Nokia Viral Genius

Random Rewrite #4: Chick-Fil-A

So close, yet so far away. I love the concept behind Chick-Fil-A's current marketing campaign, but I'm afraid it's a classic case of "doing the overdo."

The idea that Chick-Fil-A should launch a campaign that gives voice to cows who are sneakily trying to get America to eat more chicken is clever and entertaining enough. But something about its execution has always bugged me, and I finally figured out what it is. The sign should read:

"Eat More Chicken."

There's simply no reason to go the extra mile and misspell "more" ("mor") and "chicken" ("chikin"). It might've sounded funny in the meetings to assume that cows can't spell. The problem is, the misspelling is jarring to the audience. You're so focused on the misspelling that you lose the broader concept. And by the time the ad is over, the average viewer is going, "Huh?"

(And the font is a bit creepy.)

Integrity Is Sexy!

When I think of it, the most common marketing problem I've heard companies express over the last 10 years (including just this afternoon), could be paraphrased as this:

"Our industry is growing increasingly commoditized. We don't want to compete on price. We want to compete on value."

It'll be interesting to see what happens as we enter the Repression of 2009 (I've chosen to combine "recession" and "depression"). The marketplace for marketing could go in one of two directions. Either every service will be commoditized like never before, and we'll find ourselves in a price-cutting death spiral, or we'll learn the true lesson of what has gotten us to where we are today: motivations matter.

"The Method," as it's called in acting circles, was derived from Stanislavski's "System," in which the actor starts by asking, "What's my motivation?" (thank you, Wikipedia). What I find with companies like the one I met with today is that their biggest selling point is the integrity of their motivations: Their motivations truly do align with the client's.

In the era of credit default swaps and naked short selling (basically economic anarchy, or legalized gambling), this isn't just a nice-sounding, pat-on-the-head kind of a message. It's serious benefit, and I think it has a fighting chance in the coming year, because we live in a world where it seems like no one is actually advocating for us.

As a wannabe screenwriter with a script on the market, I have a manager whose attention I attracted by winning a national contest. The decision to work with him was one of the easiest of my life. Why? Because he only gets paid if I get paid. His motivation is to see my script sold, because if he does, he gets 10 percent of the price tag. That not only doesn't bother me, it's a breath of fresh air. Yes, the motivations of agents and managers become more nuanced with screenwriters (not to mention actors and directors) who actually become successful, but for a first-timer, it truly is black and white.

Think about exploiting your integrity in 2009 (no, it's not an oxymoron). If you don't, you'll be competing on price alone, struggling to tread water and screaming, "I coulda been a contenda!"

Zack & Miri Make a Marketing Mess

One of the things most people don't know about the movie business is that film production and film marketing campaigns are completely separate beasts. In the last mile of what is the most collaborative art form ever devised, the screenwriter's original intent (which has since been destroyed or enhanced, depending on your point of view, by the studio, the director and the actors) is placed as a glob of fresh clay in the hands of a marketing team. Their highly focused task: Get butts in the seats at all costs, especially on opening weekend.

When you have 90+ minutes to mold into a 30-second commercial, you can pretty much do whatever you want. This is how a movie like "Leaving Las Vegas"--very good, very dark--can be made to seem like a light comedy. The marketers say, "No one will see this film unless it looks funny." They hire firms whose entire business is creating trailers, and they say, "Make this Oscar hopeful about a desperately suicidal alcoholic look like the laugh-out-loud comedy romp of the summer!" And they do.

The new movie, "Zack and Miri Make a Porno" is the latest transparent example of the difference between creating something and trying to market it. The director, Kevin Smith, is known as the guy who opened up the world of raunch in a whole new way. Smith begat Judd Apatow, whose "40-Year-Old Virgin," "Knocked Up" and others produced the subgenre of "raunch with a heart."

When I first saw the trailer/ad for "Zack and Miri Make a Porno," I was somewhat amazed that Kevin Smith (now maybe trying to out-Apatow Apatow) would think he could get away with that plot and that movie title. Clearly, this was the definitive shot across the bow saying that porn had gone, to some extent, mainstream.

Then a funny thing happened. Some time after the opening weekend, which must have been a disappointment, the ads began to change. Suddenly, there was no reference to the basic plot of the movie (two longtime platonic friends decide that the only way they can survive financially is to make a skin flick), the scenes were reduced to vague one-liners and slapstick vignettes, and the title appearing on screen and spoken by the narrator was shortened to simply, "Zack and Miri," as if this were just a modern-day "When Harry Met Sally."

Time will tell if this strategy works, but I suspect that in the Internet age, it will prove to have come too late. On the other hand, if you could remove the potential public shame of walking into a theater to see a movie with "Porno" in the title... let's just say, DVD sales will be huge.

Just for fun, here's a famous video showing how "The Shining" can be re-spun as a feel-good family drama.

Dancing with the Pols

I give you the Obama/McCain Dance-off. Funny, freaky or both?

Focus vs. Inclusion Part IV

Okay, last political-related post...

Much was made about last week's Obama infomercial. From a marketing (not a political) perspective, I thought it was a great example of both brilliant techniques and missed opportunities.

To be honest, what I expected was a standard live "speaking from the desk" speech. Speechifying is one of Obama's strengths, after all, so one would assume that the leading candidate would stick with what works.

My initial reaction was a bit of a cringe. It was obvious from shot one that this was going to be a slick, scripted production. Given the fact that Obama raised eyebrows spending millions of dollars on the airtime alone, I thought it was a mistake to also make such a high-production-value piece. For some reason, it called to mind the practice of nonprofits printing their marketing materials on recycled paper in an effort to look like good fiscal stewards, even though that paper is actually more expensive than its glossy cousin. (For all I know, the production company shot Obama's piece pro bono. It doesn't matter. It looked expensive.)

Then I was impressed when Obama said in his opening remarks that he was going to feature the stories of three "ordinary Americans." This turned everything around, because now the candidate was spending millions of dollars to give prominence not to himself, but to other people (and thus, of course, himself). That, I thought, was an innovative idea--and a great example of using credible surrogates to back your message.

Trouble was, that's not how the piece played out. I expected three stories, roughly seven minutes each, with a pitch for the candidate as a "call to action" at the end. Instead, it turned into a classic choice of inclusion over focus. To be fair, when you're making one piece and broadcasting it on the big networks, you have little choice but to throw in the kitchen sink.

And that's what it was. Stories of people, mixed with photos and video of Obama, mixed with people talking about Obama, and Obama talking to the camera. As expected, the people featured were in swing states and represented a racial cross-section. Yes, it focused exclusively on the economy, which was smart. But when you have the candidate doing the voiceover, as if he's your host, and then you cut to shots of the candidate himself, or people talking about him, it opens up the "vanity" door, which I thought was risky.

(McCain countered well by going on Saturday Night Live, pretending to buy airtime on QVC, and quipping, "I'm a true Maverick: a Republican without money.")

We'll see if any of this makes a difference in the election (editor's note: it didn't). I suspect that it won't, except that infomercials will now become standard practice. But the marketing lesson is this: Focus beats inclusion. It's better to customize different infomercials for different stations (coming in 2012, a Sarah Palin Spanish-language infomercial exclusively for Univision!) than to be all-things-to-all-people on the big networks.

Change, Part II

I was driving down Washington Ave. in downtown Minneapolis when the radio guest made an interesting point. When asked why the electorate doesn't care more about the facts in political campaigns, and why false and misleading ads are often effective, the founder of FactCheck.org said:

When you falsely portray a candidate in a way that goes against the grain of people's preconceived notions, it doesn't work. But when you do it in a way that reinforces the myth already in the ether, it often does work.

See? That's why every Republican is a greedy warmonger who pals around with bloated CEOs, while every Democrat is a tax-and-spend wimp who pals around with terrorists! The two parties have gone to great lengths (and spent millions of dollars) to create these perceptions over several decades. They're very hard to undo.

But what about something like TankGate, the famously ill-conceived photo of Michael Dukakis posing in full military garb inside an M1 Abrams tank? This wasn't a tactic of his opposition; it was the stupendously misguided brainchild of his own campaign. It failed miserably, because it tried to change perceptions overnight. Call it branding "shock and awe," as if McDonald's had suddenly announced that it was trading beef for tofu. It went against the grain, and it was an instant laughingstock.

A month ago, Bill Maher asked why the Obama campaign hadn't tried to "swiftboat" John McCain. Because they're smart, I thought. They know that swiftboating John Kerry worked because it went with the grain, but doing it to McCain would fly in the face of his solid image as a war hero. Is it fair that a Vietnam POW is bullet-proof, while a Silver Star and Purple Heart recipient from the same war is vulnerable to attack? No, but that's the way it is. Don't fight it.

Months ago, I sat in a meeting with a VP of sales who was exasperated that, despite months of indoctrination, many of his reps still described their employer as a "distributor," rather than a "solutions provider." There were probably many reasons for this (including the inertia of longer-standing employees who are always resistant to change). But is it also the case of an "against the grain" internal branding move?

We'll find out.