PO Box 50738 | Indianapolis, IN 46250 (office in Fishers, IN) | 877 603-8011 | contact@trabian.com
By Brent Dixon on December 03, 2007
I’m in Austin, TX at CUNA’s YES Summit for the first half of this week.
I’m blogging the conference on Open Source CU, so hop on over to hear what’s shaking down.
Check out the YES blog here.
By Trey Reeme on November 16, 2007
Garrison Keillor said that. Pretty eloquent way to say goodbye, I think.
Friends, I’ll be leaving Trabian in about a month.
I’m moving to the Houston area. I’ve been given the opportunity to help drive the online strategy for a billion-dollar credit union, and I’m thrilled about the challenge. Of course, I’m a little nervous as I’ve never sat on the CU side of the desk, but I know I’m ready.
I won’t disappear. I’m departing on great terms and we’re all making sure Trabian won’t miss a beat.
The past four years with Trabian and the past two-plus on Open Source CU have provided me with more friends, ideas, and opportunities than I could’ve ever hoped for.
Thank you. Let’s keep in touch.
By Doug Williams on November 15, 2007
Brent and I just wrapped up a presentation at a CUES conference in Boston (well, in Westborough, which is about 30 minutes from Logan airport, and about three hours if you take the route we did – Mass Pike to Rte. 30 to Absolutely Lost Lane and left on Where the @#$% are we in Wellesley).
What strikes me more and more about Gen-Y and marketing to youth is the notion that Gen-Y have the same goals as Boomers just as Boomers had the same goals as the “Greatest,” to build wealth.
I’m struck by how credit unions are focused on breaking out a marketing message to Gen-Y when in reality, they should speak to Gen-Y as they speak to their “grown up” members. Like adults.
Make products relevant, communicate them simply, and consider using new means of communication in a defined way. Boomers have blogs. Great blogs. Gen-Y needs IRAs.
CU’s need to see that we’re all on common ground, no matter how differently we sometimes communicate.
I’ve attached the slides (PDF download or view on the web), in case you want to look at them. Clearly, they’re better consumed in person.
By Brent Dixon on November 12, 2007
If I were to assign statements to describe the vibe from the past two years of ad:tech, 2006 would be “God help us!” and 2007 would be “It is what it is.”
Last year’s conference smelled a little like fear. Evolutions in consumer behavior and media were (are) threatening traditional marketing and, as a result, traditional agencies. Most sessions, while fascinating, felt inspired by a sort of industry-wide desperation.
This year vibed more like acceptance. While there are still many unknowns and questions, a year had gone by to experiment, acclimate to a new environment, and redefine measurements for vague necessities like “engagement,” “experience,” and actual consumer behavior. (Except for the vendor exhibit hall, which was all kinds of “grab-the-consumer-by-the-eyeballs-and-squeeze” pandemonium.)
Here are a few notes and scattered ideas from some of the sessions:
Creative agencies are hiring more media planners, and media shops are hiring more creative. There has to be a better integration of the medium and the message.
On Radiohead’s online “you-pick-the-price” album release (read about that here):
Premise of this talk was the shift from PUSH!, irritation-based marketing, to pull. This guy had a cool British accent.
“If you don’t believe in the shift, you’re going to lose market share to a new competition.”
“Media is the ultimate social lubricant.”
Forrester’s new marketing funnel:
Companies can no longer deliver on Big Ideas (marketing) alone, but must deliver exceptional experience at all points of interaction.
Innovation is risky, but no matter what you win because you know more at the end.
Ultimately, digital marketing has to manifest itself locally and in real life:
“Even as we’re so globalized, the future of digital marketing is specific local and community application.”
Don’t start marketing-strategy conversations with technologies. Start with business problems and let social media and technology follow.
Case Study: Fiat 500
A new, low-end automobile launch in Europe. The goal was to get people excited by involving them in tricking it out.
Fiat built a social community, Fiat500.com, where people could actually go in and help design the car. They had a direct line into the car’s development, and offered ideas and feedback along the way.
“By the time most people bought the car, they knew everything about it.”
It also changed consumer/dealer relationships because people sought them out just to test-drive it on launch.
“Being able to participate made this launch red hot, it was almost like we were launching a new Ferrari or something.”
Balance intrusiveness of advertising with the intimacy of the channel. For example: You can be fairly brazen in a billboard and it won’t be that intrusive. But coming over to someone’s home to sell them tupperware sucks, no matter how nice you are about it.
Context vs exposure are two different strategies. Brand Equity cares more about context. Acquisition cares more about exposure.
“Viral distribution has a built-in intelligence and targeting system. You’ll only send something to a friend if they’ll care about it. Viral distribution, in that regard, is hugely powerful.”
Technology enables versioning of creative for market segments. But, small and segmented measurement of brand equity is hard to come by.
“Top Line growth” means bringing customers where they want to be, even if they don’t know it. Behavioral research is hugely important.
When comparing advertising recall, awareness of brand information and emotional reaction – emotional reaction had the highest correlation to purchases.
OMD did a study on the effectiveness of engagement. (Download a PDF of the study here: “Linking Media Engagement to Sales“)
“We found that more engaging vehicles claimed a higher ad response, according to common syndicated measured.”
A more engaging medium = more engaging advertising. People who love [Whatever TV show] paid more attention to its ads.
Exposure’s relation to ad succes and engagement’s relation to ad success, separately, have no correlation. When engagement was added to GRP (exposure), ad response went up. There was a 15 – 20% increase in sales.
Media engagement and copywriting quality had higher effects on ROI than exposure.
Engagement metrics vary across vehicles (for example: web metrics could be combo of visits/day, pages visited, time spent on site, blog comments, etc…while TV metrics would be different).
(Sidenote: There were entirely too many references in ad:tech to “The Multi-Platform World.” It was annoying.)
Three points on Yahoo’s gossip site, omg!:
...
And that’s up to lunchtime on the second day. Hope you liked it.
Also, for a good laugh and a different perspective on the conference, check out Ron Shevlin’s post “Random Thoughts From Ad:Tech.”
By Matt Dean on November 06, 2007
Our new structure looked great sitting around a whiteboard. And for a while, it worked great. Everybody knew what they were responsible for and, more importantly, what they weren’t responsible for. Brandon didn’t have to worry about sales, Brent didn’t have to worry about finance, and Trey didn’t have to worry about production.
It’s easy to say that imposing a hierarchy doesn’t mean that you won’t be able to work together across boundaries, but let’s be honest—the structure of the organization defines the structure of the interaction.
Even as the CEO, I felt as though I needed to ask permission from Doug and Brent if I wanted Charlie’s help on something. I didn’t want to step on their toes or subvert their authority, after all.
The primary motivation for adding structure was to help us complete our projects more effectively, but in reality we ended up spending a lot of time managing each other rather than processes. Holding someone accountable for meeting a milestone because of the importance that milestone plays in the overall project is much easier than holding someone accountable “because I told you so.”
I’ll use a quote I came across this morning for this one:
The strict hierarchy with a tight chain of command probably works best in a military-like situation, particularly in wartime. In such an intense environment, it is essential that you know exactly who has the final authority to make a decision. ... This same structure can be problematic in terms of open communication and information sharing in an organization that thrives on creativity, imagination and risk-taking. Consider advertising, where a campaign must be developed to communicate a compelling message to a target audience in a crowded environment. In this instance, the flatter organization model with very few lines of authority makes more sense. Everyone in the organization is offering his or her ideas without fear of reprisal. If a leader consistently “pulls rank,” it will stifle communication and impede risk taking. (Organizational Structure Impacts Communication Style by Steve Adubato)
And next post I’ll tell you what took its place. (That’s right, I’m a tease.)
We've met some passionate innovators during our years working with credit unions, and at Open Source CU they share their ideas and experiences. We're always looking for more people to join the conversation!