Never Send A Hamster To Do A Gecko's Job

Insider lingo is off-putting to everyone who isn't inside.

Healthcare, life insurance and reverse mortgages: if you’re over 65, it seems like advertisers think these are the only classes of purchases in which you’re interested.

Generational Marketing is a grand idea. But too many marketers and brand managers seem uninterested in all but a few of those younger generations. They’re seeking brand sustainability, early wrought loyalty and some of the purchasing power of the 20-somethings’ new money.

Understandable goals, all around.

But do they forget the established tendency toward loyalty — and the rock-solid purchasing power — of the generations they habitually ignore?

Gaps in communication only compound the gen-gap. Trying too hard to emulate the lingo of the youngest, they send incomprehensible lingo right over the heads of elders. That’s not just ignoring part of your audience — that's flirting with their annoyance.

Two possible solutions: Spend big like Geico does, on parallel marketing platforms aimed toward every possible age of buyer. Or spend cheap by sticking to the basics, by talking about value and benefits in plain English.

Yes, you should know your audience, and talk right to them. If your only possible buyers are too young to remember the sounds of dial-up, then by all means dazzle them with your hippity-blingy hamsters.

But stop and consider the couple billion older consumers to whom you’re not selling. Ask yourself if your hamsters aren’t gnawing into your bottom line. Ask yourself if you can afford to ignore any generation.

The C4:

1. Generational Marketing means fine-tuning your message for the benefit of your buying demographic. It doesn’t mean ignoring or annoying potential buyers.
2. Hip lingo and youthful swagger are cute. “Cute” is complementary for only so many brands.
3. Every age of consumer is interested in value, in features and in benefits. Talk about those and you’re talking to everyone.
4. Don’t send a hamster to do a caveman’s job.

What motivates an entrepreneur?

The urge to create may be high on the list.

There are probably as many answers to that as there are entrepreneurs. Popular opinion, however, holds that there are some similarities: entrepreneurs are seen as brash risk-takers, somewhat abrasive, always impulsive (we’re thinking of you, The Donald).

But are such generalizations fair? Probably not. Personality traits aside, the one thing that motivates most entrepreneurs is that which forms their signature achievement: the urge to create.

The specifics of that are varied. Some build companies within their fields of expertise because they’ve developed valuable innovations. Others enter unfamiliar markets when they sense a challenge or opportunity. But in every case they are inspired to create a new entity — their own unique company — where none had existed before.

Brash? Maybe. But certainly not in any negative sense.

As for risk-taking, the risks are inherent. Every venture risks failure or worse. But when entrepreneurs stake their fortunes and reputations, will they gamble with undue risks? Not likely.

It’s far more accurate to say that an entrepreneur is, whenever possible, a risk eliminator. An entrepreneur evaluates risks, weighs outcomes and chooses the path that offers the highest return with the best chance for success.

That chance for success is ultimately the most driving motivation for entrepreneurship. Maybe it requires a dash of brashness and a modicum of risk-taking. The payoff is worth it, though, for the entrepreneur and for all of society.

Bring on the brashness, we say, and hooray for the entrepreneurs.

The C4:

1. Entrepreneurs are creators at heart.
2. They are not intrinsically brash risk-takers.
3. They rock at starting but not necessarily at maintaining new ventures.
4. Without them, we would all be in big trouble.

Learn more about how we help start-ups.

Nothing Happens Without Awareness

Happy 70th birthday to the Ad Council.

The Ad Council is the advertising industry’s premier non-profit, founded in 1942 at the urging of President Franklin Roosevelt, to leverage the persuasive power of media for the sake of the common good. Those early years saw memorable campaigns on behalf of the war effort, including the introduction of an icon that remains moving and powerful to this day: Rosie the Riveter.

Since then, the Council has championed causes that benefit us all, while remaining decidedly non-partisan and uncontroversial. These include Smokey the Bear’s fight against forest fires, McGruff the Crime Dog’s exhortations to “take a bite out of crime,” and the familiar, effective message: “Friends don’t let friends drive drunk.”

The Ad Council’s mission is made possible through the donated time and talents of the industry’s top creative minds, and more than $1 billion in free media space per year. We see the results every day on TV, online, in our magazines and in our newspapers. More importantly, we see the results in the positive social changes the Ad Council helps to bring.

The influence of modern advertising is a boon to business and commerce. We’re proud to be part of that. But we’re at least as proud of the role our industry plays in positive social messaging and change. So thank you, Ad Council, and here’s to your next 70 years of service.

The C4:

1. The Ad Council was founded in 1942 by advertising industry leaders, as part of the home-front war effort.
2. From 1942–1945 the Council helped sell war bonds, encouraged rationing, kept morale high and introduced Rosie the Riveter to the world.
3. Since the end of WWII, the Ad Council has leveraged top creative talent and billions of dollars in free media to promote some of the most important and most familiar social causes.
4. Nothing happens without awareness. Congrats to the Ad Council on its 70th anniversary.

Is the tide rising?

Housing and employment show good signs.

The downturn we call the Great Recession, which was our nation’s worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, began in December of 2007. The recession itself (defined as multiple consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth) ended in June of 2009. However, as we’re all too well aware, the recovery has been slow, halting and uneven.

At last, we’re glimpsing an end to that. If the collapse of the housing industry was what presaged the downturn — and it was — then a housing recovery means good news for us all.

We now know that the rate of foreclosures in 2011 decreased 24% as compared to 2010. The number of homeowners 90 days or more delinquent on their mortgages was down to 7.3% of all borrowers as of December 2011, versus 7.8% the previous December. And the number of U.S. metro areas showing measurable improvements in their housing markets increased to 98, as of the first of this month.

Do we still have further to go, and are there dangers still ahead? Yes and yes. But don’t let that keep us from indulging in a bit of optimism.

The Dow is up and unemployment is down. The housing industry is on its way back. The tide is rising and all boats are being lifted. Let’s enjoy it, celebrate it, and then let’s roll up our sleeves and get back to work.

The C4:

1. The Great Recession (2007–2009) was triggered by a collapse of the housing and mortgage industries.
2. The recovery has been one of the slowest on record, with nearly 18 months (mid-2009 through 2010) of little or no improvement in housing and employment.
3. There’s ample reason for optimism. We’ve seen five consecutive months of improving employment numbers, and a steady rise of the major stock indices.
4. Within Ohio and across the nation, the housing market is recovering. Healthy housing will complete this recovery. Cheers to that!

Crazy? Yep!

You in?

Since 10% of the world’s population is already on Facebook, saying that Facebook is going public is a little like saying Charlie Sheen is going crazy.

But from a business perspective, it’s true (the Facebook part, that is — Sheen’s nuttiness, like Sheen himself, is irrelevant).

Facebook filed paperwork last week for an upcoming IPO. Analysts are predicting the largest tech-sector public offering of all time, maybe even the largest-ever stock launch, period.

We shall see. But what we’ve learned so far, from Facebook’s SEC filings, is in turn instructive, intriguing and even a little bewildering.

The facts: Facebook valuates itself at between $75 and $100 billion. They’re seeking a $5 billion cash infusion, with which they plan a series of strategic acquisitions. And current holders of Facebook stock options, including secretaries, custodians and the graffiti artist who painted their lobby, are about to become millionaires.

But that’s where things get weird.

Facebook stock options have always been a valuable recruiting tool, enticing the industry’s best programmers, designers and engineers. Facebook stock has long been privately traded, so the options have been paying off nicely until now.

But future options, after the IPO, will be seriously devalued, which will in turn hobble Facebook’s ability to bring in new talent. Is Facebook really risking that to raise just five percent of their (assumed) total net worth?

Doubtful. Especially considering that their revenue has grown by double digits every year of their existence. Last year it was a jaw-dropping 84%. This company is not cash-poor.

Something else is going on here, and we will delight in digging deep and discerning what it is. We’ll do so respectfully of course, because we know Mr. Zuckerberg is even now reading these words (Hi, Mark!).

The C4:

1. Facebook, a social media and advertising powerhouse unlike anything ever seen, has filed paperwork for a $5 billion IPO.
2. A successful stock launch will enrich hundreds of Facebook employees who have benefited from deferred options.
3. Future stock options may be diluted due to the millions of new shares about to be issued. This will surely impact Facebook's ability to attract new talent.
4. We're puzzled and intrigued, and watching closely to see who gets egg on their Facebook.

Indies v. Old Hands

You can't always tell a book by its, ummm, format.

One of the most interesting emerging markets — emerging in the form of a deluge, that is — is ebooks. Kindle is king, but Amazon’s competitors (Nook, Kobo, etc.) contribute a healthy percentage of global sales, which will probably top a quarter billion units moved this year.

The interesting bit is the number of those units published by absolute independents (indies): content creators as editors, designers and Amazon-partnered media moguls.

That means a lot of dross gets in, but it isn’t all dross. The top-performing indies — Amanda Hocking, J.A. Konrath and Scott Nicholson among others — are completely outperforming the publishing powerhouses.

Traditional publishing is lost at sea with ebooks. They’re pricing them wrong, formatting them poorly and marketing them not at all. The best indies have mastered formatting, have found the sweet spot of pricing (.99 to 4.99), and are marketing like the self-interested creative types they are.

And they're cleaning up.

What comes next will be driven by technology, by the inventiveness of indies and by whether or not the traditionals get competitive. They could crush the indies if they simply dumped their entire backlists into the .99 e-bin.

Conversely, indies will probably better ride the next wave of innovation. The potentials are limitless. F'rinstance, since most ebooks are read on tablets, what’s stopping publishers from inserting video into ebooks?

And who sounds more likely to try that? The indie or the old hand?

The C4:

1. Ebook sales are huge and growing, with over 115,000,000 units sold by Amazon alone last year. 
2. Direct electronic publishing technology means we're all potential ebook sellers. 
3. The market is straining under this flood.
4. Motivated independents are seizing their opportunities and outperforming all competition — including the powerhouse New York book publishers.