Welcome to the KPC blog! Here you’ll find fresh commentary on all things marketing and research, from historical anecdotes on marketing and research to the latest in advertising today. If it strikes our fancy, we’ll be blogging.

Indie Radio...Not So Much

As someone honestly excited by new, creative marketing ideas, part of me wants to like what Clear Channel has done in Ohio (registration required). But I don't.

As great as creativity is in the world of marketing, and as cool as it is to see companies using different types of media in new ways, Clear Channel's campaign leaves a terrible taste in my mouth. Call me old-fashioned, but I can't get behind any marketing tactic that doesn't respect its audience. And this one doesn't.

Clear Channel claims that they are trying to understand their new, progressive audience and reach them using their own language. What they don't understand is that reaching a media-savvy, skeptical audience isn't about using the right words. It's about the meaning behind the words - the intention. And their intentions were anything but honorable.

Maybe Clear Channel should try a little honesty to build an audience, instead of relying on silly, played out marketing tricks. Why not put the president of Clear Channel on the air, openly acknowledging his critics' complaints? That's fresh and edgy. And most of all, honest. Opening a dialogue shows respect for listeners. Creating fictional hipsters to shill your product - whether its on the radio or in a chat room - does not.

Shocking!

To me, the most disconcerting thing about this Ad Age article on the behavioral targeting of online ads is that the author spelled Jetta wrong. Jedda? Much like Jabba?
Permalink - 5/26/2005

Blast from the Past

During a recent Google search for my name (oh, come on, you do it too...everyone does), I ran across a couple of articles I wrote for Digital Living Today way back in the fall of 2000. Apparently, gambling and sports never go out of style:sometime during 2004, both of these articles were retouched (slightly) and reposted to an online magazine of a different name (though from what I can tell, the editorial content is just a reorganization of the old DLT articles).

Reading the articles, I was surprised to find that they're still relevant in terms of content. Some days it feels as though the Internet is changing so fast that what's written today is obsolete tomorrow. But that's only true in certain realms. Politics? Sure. Media? Some like to think so. Pop culture? In a way (the who, if not the what). But leisure activities? Not so much. 

The biggest difference between the old version of the articles, then, and the new is not in terms of content, but in the delivery. Specifically, in the linking. Back in the day, when they were written, links weren't all the rage, like they are now. However, instead of linking to additional editorial, to add content value to the articles, the editors have added value of a different kind - the cash kind. All the links (to words like "print" and "TV") are to sponsors.

I can't fault the editors - I'm glad they're still finding a way to make a little money online. Hey - I'm glad I'm still in the limelight. But I can't help but wonder: if you're reading an article about online sports sites and you come across a link to a brand new HP printer, how likely are you to click through?

Call me old school, but I just think that quaint idea of relevance isn't entirely played out just yet. I hope for the best for the Future Looks editors...but I'm not holding my breath.

Minty Fresh Packages

I consider myself a fairly loyal shopper, especially when it comes to sensory-related products. Last night, however, I found myself feeling experimental in the toothpaste aisle of Target. As I reached for my standard Colgate Fresh Confidence (which I do, in fact, buy in spite of the name), something caught my eye. The box, a shimmery blend of creamsickle orange and translucent green, was unlike anything else on the shelf. It's name: Aquafresh Extreme Clean EmpowerMINT.

So I switched. I only bought one tube...cool design alone won't buy my loyalty. But it certainly will buy my trial.

I haven't "empowered" my mouth just yet (WHY do the names have to be so ridiculous?)...but I have checked out the tube. I'm a little leery about the scent and look of things - the red-and-white candy cane-like paste smells an awful lot like a shot of Rumplemintz - but Aquafresh might just have me at the futuristic silver tube and crazy spaceship cap.

Welcome to the future of teeth cleaning. I feel more empowered already.

Function vs. Form

An emailer responded to my initial post about the power of the iPod, saying

"It appears that we agree that Gates is someone that believes that function is the most important characteristic of a product.  That being said (typed), isn't that what the masses eventually come to realize?  That function is what matters?  

Sure, it's the hot item now, but once something "better" comes along, isn't the IPod, not the technology, but the product, going to become obsolete?  Don't we see this morphing of multiple functionality in most of our products?  I don't believe that the IPod will never be heard from again, just that it won't be "hot" or "fashionable" once the next generation of wireless/cellular technology is released."  

He then forwarded this New York Times article (registration required) with the subject line: "Here they come..."

But I'm standing by my initial post: if it's not cute enough, no, they won't come. Don't underestimate the power of design - and marketing.

Shuffling

Not to go on and on about the iPod, but its cultural relevance really is all around.

Within the past month and a half, two radio stations in the Baltimore-Washington market (107.3 and 102.7) have changed their formats and the iPod shuffle is clearly responsible.

Formerly a standard mixy 80's and 90's station, 107.3 is now "the best of everything" (which, of course, isn't really everything, but it's more than it used to be). Baltimore's 102.7 was an Oldies station for over 20 years. But one day two weeks ago, it was no longer. Now it's DJ-less, playing "whatever they want."

Granted, neither one is completely diverse - they both need their 18-49 demographic too much to take many risks. But it certainly seems as though the days of radio built around time periods might be slipping away in favor of stations built around a certain taste and faux eclecticism.

Just like their customers' iPod shuffles.

But It's So CUTE!

Glenn Reynolds says that Bill Gates says that cell phones will kill the iPod. But they're wrong.

If the iPod were that vulnerable based on technology and/or cost, it wouldn't have the market share it has now - no way. Bill Gates forgets about the iPod's x-factor: it's cool. Way cooler than anything Microsoft (or Sony or pretty much any company besides Apple) could cook up. And there's not much out there to beat Apple's cache.

Gates wrongly compares Apple's success with the iPod with their early success with MACs and the GUI interface. This analogy is inherently flawed, though, and the fact that Gates ignores (or doesn't see) that flaw sums up just why he could never be behind something as cool as the iPod: people don't wear GUI interfaces around their necks. But they do wear iPods.

The GUI interface was a great innovation and very useful in people's lives. But it was not a fashion accessory. Apple's brilliant branding strategy has made form more important than function for millions of mp3 player-buying consumers.

So unless that cell phone plays music and looks super cool (and is buzzworthy, as much as I hate that word)...sorry Bill. Steve's still got this one.