Entries Tagged 'Non-profit' ↓

Pandas, tigers and bears... oh, my.

In the Biblical Book of 1 Kings, Solomon must judge which of two women is the mother of a baby and, as a marketing experiment, he offers to split it in half. The bogus mom says “go for it” while of course the real mother says “she can have it, spare my child!”

This lesson was not lost on the new crop of marketers who seem to be in place at the World Wildlife Fund. They worry about which species you might like to support, so they give you a choice. Select a panda, polar bear or tiger, and to hell with the other two.

Of course, that’s not exactly what is happening. WWF wants you to “choose your favorite species” and they will send you a “symbolic adoption kit” consisting of an adorable stuffed panda/tiger/polar bear, matching tote bag, adoption certificate and “information brochure” when you make a commitment of $8 per month.

What is wrong with this campaign is a tone deaf absence of common sense. If you are a person committed to supporting threatened nature, “choose your favorite species” is fingernails on a chalkboard or a punch in the solar plexus. And as an adoptive parent I can tell you the concept of “symbolic adoption” is like that turd in the pie in The Help—gag-inducing repugnant. Adoption is like pregnancy. It is or it isn’t, no qualifiers allowed.

The devils that infest this package do more damage in the letter, whose first paragraph in its entirety is “You hear it every day:” Holy endangered pythons. Can you imagine a worse way to begin a letter than by acknowledging I am going to talk to you about something you already know? Then the final and fatal self-inflicted wound is delivered in the response device which, after all the lead-up in the letter and doubtless the campaign planning, reassures on the panel the recipient sees when opening the envelope that this is a “one-time gift”.

I actually have some inkling where this misbegotten concept originated. When my older son (not the “symbolic adopted” one) was about 4 years old, his big sister gave him an adoption certificate for an Asian tiger he was going to save through her gift. He was bummed because first, he wanted a stuffed tiger and second, he did not think he was up to caring for a real tiger.

You can see the wheels turning at WWF’s marketing department, before they came off. Great idea for grandparents! The kids are confused by the idea of “adoption” so let’s make it “symbolic”. And since polar bears, pandas and tigers are all just so cute, let’s give them a choice which they want to protect!

Sorry if I am on a bit of a high horse here, but we are not selling Bass-O-Matics®. This is a legitimate and well established not-for-profit with a very clearly defined mission. The sin, and let’s use that weighted word rather than just calling it a boneheaded mistake, was in forgetting a/who we are and b/who our audience is and c/where our mission and message intersects with their passion and desires.

If you’re a copywriter with recurring clients, you know this. An experienced WWF copywriter never would have come up with this concept because you have your client’s brand statement stapled on the wall of your studio if not tattooed on your brain pan. Pandas, tigers, polar bears, there’s room for everyone. Can we all get along?

Two marketers contacted me to say “thank you” yesterday. The first was Starbucks, who wanted to thank me for being their customer with a free mini-dessert celebrating their 40th anniversary, if I made a purchase between 2 and 5 this afternoon. Then, the folks at Time-Life Books sent a thank you to me just for being awesome and for motivating and moving them with my “passion”. The subject line said simply, “thank you”. Nothing being sold here.

If a real person was thanking me in person, I’d find the Time-Life message much more sincere. But this is marketing. I found myself thinking, “dude, if you like me so much where’s the offer?” And the Starbuck’s message, cleverly built around getting trial for a new product at a slow time of day, was much more appealing.

Starbucks thanks you.

Time Life thanks you.

That’s the reality: the only way for a marketer to say thank you, and be appreciated for the gesture, is to include a gift or offer of some kind. Maybe charities are an exception. One of my favorite outer envelope lines was on a WorldVision mailing asking for a mini-sponsorship for a Third World child. The teaser: “Gift enclosed. But not for you.”

From SXSW Interactive, Day One

Alex Bogusky with the bike developed for Denver bike sharing

This is the conference where:

• You have to wait in line 40 minutes to get the badge you preregistered for, thereby missing the introductory orientation session.
• The volunteer who gives you the bag and conference program advises you not to take the program because you’ll probably lose it and they’ll charge $42 for a replacement; instead, you should come back at the end of the conference.
• The management warns that you are not likely to get into many of the sessions you want so you should enjoy the sessions you do attend, which was called a zen approach.
• Sessions may or may not have anything to do with the writeup in the program that brought you into the room. Which I guess is appropriate since you don’t know what you are going to end up attending.
• Your iPhone doesn’t work for outgoing calls because there are too many people with iPhones. But wait, they have great wireless so you can use Skype.

As I write this I’m watching Alex Bogusky of Crispin Porter Bogusky, people responsible for Burger King, Mini and some other ads you probably really like. (Incidental advertising fun fact he shared about Burger King: in a day there are more impressions for the printing on the side of a cup of fries than two Super Bowls… so now instead of a BK logo [pointless, since people already know they are in a BK] the fry containers have a little story.]

His preso is titled “Plan B: Can an Ad Guy Bring Bike Sharing to America?” But in fact he warned it was not about that at all but rather a quick pitch for his agency followed by a serious talk about climate change. New info, channeling Al Gore: this summer, it rained for the first time in Antarctica.

But wait: now he does bring in bike sharing at the end. And a nicely designed pilot program his agency, Trek and Humana are doing where an advertiser can sponsor bike sharing and bike rack and cute logos on special Trek bikes for $1.2 million per year in a large city and get ad impressions for far less than a billboard or bus shelter.) The bikes are very cool, adjustable for people from 5 feet to 6 foot four with a nice aluminum basket for your stuff. I want one. Oh wait, that’s not the idea.

Give 1 Get 1 billboard

I find this disturbing:  The One Laptop Per Child foundation repeated its “Give One Get One” program from 2007, apparently fixed all the problems from the year before (namely, virtually no promotion other than word of mouth and abysmal fulfillment/customer service)… and saw its sales drop by 93%.

This in spite of a mainstream ad campaign (including outdoor and television) and presumably seamless fulfillment through amazon.com.

The idea of this program is that you purchase two of OLPC’s mini-laptops and one is sent to a kid in a developing country and the other sent to you, allowing you to putz around and explore this approach to improving the world through technology. We did 2 G1G1s last year and it was a worthwhile experience.

But now, explaining the sales implosion, Nicolas Negroponte, the MIT professor who founded OLPC, told the Boston Globe “we’re not the newest game in town… the novelty has worn off.” Really? I would guess that the 2008 campaign reached millions of qualified donors who never even heard of the concept until now.

A better explanation is probably the economy. Most donation-supported organizations are having a tough year, and maybe the people who were most likely to be fascinated enough by the G1G1 concept turned out to be exactly those least able to afford $400 to participate.

But still… a 93% sales fall-off in spite of a marketing campaign that appeared to do everything right. For those of us who live and die by results, that’s a bunch of cold water in the face.