September 2014 - Otis Regrets... or not

NetSuite vs. SAP: using competitive advertising to reposition your company

NewtSuite SAP Fired — *NetSuite “Fire SAP” ad in Wall Street Journal; click the picture to see it larger*

We’ve talked in the past (and you can read in my book) about strategies for competitive advertising—promotions in which you talk about a competitor as much or more as yourself. It’s a good strategy for smaller companies because, by positioning themselves against the bigger competitor, they can gain instant credibility. It’s probably not so smart for the bigger guy, who would be better off pretending the little guy doesn’t even exist.

There’s a third reason to do competitive advertising: to position yourself in a new way, for a new audience, even if you are a big and established company. That’s what is happening with the NetSuite campaign currently running. Both NetSuite and SAP handle the back office “plumbing” of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) and other large-scale data management. The difference is that SAP is an established and somewhat stodgy company, while NetSuite is Software-as-a-Service. They operate in the cloud.

Notice, however, that cloud is never mentioned in this ad. NetSuite is a company that does the same thing as SAP but is more agile. Maybe the idea is to position them with IT executives who are suspicious of abstracting their key functions and think that important data should never leave the premises. This ad gives NetSuite an opening to talk to them before that objection comes up. They use the reader’s built-in perceptions of SAP, bad and good, as a springboard they can use to say “we do that too” and then differentiate themselves.

I do wonder about the creative execution that seems a little casual and slangy when a stodgy, white-paper approach would have been the obvious way to go. I doubt this target does a lot of text messaging. On the other hand, this is the kind of sophomoric humor that appeals to engineers.

I’ll be keeping my eye on this campaign to see how successful it is (which you can generally judge by how long it keeps running) and what this first foray leads to next. Stay tuned.

The problem with Scottish focus groups

So the dust has settled, and Scotland will be a member of the United Kingdom for a wee bit longer. This may come as a relief or disappointment to partisans who saw the polls dead even up till last week’s election. But it’s not surprising to the bookies, who use another metric to predict results.

We last looked at this phenomenon during the 2012 U.S. presidential elections. (WordPress is not cooperating at the moment; there should be a hyperlink to https://www.otismaxwell.com/learn-voters-expectations-intentions/ ) Obama vs. Romney was predicted to be neck and neck, but four days before the election I said Obama would win easily and explained why. When they asked how they plan to vote, voters become cheerleaders. They endorse a position even if they have no plan to make it to the polls—or they have a secret prejudice or preference which can be exercised in the privacy of the voting booth.

But ask voters who they think will win, and you get a much more accurate result: the voter as pundit. They’re happy to trade in their personal baggage for the chance to speculate based on their circle of friend and acquaintances.

Which brings me to focus groups as they are used in evaluating direct marketing creative or messaging. Every direct marketer has had the experience of a focus group rejecting a creative platform because “I’d never fall for that” or some such, when we well know, and will subsequently prove, that those very same newly-minted marketing mavens will behave completely differently in the privacy of their web browser or mail pack.

Polls, and focus groups, don’t lie. The moderators and analysts make adjustments to equalize those who are trying to game the system. But they’re not reliable either, and the Scottish referendum result shows why.

Why Words Matter… in bank marketing

We work hard to make banking easy. — How about…”We work hard to make banking easy”?

A regional bank has invested in an image campaign, and the results are visible in the window of their local branch. Unfortunately, the copywriter has a tin ear. Let’s take a look at three sequential pieces of signage to see what I mean.

“We strive to make banking simple.” Making something simple is a benefit, but strive is a word that implies difficulty. It’s also a little bit above the average person’s everyday vocabulary. “We work hard to make banking easy” would have been better, especially because hard/easy balance each other in a way that strive/simple don’t.

We'll give your money a good home — “We’ll give your money a good home”?

“Feel good about your finances.” Another five dollar word. “Finances” is not a word in the average person’s vocabulary or, if it is, it’s not something you feel good about. “Feel good about your money” would be better but it doesn’t really tie back to the bank. (Neither does the original line, of course.) How about “We’ll give your money a good home”?

“The convenience you want, with the security you need”?

“The convenience you need with the expertise you trust.” The copywriter was running on empty when s/he got to this one. Convenience isn’t something you need. Want, crave but not need. Expertise is another of those high falutin’ words. What’s wrong with “experience”? Again, we have two concepts strung together so thought should be given to how they balance. Is it news that you can have expertise/experience AND convenience? Not really because they’re two unrelated benefits.

For that matter “need” and “trust” aren’t very well balanced either, are they? Let’s choose something you wouldn’t really expect to get with convenience, and use verbs of equal weight. “The convenience you want, with the security you need.” Because usually the more secure things are the, less convenient, right?

So there we are. Didn’t take that long, did it? But I have the feeling the copywriter’s not wholly at fault. I say that because of what’s written over the ATM entrance. “Vestibule”? How about “lobby”? The client probably got the big words because that’s what the client demanded. It reminds me of David Ogilvy’s maxim, “don’t keep a dog and bark yourself.”

Turn your cat’s ashes into a tree!

Catster hijinks — “Fur-ever” tree grown from your pet’s ashes

I’m definitely not a cat person, but even I found this email heartless and cruel. Catster.com wants me to cremate my pet and use “her” (why always feminine for cats?) ashes to fertilize a tree. And, if I have an elderly animal I’m thinking of euthanizing, there’s a sweepstakes to push the process along.

Long time readers may remember that I once did battle in the Google search rankings with a cat named Otis. This should be schadenfreude yet I find it repulsive. The linked web page has a nonsensical title tag, suggesting this may be the work of hackers. If so, get a life.