I was talking to a friend who recently came back from Las Vegas and she couldn’t believe the number of “high-rollers” she saw with outrageously horrible style.
I couldn’t help but think of the parallels between having a good sense of style and effective marketing.
Too often we’re exposed to over-priced marketing campaigns with dazzling special effects, yet these executions usually fall short on everything else. Every year big budget marketers and their celebrity agencies throw millions of dollars up in the air like they just don’t care.
Don’t get me wrong, this is not a dig against big named brands and agencies - a number of them are doing some great and innovative work.
This is a dig against Mischa Barton. And brands/agencies who dress like her.
Seriously, Mischa what were you thinking?
The point is that you don’t need the most expensive clothes too have a good sense of style. The same is true for marketing - you don’t need big budgets to be effective. It just requires you to work a little harder and be a little more creative.
Here are the parallels:
Basics (the blue suit, black belt, white shirt) -> think of this as all of your mass marketing/trade marketing.
Accessories -> this is all the cool marketing stuff that you get to experiment with. Be careful, select the wrong accessories and you’ll end up trying to be flashy for the sake of being flashy or creative for the sake of being creative. Both are a complete waste of money. Kinda like that guy in the club who spent $100 on a LED flashing belt buckle. Wrong on so many levels.
Shoes -> from what I hear you’re supposed to have shoes for every outfit (what the hell is an outfit?) this is like all of your targeted marketing. A specific strategy and targeted message for each segment. But like your shoes it’s still got to work with everything else you’re wearing.
I’m willing to bet that when the top 10 marketers for 2008 list comes out at the end of the year it will consist of brands that were willing to experiment with different mediums (clothes/accessories) and understood what their brand was all about (self-awareness).
I guess only time will tell…
HA! Did you honestly think I would end a post like that?!
I’m also willing to bet that Mischa will once again be on the worst-dressed celebrity list for 2008.
Remember where you heard it first.
- Nish
This post is tagged No Tags
2 Comments
Hey Nish,
I disagree with one of your points. I think that in certain circumstances, being flashy works. Think about peacock theory. An outrageous accessory differentiates you from the crowd and provides a basis for on opener and conversation.
Similarily, when agencies do something outlandishly creative, it can act as their calling card. It gives people talking points during pitches. Think about Cap C’s “wig out”. That’s such BS, but it got them into the marketing news and gives Chapman something to talk about when he’s pitching.
@ C - i think the point is that flashy/creativity without purpose is a waste of resources. If I had the option between Option A which would win tons of awards or Option B which won’t win any awards but would drive tons of product; then option B wins hands-down.
Incoming Links
Leave a Reply