Hasta La Creative!

Recently, a colleague asked me, “What was the most rewarding mistake you ever made in business?”

It’s a great question, and I quickly had an answer for him because it was an incredibly painful mistake. However, it proved to be an invaluable lesson that has served me well in the years since. I’m sharing so perhaps you can learn it the easy way.

The lesson: Don’t ever stop marketing because you think you’ve reached the point where you don’t need to. And, secondarily, believe the old adage that warns, “Don’t put all your eggs into one basket.”

There’s a story, of course…

Years ago, my public relations company connected with a large publishing house that served many prestigious authors. The first few of its authors we accepted as clients had such successful campaigns, we quickly became the publicity firm of record for this publisher. I thought we’d tapped the mother load! The publisher kept a steady stream of clients flowing to us, and eventually, they became about 80 percent of our business.

We were so focused on delivering for these authors that we became much less focused on getting our company name out to prospective new clients. We slowly stopped marketing. Our newsletters ground to a halt. We didn’t waste time networking. We quit our efforts to get the same publicity for our company that we get for clients. Why bother? We didn’t need new clients!

We had a whole basket full of beautiful perfect eggs and we were happily skipping along with it.

And then … it broke.

The publisher ran into some serious problems with its investors and the business came crashing down. And guess who almost went with it?

Our eggs were cooked.

Faced with only a few clients and no prospects, we got busy fast and cranked up the marketing department (me!) again. It took awhile to regain the momentum we’d lost but, thankfully, we had a side business that could help pay the bills in the interim. Slowly but surely (this was before the age of social media, which really speeds things up), we built up a new list of prospects and clients – only this time from a diverse array of sources.

It was a terrible but powerful experience that demonstrated very clearly: No matter how great things seem to be going, you never stop marketing. It needs to be a constant hum because if that hum stops, you know there will be a big problem ahead.

I stopped marketing because I thought I had all the clients I needed. Over the years I’ve seen others make the same mistake but for different reasons. Here are a few:

One great publicity hit is a really bad reason to stop marketing. I’ve talked to people who believed if we could just get them on “The Oprah Winfrey Show” (before 2011) or “The Ellen DeGeneres Show,” that was all they’d need. They’d be done. Yes, a big national show can give you a tremendous launch, but you won’t keep soaring unless you do something to stay in the public eye. I guarantee you, there are plenty of people you never heard of who got their “big break” and then disappeared because they stopped marketing.

Most of us won’t get those huge hits – and that’s not a reason to stop, either. I haven’t been on “Oprah” but I often hear from prospective clients that I or my business was recommended to them by someone I’ve never met and don’t know. That’s what good, sustained marketing does. It may not always create fireworks, but that doesn’t mean it’s not working for you.

Yesterday’s story is old news. Look for fresh new ways to stay in the public eye. The publicity you get today can continue to work for you online, but eventually, it’s going to be old news. We encourage our clients to post links to their publicity on their websites; it shows visitors that they have credibility with the media. But if those visitors see only publicity and testimonials that are five or 10 years old, they’re going to wonder why no one’s been interested in you more recently.

Just as I put all my eggs in one basket by relying on one source for clients, it’s also a mistake to rely on just one marketing tool. Maximize the reach of the publicity you get in traditional media by sharing it on social media. Put a blog, or other content you can renew and refresh, on your website. Write a book. Do speaking engagements (for free, if necessary). Your audience is likely not all huddled together in one corner of the world. To reach them, use a variety of marketing tools.

Whatever it is you’re promoting – your business, your product, your book, yourself – keep the momentum going. If you want people to know you’re out there, you have to stay out there.

This guest post was written by Marsha Friedman, a 23-year veteran of the public relations industry. She is the CEO of EMSI Public Relations, a national firm that provides PR strategy and publicity services to businesses, professional firms, entertainers and authors. Marsha is the author of Celebritize Yourself and she can also be heard weekly on her Blog Talk Radio Show, EMSI’s PR Insider every Thursday at 3 p.m. EST. Follow her on Twitter: @marshafriedman.

Apple’s “Designed by Apple in California” dubbed a flop by many, is getting plenty of publicity. But not in the way Apple likely intended. The ad received a viewer score of 489 out of 900 based on the Ace Metric scale. This low-scoring commercial, compared to Apple’s 26 other ads this year, has created quite the buzz on Bloomberg, LA Times, Ad Age and various other sites.

Why the low score?

First, is it really a low score? The industry average is 542 making the Apple ad not far from status quo. By contrast, Apple’s most popular ads scored around 700. More importantly, Samsung’s commercials have been ranking above 600.

You might be surprised to know it wasn’t the company’s philosophy that viewers didn’t like; it was the lack of information and the sad tone to the commercial.

Apple is known for cutting edge technology. Perhaps viewers were disappointed that the commercial was focused on branding versus one of Apple’s new devices.

Why the change?

It’s a simple answer, really. If a well-known brand is losing market share to stiff competition and doesn’t have any new products to debut, what do you do? You do the branding thing in an attempt to energize your loyal fans with strong company values.

A secondary reason could be to remove any lingering bad rapport about Apple’s working conditions in China which was heavily criticized last year. Since then, the company has taken strides to move some production into the United States. This, coupled with a seemingly intentional shift in focus from manufacturing to design, is likely a major reason the brand went with “Designed by Apple in California.”

Flop or famous?

If the commercial’s goal was to draw attention away from Samsung’s new products and back to Apple, they got it. Just not in the way they intended.

Sometimes an attack on a much loved brand is exactly what is needed to energize loyal consumers. Keep in mind, low scores on ad surveys are not always indicative of consumer purchase patterns.

What are your thoughts on the commercial? Do you think this will hurt their new product launch coming up?

This guest post was written by Alicia Lawrence, content coordinator for WebpageFX and blogs in her free time at MarCom Land.

BBDO New York has created two new commercial for FedEx to tout the delivery service’s new Delivery Manager which allows recipients to specify date, time and place for delivery. To get the idea across, the agency came up with two silly scenarios.

In one, a family decides to take a “staycation” instead of a vacation so it won’t miss an important package. In another, a dentist performs work on his front porch to he doesn’t miss a package that might have been delivered to his office.

Both scenarios are wildly stupid, yet funny, and do a great job at making everyone feel better than these imaginary idiots who have no common sense. The approach, used by countless marketers and their agencies, employs schadenfreude. It’s like marketers can’t seem to get a message across without shitting all over some poor loser.

But hey, we love to wallow in the idiocy of others and as long as humans gain self-importance from the stupidity of others, marketers will continue to serve up doofuses in their ads.

Is this good marketing?

“Was all this made from your imagination?”

– A line among lines from The Great Gatsby

3D is dead.

I know, I know that’s a big statement for a 3D director to make. What I mean to say is 3D as a movie gimmick is dead.

That’s the impression I got walking away from an opening night showing of The Great Gatsby in 3D. Director Baz Luhrmann’s re-imagination of Fitzgerald’s well-known novel is out this weekend and it holds some really interesting secrets for creative directors. I won’t get into a flat out review of the film itself, except to say it sparked a whole lot of discussion from urban theatregoers as they exited the multiplex.

I had a few discussions myself, the biggest of which continues to be “what an interesting thing Luhrmann has done with the film.” That interesting thing is to attempt to advance his unique approach to cinematic storytelling by integrating a few new tools with his considerable arsenal.

“Integrating.” That’s the right word. The Great Gatsby shows off an integrated approach to film direction. His signature smashing together of modern soundtrack and period piece is on full display. The Roaring ’20s has never felt so modern. The film’s style is drenched with eye-popping colour and frames that feel like they were photographed with the most intricate of lighting. He even adds layers of text and image throughout the film in ways that are familiar to television audiences, but still foreign to most films.

Then there’s the 3D, a tool that also gets the integrated treatment in the film. When you go to see most 3D films these days, you know that 3D is going to try to be an extra star cast member. It’s a big gimmick that makes Iron Man 3 more explode-y and Star Trek Into Darkness more spacey. It’s different here. The Great Gatsby has been designed to be a blockbuster for grown ups, and as such, the 3D feels integrated in the same way Luhrmann’s other approaches feel integrated.

There are just a handful of shots that make you think “oh wow, look at the 3D.” Instead, the entire film just feels dimensional, like you’re experiencing storytelling in a new and different way. Luhrmann’s entire bag of tricks is on display here and 3D plays along really, really well. Watching the characters walk through the riot of color in Times Square is immensely satisfying. The party and dance scenes (oh yes, there is dance) feel like you’re experiencing, rather than simply watching an entire world.

Taken as a whole, The Great Gatsby is a careening, fascinating attempt to recast the way we can tell stories. Does it work? Yes … and no. To me, the film feels like an artist attempting to understand a subject. In lucid moments, it works spectacularly. In other places, it’s up to the traditional techniques of acting, pacing and drama to carry the story. Ultimately, the film demands to be seen by creatives as a way to inspire new thinking about everything from sound and color to the most grown up use of 3D in film yet.

Luhrmann shows us that 3D can be so much more than a catchy way to attract audiences. It’s a way to create a visual playground that engages in new and startling ways. He may have tried to kill off 3D as a gimmick, but in doing so, he’s shown that it can be an important, integrated way to tell a story. From this perspective, The Great Gatsby isn’t just another summer blockbuster, it’s a landmark film that visual storytellers need to see. My takeaway? Every Creative Director needs to see this film in 3D.

This guest post was written by James Stewart, a director with TateUSA and founder of Geneva Film Co. He is a six-time speaker at Cannes Lions and presented at TED2011 and TED2013. His new short film Foxed! opens theatrically in front of Storm Surfers 3D on June 28.

Jack Dorsey follows him on twitter. @jamesstewart3D

This guest post on the topic of Do Not Track is written by Tim Stoute, Co-CEO & CTO of Toronto-based eyeReturn.

Online advertising is appealing because it is effective and measurable. The “Ad Tech” industry is a competitive and innovative space, where disruptive new techniques are frequently introduced to provide advertisers new tools, reports, and efficiencies for their advertising dollars. One of these new technologies is behavioral advertising. Behavioral advertising allows online systems to classify web-surfing habits and target specific advertisements based on the classification – this, as you know, makes the advertising more efficient for the advertiser, and more relevant to the end user.

While behavioral advertising is both anonymous and a benefit to all parties, some people perceive the practice as intrusive and infringing on user privacy. Recognizing these concerns, the online advertising industry has worked together to form standards, regulations and opt-out systems. One of these standards is called Do Not Track (DNT).

Essentially, the DNT standard is a feature that is built into some web browsers, that allows user to indicate their opt-out preferences. Under the standard, all members of the online advertising community and ad tech space would obey the DNT signal, and not use any behavioural classifications when deciding which ad to deliver to a browser.

Microsoft on DNT

One of the tenets of the DNT standard is that the end user be given the choice about the DNT setting in their browser. Microsoft surprised the industry when they announced that Internet Explorer 10 browser (IE 10) would set the Do Not Track to “on” by default in IE 10, and not offer the user with a clear choice during installation.

Microsoft’s decision to turn on the DNT signal by default goes against a standard that the majority of the industry has worked on, and gained agreement on in principle. It remains to be seen how the IE 10 issue will really play out, but some large industry members, Yahoo for example, have stated they are ignoring IE 10 DNT signals altogether. Therefore, this move by Microsoft could simply backfire, and do a disservice to users of their web browser.

DNT in General

There are many technical details to be worked out surrounding the DNT standard, and if these are not carefully planned and implemented, there is a real risk that small and medium sized businesses in the online advertising ecosystem will be wiped out – leaving only the large internet/media companies such as Google and Facebook in the industry.

The reality is that a large part of the Web is supported by advertising, and without efficient advertising the content will disappear, or only be accessible to people that can afford to pay. It’s conceivable that all quality online content will end up behind paywalls, and the Web will become a much less valuable source of information and benefit to society at large.

The Internet Advertising Bureau in partnership with the Network Advertising Initiative and Digital Advertising Alliance, have worked together to create standards that allow anonymous and aggregate data to increase advertisers efficiencies while protecting end users privacy

Why DNT will hurt Small to Mid Sized Businesses

The World Wide Web Consortium’s (W3C) stance on the DNT standard has traditionally been very conservative. In an email from the NAI, describing a meeting with W3C’s Peter Swire, the NAI stated “(we) spent considerable time explaining how DNT could disproportionately harm the third-party ecosystem, and thus how it could endanger users’ access to cost-free ad-supported content and services. We drove home the point that the DNT policy currently on the table potentially establishes new barriers to entry for small players, creates competitive advantages for a select few large players, and threatens the current diversity of today’s innovative and dynamic Internet.”

DNT places a large and growing industry in potential jeopardy, but it goes beyond just the ad tech space. Small web sites and small business will suffer disproportionately under stricter online regulations. These companies increasingly depend on advertising to generate revenue, and behavioural advertising is the most efficient and effective means of advertising.

As tighter restrictions like DNT come into play, these companies will lose efficiency and the opportunity to communicate with their customers and potential customers, leaving only the largest corporations to monopolize the business space while also digesting and controlling far more than simple anonymous browsing and targeting data.

Members of the NAI, DAA – and the vast majority of online behavioral targeting companies – do not use personally identifying information. Behavioural advertising employs anonymous and aggregate data, with no names, addresses, phone numbers or precise pieces of information that permit the identification of an individual; there’s no reasonable means of identifying a specific person based on the data industry members use.

A parallel between OBA and telephone marketing is sometimes drawn, but they are very different, and here’s why: online advertising generates revenue and supports content that is not intended to be free – it is valuable, and only exists online to generate revenue. Therefore advertising is reasonably acceptable, and making the advertising as efficient as possible is also reasonable, so long as personally identifying information is not used without consent. Furthermore online advertising does not interrupt your family dinner as do telephone marketing companies – you only encounter it while surfing the Web, consuming ad-supported content or accessing ad supported resources.

DNT will fail if not carefully implemented; as we have seen advertisers may circumvent standards that are unreasonable; the standard needs to find balance between protection of privacy, the ability to monetize publisher content, and ensuring economic growth for the online ad industry – i.e. other players aside from Facebook and Google.

A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, Chief Executive Officers hired Chief Marketing Officers to make sure all their ads looked pretty and their television commercials were shot by really cool Hollywood directors. And maybe they hoped for a few sales leads as well, but that was asking a lot.

Flash forward to today, and CEOs are demanding much more from their CMOs. Both because they need to, and because the tools and services available to a CMO make it possible.

In an article on CMO.com, Stephanie Overby outlined the ten things CEOs want from their CMOs. They range from being a focused financial steward, to being the voice of the customer, to being data analysts, among other things.
In another article written by Laura Patterson for The CEO Refresher, she posited that every CMO should be able to answer ten questions asked by their CMO. Among the questions: How are customer needs evolving? What business outcomes will marketing directly impact? And what investments need to be made to improve Marketing’s ability to measure its contribution?

The gist here is that CMOs are being required to think more like a CEO. To be successful and to properly contribute to the success of a brand, a CMO must not only ensure that the brand’s marketing programs are performing well on their own, but they must also be able to indicate how those marketing KPIs contribute to the KPIs that matter to the boardroom — namely revenue, growth, and profit.

In a Kuno Creative post, John McTigue shared a list of top marketing KPIs that matter to C-level management. HubSpot CMO, Mike Volpe, wrote a post entitled “The 6 Marketing Metrics Your CEO Actually Cares About.” Clearly, there is a groundswell of acknowledgment around the need for CMOs to supply CEOs with numbers that support their KPIs, and to do it on a regular basis. But how can CMOs put systems in place to gather and quantify the information needed to support these KPIs?

How Inbound Marketing Can Feed Boardroom KPIs

Chief among Overby’s list of the ten things CEOs want from a CMO is that they act like a data analyst. They must have an in-depth understanding of the KPIs that are of importance to the CEO, and how maketing can serve those KPIs. It just so happens inbound marketing can form the basis of information that feeds boardroom KPIs by focusing on Return on Marketing Investment versus Return on Campaign Investment. Take sales revenues. The entire inbound marketing chain from content creation to lead management to marketing automation all serve to deliver specific, measurable data that can be linked to sales.

More specifically, with an inbound marketing solution that has sources reports, you can determine exactly which channels (organic search, referrals, social media, email marketing, paid search, etc.) brought in traffic, leads, and customers. And when connected to a corporate CRM, you can map this information directly to new customers and sales. This speaks to Patterson’s point that CMOs must be able to clearly point to the factors that have the greatest effect on revenue targets and be able to prove which metrics and KPIs can define the degree to which those factors affect outcome.

With conversion analysis, you can map the path your customers took from first contact through final sale and determine which content was most effective in keeping the pipeline filled. Most importantly, this type of reporting allows one to look backwards through the funnel to see how and when inbound marketing touch points affected buyer outcome.

In addition, if you have access to an inbound marketing system that allows for the aggregate analysis of its customer base, you can set goals for visits, leads and customers to help determine which elements of inbound marketing will help you hit those goals. In this way, you can also determine the necessary resources you will need to implement the tactics to meet those goals thereby arriving at an overhead figure that can be factored into your customer acquisition costs. And you will be able to address Patterson’s suggestion that CMOs need to be able to inform their CEOs which marketing resources and content customers use to make buying decisions.

If your inbound marketing solution offers social media analytics tools, you can easily determine the business value of your social media activities by tying the time it takes to manage those social media programs along with which leads are responding to your social content to sales through the above mentioned conversion analysis. This data can then feed into the marketing metric’s our CMO, Mike Volpe, put forth to arrive at something a bit more relevant to the CEO than, “Hey, we just topped 100,000 Likes on Facebook.”

Campaign metrics are, of course, very important. After all, as a CMO you need to know which marketing tactics are working and which are not. But when it comes time to speak with your CEO about how marketing is effecting the bottom line of the company, inbound marketing practices can provide you the necessary information you need to wow your CEO and the boardroom.

By now most of you have heard the term Native Advertising. And, yea, we can see you throwing your hands up in the air and screaming, “What’s up with all these people who feel the need to slap a new label on something that’s been around since consumer packaged goods companies created the soap opera?”

But as you well know, this industry loves its buzzwords. Now before you toss this off as the Cue Cat of 2013, consider this; Native advertising, done right, is not an advertorial. Native advertising, done right, is not product placement. Native advertising, done right, offers valuable, educational, useful information to your customers and prospects.

Check out this article I wrote for HubSpot entitled How Inbound Marketing Can Fuel Native Advertising to make sure your native advertising efforts are doing everything they can at every stage of the marketing process.

As you may have realized, we’re somewhat partial to the sex-sells approach to advertising here at Adrants. That said, there are limits and there are matters of taste. Writing on Venture Beat, Jolie O’Dell brings to our attention a promotional email she was sent by voice-control company Voco touting their booth at next week’s CES in Las Vegas.

Next to a pair of disembodied legs, the ad urges the reader to “Play with my V-Spot. Another image of a woman’s red-lipped open mouth carries the headline, “Because oral is better.”

Created by Dirk Marketing, the ads shamelessly tie the the product to a woman’s vagina and the act of giving a blow job. O’Dell, a classy and refined woman if ever there was one – something you immediately realize once you meet her – eloquently castigates Voco for it’s seemingly out of touch approach to marketing.

While there’s certainly nothing wrong with a bit of tongue and cheek humor or light sexual innuendo in advertising once in a while, Voco’s approach is akin to 6th grade boy’s room bathroom humor – youthfully eager but sorely lacking the grace of intellectual wisdom and wit that comes with age.

Tying Voco’s approach to advertising with the lack of women in the technology sector, the beat she has covered for years at Mashable, ReadWriteWeb and, now, VentureBeat, O’Dell writes, “Voco, I regret to inform you that I will be unable to visit your CES booth this year. I moreover regret that I will never review, recommend, or use your products, no matter how interesting and innovative they are. I most deeply regret that you don’t have enough respect for me to put yourself on my level and look at the world and your ads through my or anyone else’s eyes.”

While a brand such as Voco may file this work under innocuous marketing silliness or dub O’Dell’s reaction the rantings of a writer with a thorn in her side, when a journalist with O’Dell’s clout and stature in the technology space calls for a boycott of the brand at the largest tech trade show in the world, Voco might want to take heed and respond in some manner. Sadly, that doesn’t appear to be the case as the brand’s last tweet was back in August 21.

O’Dell’s article has had hundreds of Likes and Retweets along with hundreds of comments to the article itself. However, as is always the case, there are plenty who are calling this an over-reaction or a tempest in a tea cup.

One could argue that this is simply an ad targeting a predominantly male audience which uses the allure of sex (something pretty much everyone loves and can relate to) to raise awareness. One could also argue any form of advertising that ties a sexual act performed upon or by a woman to a product (other than a sex toy) devalues the product and the brand’s potential customer base.

With an ad like this, the important question on must ask oneself is “does the ad objectify women or does it simply identify with a natural act in which all humans engage?”

So let’s break it down. At last count, most woman enjoy (pardon our bluntness) having their V-Spot or vagina played with. At last count, most men enjoy (pardon our bluntness) having their hard ons orally stimulated. It would seem the Voco ad is simply tying pleasurable sexual acts that all humans love to their product line.

On the other hand, the ad isn’t showing a man’s finger (or tongue) going at a “V-Spot.” In both visuals, the ad clearly focuses on the female. Why? We’re not sure we have the answer but ask yourself this: why do most porn flicks (or regular flicks for that matter) focus heavily on the female versus the male? Why is the woman shown predominantly and the man rarely seen?

Wait. We may have the answer. Most viewers of porn-related material are predominantly (yes, we know the stats are a few years old) by men. Which, one could conclude, is why some advertising aimed at men includes sexually-charged imagery. Hey, we’re no scientist but it would seem obvious that if men enjoy looking at sexually-charged images of women more-so than women enjoy looking at sexually-charged images of men, then it seems entirely logical for a brand targeting men to consider using sexual imagery in its advertising.

That said, there is a fine line of consideration (and intellect not found in the 6th grade boy’s bathroom) that must take place when considering the use of sexual imagery in advertising. A marketer must be sure they leverage the humorous and positive aspects of sexual innuendo rather than more prurient and neanderthal version.

This Voco ad may, indeed, simply be a tempest in a teacup. But, for us, anything that sparks an intelligent conversation about the role of sex, sexual imagery, sexual innuendo and its relationship to how brands and consumers are portrayed is a worthy discussion in our book.

This guest article was written by Jim Signorelli, CEO of ESW Partners, a marketing communications agency based in Chicago specializing in branding.

From the early beginnings of the race for the White House, the news media seemed deeply concerned about who would have the biggest war chest. Certainly, dollars have historically contributed a great deal to winning Presidential campaigns. But given that Obama scored a 62% Electoral College advantage with only 4% more spending than Romney, the power of money has been seriously called into question.

Money buys audience reach, message frequency and media placement. Money also pays for the creation and production of messages as well as the necessary wherewithal to administer those messages. We cannot discount the importance of these financial realities.

But there is one variable that has recently gained enormous power. Unlike the other variables, it doesn’t depend on spending. It costs nothing more than respect for its existence and adherence to its demands. In part, it is driven by the new order of social media and its ability to make brands more transparent. It’s called story logic.

Story logic runs deep in every brand, including those of Presidential candidates. As consumers, we don’t see it, but we do sense how strong story logic is or isn’t. Toapply story logic to any brand, one must first see the brand as lead character in the story that it sets out to tell its audience. Specifically, a brand is very much like a story’s protagonist confronting certain obstacles to achieve certain goals.

Both story protagonists and brands are multilayered. Their surface, or outer layers, contains visible behaviors. In the example of brand Romney vs. brand Obama, each candidate’s outer layer consisted of things said, done, and promised prior to and during their campaigns.

Going deeper, the brand’s inner layer is like the engine under its hood. It consists of beliefs and values that fuel the brand’s outer layer and helps audiences discern what the real beliefs are behind the brand’s behavior. As marketers, we can voice what a brand’s outer layer consists of. But the truth of their inner layers is completely dependent upon the voices inside the heads of their audience.

Story logic is simply the linkage between a brand’s inner and outer layer. When what we see or what we are told about a brand’s promise runs contrary to the value or belief we ascribe to that brand, the logic chain is broken and the story becomes something that doesn’t make sense.

In the contest between Romney and Obama, it was relatively easy to infer that each brand had polar opposite inner layers. One was driven by the belief in strong government; the other put greater stock in the private sector. From a social perspective, one candidate held more liberal beliefs and values and his opponent’s were more conservative. We were able to infer the difference in values and beliefs from each candidate’s outer layer promises and plans to support specific policies.

However, when one looks at the many surveys taken prior to Election Day, a few stand out. They are those that reflect the relative consistency between each candidate’s outer and inner layer.

In a poll taken by Time Magazine, one month prior to the election, readers were asked, “Which candidate is more truthful, Obama or Romney?” Obama outpaced Romney 72% vs. 28%. In a similar poll conducted by Newhouse in October, Obama’s ads were seen as more truthful than Romney’s, 42% vs. 30%. Whether you give credence to these polls or others that asked similar questions, we all know that Romney was often described by pundits as a “flip-flopper.” “Flip-flopping” occurs when a brand’s outer layer is perceived as a moving target. The biggest blow to Romney’s story logic came from his secretly filmed 47% comment that was picked up and repeatedly viewed on YouTube and other media outlets. Despite Romney’s admission that this statement didn’t reflect his true feelings, it created a great deal of dissonance. Dissonance is the enemy of story logic.

Some have argued that Romney’s ever-changing outer layer resulted from efforts to be all things to his highly fractionalized party. But in Presidential elections as with brands, the perceived consistency between beliefs, values, and actions has a great deal to do with winning votes or customers. Lack of layer consistency, perceived or real, can only result in confusion, dislike, and distrust — or all of the above. It is hard to know if Romney would have won had there been a stronger link between what he stood for and what he was promising to deliver. Arguably, stronger story logic would have turned off certain factions at the expense of others.

On the other hand, Obama had the story logic advantage. Whether you agreed or disagreed with his actions and promises, his consistency was rarely called into question. Clearly, he had obstacles to overcome given the worse economy since the Great Depression and social policies that were labeled by many as socialistic. But unlike Romney, the link between his outer and inner layer was unwavering.

I’m often asked what is more important, a brand’s inner layer or its outer layer. Rather than address that question head on, I often defer to brand success stories like Apple, The Ritz Hotel, North Face, Nike, and others that show how important it is to make certain that both layers are well defined and appeal to audiences large enough to foster growth. But what I believe is more important than either layer itself is the logical integrity between the values and beliefs a brand stands for and its actual or implied behavior. As with stories, brands depend on audiences concluding for themselves that what is portrayed is believable and authentic.

Jim Signorelli is CEO of ESW Partners, a marketing communications agency based in Chicago specializing in branding. He recently published a book, StoryBranding Creating Standout Brands through the Power of Story. For more information, contact @jimsignorelli or visit www.eswpartners.com/storybranding to download a free chapter.

This guest article is written by Jim Signorelli is CEO of StoryLab Marketing.

Why do we call them “creative” briefs?

The traditional advertising creative brief, has a history dating back when it was first used in 1863.

That same year, President Lincoln was asked to speak at the dedication of the new Solidiers National Cemetery in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. An unprecedented human tragedy and the product of a war Mr. Lincoln was having to justify would serve as the backdrop for this speech.

To prepare Mr. Lincoln for this challenge, a staffer developed an outline of what needed to be said. This first-of-its-kind outline was so named “the creative brief” because it provided “a focused structure that the President could use for inspiration.” Here’s how it read:

THE CREATIVE BRIEF FOR THE GETTYSBURG ADDRESS

What is the problem this speech must solve?

Galvanize support for the war.

Target audience:

Fifteen-to twenty-thousand northerners gathered at the dedication of the new Soldiers’ National Cemetery in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, and the nation at large who have become war weary and are starting to doubt the cause of this war.

What do we want them to think?

These soldiers did not die in vain.

Support:

(See Declaration of Independence for reasons why).

How do we want them to feel?

Motivated to keep up the fight for the North’s noble cause.

What do we want them to do?

Continue supporting the war and the principles on which this country was founded.

Upon reading this, Mr. Lincoln quickly crumpled it up, tossed it out and fired the staffer who wrote it. Lincoln knew what he had to say based on his own heartfelt understanding of the atrocities of war. Equipped with empathy, and a gift for language, Lincoln went on to write one of the most significant American speeches ever delivered.

Okay, so this story reconstructs history. Okay, and more than just a little. But it does demonstrate an important point. Expecting creative briefs to inspire creativity is a little like expecting an artist to originate a masterpiece using paint-by-numbers.

Arguably, creative briefs are necessary. They outline the creative assignment. But they do very little to spark creativity. It is hard to get emotionally engaged with what amounts to a check list. Creative teams should have something more at their disposal to do their best work.

The “I AM” statement

As an adjunct to the creative brief, there is a tool that has proven to be useful in dealing with this problem. It is called the I AM statement. In short, it is a first-person account of the prospect, written from the prospects’ standpoint and voice. Contrary to the traditional creative brief, I AM statements go well beyond factual expositions of what needs to be accomplished and with whom. Rather, they work very much like stories that influence an empathic identification with their characters.

Imagine a first-person narrative like this accompanied a creative brief:

“I AM someone whose is pained by the passing of young lives as the result of this atrocious war, a war that continues to create more suffering than any nation deserves. Must this continue? How necessary is this fighting Mr. Lincoln? How many more lives must be lost?”

This statement adds emotional texture to the factual description of the prospect as “someone who has become war weary and starting to doubt the cause of war.”

Empathy is a necessary ingredient to any persuasive effort, including the selling of brands. I AM statements can bring the writer closer to the audience’s experience far more effectively than an exposition of observations made from the outside looking in.

See for yourself. First, think of your prospect in the aggregate. Then, in the first person, offer a definition of that prospect with a sentence that starts with the words “I Am.” Provide a general description of relevant thoughts and feelings that you have. Describe an unmet or unsatisfied need. Discuss your frustrations or satisfactions with current offerings. Just as you explained who you are, explain who you are not. Talk about anything and everything that will help uncover what it’s like to be the generalized prospect you are trying to address. And talk in the voice of that imagined audience.

It does take some practice. But at the very least, while writing I AM statements, you will be forced to dig deeper than you might otherwise for insights and a truer understanding of the prospect.

This is not to suggest eradicating the creative brief. Rather, it is to demonstrate how solely relying on a shortened form of facts can get in the way of providing the emotional lift that any persuasive message must have in order to resonate with its audience. As a supplement to the creative brief, I AM statements can do more to inspire creativity.

Jim Signorelli is CEO of StoryLab Marketing in Chicago and author of StoryBranding: Creating Standout Brands Through The Power Of Story. For more information, please visit: www.eswpartners.com