<![CDATA[blaine parker - Blog]]>Wed, 15 Apr 2026 08:25:16 -0700Weebly<![CDATA["What Would you Do Now, Bill?"]]>Tue, 13 Oct 2015 03:12:14 GMThttps://www.blaineparker.com/blog/october-12th-2015
Picture
LEMON.
 
This Volkswagen missed the boat.
 
The chrome strip on the glove
compartment is blemished and
must be replaced. Chances are
you wouldn't have noticed it;
Inspector Kurt Kroner did.
 
There are 3,389 men of our
Wolfsburg factory with only one
job; to inspect Volkswagens at
each stage of production. (3,000
Volkswagens are produced daily;
there are more inspectors than
cars.)
 
Every shock absorber is tested
(spot checking won't do), every
windshield is scanned. VWs have
been rejected for surface
scratches barely visible to the
eye.
 
Final inspection is really something!
VW inspectors run each car off
the line onto the Funktionsprüfstand
(car test stand), tote up 189 check
points, gun ahead to the automatic
brake stand and say "no" to one
VW out of fifty.
 
This preoccupation with detail
means the VW lasts longer and
requires less maintenance, by
and large, than other cars. (It also
means a used VW depreciates less
than any other car.)
 
We pluck the lemons; you get the
plums.
 
 
RECOGNIZE THAT?
 
Especially if you are of a certain age, it resonates.
 
Created by advertising great Bill Bernbach, it is possibly the most famous ad in the history of Volkswagen.
 
Well, maybe until Deutsch-created the "Darth Vader kid" commercial that played in the 2012 Super Bowl.
 
Deutsch's ad is greatly loved, but has very little to do with any actual reason to buy a Volkswagen. It's a story about a kid and keychain remote.

It's merely cute.

It could be an ad for any car with keyless entry.
 
Bernbach's ad is a much better sales tool.

And now, it's also much more ironic than anyone could have imagined.
 
The big question is...
 
 
HOW THE HELL?
 
How does the world's largest auto maker perpetrate a scam like the bogus emissions testing debacle that, as of this writing, has sent VW stock plummeting by almost a third?
 
There is nothing in the "Lemon" advertisement that hints at the possibility that VW would one day be capable of such foolishness.

On the contrary, it seems impossible.

In an effort to better understand this extraordinary breach of consumer trust, an interesting phrase has popped up: "Normalization of deviance."
 
The normalization of deviance comes about when someone commits a transgression, wittingly or not, yet everything works out OK.
 
So subsequently, it seems OK for people to keep purposely committing that error.
 
So they do.
 
And other mistakes are gradually heaped on top of that.
 
 
A WORST-CASE RESULT IS NASA
 
The culture at the space agency became so rife with the need to fly that faulty O-rings and heat shields were allowed to become the norm.
 
Integrity was replaced by willful ignorance.
 
Eventually the results were catastrophic.
 
It's hard to know exactly what cascading episodes of stupidity led to VW's normalization of deviance.
 
And it's truly epic.
 
The thing is, how much normalization of deviance happens in everyday life without such catastrophic results?
 
 
SEE ALSO: TEXTING WHILE DRIVING
 
This has to be one of the most idiotic manifestations of normalization of deviance.
 
"I can text and drive fine! I've never had a wreck!"
 
WHAM!
 
Eventually, some driver ends up with the impression of an iPhone in his forehead thanks to the airbag on his Jetta.
 
But at least the Jetta passed the emissions test.
 
Normalization of deviance crops up in very small and nefarious ways, too.
 
Nobody will ever die.
 
But things just don't happen the way they should.
 
 
ADVERTISING IS RIFE WITH IT
 
Decisions are routinely made in violation of best practices.
 
A good direct response copywriter can look at a piece of ad copy and tell you right away if something in it is wrong.
 
But the copy runs anyway.
 
Because something in it makes the advertiser feel good.
 
And the executives handling that client would rather make the advertiser feel good than tell him his ad won't work.

Been there.

 Seen it.
 
 
"THE CLIENT WANTS TO PUT HIS PHONE NUMBER IN THE COMMERCIAL"
 
"He shouldn't do it. The ad is working."

"He wants it."

"The phone number will only confuse people and distract them from the real call to action, which is 'come into the store now.' That's the only way to get the offer."
 
"But the first week it ran, people kept calling him about the ad."
 
"Yes, and they found his phone number even though it wasn't in the commercial. That should tell you something."
 
"He wants the phone number in the ad."
 
"It's not going to work. It's going to kill the results."
 
"Do it."
 
So, under orders, it gets done.
 
And what happens?
 
 
AS PREDICTED, THE ADVERTISING STOPS WORKING
 
And the client walks away his advertising saying radio doesn't work.
 
All because fear and ego stand in the way of smart thinking.
 
Where's the integrity?
 
Where's the executive who's supposed to look out for the advertiser's best interests?
 
If he tells the advertiser, "No," what's the worst that happens?
 
The advertiser leaves and takes his money with him?
 
Guess what: it happened anyway.

And this happens all the time.

Bad advertising happens because a client insist he wants it the way he wants it and nobody will stop it.

Letting this happen becomes a way of doing business.
 
 
"NO" IS A POWERFUL WORD
 
It can save lives.
 
It can save money.
 
It can save reputations.
 
And in the case of Volkswagen's normalized deviant behavior, "no" would have definitely saved money and reputations.

It's unlikely that anyone will die over this debacle, but there could be some ruined lives out there.
 
And as far as reputations go, VW's is shot.
 
Who is ever going to feel good about an ad for Volkswagen ever again?
 
Your brand is the one way your core customer should feel about your business.
 
And VW is now a brand that is considerably more disappointing than a blemished chrome strip on the glove compartment.

Suck on that lemon, my friend.
]]><![CDATA[WELL, THIS WAS UNEXPECTED...]]>Tue, 13 Oct 2015 03:07:30 GMThttps://www.blaineparker.com/blog/well-this-was-unexpectedPicture
Last week, in honor of Labor Day, your faithful scribe threw out an offer: in recognition your personal labors, we'd do a free analysis of a marketing promotion with great expectations that failed miserably.
 
Really, a lot of folks aren't courageous enough to trot out their miserable failures.
 
But we know that you, as a reader of Hot Shots, are different.
 
You are a pro.
 
And a pro like you recognizes that failure IS an option.
 
It's part of the path to success.
 
But sometimes, in that failure, you end up with a total head scratcher.
 
 
THE FIRST RESPONSE TO OUR OFFER CAME FROM AN UNEXPECTED PLACE
 
And it came with an unusual story.
 
On the face of it, this one appears to be a huge success.
 
And it's an unusual kind of promotion.
 
Admittedly, I didn't see this gem coming.
 
But the more I held it in my hand and turned it around and peered at it, the more it seemed to fit the criteria, just from a different point of view.
 
So be prepared: as you know, you read the screed for thoughtful analysis and piercing examination.
 
We're going in deep, so get ready. 

This may be the longest screed ever.
 
It also appears to be about the radio business--but it's really about almost any business trying to get attention.
 
This gem comes from a longtime personal friend and professional cheerleader, Dick Taylor.
 
It's uncertain how my association with Dick even came to be. It is in some tenuous way connected to a certain advertising academy in the remote hill country of Austin, Texas.
 
 
DICK HAS RECENTLY MIGRATED FROM RADIO SENIOR MANAGEMENT TO UNIVERSITY PROFESSORSHIP
 
After spending 30 years in the trenches of the radio business, Dick now warps fresh young minds in Bowling Green, Kentucky.
 
And as a professorial type, Dick also opines on the state of media via his blog. (Call it a 21st century manifestation of higher education's publish-or-perish directive.)
 
The blog is called, oddly enough, Dick Taylor's Blog.
 
The story that Dick sent us is, as mentioned, a story about raging success. He begins by saying:
 
"I'm coming off a blog post that has gone viral in the radio world. Thousands have read it and sent it to others. Two radio publications published links to the post. Other blogs have re-blogged it. Even some radio folks--big names--that I remember trying to become connected with on LinkedIn in days gone by, have dropped me a note saying they read what I wrote and liked it."
 
The blog post he's talking about is a rant (gentlemanly, of course) about some big cuts in the area of professional radio air talent.
 
 
SEEMS SOME LEGENDARY RADIO AIR PERSONALITIES HAVE JUST BEEN THROWN OUT ONTO THE STREET
 
The reason is because (once again) genius and ability come at too high a price tag for management.
 
Dick's point was ultimately about the grim state of radio. About how bean counters are running the show. 

Bean counting means that everything (including creative talent) is reduced to numbers.
 
Dick opines that, when you reduce everything to numbers, "it eviscerates the human element from the decision making process."
 
Yes, the faithful reader to Hot Shots knows that your faithful scribe has previously opined opinedly on this very opinion.
 
But never has it been put quite as nicely as Dick puts it when he says: "Radio is an art form. When you remove the artists, there's not much left."
 
 
THIS BARN-BURNER OF A BLOG POST HAS CAUGHT ON LIKE WILDFIRE
 
Says Dick of what happened in the wake of his Labor Day weekend post, "I really thought on a spectacular weather-wise holiday weekend that the traffic to my site would be really slow.  
 
"But quite the opposite happened.  
 
"It's been published in NOW, Radio's Daily Management Newsletter, and Radio Ink.  
 
"It's been posted in the Puget Sound Radio and Larry Gifford just tweeted me to set-up an interview for his Radio Stuff Podcast.
 
"The blog post has generated 3,710 views since it went up.
 
"No doubt about it, this post caught fire.
 
So, you ask, where is the failure in this promotion?
 
Let's look back to what Dick says himself: "The irony is, things I thought were much more monumental I've written on my blog have been rather lackluster in resonating with folks."
 
 
IT SOUNDS LIKE DICK THINKS EVERYTHING LEADING UP TO THIS WILDFIRE HAS PERFORMED SOMEWHAT BELOW HIS EXPECTATIONS
 
Granted, in the world of blogging at large, almost 4,000 views, several re-posts and one interview might seem modest.
 
Until you consider that Dick is blogging on an arcane topic that has truly limited appeal: the radio business.
 
Through that lens focused on arcane subject, we're looking at a wildfire success.
 
So why has this one subject lit a fire under his target demographic where his other posts haven't?
 
Why are big wigs coming out of the woodwork to connect with Dick when they previously paid no attention on LinkedIn?
 
In our humble opinion, what Dick has done represents a perfect storm of marketing genius for the internet.
 
 
IT STARTS WITH THE ONLINE IMAGE
 
Dick always shares his blog posts on Facebook.
 
The image that went with this blog post is a famous (infamous?) image of the legendary jock Larry Lujack.
 
In the photo, he's toasting with a cup of coffee, and is smoking five cigarettes--three in his mouth and one in each ear.
 
It's an image that grabs anyone's eye--but especially the eye of someone who already knows it and has an appreciation for the history of radio and the cranky genius of Mr. Lujack. 

Mr. Lujack was a man whose nascent career as an acerbic on-air comic grew out of goofing on farm reports and became huge.
 
Mr. Lujack was so iconically cranky and distinctive on air that Rush Limbaugh once told The New York Times Magazine that Mr. Lujack was "the only person I ever copied."
 
(If that piques your ire and disgust, consider this: that comment made Mr. Lujack even crankier. He said of Mr. Limbaugh, "His appeal escapes me.")
 
 
SO THE IMAGE CAUGHT PEOPLE'S ATTENTION
 
Even Dick asks, "Was it the Larry Lujack picture that attracted folks? It certainly wasn't the lame headline."
 
Yes, the image did. But the "lame headline" is where we disagree with Dick.
 
The headline is, "We Never Called It Content."
 
It's a reference to the old adage (if a Bill Gates quote can be old enough to be an old adage) that "Content is king."
 
Dick writes, "Radio is a pretty simple business. You play recordings people want to hear. You keep your hand on the pulse of the community you're licensed to serve and report on what's going on that people need to know. And you hire personalities that become the audio glue that keep it all together, running smoothly and engaging the listener."
 
The problem, though, is obvious: radio today largely lacks that vital audio glue.
 
Calling the art of air personalities "content" diminishes the art form.
 
It reduces it to the level of thoughtless posts and tweets and pins.
 
 
THE "LAME" HEADLINE IS ANYTHING BUT LAME
 
Instead, it immediately piques the ire and interest of the astute reader who is already sick of the evisceration of talent from radio.
 
Dick goes on to say, "This post was one that I was writing to 'vent my spleen'...(in the nicest possible way, of course) and I considered to be a rather 'lightweight' post."
 
Ya see?
 
We are not always the greatest judge of our own material.
 
Looking at some of Dicks' previous posts, the titles are things like...
 
 
"THE END OF FACEBOOK"
 
Yes, that's a post title.
 
Dick goes on to say that the end of Facebook is "about as likely as the end of radio," and "I'm sure I got your attention with that headline."
 
Here's the challenge: it's a sensational headline, yes.
 
But we've seen it before.

Google it in quotes. There are over 300,000 results. 
 
And is it going to resonate with the passionate radio hound? 
 
Additionally, the blog post takes four paragraphs before tying the premise into a thesis statement about the state of radio.
 
In the internet age, those four paragraphs could be three more than anyone is going to read.
 
The "We Never Called It Content" post dives right into Big Radio Thoughts.
 
Another recent title...
 
 
"CELEBRATING A REUNION"
 
"It was 45 years ago that I graduated from high school.
 
"It's really hard to believe that much time has passed, but this weekend I'm back in my hometown of Pittsfield, Massachusetts--in the 'Heart of the Berkshires'--celebrating that teenage milestone."
 
Nostalgia.
 
Personal.
 
Radio arrives at paragraph four.
 
And the real professional point doesn't come until much, much later.
 
Thoughtful, yes. 

But that post is not going to be shared by an industry monolith like Radio Ink.
 
Another...
 
 
"WHY IS SO MUCH OF TELEVISION SO BAD?"
 
"That's the question that  Newton Minow   asked on May 9, 1961 when he addressed the National Association of Broadcasters in Washington, DC."
 
The headline is a leading question--but it's also something that we've heard before.
 
Television sucks. So what?
 
The blog starts out as a history lesson that may or may not make the core customer care.
 
All this to say...
 
 
DICK TAYLOR IS A GOOD WRITER AND A CRITICAL THINKER
 
Which is necessary.
 
As a man entrusted with warping today's young minds for tomorrow, it's useful that he's a writer and a thinker.
 
And in the context of academia, talented writing and thinking is vital. 

His stated goal for this blog is to establish himself (and by extension, his university) as a radio thought leader. 

And on that level, it seems to be working.
 
However, in the context of making the internet sit up and take notice, there's a whole other challenge.

It's a challenge about being pithy--something that's almost at odds with being a thought leader from an institution of higher learning. 
 
The challenge for the internet is in avoiding complexity.

It's instead about just baiting a hook with the right worm and then setting that hook immediately.
 
 
FRANKLY, I PREFER THOUGHTFUL MEANDERING
 
In the hands of a skilled meanderer, it's ultimately a more satisfying journey--and (one hopes) with a better destination.
 
Not that I'd necessarily call myself a skilled meanderer, but let's face it: this near-2,000-word screed about Dick Taylor's barnburner blog post is not exactly what kind fodder for the internet attention span.
 
But then, you are not the typical internet reader.
 
You're here for a reason.
 
And that reason isn't exactly related to short-attention-span theater.
 
(There's also a reason why The Fabulous Honey Parker and I call this operation Slow Burn Marketing.)
 
 
ULTIMATELY, HERE'S WHAT'S HAPPENING
 
Dick, like so many of us, has been writing something other than "content."
 
Dick has been concurrently writing thoughtful material from the head and the heart.
 
In dashing off a Labor Day weekend post, he also did something unintentional: he launched a dart directly at a bullseye.
 
It was emotionally evocative.
 
It got right to an impassioned point.
 
And it spoke succinctly about a Big Idea.
 
All necessary for an internet success.
 
And this is key: he didn't think too hard about it.


INSTEAD, DICK JUST LET 'ER RIP

And the result was magic. 

In his own words, the goal of Dick's blog is to "reach people in the  radio, advertising and broadcasting business."

Instead, in sitting back and letting his muse take charge, he focused down on a distinct core customer. 

Not just people in media. 

But a single person in media. 

He narrowed his field of focus to become ever more piercing and singularly relevant.

He targeted the person who cares deeply about radio and what has happened to it because it, frankly, is criminal. 

Business people with no comprehension about how to make a powerful and potent creative medium work--have been put in charge of making decisions that undermine the medium's potency and power. 

THAT'S what happened with this post and why it went so much bigger. 

IMHO. 
 
 
WITH THE BIG POST, DICK TAPPED INTO SOMETHING LURKING IN HIS OWN PSYCHE
 
And perhaps it is best reflected in a comment from about a century ago.
 
Archy and Mehitabel are, respectively, a cockroach and a cat.
 
Together, they hijacked the typewriter of Don Marquis, a columnist for The New York Evening Sun.
 
Mehitabel would dictate to Archy, who would transcribe her words by jumping on the typewriter keys. (Archy was not heavy enough to hit the shift key of an old-fashioned mechanical typewriter, so he could use no capital letters.)
 
Mehitabel famously said, "i never think at all when I write. nobody can do two things at the same time and do them both well."
 
And therein lies the secret.
 
Yes, what we do with branding and the subsequent marketing is a thoughtful process.
 
We need to carefully consider the one way we want our core customer to feel about our brand.

And once that's done, we need to be sure the materials that follow are true to that brand. 
 
But in that process, it's necessary to always recognize the genius that can be tapped in the abandon of improvisation.
 
Go ahead and just blurt it out.

Some of our most wildly successful work has been the result of a seemingly stupid blurting out. 
 
Just make sure that after you've done the blurting, you remain on-brand. 
]]><![CDATA[IT'S A SAD, SAD DAY IN THE WORLD OF FAST-FOOD ADVERTISING]]>Tue, 13 Oct 2015 03:03:15 GMThttps://www.blaineparker.com/blog/its-a-sad-sad-day-in-the-world-of-fast-food-advertisingUnfortunately, unless you live on the west coast or are a total ad geek, you are probably not going to know or care.
 
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
 
Really, in the grand scheme of life and marketing, this is going to be a blip on your radar at best.
 
There may not even be any take away for a small business here.
 
Nonetheless, this must be observed.
 
Jack In The Box, the (mainly) west coast burger chain, has fired its advertising agency of 20 years.
 
 
WHAT PART OF THE COW IS THE ANGUS?
 
Yes, I admit it: I'm one of the many people who took juvenile delight in the commercial attacking Angus burger competition on behalf of Jack's 100% sirloin burger.

Jack is in a meeting, standing in front of a diagram of a cow, and is being asked to circle the part of the cow where the Angus comes from.

This commercial prompted a lawsuit from Carl's Jr./Hardee's for misleading the public and implying that Angus burgers were made from cow anus. (Seriously. That's how stupid we all probably are. We would suddenly think Angus means anus.)
 
A similar commercial showed a room full of guys laughing uproariously every time they used the word "angus."
 
These are just two of many Jack In The Box commercials that invited controversy over the years.
 
They are also two of the many commercials that made burger buyers pay attention to Jack.
 
During the reign of Creative Director Rick Sitting, Jack In The Box grew from 1200 to 2200 restaurants.
 
The stock price went from $3 to $91.
 
Obviously, the advertising worked.
 
 
IT WAS ALSO ONE OF THE UNIQUE AGENCY RELATIONSHIPS OF ALL TIME
 
Jack's agency used to be Chiat/Day in Los Angeles.
 
That's where Rick Sittig first created Jack In The Box advertising--when Jack was coming off a disastrous 1993 E.coli-tainted burger episode.
 
The resulting "Jack Is Back" campaign is one of the longest running in the history of fast food advertising.
 
The campaign was so successful that when Jack's contract with Chiat/Day was up, Jack split.
 
And took Rick Sittig with them. So to speak.
 
Sitting left Chiat/Day and started an advertising agency solely to service Jack In The Box
 
That ad agency had what your relentless scribe believes to be one of the best ad agency names of all time.
 
 
HELLO, KOWLOON WHOLESALE SEAFOOD COMPANY
 
I used to walk past Kowloon Wholesale Seafood Company on Montana Avenue.
 
There was an old, balloon-tire bike parked on the sidewalk.
 
Attached to the bike was a chalk board with Chinese writing on it, indicating the day's catch.
 
Eventually, the name of the agency was changed to Secret Weapon Marketing. (Oh, look--another ad agency that doesn't call itself "advertising," but opts for the more holistic notion of "marketing.")
 
And for my money, Secret Weapon has one of the best brands in advertising.
 
They obviously don't take themselves too, too seriously.
 
And they always limit the agency roster to no more than three clients at a time.
 
 
AS A CLIENT, HOW CAN YOU NOT FEEL LIKE YOU'RE GOING TO GET PERSONAL ATTENTION?
 
Secret Weapon obviously did great things for Jack.
 
So why the split?
 
Just a guess here.
 
And it's taking us back to Fred & Ethel, the dueling comedy twins of so much decision making.
 
The longtime reader to this screed will recall Fred & Ethel as the absurdist names we've given to the demons better known as Fear & Ego.
 
In this case, we're guessing that ego is at the heart of this change.
 
Why?
 
Yes.
 
 
A NEW CMO IS MAKING HIS MARK
 
Well, "new" is all relative.
 
Keith Guilbault has been in the position of CMO for almost two years.
 
But a year ago, Jack did announce an agency review, and brought another agency into the mix.
 
And now, the work is moving from Secret Weapon to LA hipster agency David&Goliath.
 
Mr. Guilbault could easily be looking to make his mark after a decade of working on Jack In The Box in various capacities. 

We've all seen it happen before.
 
And it's going to be interesting to see what happens next.
 
 
IN THE MEANTIME, IS THERE ANY TAKE AWAY FOR US LITTLE GUYS?
 
Sure.
 
Like, don't put all your eggs in one basket. (Secret Weapon was smart enough to have two other accounts--even if neither of them are as big as Jack.)
 
Or, don't let ego (or fear) drive your business decisions--including advertising decisions. (We have no evidence that's what's going on here, but it's a good lesson anyway.)
 
And perhaps, dance with him who brung ya. (Well, as long as the guy who brung ya is still kicking butt and taking names on your behalf--which it seems that Secret Weapon was.)
 
But, again, all of these conclusions assume facts not in evidence. Yet.
 
Perhaps the best take away for a small business marketer is this: don't be afraid to do advertising that makes folks sit up and take notice.
 
Which is what gave Secret Weapon Marketing a reason for being and a 20-year relationship with a mighty little client. 

A salute to Rick Sittig, Secret Weapon, and a quick, healthy rebound with a new third client.
]]><![CDATA[Aphex Microphone X - Possibly the Best USB Microphone?]]>Tue, 17 Mar 2015 12:03:10 GMThttps://www.blaineparker.com/blog/apexmicrophone-x-possibly-the-best-usb-microphoneIf you have any need for a USB microphone for voiceover, recording music, or podcasting, you might find this interesting. If you're merely interested in advertising and personal branding, you might also find this interesting.

]]><![CDATA[Detroit Greed Revisited--With A Dose Of Monumental Ego]]>Tue, 17 Mar 2015 11:59:01 GMThttps://www.blaineparker.com/blog/march-17th-2015 "SHUT UP AND GET IN THE CAR AGAIN"

On March 11, 2014, almost one year ago today, the screed sank its teeth into the widely derided Neal McDonough Cadillac commercial.

You remember the one.

Neal walks through a lovely Los Angeles home.

He asks, "Why do we work so hard? For what? For this?"

(GESTURES TO BACKYARD SWIMMING POOL)  

"For stuff? Other countries, they work, they stroll home, they stop by the cafe, they take August off. Off! Why aren't you like that? Why aren't we like that?"

The message goes on to chest-thump about the American character and implies we should all want to drive an electric Cadillac.

The screed's conclusion on that fine morning in March?


MISTAKE!

Yes, the copy was rah-rah in nature.

It was a tribute to some truly commendable things about what Americans do.

But the filmmakers forgot that they're working in a visual medium.

What was a not-bad idea was lost in a blustery attitude and a soup of images that made it all seem like a message celebrating the pursuit of rampant materialism.

And oh, by the way, it kind gave a middle finger to the French.

Can Cadillac be considered a tribute to the American character?

Possibly.


BUT THEY DIDN'T MAKE IT WORK

Instead, they made a commercial that seemed about something else.

Good intentions gone crass.
 
And today, like a present to the anniversary of that screed, Cadillac is back for us to whip like a rented mule.

No, not the Matthew McConaughey commercials.

Those are for Lincoln.

Not that you could really remember.

But check out the hilarious Jim Carrey rips from

SNL. http://youtu.be/z3eN9u5N2Q4 

What we're talking about today is the new spot from Cadillac: "The Daring - No Regrets."

The photography is stunning.


AND THE COMMERCIAL IS LITTLE MORE THAN A HIGH-END RIP-OFF OF MAZDA

Yes, you probably remember that we've also thrashed Mazda's Game Changers campaign here.

It's that relentlessly red campaign in which Mazda repeatedly compares themselves to great athletes, thinkers and artists.

The messages are an exercise in "Look at how great these unrelated geniuses are, and now look how great we are!"

It's possibly one of the biggest borrowed-interest conceits in the history of advertising.

And now, Cadillac walks in with a beautifully shot, highly artistic campaign that says, "Look how great all these business people are, and look how great we are!"

Didn't anyone at Publicis New York or Cadillac stop for even a second and say, "Hmm, this looks familiar."


IN THIS CASE, THE INTEGRATION OF THE CONCEIT IS BETTER

The spot shows a slow-mo image of fashion designer Jason Wu. The subtitle fades in: "How dare a fashion intern become an arbiter of style."

There's a slow-mo image of the brilliant biologist Anne Wojcicki. The subtitle fades in: "How dare a Wall Street analyst fight disease with DNA."

Slow-mo image of serial entrepreneur Njeri Rionge: "How dare a hairdresser bring the internet to Africa."

Slow-mo image of Boyhood director Richard Linklater: "How dare a director take 12 years to shoot one film."

Slow-mo image of Apple Computer co-founder Steve Wozniak: "How dare a college dropout invent the personal computer."

Slow-mo image of a white Cadillac CTS: "How dare a 112-year-old car maker reinvent itself.

"Only those who dare drive the world forward.

"Cadillac. Dare greatly."


THE WORDS THEY LEFT OUT: "ON CREDIT"

How good would that be?

"Dare greatly on credit." Or, "Dare greatly with financing."  

After all, it is a $45,000 car. Someone's gonna have to finance it.

But anyway.

Mazda's commercials: "Look at all these great innovators. Look how innovative we are. Buy a Mazda."

Cadillac's commercial: "Look at all these daring innovators. Look how daring we are. You should be daring. Buy a Cadillac."

Some small props to Cadillac for at least making it a little more like the Apple

Here's to The Crazy Ones campaign. It turns the idea of genius around and flatters the prospect with the idea that he or she could dare greatly. 

But unlike Apple, Cadillac insists on inserting themselves into the equation. And like Mazda, they insist on flattering themselves by aligning their brand with these great people.

The beauty of Here's to The Crazy Ones is that Apple never once called attention to their own product or tried to say, "Look at us."


CADILLAC HAS MADE THE WHOLE THING AN EGO TRIP

The significance of the collective accomplishments of Jason Wu, Anne Wojcicki, Njeri Rionge, Richard Linklater, and Steve Wozniak are effectively diminished to being a vehicle for the self-aggrandizement of a struggling luxury car maker.

Maybe the other words they left out are, "Dare to be self-important."

Because once you peel away all the layers of artistry, that's really what we're left with.

The soundtrack to this hugely expensive testimony to "look how great we are" is Edit Piaf's moody 1960 recording of, "Non, Je Ne Regrette Rien."

If you don't speak French, that means "No, I Regret Nothing."

It's a song about all the good and bad things that have happened to a lover.

Verses include, "It's paid for, swept away, forgotten/I don't care about the past," and "My troubles, my pleasures/I don't need them anymore."


HARD TO IMAGINE ANY OF THOSE PEOPLE IN THE COMMERCIAL DARING TO SAY THAT

In fact, despite all the pain of his Apple career and his relationship with Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak remains an employee at Apple.

Never mind his stint on Dancing With the Stars.

Anyway, all this to say: art and artifice in the service of self-aggrandizement seems like a bad idea.

The phrase "borrowed interest" is always a bit too cumbersome.

It seems too abstract.

And in this case, it might even be too polite.

A better phrase might be, "borrowed importance."


CADILLAC IS RELYING ON THE IMPORTANCE OF THESE GREATS TO MAKE ITSELF GREAT

And it just doesn't fly.

This is not the gritty, working-class underdog snarl of Chrysler's Eminem "Imported from Detroit" spot.

There was an honesty and an authenticity to that.

It didn't dare to do anything other than be Detroit.

Cadillac is daring to be too big for its britches.

What might be most prophetic about this Cadillac commercial is the choice of Edith Piaf for the soundtrack.


REGARDED AS THE NATIONAL DIVA OF FRANCE, PIAF WAS INDEED A GREAT

She was also an alcoholic and morphine addict.

The daughter she had as a teenager died at age 2 of meningitis and neglect.

Piaf herself died at age 47 of liver cancer.

Her dying words were, "Chaque fou fichue chose que vous faites dans cette vie, vous payez pour."

Which all sounds very romantic.

It's in French, after all.

English is definitely not a romance language. Translation: "Every damn fool thing you do in this life, you pay for."

And the cynics out there might think that a much more fitting place to begin advertising a $45,000 Cadillac.

To see the commercial, click here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGhaOV0BPmA  

]]><![CDATA[SUPER BOWL COMMERCIALS, LIKE OTHER STUFF, HAPPEN]]>Sat, 07 Feb 2015 22:07:55 GMThttps://www.blaineparker.com/blog/super-bowl-commercials-like-other-stuff-happen
Who really wants to hear about Super Bowl commercials any more at all?

Like a low-grade Grinch ruining Christmas, all the commercials were made available for viewing weeks before they aired in the big game.

"I'm going to I wrap your presents and put them under the tree.

"But before I do that, let me show them to you.


"WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THERE ARE NO SURPRISES."

Of course, the actual game ended up being a surprise.  

Nobody expects exciting football in a Super Bowl.

Conversely, with all the hype and glory that now surrounds Super Bowl advertising, it's just become a big yawn.

By the time the game happens, who cares?

But some data-crunching actuary somewhere has probably shown advertisers how they can get much more traction and buzz out of their $1-million commercial and their $4-million single-spot buy by getting it all out there on the interwebs well in advance.
 

HELLO, OVERSATURATION AND APATHY!

But if you happen to have an axe to grind, you're in luck.

Then you get to come crashing down on GoDaddy's puppy satire.

Or Nick Offerman's brutally, anti-gluten stance.

Speaking personally, it does seem just a bit over-the-top that the anti-puppy-mill contingent found such extreme offense in GoDaddy's spot.

And the fact that GoDaddy pulled it as quickly as they did has 54% of voters in an AdAge poll speculating that it was always part of their plan--despite denials from the GoDaddy CEO.

As for Offerman, if you didn't see his 2-minute, 12-second "America Start Your Engines" promo for NASCAR on NBC, watch it. It's an extraordinary piece of network promo production.


IT'S ALSO A PERFECT FIT FOR OFFERMAN'S NO-NONSENSE, REAL-MAN PERSONA

The entire message is about the real-world benefits of indulging NASCAR.

The message is surprisingly smart.

Yet one sentence sent 18,000 people to an online petition to pull the spot.

That sentence?

"When [America's] idea of danger is eating gluten, there's trouble afoot."

NBC, of course, didn't oblige the petitioners.

And is probably thrilled for the PR.

But overall, it's a big ol' yawn of a commercial experience these days.


UNTIL SOMEONE THROWS AN UNDERINFLATED FOOTBALL IN THE PUNCHBOWL

Then, there's actually something we get to talk about.

A big, whopping mistake we can all look at and say, "Wow, who let THAT happen?"

And we can all use it as yet another shining example of the idiotic mistakes to avoid in our own marketing.

Yes, the road to advertising hell is paved with do-gooder intentions.

In this case, we're talking about the spot you may have seen.

A young boy talking about all the whimsical things he won't get to do in his life.


LIKE LEARNING TO FLY

Or getting cooties.

Or seeing the world with his best friend.

Or getting married.

All because he died in a preventable accident that involved drowning in an overfilled bathtub, or having a big-screen TV fall on him, or eating something he found under the kitchen sink.

There's a smorgasbord of doom waiting in that child's house, and our protagonist succumbed to one or all of them--

Courtesy of Nationwide Insurance.


"SORRY TO PEE ALL OVER YOUR FUN TIME AND 5-LAYER DIP, AMERICA!"

"But death happens!"

Unless, of course, you happened to notice the proportionately pea-sized intended payoff to Nationwide's message.

"Make safe happen."

Oh, and there's a brief shot of a mother carrying a little girl who presumably didn't die eating the cleaning product from under the sink and having the TV fall on her after drowning in the tub.

People who saw it are angry. 

With good reason.  

This kind of message mishap is so basic and so preventable.


IT'S JUST NOT POSSIBLE TO TRUMP VIVID AND TRAGIC DEATH WITH AN AFTERTHOUGHT SALES MESSAGE

Usually, we get to discuss this problem in the context of a local radio commercial.

Example: a well-intentioned copywriter creating an actualities-based message lets a mortgage broker say something like, "I helped Jane get her mortgage. She was a single mother with three small children and was undergoing treatment for cancer."

BOOM!

The C word.

Mom With Cancer trumps anything you're ever going to say about selling people mortgages.

Mortgages are everyday financial transactions that are sometimes challenging.


CANCER LEADS TO DEATH AND ORPHANS

You can't put potential death and orphans in your mortgage advertising and expect to have the desired result.

There will be no phone calls from people wanting to refinance.

There could be hate mail.

In the case of Nationwide, they've made the same baffling miscalculation on a nationwide, multimillion dollar scale.

They've filled a commercial with pathos and whimsy.

The filmmaking is really good.

The the child says he died.

Everyone who was on the edge of their seat reveling in the pathos and whimsy is saying, "What?!"


DO A GOOGLE SEARCH ABOUT THIS COMMERCIAL

America is using words like "tragic," "morbid," "angry" and "buzzkill."

Nationwide is, of course, defending their choice.

In a press statement issued yesterday on their website, the official party line is this:

"We want to build awareness of an issue that is near and dear to all of us -- the safety and well being [sic] of our children. We knew the ad would spur a variety of reactions."

Yeah, well.

Forgetting that "wellbeing" is either one word or a hyphenate, the reactions in parties and social media around the nation were lots of middle fingers held up in the direction of Nationwide.

Don't misunderstand me. There's nothing wrong with the idea of "making safe happen."


BUT IT HAS TO HAPPEN CORRECTLY

It has to happen in a way that makes the solution as powerful as the problem.

It has to engage the core customer (presumably mom) in a way that doesn't make her feel duped, but continues drawing her in.

And this advertising message, like so many others, has never been finished.

"Here's our problem! Boy, is it graphic! Boy, does it make you feel! You laugh! You cry! You want to write angry petitions about non-existent puppy mills and Nick Offerman's gluten!

"Oh, and maybe you want to buy what we're selling. Even though its portrayal makes you feel nothing."


ALL DECISIONS ARE MADE EMOTIONALLY!

This is not rocket science.

Well, it IS neuroscience, but you don't need a degree.

You just need to understand that you, as an advertiser, are a salesman.

And if you piss off your prospect, your prospect is likely to give you the finger and walk away.

In the case of Nationwide's extraordinary filmmaking, if you don't illustrate the solution of "making safe happen" with the same vivid, evocative potency as you made death happen, what you've done is just make Shinola happen.

You have to draw the prospect in and then close the deal with a potently illustrated better reality.


OTHERWISE, YOU'VE CREATED CUSTOMER REPELLENT

"Oh, but we're being talked about! Which is so much better than not being talked about!"

Thank you, Oscar Wilde Ogilvy.

But you're wrong.

Yes, the buzz is out there--but for the wrong reason.

It's there because millions were spent on lazy thinking.

If someone had spent any time working on how to finish the job as powerfully as it was started, the conversation would still happen--productively.


TO QUOTE NICK OFFERMAN, "THERE'S TROUBLE AFOOT"

Yes, Nationwide will be talked about.

But wouldn't it have been better if the message was galvanizing?

If the message made people who don't even have kids flock to that website?

Say I don't have kids. Say I live in a house with concrete floors. I have lye and sulfuric acid in open containers under the kitchen sink. Edged weapons are lying around on the coffee table. Here in my office as I pen this screed, maybe I'm surrounded by semi-automatic weapons that are fully loaded, safety off.

If you can make me want to log on to your child safety website, you've accomplished something impressive.

Had the message delivered enough persuasive power to accomplish that, everyone at my Super Bowl party would've raised a glass.

Sadly, all they raised was middle fingers.

We all now question the company's judgment, and will always have a lingering bad feeling in the back of our minds whenever we see the company logo.

Congratulations on becoming the Seattle Seahawks of the 2015 Super Bowl commercials.  
]]><![CDATA[Think Like A Customer, Not A Guy Who Just Wants It Done]]>Tue, 13 Jan 2015 14:42:32 GMThttps://www.blaineparker.com/blog/think-like-a-customer-not-a-guy-who-just-wants-it-doneCan't help it. I think like a sales guy.

In a destination town, impulse items with destination cache are king. People love buying swag bearing the name of the place.

Saw a rack full of $15 swag items bearing the name. Should sell like proverbial hotcakes.

One problem: they're positioned right by the door in a way that nobody sees them until leaving with a completed purchase.

Over the last few weeks, this rack has been moved back and forth. Nothing seems to be selling from it.

Guaranteed, everyone who positions this rack is looking at it from the POV of a manager inside the store who wants the rack out of the way.

All someone has to do is turn this rack 90 degrees so it faces the door. Someone walks in, before they buy anything they see this rack and snag the item.

Not difficult--once you put yourself in the buyer's shoes instead of the manager's. And speaking as a buyer, I can testify that this doesn't happen often enough. Their hearts are in the right place. Their heads are positioned by the door and looking the wrong direction.
]]><![CDATA[AND NOW FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT...]]>Sat, 15 Nov 2014 17:11:44 GMThttps://www.blaineparker.com/blog/and-now-for-something-completely-different Somehow fitting to steal a trademark line from a 1970s comedy troupe for this introduction.

Perhaps you will feel differently and find it unethical.

Last week was heady stuff. Lots of talk about neuroscience vis a vis sales psychology, dead philosophers, and crack-laden breakfast burritos.  

Just your typical Tuesday morning mishegas.

(No, that's not a typo. And yes, it's entirely possible your faithful scribe, as a dyed-in-thewool WASP, uses too many Yiddish words. But sometimes, Yiddish words are the best words for the particular moment. If you require a definition of mishegas, click here.)

So, as a diversion from last week's nattering about neuroscience, let's take a diversion into the field of ethics.


"OH, NO! NOT ETHICS!" SAYS THE LITTLE VOICE INSIDE YOU

"Didn't we get all stupidly into Ethics last time?"

Sort of. Ethics was indeed a treatise penned by Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza--who, as it happens grew up in Amsterdam's Portuguese Jewish community and was later expelled by them for questioning the authenticity of the Hebrew Bible and the nature of the Divine. It is open to debate whether his reaction to being ostracized was, "Oy, such mishegas!"

But no to Ethics and yes to small "e" ethics.

Specifically, in sponsored programming, is it ethical to make fun of your advertiser?

I think we can be fairly certain that if you work in a radio station with any of the various Christian formats, the simple and definitive answer to that question is "No."

As in, "No, it is not ethical to make fun of our advertisers in our programming."

And frankly, other than the occasional ministry of snake handlers or subtly inept peddler of supplements, any radio advertiser worth being made fun of doesn't get past the Christian radio advertising gate keeper in the first place.  

However... 

 
I USED TO WORK AT A RADIO STATION THAT MADE RELENTLESS FUN OF AN ADVERTISER

Once upon a time, I worked at a landmark AOR station in Boston.

That was the heyday of the US Navy's "It's not just a job, it's an adventure" recruitment advertising.

And part of the Navy's media buy was this particular radio station.

A radio station that, despite being big and famous, still very much had a grass roots connection to the community and a very politically left listenership.

When the new Navy commercials arrived, one of the deejays was notorious for reproducing them.

He'd add all kinds of inappropriate sound effects and commentary.

Was it funny? You bet.

Was it ethical? Perhaps not.

Fortunately, it wasn't necessary for me to decide that insofar as station and advertiser policies were concerned. My only responsibility was answering the listener line. (Which could be a more harrowing gig than you might imagine--especially at midnight on a Sunday.) 

Footnote: while unaware of any fallout from those doctored commercials, I did once read a memo telling deejays that there was a new Wang Laboratories spot in rotation, that Wang is a big client for the station, and imploring them to please not make fun of the Wang name on air.


ARGUABLY, THE DOCTORED NAVY COMMERCIALS WERE UNETHICAL

Let's say you go by the definition that "ethical" pertains to "pertaining to right and wrong in conduct."

It seems pretty clear cut that this deejay was doing something that was "wrong in conduct."

And almost unprovable in the pre-digital era.

But, when considering the millions of dollars the US Navy was spending on their advertising even then, one spot being compromised like that was a drop in the bucket. Considering the cost of that one spot and a make-good, it has all the relative unethical weight of a scene from Good Morning, Vietnam!

And secretly, I'm sure management was happy to have the guy do it, no matter how many make goods it required. It's the kind of snarky, satirical humor that made listeners tell their friends about the station.

So, unethical? Probably.

Unexpected? Yes.

Unrivaled? Oh, no. Not at all.

Because just last week, something like this happened on an epic scale.


IN CASE YOU WEREN'T PAYING ATTENTION...

Jon Stewart did it.

He did a segment that took a major swipe at a big-money advertiser.

During his October 29th episode of The Daily Show, Mr. Stewart opened segment in question by saying that they'd noticed they had a new advertiser in The Daily Show.

And he proceeded to play a sunny TV spot with a swelling music bed and shots of all kinds of happy smiling people of diverse ethnicity and gender doing important things in daily life.  

Yes, there was even a baby.  

The VO is a happy, smiling woman telling us, "Koch Industries started in the heartland. We help make better food, clothing, shelter, technologies, and other necessities. We build on each other's ideas to create more opportunities for people everywhere. We are Koch."


NOW, RIGHT HERE, ALLOW US TO STATE FOR THE RECORD: THE SCREED REMAINS SWITZERLAND

The screed is apolitical.

The screed is not anti-Koch any more than it is anti-Soros.

One billionaire legally manipulating the system is just as righteous as another billionaire legally manipulating the system.

Take that to mean whatever you like. We're here to talk about advertising.  

And yes, you might think that idea of talking about advertising and ethics is like talking about pigs and their ability to use sign language.  

(No matter how smart they may be, their lack of opposable thumbs makes it difficult for pigs to sign, so they simply do not try. Most advertising people do have opposable thumbs but a few are indeed challenged in the area of ethics, giving the rest of us a bad name.)

But I digress.


MR. STEWART THEN WENT ON TO "HELP" THE KOCH BROTHERS

As you might imagine, even if you don't follow him, a progressive of Mr. Stewart's stripe takes exception to Koch Industries.

So he did what any good satirist would do.

He re-cut their commercial for them.

He added new images and a new VO.

And speaking clinically, as a fan of satire, the result is hilarious.

Politically productive?  

Leave that judgment to the pundits.

But as far as skewering an obvious piece of corporate propaganda goes, it doesn't matter what your politics are.

It just works.

That said, there's a bigger question.


IS IT ETHICAL?

Because let's face it: advertising nationally in The Daily Show is not an inexpensive proposition.

Somebody wrote a mighty large check.

But arguably, it is ethical.

Jon Stewart is obviously no fan of the Koch brothers, and has been attacking them relentlessly for as long as they've been attackable.

And attacking them with satire is exactly what he gets paid to do.

It's why so much of America loves Jon Stewart.

In fact, it would be a dereliction of duty for Jon Stewart to NOT talk about the Koch Industries commercial.  

He really had no choice. Otherwise, his core customer would regard him as a puppet of the right.

But ethics aside, why would Koch Industries buy advertising to support their enemy?

It had to be impossible for anyone at Koch Industries to think this was going to go unnoticed by Jon Stewart's writers.


IS IT POSSIBLE KOCH INDUSTRIES EXPECTED THIS?

Was this a stroke of genius on the part of their marketing department?

Did they say, "If we spend a hundred thousand dollars or so to advertise in The Daily Show, we could get millions of dollars worth of publicity.

"And, if he doesn't acknowledge us, how easy will it be to publicize that fact--gaining millions of dollars worth of publicity?"

All of a sudden, the entire thing becomes an ethical mishegas of motivational ambiguity.

Because by ripping on the Kochs and bringing this spot into the actual program, it has been seen by far more people than ever would have seen it in the context of the commercial break.

Seriously. Google "jon stewart" and "koch." This story dominates page one. It's being shared like crazy.

So, if the only thing anyone knew about Koch Industries is whatever vitriol came out of The Daily Show programming, they suddenly get an inkling of something more than what's passed through the Jon Stewart filter.  


AT THE VERY LEAST, THIS IS A CASE WHERE IT'S ENTIRELY ETHICAL TO MAKE FUN OF THE ADVERTISER 

In essence, it's what the advertiser is paying for. You can't expect a satirist who is your enemy to not make fun of your advertising.

And quite possibly, it was a shrewd move on the part of the Kochs.

They practically forced their enemy to publicize them and what they do.

Remember, the screed is Switzerland.

The screed is not saying whether any of this is good, right and true.

But it certainly is worthy of discussion.

And who knows?  

Like so much else that gets discussed here, maybe there's some way to harness this big brand thinking to your own small brand. After all, everyone loves watching someone else's conflict.

If you'd like to see the full Jon Stewart clip, you can find it here. Or, you may copy and paste http://tinyurl.com/l7sbk8r ]]><![CDATA[Are you feeling the fear that all your business decisions are emotionally-based?]]>Wed, 29 Oct 2014 14:03:03 GMThttps://www.blaineparker.com/blog/are-you-feeling-the-fear-that-all-your-business-decisions-are-emotionally-based(How's that for a psychological catch 22?)

Yes, you've heard us bang this drum frequently.

Buying decisions are made emotionally, then justified intellectually.

Most purchases are usually made with the influence of one of these emotions: greed, fear, altruism, envy, pride, or shame.

Neuroscientist Dr. Donald Calne tells us reason lead to conclusions, but emotions lead to action.

Establish an emotionally-based brand relationship, and your core customer will follow you anywhere.

We've said it.

You've heard it.

And many, many people you know walk away saying, "Yes, but it's not for me. That's for other people."


THIS SCREED IS FOR THEM

It's not for you, because you're too smart to do that.

You continually try to up your game in the emotionally evocative, brand-based, customer-winning sweepstakes.

So, in an effort to help those folks see the light (while giving you more ammunition for your GI surplus sales ammo box), we're going to talk about your brain.

This is your brain on drugs.

This is your brain inside a breakfast burrito.

OK, a dated and questionably amusing callback to some 1987 anti-drug advertising that probably inspired more derisive laughter than it did any refusal to take drugs.

Probably because it didn't tap into the right emotion for the drug-decision-making process in the adolescent mind.

But let's forget about deciding to take drugs for just a moment. (After reading this screed, you might even want some drugs. Or a breakfast burrito with a side of crack.)

Instead, let's talk about two successful men.


PHINEAS IS A 25-YEAR OLD CONSTRUCTION FOREMAN

One day on his job site, there's an explosion.

An iron rod is launched into the air.

The rod passes through Phineas' brain.

He's left with a gaping hole in his skull from side to front. Until the rod was removed, he probably had to walk through a door sideways. 

Yet Phineas lives to talk about it.

For 13 years, he's in good health. No paralysis. He can speak. He remembers things.

He still has possession of his basic intelligence.

Or does he?

Remember, he'd been a construction foreman. He was a capable man with a flourishing career.

After the accident, not so much.

Phineas becomes impulsive.

He lacks self-discipline.

He's no longer able to hold a steady job or make a breakfast burrito.

Like a man on crack, he can't maintain friendships or other personal relationships.

Interestingly, neither crack nor breakfast burritos have even been invented yet.

He becomes a drifter and dies of an epileptic seizure.


ELIOT, A SUCCESSFUL BUSINESSMAN, LEARNS HE HAS A BRAIN TUMOR

He goes into surgery.

Removing the tumor unavoidably causes localized damage in the front of Eliot's brain.

Eliot recovers from surgery much the same way Phineas recovers from his own accident.

Eliot's faculties are intact.

He walks, talks and remembers.

But he also becomes impulsive. He lacks self-discipline.

The formerly successful businessman can no longer follow a schedule.

Nor can he prioritize. He focuses intently on unimportant jobs and lets the big tasks slide. Like ignoring the critically important Penske file and spending hours trying to successfully unfold a breakfast burrito.

He collects junk.

He ultimately loses all his savings in a series of bad business decisions.

Even though he's not on crack, Eliot can no longer hold a job.

His wife and family leave.

What happened?


BOTH MEN SUFFERED BRAIN DAMAGE IN THE AREA THAT LINKS EMOTION TO LOGIC

Unable to bring emotion into the decision making process, neither man is capable of making an intelligent decision.

This problem has been repeatedly observed in clinical situations.

Patients suffer injury to the emotional center of the brain.

Subsequently, they become incapable of making even the simplest decision.

Forget being a construction foreman or a businessman.

These people are thrown into a tailspin at, "Would you like fries with that?" Forget trying to decide whether to smoke crack wrapped in a Del Taco breakfast burrito with a side of refried beans.

Despite being clean and sober and burrito-free, none of these people will ever be able to decide to buy what you sell.

Our man Phineas lived 150 years ago, which explains the lack of crack-laced fast-food breakfast options.

Eliot is a more contemporary case. He potentially has access to highly addictive street drugs and highly processed breakfast foodstuffs, but there is no evidence that he succumbed to either. He was a victim of simple, garden-variety brain damage that prevents his opting for that side of fries.

Both men are profiled in a book by noted neurobiologist, Dr. Antonio R. Damasio.

The book is called Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain.

If you know your top-line, quotational history of western philosophy, René Descartes was the man who gave us, "I think, therefore I am."

Based on the cases of Phineas, Eliot, et al, the obvious implication is that Descartes should have said, "I feel, therefore I am."

Interestingly, that's more or less what Baruch Spinoza said in his magnum opus, Ethics.

But you never hear anyone talk about it.


SPINOZA CALLED DESCARTES ON THE CARPET

Spinoza challenged the Cartesian theory that intellect is separate from the body, or that intellect is separate from "feeling," as it were.

Unfortunately, people like things simple.

Spinoza-think was probably too much more complex than Descartes-think.

And since Spinoza didn't give us a tidy phrase like "cogito ergo sum" that could be printed on a T-shirt, Descartes' snappy distillation survives in popular imagination.

Seriously: brevity is the soul of wit. And T-shirt sales.  

Even in the 1600s, in a time free from the rapid pace of maglev trains, jumbo jets, light-pipe digital delivery systems, and crack-addled burrito-slingers in paper hats, not even "Want fries with that?" is as pithy as "cogito ergo sum."

It's simple! It's forceful! It's memorable even if the only Latin words you really understand are "audio," "alias," and "mea culpa," as in, "Oops, I spilled my fries in your lap. Mea culpa. I'm on crack."

And, crack or no crack, it's much easier to reason about things like reason than it is to reason about things like feelings PLUS reason.

But we're getting away from the point, to wit: decisions are clinically proven to be directly linked to emotion.

Which is why making smart decisions--like whether you go to Starbucks, or which radio station is going to run your advertising, or whether you're ever going to even read this overwrought, Tuesday-morning, crack-riddled, pseudo-intellectual prattle--is ineffably linked to emotional intelligence.

Yes, "emotional intelligence."

Another buzz phrase. Eegad.

In essence, emotional intelligence helps you discern whether you're making a buying decision for the right emotional reason.

Like when you're buying that mink-lined bathtub because you're feeling panic that it's the last one of its kind and the salesman has convinced you that your life will be nothing without it when, in reality, you hate the feeling of wet mink and you never bathe anyway.  

Fear-based mink bathtub purchases are silly and a sign of stunted (or at least suspended) emotional intelligence.  


TRUSTED RELATIONSHIPS ARE FEELING RELATIONSHIPS

In the immediate sales process, a good salesman has an emotional link with the customer.

I buy from you because I like you.

Over the long term, a good brand is no different than a good salesman. The brand establishes an emotional link with the customer.

This is especially significant in any business that has a long sales cycle.

And authenticity is key.

An authentic, emotionally honest brand is just like an authentic, emotionally honest salesman.

The size of the business doesn't matter.

Whether there are 100 employees or just one.

At the center of all of it is your brain.

And the customer's brain.

And the brain's emotional center guides the purchasing process.

It can't be on drugs.

Yet it might still enjoy a breakfast burrito. ]]>