

During the same period that Newsweek has posted losses, the British news magazine The Economist has been growing by leaps and bounds.

Why is that?

Well, part of the reason is that The Economist offers forward-looking thought pieces. In fact, almost the entire magazine is filled with first-rate analysis (the news is re-capped, too, but only for the purpose of providing necessary background). The Economist has also done the hard work of aggressively building a readership that appreciates its kind of work. The funny thing is that in an ever-growing world with ever-shrinking expectations for magazine circulation numbers, niche magazines can rake in reader numbers that are the envy of the general interest magazines that used to dominate the market.

Bottom line, if Newsweek doesn’t find a buyer, I’ve got to urge them not to do what Gourmet magazine did (I wrote about the Gourmet mistake in my book People Buy Brands, Not Companies ). If, like Gourmet did, Newsweek decides to stop doing a paper issue, then the strengths of the magazine (as a thought-leader, namely its columnists) must be preserved through its online presence. It’s no good to simply keep the name of Newsweek without the human equity that made that brand great.

And, remember, things are always easier when you keep marketing and branding in mind.

TODAY'S TANTILLO TAKEAWAY -

All the advertising in the world won’t help your company if your core business tells a different story.

Posted by John at 10:37 AM | Permalink

I always enjoy reading posts from our guest blogger John Tantillo, the Marketing Doctor, but I need to disagree with his pick last week of Arizona as a marketing winner with its new illegal immigrants law.

From a marketing standpoint, I don’t see the new law helping the state attract economic engines such as convention business or companies relocating headquarters or building new facilities. Business leaders above all else, in my experience, want to avoid controversy and controversial places. Talk of boycotts of anything associated with Arizona – witness the backlash against poor Arizona Iced Tea which originated in Brooklyn, for example – point to troubles that the average CEO would rather steer clear of.

On a more personal note, as the grandson of immigrants, I find the Arizona law repugnant and a throwback to the know-nothing-ism, America-first attitudes that I had hoped we left behind in the 20th century if not the 19th. Stopping people to ask for their papers because they might look illegal isn’t far removed from shipping Japanese-Americans to camps during World War II because they might be working for the enemy; it’s presumed guilt by ethnic association.

No, I don’t condone illegal acts and coming here illegally is wrong. But the issue that should be addressed, I believe, is unrealistic immigration quotas that keep out people who want to make their new lives in this country. I do share John’s hope that Arizona’s action will spur a comprehensive national discussion about immigration policies.

Immigrant drive has built America. My grandparents were fortunate to come here at a time (the early 20th century) when immigration quotes were relatively liberal. That all changed because of fear, both economic and racial quite frankly. It’s time to go back to more open borders.

I grew up not far from the Statue of Liberty and her invitation to the world –

“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore;
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me…”

I’ve always thought that was the best marketing message America has. Let’s get back to it, shall we?

Posted by John at 10:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Global marketers now have a wider Web to work with.

This week, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates were the first countries to receive their own generic top-level domains (gTLDs), or the Web address’ suffix (‘.com,’ ‘.org,’ ‘.edu’ and the like), in their native languages as part of an initiative by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to open up the Web addressing system beyond the current 21 gTLDs-- including incorporating the use of languages beyond English.

Late last fall, Marketing News caught up with Paul Levins, ICANN's executive officer and VP of corporate affairs, to hear how these Web-based changes could affect marketers. To access that interview, visit:

http://www.marketingpower.com/ResourceLibrary/Publications/MarketingNews/2009/43/11_30_09/10%20Minutes%20Levins.pdf

Posted by Elisabeth at 4:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Winner
I’ve got to ask the question: Is Arizona the new Texas? Has Texas passed the torch to another border state?

After all, wasn’t it the state of Texas that long stood for fierce independence, a fighting spirit and a frontiersman’s sense of keeping borders and communities secure from all threats, foreign and domestic?

This past week, we’ve seen Arizona take powerful action to address what many of its citizens believe is a monumental immigration crisis.

Arizona wins for two reasons: 1) the politicians responded forcefully to the needs of their electorate; and 2) by taking a strong and unambiguous position, the state has actually advanced the national debate on immigration by leaps and bounds, while promoting itself as the vanguard of a historic movement. This is real marketing: identifying your Target Market’s needs and then taking the kind of action that brings national attention to these needs. .

The national media reaction has been as predictable as it has been disappointing. After all, most of the state law is nothing new and merely echoes what’s already on the Federal books (i.e., legal immigrants having to carry papers). The media by and large also misses the significance of the fact that Arizonans identified a problem and then took action to work toward solving it. It might not be the best law, and it might have to be modified even more, but the important thing was taking action.

Just because Arizona is getting pilloried in the press doesn’t mean that it has failed. In fact, this time mainstream media outrage really is a public relations victory. Such a knee-jerk reaction by the media no doubt galvanizes most Arizonans into believing that those who are not on the front-line of the immigration border war really don’t get it.

And that’s why I ask: Is Arizona the new Texas?

The Federal government might have had a comfortable and diplomatic way of dealing with South-of-the-Border illegals, but the problem is clearly massive and requires dramatic action. The needs of American citizens are not being met. Arizona has shown that it cares about its citizens’ needs and, by extension, the needs of the citizens of the U.S. of A.

Taking a stand for something that clearly benefits your Target Market is the hallmark of a great brand.

Hats off.

The Loser
When it began the rollout of Toy Story 3 last week, Disney showed that it understands the critical importance of Target Markets. The company also reminded us that in today’s world of scattered audiences and web-based competition, you need to be relentlessly creative to reach your Target Market.

But all marketers must draw a distinction between strategy and tactics. In Disney’s case, they knew that they wanted word of Toy Story 3 to reach the 18- to 24-year-olds who grew up on the first two movies. That was a key part of their marketing strategy.

Disney has decided to launch the movie early with a questionable promotional tactic that it hopes will invigorate the Target Market. The tactic? Free screenings of the movie in 40 cities. The catch? It’s a cliffhanger. The movie screening cuts out before the end, leaving everyone in suspense.

There is nothing as effective as sampling to have people buy your product. But does that really apply in this case, where basically the entire movie is given away for free and it’s only the end that’s not shown? After all, let’s think Target Market. Are most of these 18- to 24-year-olds going to be so motivated by a cliffhanger two months before the actual release of the movie to line up again when it’s actually in the theaters? I really don’t think so. Moreover, if they’re really interested, this crowd will probably find a way to watch the ending for free on the Internet.

The bigger point is that this tactic has gimmick written all over it. Not only that, but the reaction from the audience has also been negative. When the lights go up after these partial free screenings, the audience groans (even though they knew a cliffhanger was part of the deal). For me, this type of promotional tactic gives marketing a bad name. It gives customers a reason to resent both the product and the corporate brands —not a good thing.

Disney must also be hoping to get some publicity value and social media punch from this approach. But even though desperate times demand desperate measures, I’ve got to think that this particular tactic is just a little too desperate. A creative try, Disney —but not a well thought-out marketing strategy.

Stay tuned.

And, remember, things are always easier when you keep marketing and branding in mind.

TODAY'S TANTILLO TAKEAWAY
The last thing you want to do is earn buzz at the expense of a negative experience for your Target Market.

Posted by John at 10:34 AM | Permalink