Simple Works

Once in a while I catch a real-life reminder of the benefits of "keep it simple, stupid"--or as former Gov. Jesse Ventura was fond of saying (in my opinion, Freudianically in relation to himself): "Keep It Simple AND Stupid."

Freudianically is not a word.

For all the hand-wringing about photography, copy and art direction, the concept (and how well it communicates) is what matters most. In this billboard campaign, which I see every day on the corner of Snelling and St. Clair, the client clearly wanted to communicate one thing: People who think they're driving "buzzed" instead of drunk are most likely fooling themselves, and they're a danger to themselves and the rest of us. How to communicate that on a billboard?

They could have gone any number of ways, but the execution they use is simple and perfect. First, they show the outcome, not the problem. (They could have pushed the edge and shown a cadaver, but that's going a bit too far.) Second, they show the exact same picture twice. The result is a Highlights Magazine effect, where you immediately start looking for differences between the two photos... only to realize, of course, that there aren't any.

Mission accomplished. Drunk driving and buzzed driving are the same thing. Stop fooling yourself. I get it.

The only worry now: a billboard that's so effective, it distracts drivers, like they're drunk. Or buzzed.

Red Flag Phrases, Part 1

Introducing a new feature on Chaos2Clarity joining the ranks of "BrandWatch," "HandshakeWatch," "Focus vs. Inclusion" and "Random Rewrites." I'm calling it "Red Flag Phrases." Its purpose is to provide some preventive medicine for the marketing world by exposing the words and phrases that mark the early warning signs of impending catastrophe.

Kicking off Red Flag Phrases is the mother of all red flags. If you or someone you love says the following in a marketing meeting, stop immediately:

"We'll do that in a Phase 2."

What does this phrase mean? It means that the client has scaled back its expectations and/or budgets for a particular project... or it's been decided that surviving politically means tackling things in smaller bites instead of all at once. As in, "We'd love to have the bells and whistles on our website, but let's just get something up in time for the trade show and handle everything else in a Phase 2."

In the realpolitik of marketing, this phrase is very common and completely understandable. The issues marketing directors face related to budgets, politics, deadlines and unreasonable expectations are staggering (especially today, when those who are fortunate enough to be employed are expected to do the jobs or two or three people).

The problem is, the phrase spells impending doom for a project. I'm quite certain that in some universe, at some time, Phase 2 has actually happened according to plan and everyone has been happy. I've yet to experience it myself. More commonly, what happens is that the creative agency does the interim work (minus the "Phase 2"), and the client isn't happy with the results. Why? Because Phase 1 is boring, and even though clients say they don't expect to see Phase 2's bells and whistles yet, deep down they really do.

The key for both sides in this situation is to stop for a second and hammer out what they really mean by Phase 2. More often than not, with early detection, Phase 2 can be reached in Phase 1 without anybody getting hurt. (I was going to write more about this topic, but I'm saving it for a Phase 2.)

SEO vs. Brand

I recently found myself in a place of clear brand contradiction. These are the moments when Philosophy (how you want people to behave) meets Behavioral Psychology (how people actually behave). And the two go at it until they either shake hands or kill each other.

Working with a client in a brand consulting capacity (Philosophy), I followed the adage that the best way to cut through in terms of marketplace positioning is to define not only your organization or product, but an entirely new category around it (think "SUV" or "overnight delivery service"). I thought they should define themselves in a totally different way than their competition, and then name it. I presented the idea. I proposed a name. They liked it. It was time to do a new website. Time to use the new positioning. Time to conquer the world.

I put on my writer hat and developed a whole page devoted to this new angle, this new perspective, this new term. I storyboarded an animation they could use to show it visually. Then I made sure to sprinkle the term throughout the site to achieve consistency, clarity, repetition and reinforcement. Mission accomplished, right?

Wrong. Now it was time to look at the site from the perspective of Search Engine Optimization (SEO). SEO, at least in terms of title and description tagging, is the ultimate in behavioral psychology. To be effective, you have to live in the real world. What do people look for? How do they search for it? What terms do they most often use to find exactly the information they want?

SEO has quickly become one of the most important marketing considerations for virtually any company--especially business-to-consumer organizations. The problem is, it flies directly in the face of otherwise-effective branding. To effectively position something, you have to go against the wind. To make something SEO-savvy, you have to go with it.

If FedEx had been founded today, there would have been a huge fight among the marketing folks about whether to create the category of Overnight Delivery Service:

"It's original, no one else has thought of it!" would shout the philosophers. "And if we don't take it, someone else will!"

"No one is searching for it!" would shout back the psychologists. "It has no relevancy!"

In the end (as with everything except politics these days), the solution was a compromise. The new positioning could still be there front and center, but the site still had to be loaded with already-used keywords--both in the copy and in the tags.

Now comes the experiment: Will anyone start searching for the new term and create a truce between these two warring camps?