Stop Advertising and Start Captivating: How to Better Target Your Audience

Now that 2018 is right around the corner, we are beginning, yet again, a new age of digital advertising.

Even the word ‘advertising’ still gives people bad vibes, thanks a lot Don Draper. Just think about that 30 second, unskippable video popping up telling you to buy car insurance when all you are trying to do is watch that new Kendrick Lamar video that's trending on the Twitter-sphere. And don't even get me started on mobile devices, where ads can simply become unwatchable.

Is it just me, or do these new ads scream desperation? The unskippable ads and and online pop-ups only cause frustration for those of us trying to consume content faster and easier than ever before. One could argue that failed attempts at creating effective online ads are actually hurting a company’s brand.

So the questions remains- how do advertisers survive now that old age tactics are starting to die off?

My answer: Engage

No one likes the car salesmen “in your face” approach, and advertisers that do so are likely to be met with less website traffic and fewer sales. Creating engaging content is what advertisers and businesses need to do in order to stay afloat in the world of digital communications. It's a concept marketers like to call "Lead-Gen Marketing".

Take one of my personal faves, The Most Interesting Man in the World for example. Dos Equis took a simple approach that actually played on an older idea (if you’re familiar with the Chuck Norris jokes) , and added some perfectly relevant, hilarious one-liners being created in every commercial such as, “mosquitos refuse to bit him purely out of respect,” “his two cents is worth $37 in change,” and “if he were to pat you on the back, you would list it on your resume.” Of course it would end with a Dos Equis beer plug, which is a genius and highly effective marketing tactic, because it held people’s attention.

The internet immediately fell in love with this advertising campaign. He quickly became a meme, which is the holy grail for advertisers, and the company saw an increase in sales soon after the commercials were first aired. The key to this campaign’s success was its engagement to its audience. Customers enjoyed the commercial’s quirkiness. It was entertaining. Its humor related to a younger crowd, and many people within that demographic shared it across social media, increasing its reach even more. Perhaps the most impressive thing for me, was how it connected the humorous juxtaposition with the brand itself, without coming across as them trying to shove sales down your throat.

Now that Generation Z is beginning to make a larger online presence, advertisers must take into consideration that this means more people who simply despise ads. Though it will always change throughout time, effective advertising campaigns must look at the bigger picture and try and get their audience to engage with their brand, rather than their products. I feel like that bears repeating so I'll say it again for the people in the back:

"Engage with their brand, rather than their products"

Stay on top of the demographic shifts your target audience is into, and think about making something that is genuinely worth watching, rather than peddling some ads out there because "we need more social media". 

Why Kanye West sadly reminds me of another celebrity of color

 

In 2008 I was invited over to a friend’s house to watch a boxing match between Manny Pacquiao and Oscar De La Hoya. I had viewed my fair share of boxing matches in the past, growing up in the 90’s amidst the height of Mike Tyson and his decimation of every opponent not named Buster Douglas. However, this was a fight unlike the others I’ve seen in the past…as for the first time I was watching someone who actually represented me — A Filipino-American, a someone who looked kind of liked me, or at least, looked like someone I was related to.

The house was divided in its preference, but I was not…I was with the upcoming challenger Manny Pacquiao through and through, because he was a Filipino who stood in the ring on the world’s biggest stage, carrying the weight of not only himself, but of the entirety his people.

Pacquiao went on to not only win the match, but completely dominated in every facet imaginable. His speed, combines with the explosiveness of his punching prowess, was truly astounding to witness first hand, regardless of your ethnic origin. His punches carried the weight and conviction of an entire people, and we all felt it.

And it wasn’t against some nobody this time. This was against a literal “Golden Boy”, the champ himself, Oscar De La Hoya.

That was the beginning of the legend that became the “Pac-man” and his meteoric rise to wealth, power, celebrity-ism, and fame. Filipino’s, Filipino-Americans, and boxing fans in general united under a familiar flag of the classic underdog…a man who fought for more than just himself. A real-life Rocky Balboa, , Philadelphia for the Philippines(just substitute the “-adelphia for -ippines”).

Match after match, Pacquiao saw unprecedented success, and Filipino’s cheered wildly with every match, even lowering the crime rate in his country when his fights were on. He defeated worthy opponents with the ease of a master at his craft, bludgeoning such renowned competitors as Juan Manuel Marquez, Miguel Cotto, Shane Mosley…and was eventually crowned as the best pound-for-pound fighter in the world at one point.

The “Pride of the Philippines” gave us something to be proud of.

And then something happened.

For some inexplicable reason, Manny Pacquiao stated a wildly unpopular opinion about the LGBT community that could not simply be ignored or erased. I won’t justify his thought by repeating it here, let’s just say that I not only felt disagreement, but resentment and pain-in the person that I had rooted for, for so long.

It’s not that he isn’t free to express his opinion, and Lord knows we all have things in our past we aren’t proud of, it’s the fact that he defended his stance by quoting the bible (based on a couple passages, ignoring the rest of its context) essentially trying to get us woke to his truth, and what he believes in.

It was at that moment I realized that there is a difference between a celebrity of the popular, more mainstream white culture, and a culture subdued by its under-representation, in this case-Filipino’s.

Because even between Filipino’s and Filipino-Americans there is a stark contrast between our beliefs, ideals, and culture (for example Filipino’s are much more religious than their cross Pacific counterparts) but how can we expect the mainstream consciousness to understand those nuances when there is no popular context for learning them?

And that’s the problem with Kanye West.

Ever since he made his controversial statements about slavery, there has been people on both sides, and all colors, debating about the freedom for him to speak his mind.

But the issue isn’t about the freedom to speak his mind, or even the freedom to have an opposing thought to the collective social construct…it’s about the weight that one carries when they represent the historically disenfranchised.

As the ridiculously, unfairly brilliant writer Ta-Nehisi Coates pens in his Atlantic takedown of the artist;

“ West calls his struggle the right to be a ‘free thinker,’ and he is, indeed, championing a kind of freedom…a conqueror’s freedom, freedom of the strong built on antipathy or indifference to the weak”

Coates articulates and even empathizes with much of what Kanye must be going through-a person of color carrying the weight of a people on their shoulders, wanting, yearning to be free from those restrictive vices.

But while celebrities can afford to shield themselves from the repercussions of their words, the rest of us still standing in the arena cannot. Pacquiao doesn’t own or share many of my beliefs, but his words represent mine in social circles regardless. If I had a dime for every time someone asked me how I felt about Manny’s statements, being Filipino-American…well, I’d still be poor, but at least I’d have some compensation for the amount of ignorance that someone from my country of origin touted with no regard for its consequences.

If you’re going to drape a flag around your shoulders, carry the title of the Pride of the Philippines, claiming to fight for your country, then you need to act as ambassador for all, not just yourself. Likewise-if Kanye is going to make songs about the struggles of inner-city youth, claim to be this generations black Beatles, and attempt to speak out for all black people like he did with Mike Myers, he needs to understand the context of his opinion.

One of the great comic book movie quotes of all time came from Spider Man’s “With great power comes great responsibility” mantra. It is with this I would say that people like Kanye, Manny, and other POC with a large mouthpiece must do better…choosing their words carefully, and researching matters more diligently and thoroughly than their white counterparts - Because they speak on behalf of us all….whether we want them to or not.

This is a repost from my Medium blog which you can find and follow me here.

Ready Player One demonstrates there’s such thing as too much Marketing

(This is a repost from my Medium blog which you can find here)

Ready Player One has not had a good marketing campaign thus far. To say it’s been rocky might be downplaying it a bit.

Based off the Ernest Cline novel of the same title, Ready Player One is a movie set in the not too distant, dystopian future about a teenage boy who becomes obsessed with solving an elaborate puzzle within the OASIS, a hyper-real virtual reality simulation, where the eventual winner wins a crapload of money.

It’s not a terrible premise, and considering that the book wasn’t exactly the Great Gatsby of its era, it really didn’t have a high benchmark for expectations. Helmed by Steven Spielberg, it could still very well become a great movie, it’s just…..well, the movie is already on the cusp of a box office implosion due to its shaky trailer, social media backlash, and poor marketing efforts.

Let’s examine, starting with the problematic trailer:

The trailer is chalk-full of what some people might consider “Easter Eggs”-an intentional message, joke, or nod to fans who may get a reference to earlier work.

Except, when executed poorly, Easter Eggs can creep into another territory altogether.

It’s a concept called “Intertextuality”, which was masterfully covered by the Nerdwriter over on YouTube.

He defines intertextuality as “something in a movie that is shaped by another text, usually another movie, or book, or play”. Basically, it’s a cultural reference to something outside of the movie. He goes on to argue that films are increasingly using intertextual references as a substitute for emotion or solid storytelling.

Because intertextuality isn’t a bad thing in itself, but when incorrectly used, or in the case of this trailer, overused, it can leave audiences feeling dull, flat, and worst of all….bored.

If at any point during this trailer you said to yourself, “Hey, I know that thing” then you just experienced weaponized intertextuality.

How Ready Player One abuses its intertextual ancestry

Yes, I’ve read the book, and I realize that the book is also structured around its sentimentality ridden narrative, possibly subverting the hero’s expectations as it relates to his obsession with video game culture and nostalgia.

But that doesn’t excuse the marketing teams behind Ready Player One for absolutely going HAM on their audiences expectations of intertextuality. Instead of going for something more subtle, they simply photoshopped old, classic movie posters and substituted the stars of Ready Player One on top of it like it was some sort of crying Jordan meme.

How to conjure up nostalgia the right way

I can think of two specific examples of intertextuality working the way it should be. The first most obvious choice, is Stranger Things. The genius about Stranger Things is that while it relies pretty heavily on 80’s references, it doesn’t use it as a substitute for story. At it’s heart, Stranger Things is really about a group of kids trying to find their way through adolescence, against the backdrop of an interdimensional threat that threatens their way of life. That story isn’t about the 80’s. The 80’s are merely the supporting character.

The 80’s weren’t that bad kids

Another great example is one of my favorite comic book movies of all time, Logan.

Comic books aren’t real kids

In Logan, there are definitely references to the comic books, and previous X-men movies. But the story isn’t bogged down by these references, and most importantly, the director James Mangold intentionally didn’t want to go down the path of creating just another superhero movie.

That’s because most superhero movies are guilty of weaponized intertextuality. How many times has a friend leaned over to you in the theater and said “Ooh, a character I know from the comic books!” or “ooh, I bet that’s an easter egg for the next movie!”

Constant character references from obscure comic book issues and movies that serve as an appetizer for bigger, better movies, don’t really make a good movie in itself, do they?

All this is to say that in the modern age of filmmaking and marketing, we need to be smarter about how to connect with and resonate with audiences. People love being reminded about their past, but in a way that’s not shoved in their face, and right on the nose. Because just like advertising, people do not fall in love with products, references, or easter eggs, they fall in love with a feeling.

Striking the Right Tone with Super Bowl Ads

I’ve long argued that most Super Bowl ads were cheap and essentially ineffective for brands wanting to tell their story. Mostly glitz and little substance, Super Bowl ads were and still are the TV medium equivalent to oversold click-bait. Our memories serve as the ideal market research data, as the better ads of the past still resonate with us (including this ad by Volkswagen, one of my all-time favorites), and the less effective ones are about as memorable as the cheap guac dip you bought at the grocery at the last minute (these cheap Go-Daddy.com ads look especially flavorless in hindsight).

This year we were treated to especially bland flavors of million-dollar ad spend, largely due to the prominence of the current political climate, with brands tip-toeing around themes which effectively suffocated their creativity. The ad which “won” the award for most backlash this year came from Dodge, in a poorly constructed spot echoing a speech from Dr.Martin Luther King about the definition of greatness. It served as a poster piece of how an ad can be both politically moderate, yet tone-deaf at the same time.  

Being real vs being correct

So with this dichotomy of political correctness versus an original point-of-view, what is the correct tone companies should choose if they wish to stand out, yet not incur the wrath of social media backlash? The answer is to be genuine, without pounding yourself on the chest (which means understanding who the real hero of your story should be). The Dodge ad didn’t work, because Dodge saw themselves as the epitome of what MLK stood for, whereas the truth is that being great has nothing to do with the kind of car you drive (and I don’t think MLK Jr. had much preference one way or another).  

I thought one of the better ads this year was this ad by Squarespace, featuring a death-defying motorcycle stunt by the One himself, Keanu Reeves. The call to action was strong, and Squarespace centered on the roots of their brand-which is about creativity and self-expression. Understand your brand identity, and the values that make up what your company stands for, and your ad will stand out in a way that is real, and won’t leave bad tastes in the mouth for the inevitable water-cooler discussions the next morning.

What Hollywood can teach us about advertising

Storytelling has a fairly basic premise in its setup. From Star Wars to Harry Potter, Hollywood has capitalized, to the point where studios like Disney are now worth around $166 billion at the time of this writing (that’s a hell of a lot of princess memorabilia).

And the premise is essentially this: You have a hero, or protagonist. That hero is stuck in one way of living his life-usually it’s boring, mundane, or hopeless. The hero is then thrust into an adventure. The hero is helped by allies and a mentor who will teach him the “right” way, but will be challenged by an antagonist who stands in the way of his goal.

Hero defeats the bad guy, hero wins the story, and yadda yadda yadda….profit to the tune of $166 billion dollars, aaaaand credits. You get it.

It’s nothing new or revolutionary; that blueprint for storytelling has been around pretty much since the dawn of man; going all the way back to ancient Greek and Egyptian mythology, where heroes like Perseus and Hercules captured minds and hearts for generations.

Many people smarter than I have argued that stories are ingrained in our very being. When we tell stories, people listen. Whether it’s fiction or non-fiction, we want to know how the story ends. In the advertising world-it’s really no different at all.

Yet, so many brands and advertisers get this concept wrong. Why? Because they are using the wrong hero in their story.

Here’s my humble take on why I think many brands get it wrong:

Because your product isn’t the hero.

I’ll pause to let that marinate with you for a while. It’s worth glancing up again for a sec, just to make sure it sinks in.

Ready? Okay, put simply-a good brand story envisions the customer as the hero, because who doesn’t want to be the hero of their story? We are the hero’s in our own stories, products just help us get there.

Let’s take a look at some examples.

When brands don’t understand the hero concept

We all know the debacle that was the Pepsi commercial with Kendall Jenner (poor girl, I hope her agent takes more flak than she does for this). I know you’ve seen it, but if you need a reminder, take another look.

Besides the obvious take that it was tone-deaf in a politically charged climate, the less talked about reason for the flop is because the ad presented Pepsi as the hero…not to the person drinking it (in this case, Jenner). Note that Jenner isn’t the hero. Because she didn’t cause the change, Pepsi did.

A poor ad campaign will make the brand the hero. This means using the words “us”, “we”, and “our” a lot. It means constantly touting themselves and how great their product is. It means trying to convince people that their product/service is better than anyone else’s. 

We get it, you’re awesome, and we all suck.

The reason those ads aren’t effective is because no one really cares about their brand, or even their product/service. All people care about is how to make their lives better.

When a brand understands who the hero is

In a good campaign, say like this one from Subaru(which happens to be one of my all-time faves), the car is merely the ally. The hero of the story is the father, who still sees his daughter as a little girl who is not yet ready for the world. We know the father is the hero, because the ad is designed from a 1st person perspective, the perspective of the father.

The message from this ad is essentially:

Subaru is dedicated to safety, to help protect the ones you love.

Praise the customer, not products. A good brand story makes the customer the hero, and the product/service are merely the allies (or mentor).

So who is the hero in your story? Take that into consideration before anything else, and let the content take over from there. You will have taken the first step to that $166 billion dollar mark.

This a repost from my Medium account. See my original post (and ahem, follow me) here.