Hello EMF Universe, 

http://tinyurl.com/cthm85g 

This is amazing and inspiring 

http://tinyurl.com/cdbbvvw 

It's a holiday week here in the states. So happy holidays to the 
folks in the USA, and to the community members in the other 170 plus 
countries and sovereign areas - go get some BIG WINS!!!!. 

Best of luck to everyone....Please remember to share all the 
experiential news .... registered members simply send an email to 
This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it  

-- 
Erik Hauser 
Founder & Experiential Methodology Expert 
http://www.experientialforum.com

De-Branding?

There are many things in life that are fascinating.  These things include, but are not limited things such as, Old Faithful, Stone Mountain and the process of De-Branding.

What’s de-branding you ask? It’s something that’s quite simple, and something most people would find either comical or just plain rude.

There has always been the somewhat ironic existence when one achieves a certain level of fame person in the US.  The irony comes into play when the person that has worked so hard to buy expensive things - gets them for free!  Yes, that’s correct, these people work so hard to get what they want - then the people that run the brands want these people to be seen wearing, driving or simply using their product or service.

In theory, if you see a famous person that you admire wearing the new Levis jeans then you will want to wear the jeans.  It’s simply setting up the marketplace on an inspirational platform.  However, what happens when a pseudo celebrity is wearing a brand that the brand managers don’t want them being seen in?

The answer to this question is actually quite funny.  If a brand manager for hmmmmm. let’s say A&F sees someone wearing their brand that they don’t want to they may/will do the following:

1.  They will ask the person not to wear their brand

2.  They will offer to pay the person not to wear the brand

3.  They will negotiate with the person and send them an unlimited amount of another brand

Yes, you read that last one correctly.  The brand managers for brand A will give you a large stock of brand B just to get you out of their brand. 

This is the process that is deemed de-branding.  The brands try to put space between the high-profile people that they don’t want wearing their clothes or using their products and/or services.

I guess what this shows us is that brands put a lot of stock in their belief that “the average Joe” will try to emulate their favorite celebrity. 

It’s funny, but true......

Spend Your Money Where Your Intended Audience Spends Their Time

Erik Hauser

We live in a world where the only number that surpasses the birth rate of newborn children is the unbelievable number of new born technologies.  When we truly understand this point we must recognize the tell tale signs that we’ve all, at some level, given ourselves over to the “cult of speed” that’s quietly emerged around us.  I mean - It’s April already - how could you not feel that the we’re living in fast forward?

In the past, looking at it through the lens of the consumer, new technologies and technological platforms came to market at a very accommodating speed. As consumers we’d all transform our media and other files to the newer, more advanced, more widely embraced technological platforms.  

Even at these once slower speeds, it felt like we could barely migrate our media in time to the “newer” platform.  It felt like it was just in the nick of time for a newer, bigger and brighter technology to enter into the game - eight track, tapes, cd’s - I know you understand what I mean. I can speak for many when I say that we were frustrated - even living at this much slower speed.  

Now let’s subtly drift upwards to look at this specific issue from the atmospheric level.

When we contextualize all of these new technologies for the world of marketing - we notice an extremely precarious situation for the brand teams, and for the agency teams that are supposed to be working synergistically with them.  Let’s add a little more context re: the situation.

I was lucky enough to be asked to keynote for the National Association of Lotteries - this was back in the dark ages - circa 2006.  At that time, we were all knees deep in the new media, MySpace revolution.  This pace was kept steady for the next couple years.  Social networks were literally being born on a daily basis.  Naturally, It became confusing for both agencies and corporations to understand where they should be spending their digital advertising money.

How were corporations dealing with the new media landscape?

Every corporate entity, regardless of their vertical, rushed to have a presence on MySpace and the other emerging social networks.  It was great that the majority of corporations were beginning to participate in social media.  But, it would have been even better if the corporations had a better grasp on their consumers’ on-line behavior and social marketing in general. More importantly, corporations needed to gain an understanding as to why their consumers were even going to MySpace and the other social networks.  

Let’s hope that we never forget that the biggest, key insight that corporations can attain is to learn what truly drives their consumers’ behavior.  Then, corporations can correctly engage their intended audiences with the right brand experiences at the right times to compel and motivate them to purchase.

It simply felt, at that particular time, that corporations just knew that there was a large mass of consumers that were gathering at these particular on-line locations.  So, the corporations felt like they needed to have some sort of corporate presence everywhere in the digital realm.  Some corporations spent a little money - while others spent a significant amount of money integrating MySpace into their overall IMC plan.  Some even tagged their TV commercials with the corporations’ MySpace URL address.  Clearly, all of this was a preface of things to come.

Was it “smart money” being spent?  

Before the MySpace frenzy was able to reach it’s natural cresting point, along came another little social network called The Facebook.  Now, what we had was a mature social network, a newer network that was growing at a ferocious pace, and a myriad of niche, social network sites that appealed to audiences’ passion points.  These sites would include, but not be limited to, The Great Games Experiment ( for gamers ) etc.  I covered this “new normal” in a keynote speech that I presented at Stanford University in 2007.  

During that speech, in particular, I spoke about the phenomenon of people maintaining a MySpace account, but spending more time and being more engaged with the social networks that appealed more directly to their greatest passion points.  It felt like MySpace was trying too hard to be everything to everyone.  At that point in time, I’m not sure that anybody fully recognized that Facebook was going to collect more community members than many continents have residents across the globe. That’s saying something since we happened to be smack dab in the center of the “ tech valley”  at that time.

So, it’s 2007 rolling into 2008 and we’re starting to see the rate at which new medias, gadgets, apps etc. reach such a phrenetic pace that it’s seriously impossible to keep up -  And that was just 2007.  

Now, lets fast forward to the current date.  

As consumers we still hear of at least two to three new platforms emerging on a daily basis.  We hear about most of them because the builders of these new media platforms have embedded mechanisms that make it a one click offering to invite ones’ entire social rolodex from one network to the next.  

It’s fair, actually is overly fair, to say that we’ve reached such an over saturation point re: medias, apps and other delivery mechanisms. Even our biology has entered the scene to shield us from the over-stimulation of the new media landscape.  If our bodies weren’t built with this “safety mechanism” then we’d all be checked into the local hospital suffering from de-hydration, over stimulation and severe eye strain.

As with everything else in this world - things eventually hit a wall - I’d liken it to the notion of terminal velocity.  We can only go so fast, and we can only absorb so much.

Where does all of this leave us?  

It leaves us at a place in which corporations need above adequate assistance to make sure that they are building brand relevant experiences on the media platforms where their consumers and potential consumers will be most receptive to them.  Again, it’s so important to understand the psychology of the consumer because a corporation may spend millions of dollars on a social networking site in which the only reason that consumers are there is to interact with their friends.  So, if you’re wasting millions of dollars simply building static, non-engaging experiences - corporations are wasting their money.  

In my opinion, there are currently more corporations wasting a ridiculous amount of money then ever before.  And, this comes at a time in which corporations are being  held accountable for each marketing dollar that is spent.  And, the one certainty that is omnipresent as always - there are unfortunately agencies “selling air”.  This is a nice way of saying that agencies are selling services that fall outside of their scope.  They may have figured that they could hire a vendor that could adequately address the issue, but it’s not what the client thinks they are paying for.

Making Sure That Everything is OK?

Corporations need to reconfigure how they select their agencies.  The current RFP process needs to be scrapped.  They need to also be a part of the process that develops the new metrics by which the effectiveness of their campaigns are being measured.  They need to develop sound strategies with tactics that are germane to it.  We certainly wouldn’t want to be using old school metrics that have far been outpaced by the tactics and strategies that they are to be measuring.  There, of course, is a point where over-analysis leads to paralysis, but properly measuring new media is an extremely fluid part of this process.  Corporations should be making absolutely sure that they have the full, new and proper metrics dashboard in place.

To clarify, I wasn’t intending to sound apocalyptic - far from it.  There are certainly an abundance of agencies that dot the agency landscape that understand new media and how to navigate it.  Just make sure that you select one of these agencies so that you can be 100% sure that you, as a corporation, are spending your money where your intended audience is spending their time.  

This is the first, necessary step for a corporation to begin to speak with their audience, to insure that they’re engaging them 

Bravo to MLB 2012

Seldom do I watch TV and have an advertisement come across the screen that leaves me proclaiming - What a brilliant promotion!

Of course, your inquisitive mind is going to immediately ask which advertisement that I am referring to.  If you happened to notice the title of the article then you correctly came to the conclusion that I am referring to the MLB 2012 video game.

What’s so brilliant about the promotion?

Drum roll.............. If you throw a perfect game - you win $1,000,000.00 ! 

Sometimes the most ingenious ideas are the ones that seem so simple to come up with.  Then, guys/gals like me see it and proclaim that someone, somewhere deserves a round of advertising awards.

Let’s first address the most obvious, brilliant point here.  If you are a consumer that is going to buy a baseball game - then MLB 2012 just rocketed up your purchase consideration set to number one.  Secondly,  you can safely assume that those that fit into this niche audience are going to talk to each other - which, in turn, is going to hit the bulls-eye/ holy grail of advertising.  They’ve just turned their own consumers into walking advertisements for the game.  Which, as would properly guess, would rocket MLB 2012 up to the top of the majority of the potential consumers.

Again, on it’s face value it may seem somewhat of a pedestrian campaign.  But, I would beg to differ and say that this one, single idea is enough to conquer all of the obstacles in the “consumer journey’s” pathway to purchase.  

In short, it’s a grand-slam!      

Desperation : A Cologne That No Brand Wears Well

I happen to really like that title as it’s a saying that I developed many years ago.  A brand acting desperate always raises some red flags.  It’s along the same DNA lines as the statement, “ If you look hungry, then you won’t get fed.” While I feel that both of the statements are crafty and clever -they’re also extremely relevant for the current marketing landscape.  Please allow me to explain.

As individuals, we all handle our relationships differently.  Some of us are passionate, some are boring and others are thoroughly engaging and have an innate level of magnetism when it comes to relationships.  One thing that people never want to appear is desperate.  Hence the title of this piece.

We maintain relationships with both animate and inanimate objects.  We tend to treat both relationships the same way considering that, as humans, we only have one notion about relationships.  Why am I setting the stage to speak about this topic?  Certain brands have been handling new, social medias with an air of desperation. Allow me to explain.

Let’s create a typical, live social setting - happy hour. People are inevitably going to hang out with old friends while being exposed to new people - allowing them to make new friends. As a person interacts with their friends they will frequently have the opportunity to meet new people.  They can decide if they’d like to allow the new person(s) into their circle of friends.  If they choose to do so - a new relationship is born. If not, then the people will interact and not sustain an on-going relationship in any modality with the new person(s). 

People tend to interact and befriend new people that share common interests. 

There is always “that person” in the social setting that interjects their point of view, interrupts on-going conversations and is just plain desperate to engage others.  Essentially, this would be considered the person that is trying too hard - acting in a desperate fashion to make friends.  These people will tend to not have the social IQ to read peoples’ body language and they’ll just continue to interfere with everyone’s good time.  Eventually, people will have no choice but to actively avoid the person that is acting in an interruptive manner.  The intent of the people that attended happy hour was to socialize with their friends and be open to meeting new friends - not to be annoyed by some desperate person.

Now that we’ve covered the social dynamics of people in an actual live setting. Let’s jump into the digital realm.  People still have the same expectations on-line regarding their friends and potential new friends that may emerge on-line.  There is one question though?

Who mostly takes on the role of the desperate entity in the digital realm?  

It’s simple to make a proper assessment here. Unfortunately, it’s brands that are the entity acting desperate on-line and essentially begging for friends.  Brands are not simply doing this in the digital realm - they’re also extending this behavior into the physical space on traditional medias.

What would you or any consumer do if a person desperately asked you to like them?

For the most part you’d ignore them unless they, like a real friend, embody the qualities that you look for.  How many advertisements these days do you see on the TV, OOH and everywhere else in which you see brands begging for you to be their friends?  Since we have one notion of what a relationship is - we mostly look at these ads with a certain amount of disbelief.

If I’d planned ahead - I would have taken a picture of a billboard down the street from me.  It’s an extremely large billboard for a plumbing company.  On the billboard, the company essentially begs people to like them on Facebook.  I guess that I’ll pose the question to you.  Doesn’t it seem a little weird when a company, seemingly w/o a strategy, begs for friends on Facebook?  

Is it me, or should companies not act like they’re fishing for friends? 

It seems desperate to me, and that brings me back to the title of this article. I feel that it reflects poorly on a brand that simply asks/begs for friends.  I feel that they should be creating their own unique, value proposition that makes you want to be friends with them.  You want to feel like you’re getting something by becoming their friend. 

In my opinion, there are many brands that truly understand the social media value exchange equation.  This means that if you decide that you want to let a brand into your life that you know what you’re going to get as a result of “friending” a brand.

My advice to brands that are trying to integrate social media components into their overall media mix 

1) The brand should more clearly articulate themselves.  This, alone, will prevent them from looking like the desperate,lonely person walking around at happy hour rudely interrupting people. 

2) The brand needs to truly understand the social media value exchange equation so that they present their “new friends” with something that has a high perceived value

If brands just start with these two simple steps then they will be perceived as a brand that understands the needs and wants of their consumers.  I wish everyone luck, and I hope that every brand is able to throw away their bottle of “desperation” cologne. 

John Carter - Failure To Connect

Erik Hauser

As I was flipping through the television from one channel to the next -  I couldn’t help but hear the Disney execs comment on the total failure of Disney’s $250 MM John Carter Movie. “We thought that the movie would connect with audiences,” they all said.

Did the Disney execs take a look at the trailer that was being run during their thirty/sixty second spots ?  I believe that if they had - they’d have easily foreseen the impending doom at the box office.  

The issue that I’d like to touch-on in this article is the notion of “connecting with the consumers.”  It’s an omni-present issue, and when you spend 250 MM for the production of the movie - you’d be well advised to check your “connection cables” to insure that it will connect with the audience.

We all know that one of the most important things that we do as experiential marketers is to form a strong “connection” with the consumers.  We do this properly by building a consumer touch-point map and building a well thought campaign that connects and engages the consumers on many levels.  This means that we not only get their attention, but have the ability to hold it for a healthy amount of time. I’m not sure who did the TV spots, but they seemed schizophrenic at best.  I can’t imagine anyone watching one of the ads and saying, “ I can’t wait to see that movie.”  It was impossible to even make out the story lines or potential story lines. 

Like any good brand, a movie studio should spend their marketing dollars to create positive experiences where their intended audiences spend their time.  In my own personal case with John Carter I have only seen 30 second spots on the TV.  I’m sure they must have had a digital presence, but I didn’t see it. And, I’m sure if I had that I’d feel it was something that was completely “un-connectable”.  

What’s the golden rule?

In order to connect with something we must first understand. 

Nobody could have possibly understood the John Carter spots.

The 250 MM dollar question is how did something that cost that much flop so badly?  Surely, there are the economic conditions around the world that are keeping people away from the movie theatre all together, but there is more - much more.

This is a perfect example of the high level executives being completely disconnected from their consumers.  If they had a better grasp on the needs and wants of their consumers then they would have wound up with a much more desirable product.

In the 30 and 60 second spots for the John Carter movie on TV there wasn’t anything to connect with.  The commercials were simply confusing at best, and a total and complete  waste of money which induced the antithesis effect at worst.  So what can be done to prevent this in the future?

1.  Movie executives need to take into account the current financial situation in the world.  This, alone, would be having the studios putting out safer movies.  The risk profile of the John Carter movie was extremely high.  So, in short, green light movies that will appeal to larger audiences and that have MUCH lower production costs

2.  “Thinking” that the consumers would connect with the movie seems very thin to me.  Before any brand or movie production house puts that much money into something - they should know that it’s s home run.  This can be achieved by leveraging existing, successful franchises and adapting their stories for the big screen.  Or, better yet, do something so completely unexpected that it earns so much social currency among consumers that it hits a grand slam - ala Blair With Project.  One may say that the Blair Witch project was a fluke.  The reason that I used this as an example is that I really didn’t even particularly care for that movie, but for 250 MM dollars you can make around  300 Blair Witch projects - therefore increasing your likeliness to connect with the audiences.

In short, unless James Cameron walks in with a script that is essentially “money in the bank” - lower your risk profile - truly connect and engage your consumers, and green light projects that appeal to a broader audience.

Whether is be a film or a new product/service.  It is the company’s responsibility to produce something that creates and sustains demand by the consumers.  An ad shop can only do so much. We can’t make ketchup fly - well, not without our animation tools.;)