“Marketing is the price you pay for being unremarkable”

Quote from Robert Stephens, founder of the Geek Squad - via Carsonified.
I've read this quote before, but it hit home this morning having just gone through a big PR push for GigPark.
I chose to interpret the quote like this: Rather than spending a lot of money on marketing, it's always better to spend your time and money building a remarkable product/company that people want to talk about and journalists want to write about.
I still believe that PR/marketing/advertising experts can be an incredible resource to help you spread the word, but they shouldn't be used to drum up interest in a product or company that isn't, in some way, remarkable.
Free wifi at all Starbucks stores tomorrow…
...all Starbucks stores in the UK that is.
Isn't free wifi a no-brainer for the marketing department of a coffee chain? Hell, I'd even go to Coffee Time if I could get online for free there!
Photo by Russell Davies
2012 Olympic logo

London unveiled their 2012 Olympic logo today. Brutal. Just brutal.
UPDATE: It seems that 32,000 Brits agree, that Wolff Olins could have done a better job with the logo.
Marketing democracy on YouTube
Having spent 7 years working in advertising agencies I can attest to the fact that the ad business has a pretty warped concept of what the 'truth' is. Agencies don't often lie, they just choose to focus on points that mislead people about the products they are selling. Of course good advertising (the kind that I produced ;)) never bullshits anyone, but unfortunately good advertising is not the majority of what gets produced.
I have always been a big fan of work from citizens or groups that aim to talk back to brands in public spaces and attempt to set the record straight. Adbusters call it subvertising, but usually it just involves someone climbing up on a billboard and changing the text or image on an ad to make a statement.
Unfortunately changing a billboard takes a lot of effort and the threat of going to jail or getting a hefty fine puts people off.
One way I'm increasingly seeing people talking back to brands is on YouTube. Lately I've noticed more people using advertising spoofs, which have been going on for a long time, to make statements and sometimes present some truth about what is being advertised in the original ad. Subvertising on YouTube is less work than a billboard, less dangerous and if you do a good job you have the opportunity to reach many more people.
Here is a simple example of an ad for an energy company in New Zealand being jammed with some 'truth'.
The original ad:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hw8QJWdC650]
The 'fixed' ad:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i12qJ-Nejgk]
Avoiding the hype cycle
Startups and hype seem to go together like women in Vancouver and yoga pants - they're inseparable.
Women might need pants, but my question is do startups really need tech hype? Do they always benefit from it?
Valleywag re-posted their hype cycle chart today...
This kind of technology hype is obviously important for companies targeting the web2.0 crowd. It will make or break brands like twitter, Joost and Justin.tv. But for companies with a different target why not stick to the tried and tested model: identify your audience and approach them with a compelling proposition and a solid product.
Sometimes I think startups are too quick to target the tech media, hoping for coverage and, well, hype. Maybe they think this is the only way? The classic marketer in me would ask: If your target audience isn't reading TechCrunch then why do you need a story from them so badly? Do you really need all of the visitors that will come from an appearance on the front page of Digg if they're not the type of customer that will stick around and make your business a success?
Of course all businesses have several target audiences, and one that IS reading the tech media are investors. So maybe my point is that there is a time for tech hype - and that some startups can get ahead of themselves. Let's see if I still agree with that in 9 months when I have been through a bit of a hype cycle myself ;).
Well, I wouldn’t use it.
When I joined my first advertising agency at the tender at of 18 I was given some great advice that has guided me through many situations in my career. It came from a seasoned copywriter named Carl. He said the definition of a professional in the advertising business is someone who can reach beyond the kinds of people they are familiar with and create ads that appeal to people that they would never normally come into contact with in their daily lives.
Carl said that when he first started out he wrote great ads for young men and lousy ads aimed at anyone else. The day he realized he'd become a good copywriter was the day he wrote a great ad aimed at teenage girls in the morning and a great one for dentures in the afternoon.
I think this is a fundamental insight into business. Just like creating ads, you become good at creating products when you can create something compelling for people who aren't like you. I spent 4 years working as an Account Planner in London and this was something I needed to remind myself of every day. I had to stretch myself to get inside the heads of different types of people and understand how they see the world and why they make certain decisions. It's a great exercise.
The other implication applies to when you are assessing the merits of something.
When I explain our business, GigPark, to people the first reaction I usually get is either:
- Cool, I'd use that. I think you've got a great business there. Or sometimes...
- Hmmm, I'm not sure I'd use that. I don't think you have a business.
This is a completely natural reaction for most people. What surprises me though is how many people who's job it is to asses the merits of a business react this way. Surely, these people would be better served by assessing which groups a product might be targeted at, understanding what motivates them and deducing how they might react. Will a person planning their wedding use the product, or a couple who have recently moved into a new neighborhood?
Having said that it is always the job of the person presenting an idea to make the audience do as little work as possible. If I'm explaining a concept and someone can't easily understand who the product would appeal to and why, then that is my fault, not theirs. I'll keep practicing!
Send this to your HR director

Flicked through the job listings in your local paper or on Monster.com lately? They're almost always uninspiring, visually boring and just completely lame.
Which makes it even more cool when you see a recruitment campaign that doesn't suck. Check out this listing for the editor of a small Virginia newspaper (thanks to Mathew Ingram for the link). They got staff, critics and readers involved and presented the whole thing in a nice little web package. More than anything the site tells applicants about the culture of the paper and the passion of the staff. I'm sure they'll get some great applicants.





