Mad 4 Blog

One of the biggest media stories in recent weeks is that the New York Times website decided to charge for access to its content on the Web, whether by computer, tablet or mobile device. Previously, reading NYT content was free and unlimited.

There are some stipulations, however. First of all, the first 20 articles per month still remain free. Second, print subscribers receive full online access. Third, only direct access through the main site requires a fee; finding links to articles from blogs, social media sites or other third-party referrals—including Google—remains complimentary.

By doing this, New York Times seems to be valuing the views from various sources differently, which many analysts presume can hurt the way marketing is performed and measured on the site. Those who are “regulars” on the site with their bookmarks loyally intact will be penalized, while the passive consumers of NYT content are encouraged or rewarded—which must speak to marketers on the site about the quality and investment of audience viewership. Are their online ads going to be viewed by those with whom the news outlet is held in high esteem, or scanned and dismissed by noncommittal browsers without a standing relationship to the New York Times?

Others simply find the move to be nonsensical, considering the plethora of trusted news content that’s available online; it’s as if NYT is bowing to this berth of competition or challenging loyalists to stay and continue using its site in the same manner…for what reward? Speculations abound, with plenty of critics suspecting this to be a mere red herring in the process of some greater scheme to change how users interact with NYT (such as via tablet) and get used to the idea of paying, in some respect, for its content.

AdWeek reports that about 83% of users access NYT through third-party means; 15% of users drive 80% of subscription traffic. These real fans, who are being taxed for their behavioral preferences, will likely simply seek out other outlets or adapt to the economics of the situation rather than play ball and open their wallets.

So let’s hear it: Has the New York Times shot itself in the foot, or do you have faith that the marketing minds behind this move know exactly what they’re doing?

When it comes to advertising, what’s more important: long, descriptive, informative copy — or a short and evocative tagline? What about no words at all … just enticing visual creative?

Naturally, there’s not one simple answer. Depending on the client and the product, more information may be needed to provide an accurate and alluring snapshot of a product or service. In other cases, a simple gimmick may invite prospective buyers in to learn more at their leisure.

Here are a few points to consider:

* A commercial showing hot, gooey pizza with a little logo in the corner can make you head to the suggested bistro without a second thought. It doesn’t matter if the TV is on mute.
* When you see an enticing image online, you might click on that box to be taken to a website where you know you’ll be provided with further information. There’s no need to overload your interactive banners with too much text.
* Even in print, it’s easy to simply provide a short and memorable URL. Don’t worry, your audience knows how to use the Web; and honestly, the ones who are truly likely to become clients or customers are the ones willing to go the extra clicks to find out more.
* But then, if you’re trying to describe a deal with a lot of small print involved (restrictions, expiration dates), you may want to define these limitations in order to eke out truly interested parties — and avoid misrepresentation.
* Sometimes, long copy can make an endorsement stand out. Our senses are bombarded by ads — and we’re desensitized enough to ignore or forget half the ads we’ve seen or heard. Long copy can make someone pause and wonder what all the fuss is about. You may not want a lot of text on a billboard next to the 55 mph highway, but you may want it in the magazine sitting in the doctor’s waiting room.

Many times, it simply comes down to a judgment call. You may want to run some trials to determine what your audience is more likely to respond to. Or you may wish to only look at what your competition is already doing, and try to stand apart from their brand.

Mad 4 Marketing can help you determine your best copy vs. creative marketing strategy. We can evaluate the pros and cons of each type of ad, determining your best market and media type — and even come up with sample long-copy, short-copy or no-copy ads to best place and promote your business and brand. Want to learn more? Contact us.

In recent years, there’s been much debate about marketing to minors, especially when it comes to nutrition and health. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recorded $870 million spent by the food industry on marketing to children under the age of 11 as of 2006. Nationwide, that number soared to upward of $1 billion spent on marketing to adolescents. And the majority of that advertising focused on sugary drinks, breakfast meals, candy, snacks and fast-food menu items.

Similarly, cigarette companies have been cited as far back as the 1980s saying that the trends and behaviors of teenagers were important to their campaigns–not necessarily because they wanted children and young adults to smoke, but because the industry relied upon raising up future smokers from a young age and instigating brand recognition/allegiance. This trend is characterized by two elements: advertising that suggests smoking is more widespread than it actually is (and therefore must be affordable or socially acceptable), and also that smoking makes a person “cool”–which can severely impact the self-image-obsessed teen. More recent confirmations on the part of several lead tobacco distributors clarify that strategic marketing hasn’t varied all that much in recent decades. In 2010, California effectively banned an electronic cigarette company from marketing to minors by saying that this product is safer than real cigarettes and marketing youth-oriented flavors such as strawberry and bubblegum.

The main issue that springs to mind is that a child might not be able to interpret and analyze advertisements in the same way as an adult, leaving him or her vulnerable to influence. An adult is able to consider an advertisement’s message and then make an informed decision, whereas a child is susceptible to interpreting or believing a commercial’s message without discretion.

Because the practice of advertising to children calls into question the boundaries of free speech via the First Amendment, this issue is largely federal and therefore a hot-button issue among those rallying for stronger child health governance–especially in the wake of Michelle Obama’s lauded Let’s Move! campaign to decrease child obesity and improve child health. But there are also strong examples being set at the state level.

In 2009, Maine enacted a set of statutes meant to govern how advertising targets those under 18, titled The Act to Prevent Predatory Marketing Practices Against Children. Key points include:

• Inability of marketers to collect personal information from minors
• Inability of marketers to sell collected health-related information about minors, either if this info was illegally obtained or if the info identifies the minor
• Use any information about minors for the intent of marketing to that minor with a call to action addressed to that minor (this is defined as “predatory marketing”)

Do you think that similar laws are necessary in additional states to protect kids? Is 18 a fair age to separate children from adults when it comes to advertising? What about federal laws governing marketing to minors on the Internet? Should marketers trying to evaluate and target young audiences be termed “predators”? Mad 4 Marketing would love to hear your thoughts!

Do you know what the term “competitive advertising” means and how it can help you grow your business? If you work in an industry that’s steeply competitive, especially in a region that’s closely familiar with the kind of business you perform (for example, a small town with three localized baby clothing boutiques), you can take advantage of this strategic technique.

Competitive advertising is when you market your products and services by comparing them with the products and services offered by your competitor. In the process, you point out how your company is a better option than any others. In some cases, this can be an opaque comparison–such as “We’re the city’s best baby store!”–while in others, it’s a more transparent: “Our Company offers double the discounts given by Small Town’s other baby stores.” In the first instance, a company might refer to outside awards, merits, testimonials to prove how they are “better” without providing direct evidence or referring to their competition. For example, think of those ads where supposedly blind taste-testers choose one brand’s product over another’s (“Best-tasting snacks…”). In the second example, empiric evidence that compares specific features of competing brands is collected, analyzed and then presented in a neat package for customer consumption (“Our snacks have 30% less saturated fat than lead competitors…”).

There are also two distinct ways to approach competitive advertising. You can focus on your own assets or emphasize the weaknesses of someone else. A prime example is political races, where sometimes would-be elected officials promote their education, experience and other advantages while in others, campaigns focus on digging up dirt and dissing on another candidate (sometimes known as smear campaigns).

Naturally, this tactic can be somewhat controversial. It can incite ire from competitors and start inter-industry battles. To some, entering the limelight involves the kind of publicity and costs they cannot afford. If you’re worried about a bigger company with ten times your advertising funding crushing your efforts–or worse, suing you for libel–you may not want to engage. But for others, starting a debate means additional, free advertising (such as word-of-mouth and even outside media coverage) as well as acknowledgment from the industry or potential customers. Warning to those considering this tactic: Be prepared to back up your data and defend your stance. It’s a risky endeavor which, when handled correctly, potentially offers huge ROI.

Also, remember that naming names can lead to legal snafus. There are ways to compare specifics without naming names, if you work with marketing specialists who can cleverly walk the line between vague competitive claims and more direct details that will resonate with viewers. Well-known competitive advertising gimmicks include the PC vs. Mac and iDon’t/Droid Does commercials. Ask Mad 4 Marketing how we can help you explore the kinds of competitive advertising that can help your company stand apart from the crowd.