Oh the hew, cry and shock we've shown at being clued into Tiger Woods' lifestyle. Of the many aspects of this that gives one pause, a few additional comments:
1. his arrogance and omnipotence: a thirty-something who's made over a billion dollars. His world is a bubble floated exclusively by and for the people with only one job--service Tiger. Yes Tiger. That's amazing Tiger. You're right Tiger. He goes nowhere, speaks to no one, buys nothing without having first had someone set it up for him.
2. the cocktail waitress and the party planner. We've devolved to the point where celebrity is so all-pervasive that celeb service workers are transacting in the glow themselves. Could anyone have predicted that we'd see headsets and clipboards become status symbols?
3. pro athletes all have groupies. See Claude Raines' 'Casablanca' title quote above. Ever been in the lobby of a hotel where an NBA team is staying? Ever read a rock band tell-all book? Ever read People? The Star?US? Of course we have. But the pious and sanctimonious copy pouring out of mass media is because moral shock is the only handle any of them have been given as a lead to cover the story. Greater minds than mine are required to parse why bottom-feeders like these groupies, like TMZ or Radaronline can assume outrage when their brands are based on their own sleaziness. However, the outrage at Woods is fake and will only last til the audience gets bored with the angle. Because it's not the sex--see Kardashian, Hilton, et al who've used scandal to move up the food chain. It's not marriage--see Bryant, Spitzer. And I don't think it's this great disparity between the 'nice young man' imagery of his branding.
4. talent drain and laziness. The media could find another way to cover this. Woods' handlers could try strategy other than 'he's using this time to work on himself and his family to repair the blah blah blah and we ask you to respect the privacy blah blah blah'.
The surfers and the bouncers who make up the reporting staff at TMZ don't have the ambition or the skills to look for a story. The current methodology is to get in the way of the story--or the SUV on the way out of the club/hospital/barneys. Tiger's management, and given the size of the Woods business, is large, highly paid and has access to anything is stuck on a playbook that's become a reflex for a celebrity in trouble.
A Counter-Intuitive Strategy
Approach the public with the truth. Understand that they viscerally understand the way pro sports and entertainment work. Explain that in the life of a Tiger Woods, these situations are everywhere. That groupies have been part of this world and handlers get paid to smooth it out since people have been famous. That it's not only Woods is behaved scandalously, it's the reporters, PageSix, his fellow players, the networks, the law firms and the management companies.
Woods already lost the Accenture deal because the gap between the 'ideal' and the news was too great. More importantly than any single endorsement deal is that this whole fandango revealed a fatal flaw in the Tiger brand strategy--no authenticity. In the culture where almost everything is plastic, authenticity is the most valuable commodity. The only chance to get some back is to suck it up and face the world with the real story.
What would the lead to the story be then?
Friday, January 15, 2010
Too Much Is Not Enough
Remember that old 80s mantra.
Times change. Too much is way more than anyone needs or can stand.
Marketing organizes and expresses brands to connect with an audience in meaningful ways and stand out from the crowd. But over the past few years, lots of major media opportunities have become numbingly overexposed. In the drive to deliver “eyeballs” or consumer impressions, successes big and small, proven or potential, are repeated to the point that instead of being meaningfully connected, the audience is meaningfully disconnected.
In the media business, we’ve seen the exponential multiplication of any piece of programming that even hints at being successful. Ratings jump, and network execs jump to put in new orders and clear the schedule for more nights. Really, does anyone want to see Howie Mandel for 4 hours every week?
Let’s look at car racing. Originally a rather niche sport, albeit one with a rabid following of loyalists, NASCAR had an image and a reality that aligned with real needs in the audience. Each broadcast was eagerly awaited by its fans. And a group of niche-y advertisers found a relevant and exciting environment for their brands. With the rise of multi-billion, multi-network television deals, the sport has fundamentally transformed. Drivers are cloned through relentless media training into slim, 5’7’’, tow-headed, second-city weathermen.
NASCAR drivers have ceased talking to their audience with any genuine feeling or even personality. They master the ability to walk away from a 180 mph crash and congratulate the sponsor for supporting such a hard-working crew. The adage of race on Sunday, sell on Monday has been recast. It isn’t about Ford guys and Chevy guys — it’s Home Depot vs. Frosted Flakes. Sponsorship has reached the point of diminishing returns. Yes, the merchandizing runs across many platforms, from key rings to jackets to branded vacations — but how much can they mean when they’re everywhere? And, with NASCAR broadcasting Craftsman Trucks on Friday, Busch on Saturday, and Nextel Cup on Sunday, it’s overload for even the faithful. Ratings are down.
In baseball, Fox’s innovative coverage of the game is so innovative that it is hard to know exactly what we’re watching. Constant re-plays start blending together with the actual plays, and where are we? There are, of course, other examples of brand over-proliferation. New product extension gives us 22 different types of Band-Aids to choose from, an infinite number of toothpaste variants, and 15,000 new products in supermarkets every year.
So what?
It is certain that brand proliferation and extension generate incremental monies. But long-term, does it help or hinder the franchise? And, does it help or hinder the consumer?
The absolute truth is that brands reflect a specific bond between its values and those of its audience. The greater the specificity, the stronger the bond. Look at the difference between Microsoft and Apple. We are not advocating ignoring new revenue or gaining more shelf space. But, constant brand proliferation will diminish the bonds that consumers have with the brand. And that will lead to less ability to maintain strong margins. And that will accelerate the brand’s drive to commoditization.
And, there’s no profit there.
Brands need to think about media and delivery strategies that create and preserve the specialness of their messages. That will require better research and more specific understanding and definition of the audience. It will require understanding the nuance between a brand strategy and a media strategy. It will require communications that can prioritize the objectives to focus on an achievable goal. There will need to be, more so than ever, creative work that does more than simply entertain or create a sensation, work that “says” something meaningful about the brand’s place in the consumer’s world. That enhances the bond with the audience.
Eyeballs are good, but not if they’re glazed over.
Times change. Too much is way more than anyone needs or can stand.
Marketing organizes and expresses brands to connect with an audience in meaningful ways and stand out from the crowd. But over the past few years, lots of major media opportunities have become numbingly overexposed. In the drive to deliver “eyeballs” or consumer impressions, successes big and small, proven or potential, are repeated to the point that instead of being meaningfully connected, the audience is meaningfully disconnected.
In the media business, we’ve seen the exponential multiplication of any piece of programming that even hints at being successful. Ratings jump, and network execs jump to put in new orders and clear the schedule for more nights. Really, does anyone want to see Howie Mandel for 4 hours every week?
Let’s look at car racing. Originally a rather niche sport, albeit one with a rabid following of loyalists, NASCAR had an image and a reality that aligned with real needs in the audience. Each broadcast was eagerly awaited by its fans. And a group of niche-y advertisers found a relevant and exciting environment for their brands. With the rise of multi-billion, multi-network television deals, the sport has fundamentally transformed. Drivers are cloned through relentless media training into slim, 5’7’’, tow-headed, second-city weathermen.
NASCAR drivers have ceased talking to their audience with any genuine feeling or even personality. They master the ability to walk away from a 180 mph crash and congratulate the sponsor for supporting such a hard-working crew. The adage of race on Sunday, sell on Monday has been recast. It isn’t about Ford guys and Chevy guys — it’s Home Depot vs. Frosted Flakes. Sponsorship has reached the point of diminishing returns. Yes, the merchandizing runs across many platforms, from key rings to jackets to branded vacations — but how much can they mean when they’re everywhere? And, with NASCAR broadcasting Craftsman Trucks on Friday, Busch on Saturday, and Nextel Cup on Sunday, it’s overload for even the faithful. Ratings are down.
In baseball, Fox’s innovative coverage of the game is so innovative that it is hard to know exactly what we’re watching. Constant re-plays start blending together with the actual plays, and where are we? There are, of course, other examples of brand over-proliferation. New product extension gives us 22 different types of Band-Aids to choose from, an infinite number of toothpaste variants, and 15,000 new products in supermarkets every year.
So what?
It is certain that brand proliferation and extension generate incremental monies. But long-term, does it help or hinder the franchise? And, does it help or hinder the consumer?
The absolute truth is that brands reflect a specific bond between its values and those of its audience. The greater the specificity, the stronger the bond. Look at the difference between Microsoft and Apple. We are not advocating ignoring new revenue or gaining more shelf space. But, constant brand proliferation will diminish the bonds that consumers have with the brand. And that will lead to less ability to maintain strong margins. And that will accelerate the brand’s drive to commoditization.
And, there’s no profit there.
Brands need to think about media and delivery strategies that create and preserve the specialness of their messages. That will require better research and more specific understanding and definition of the audience. It will require understanding the nuance between a brand strategy and a media strategy. It will require communications that can prioritize the objectives to focus on an achievable goal. There will need to be, more so than ever, creative work that does more than simply entertain or create a sensation, work that “says” something meaningful about the brand’s place in the consumer’s world. That enhances the bond with the audience.
Eyeballs are good, but not if they’re glazed over.
Death Knell
'There's a lot of great work here.' With those words you can reliably expect to have said work never see the light of day. The kiss of death in a creative meeting.There are several other phrases that say one thing but are bulletproof signals that you're going down in flames.'You've given us lots to think about.''I want to share this with my team.''We're taking another look at our budgets.'The reason all these killers work so well is that it aims to the soft and open heart of a creative. One puts every bit of commitment, enthusiasm and ego into presenting and sharing new work. And, one is left hanging. Naked. Waiting. Hoping.The creative wants for nothing more than his audience to be receptive, welcoming. Nothing more than feeling the audience 'get it.'And when the response is one of these killers or others it hurts.
Its later than we think
THE LATE SHIFT ISN'T WORKING ANYMORE
The word count about Leno, O'Brien and Letterman is off the charts. Interesting to see how each is taking his spot in the social/cultural drama of the moment. Leno--dispised corporate hack, O'Brien--wronged in defense of his art, Letterman--smug and vindicated.One fact is that everyone of these guys has made enormous sums--read >$100M per--over the past few years alone. All three have had greatness. All three have not been great lately. NBC surely made poor decisions. And almost all made because they view the talent as a six-sigma measured commodity. They view the talent as something to manipulate and understanding part of it will fail, they plan to mop up later. The corporate view is likely that the time slot is what's important, not the personality. Not the show. Because curiously, there has been no visible tinkering with the material on either Leno or the Tonight Show since they started their nosedives. The shows--all of them, including Letterman, stink. They are weary, bored and contemptuous of their audience.And viewers have responded in kind. Comedy is only part business--it only exists at any level of quality, if it springs from something inside that needs to get out. Whether it's Prior, Klein, Rodney or Rock they have something to say that's independent of their payday. It's hard to take Conan's aggrieved sthtick too seriously when you seen the half-hearted material he's been delivering for 3 months. It's impossible to believe that any of these guys at this net-worth have anything to get out or anything to prove.It's impossible to believe that much comedy is ever coming out of the infrastructure ofmanagers, lawyers, agents, publicists and posters that appears after the first successful set. But that another post.
Labels: comedy, conan o'brien, late night, leno, letterman
The word count about Leno, O'Brien and Letterman is off the charts. Interesting to see how each is taking his spot in the social/cultural drama of the moment. Leno--dispised corporate hack, O'Brien--wronged in defense of his art, Letterman--smug and vindicated.One fact is that everyone of these guys has made enormous sums--read >$100M per--over the past few years alone. All three have had greatness. All three have not been great lately. NBC surely made poor decisions. And almost all made because they view the talent as a six-sigma measured commodity. They view the talent as something to manipulate and understanding part of it will fail, they plan to mop up later. The corporate view is likely that the time slot is what's important, not the personality. Not the show. Because curiously, there has been no visible tinkering with the material on either Leno or the Tonight Show since they started their nosedives. The shows--all of them, including Letterman, stink. They are weary, bored and contemptuous of their audience.And viewers have responded in kind. Comedy is only part business--it only exists at any level of quality, if it springs from something inside that needs to get out. Whether it's Prior, Klein, Rodney or Rock they have something to say that's independent of their payday. It's hard to take Conan's aggrieved sthtick too seriously when you seen the half-hearted material he's been delivering for 3 months. It's impossible to believe that any of these guys at this net-worth have anything to get out or anything to prove.It's impossible to believe that much comedy is ever coming out of the infrastructure ofmanagers, lawyers, agents, publicists and posters that appears after the first successful set. But that another post.
Labels: comedy, conan o'brien, late night, leno, letterman
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
