ESPN Radio's Colin Cowherd, one of my favorite radio personalities, said something a few years back that I still think about to this day. It was shortly after The Departed came out in theaters and a lot of the reviews seemed to be very critical of the film. After admitting that he liked the movie, Cowherd turned his attention to the caustic critics and asked "Who are they writing for?" His best guess: other movie reviewers.
Cowherd's point was that most moviegoers are going to enjoy The Departed. Only film aficionados are going to find something to complain about; Scorcese relied too much on his old techniques, Nicholson's accent was pathetic, the movie doesn't tell us anything new, etc. Even if most of the people that went to the movie read the reviews, they're still likely to walk out of there going "I don't know what he was talking about. I thought it was pretty good." So why write for a small fringe audience?
I find myself asking the same question with regards to designing publications, and it's a very thin line. Do I eschew a particular font because it's not effective as a headline or because it's so 2010? Does the white space at the bottom of this page look like I left something out, or do the reader's eyes just drift to the text on the next page, glossing over the white space? Am I designing this so that other designers will look at it and be impressed with my work or so that it is visually pleasing and informative to the casual reader?
I've said before on this blog that the challenge of a marketing professional/designer/writer is to stop thinking like a marketing professional/designer/writer. Stop wasting time perfecting how a design looks to you. Design it for the typical viewer that will be reading it, and remember that they will be reading it. They won't be scanning the design and wondering why you used a sans serif font for the body of the text. Give them a reason to look at your design, then make it easy for them to find the information they need.
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
Monday, May 7, 2012
Someone to Push
I once heard that a band cannot have more than one, at the most two, leaders. By leaders, I mean someone who provides the creative direction of the band. For instance, George Harrison was obviously a very talented musician, but he was in John and Paul's band. Sure, he got a song or two on each record, but The Beatles' sound was created by John and Paul. They were merely making concessions. Hell, they even let Ringo sing a number or two.
A more recent example is Radiohead, where the creative direction is driven by Thom Yorke and Jonny Greenwood. Two very talented musicians (each play guitar, piano, and "laptop"- or computer generated sounds) that each have their own style (Thom Yorke's solo work on The Eraser and Greenwood's score for There Will be Blood) but come together to create complex, beautiful, and often times downright weird music. For a five-piece band that's been together this long, it's amazing that they are still touring and producing high-quality music. It should come as no suprise then, that the other band members cede to the whims of Thom and Jonny. Ed O'Brien is a very talented guitarist, but he spends many songs shaking a tambourine if that's what Thom or Jonny decided the song calls for.
Another recent band that has not held together as well is Wilco. I believe singer/guitarist Jeff Tweedy and the bassist (his name escapes me) are the only band members from the A.M. sessions still playing together. Through the first four albums, the band's sound was driven by Tweedy and multi instrumentalist Jay Bennett. Eventually they butted heads too much and Jay was asked to leave. Although they've made four successful records since, many believe they are no longer the same band.
The John/Paul, Thom/Jonny, Jeff/Jay combos all tell me the same thing: it is not enough to have to talented leaders, they have to push one another to create the best music possible. Which brings me to my favorite band (apparently) no one has heard of, Margot and the Nuclear So and Sos. Their recent release, Rot Gut, Domestic and their previous album Buzzard have some great rock songs on there that I quite enjoy. Yet, I am ultimately disappointed. Why? Because their first two albums were amazing, specifically the Animal/Not Animal sessions. To this day, Animal is one of my absolute favorite albums that I own.
There were more horns, more cello, more open spaces for singer Richard Edwards' voice, and more creepy yet beautiful soundscapes. There isn't much information about the band online so I can only guess as to what happened. In a recent interview, Edwards mentioned that the earlier sound was the product of "everyone wanting their say" on each track. Since then, the size of the band has dropped from 8 to 6 and the sound has become more rock and less adventurous. I had a theory about what happened, and decided to do some research.
According to Wikipedia, Edwards started the band with Andy Frye, a producer and multi instrumentalist (hints of Jonny Greenwood and Jay Bennet here). After the first two albums, Frye left the band and my guess is that control was left to Edwards. Again, this is only conjecture, but Frye was probably the one pushing Edwards to perfect the sound they created in the studio for those albums.
I see this all the time in the business world, people want total control and won't abdicate to another leader who challenges their views. Unfortunately, two alphas working toward the same goal usually produces fantastic results. I don't know what Thom Yorke and Jonny Greenwood have done to make it work for so long. I just know that equal input from everyone does not work. It waters down the whole process.
Everyone talks about how important it is to have leaders, but it's just as important for those leaders to have followers, ready to swallow their pride and play their role and, if they're lucky, another leader to push them toward greatness.
A more recent example is Radiohead, where the creative direction is driven by Thom Yorke and Jonny Greenwood. Two very talented musicians (each play guitar, piano, and "laptop"- or computer generated sounds) that each have their own style (Thom Yorke's solo work on The Eraser and Greenwood's score for There Will be Blood) but come together to create complex, beautiful, and often times downright weird music. For a five-piece band that's been together this long, it's amazing that they are still touring and producing high-quality music. It should come as no suprise then, that the other band members cede to the whims of Thom and Jonny. Ed O'Brien is a very talented guitarist, but he spends many songs shaking a tambourine if that's what Thom or Jonny decided the song calls for.
Another recent band that has not held together as well is Wilco. I believe singer/guitarist Jeff Tweedy and the bassist (his name escapes me) are the only band members from the A.M. sessions still playing together. Through the first four albums, the band's sound was driven by Tweedy and multi instrumentalist Jay Bennett. Eventually they butted heads too much and Jay was asked to leave. Although they've made four successful records since, many believe they are no longer the same band.
The John/Paul, Thom/Jonny, Jeff/Jay combos all tell me the same thing: it is not enough to have to talented leaders, they have to push one another to create the best music possible. Which brings me to my favorite band (apparently) no one has heard of, Margot and the Nuclear So and Sos. Their recent release, Rot Gut, Domestic and their previous album Buzzard have some great rock songs on there that I quite enjoy. Yet, I am ultimately disappointed. Why? Because their first two albums were amazing, specifically the Animal/Not Animal sessions. To this day, Animal is one of my absolute favorite albums that I own.
There were more horns, more cello, more open spaces for singer Richard Edwards' voice, and more creepy yet beautiful soundscapes. There isn't much information about the band online so I can only guess as to what happened. In a recent interview, Edwards mentioned that the earlier sound was the product of "everyone wanting their say" on each track. Since then, the size of the band has dropped from 8 to 6 and the sound has become more rock and less adventurous. I had a theory about what happened, and decided to do some research.
According to Wikipedia, Edwards started the band with Andy Frye, a producer and multi instrumentalist (hints of Jonny Greenwood and Jay Bennet here). After the first two albums, Frye left the band and my guess is that control was left to Edwards. Again, this is only conjecture, but Frye was probably the one pushing Edwards to perfect the sound they created in the studio for those albums.
I see this all the time in the business world, people want total control and won't abdicate to another leader who challenges their views. Unfortunately, two alphas working toward the same goal usually produces fantastic results. I don't know what Thom Yorke and Jonny Greenwood have done to make it work for so long. I just know that equal input from everyone does not work. It waters down the whole process.
Everyone talks about how important it is to have leaders, but it's just as important for those leaders to have followers, ready to swallow their pride and play their role and, if they're lucky, another leader to push them toward greatness.
Friday, March 30, 2012
Advice on Writing
Two quotes from two of my favorite writers have changed the way I think about writing.
"Find a subject you care about and which you in your heart feel others should care about. It is this genuine caring, not your games with language, which will be the most compelling and seductive element in your style.” - Kurt Vonnegut
"This was the old slap-on-the-fingers- if-your-modifiers-were-caught-dangling stuff. Correct spelling, correct punctuation, correct grammar. Hundreds of rules for itsy-bitsy people. No one could remember all that stuff and concentrate on what he was trying to write about. It was all table manners, not derived from any sense of kindness or decency or humanity, but originally from an egotistic desire to look like gentlemen and ladies. Gentlemen and ladies had good table manners and spoke and wrote grammatically. It was what identified one with the upper classes." -Robert Pirsig
"Find a subject you care about and which you in your heart feel others should care about. It is this genuine caring, not your games with language, which will be the most compelling and seductive element in your style.” - Kurt Vonnegut
"This was the old slap-on-the-fingers- if-your-modifiers-were-caught-dangling stuff. Correct spelling, correct punctuation, correct grammar. Hundreds of rules for itsy-bitsy people. No one could remember all that stuff and concentrate on what he was trying to write about. It was all table manners, not derived from any sense of kindness or decency or humanity, but originally from an egotistic desire to look like gentlemen and ladies. Gentlemen and ladies had good table manners and spoke and wrote grammatically. It was what identified one with the upper classes." -Robert Pirsig
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Marketing to the Subconscious
In some higher education institutions, the marketing office is a part of, or reports directly to, the development/advancement office. My college, fortunately, does not fit this model. We work a lot with advancement on various projects, which leads to tension. We differ on our view of how communications should go out.
Advancement's theory seems to be "cast as wide a net as possible." Every communication (magazine, e-mail, e-newsletter, postcard, phone call, or event) should include a direct ask for money. Do not miss out on any opportunity to ask. Don't ask, and they'll never give. The more we ask, the higher our conversion rate to donors. Widen the funnel and you will end up with more gifts; it's simple mathematics.
If I know anything about human behavior, it's that nothing is simple with us. Our department is always concerned with "ask exhaustion." Too much asking turns people off and makes them less likely to give in the future. Our theory has always been "let's make our communications fun." Let's make Facebook a friendly conversational tool; send out postcards and e-mails about fun alumni events; fill the alumni magazine with interesting stories, campus updates, and lots of photos, and so on.
Even for people who want to give, continually asking money from them turns the concept of our college into a negative brand. We, in the marketing department, have to work to turn that brand into something fun and positive. We are confident that once that happens, the gifts will come.
Of course, what makes our job more difficult is that we are marketing to our alumni's subconsciousness. We can't just send out an e-newsletter that says "Your alma mater is a fun place. You now have a positive image of it in your mind. Please donate $100 to the annual fund." Instead, we have to show them--through events, through stories, through engagement, etc. The problem is that we don't always know how our message is received. Advancement can measure in terms of dollars how effective their asking is working. We just have to continue to test and reevaluate.
Advancement's theory seems to be "cast as wide a net as possible." Every communication (magazine, e-mail, e-newsletter, postcard, phone call, or event) should include a direct ask for money. Do not miss out on any opportunity to ask. Don't ask, and they'll never give. The more we ask, the higher our conversion rate to donors. Widen the funnel and you will end up with more gifts; it's simple mathematics.
If I know anything about human behavior, it's that nothing is simple with us. Our department is always concerned with "ask exhaustion." Too much asking turns people off and makes them less likely to give in the future. Our theory has always been "let's make our communications fun." Let's make Facebook a friendly conversational tool; send out postcards and e-mails about fun alumni events; fill the alumni magazine with interesting stories, campus updates, and lots of photos, and so on.
Even for people who want to give, continually asking money from them turns the concept of our college into a negative brand. We, in the marketing department, have to work to turn that brand into something fun and positive. We are confident that once that happens, the gifts will come.
Of course, what makes our job more difficult is that we are marketing to our alumni's subconsciousness. We can't just send out an e-newsletter that says "Your alma mater is a fun place. You now have a positive image of it in your mind. Please donate $100 to the annual fund." Instead, we have to show them--through events, through stories, through engagement, etc. The problem is that we don't always know how our message is received. Advancement can measure in terms of dollars how effective their asking is working. We just have to continue to test and reevaluate.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
The Secret to Weight Loss (this time it's for real)
I felt really crappy last week so I decided to do my introspective thing. All I could come up with for causes are working too many hours lately, my back acting up, and stress over money. But that wasn't it, something else was nagging me. Then it hit me: I hadn't been to the gym in over a week. If it's possible to do a double take with my consciousness, I did it. I immediately had two thoughts: what an odd thing to feel crappy about, and what did I do to make exercise such a high priority in my life (something I consider a good thing, by the way).
I should throw this disclaimer out there: I'm not in what you would call fantastic shape. I'm definitely soft around the middle and although I lift weights, I'm not someone you would consider muscular. Let's just say I'm not turning any heads at the beach. However, I can say this: I have lost over 30 pounds on three separate occasions. Over the past four years I have put on as much as ten pounds but I always lose it again. I also weigh about 30 pounds less than I did when I graduated from high school ten years ago. I also have good blood pressure. My point is that I am in relatively decent shape and I know how to lose weight.
Over the years I've tried different exercise programs and diets resulting in a wide range successes and failures. Over the last four years, my most consistent stretch of healthy weightyness, I haven't followed any plan. Even better, I don't think it is important. I think following a plan puts the cart before the horse. So what's been my secret? Making exercise a habit. It's easier than you think.
When I first started my gym membership five years ago, I could only run on the elliptical for ten minutes. Each week I added a minute until I was running for 40 minutes a clip, as much as seven times a week. Looking back, that was the most important element, starting at a rate I could handle. You know why people's gym memberships go stale after their January surge? They hate going to the gym.
So here is my proposal: it's not the type of exercise you do, how long you do it, how hard you work, or what specific plan you follow. It's all about showing up and the rest falls into place. Pick the number of days you'd like to go to the gym a week and add one to that number (invariably you will have to cancel a day due to life's road blocks).
Then, just show up. If you're tired, sore, or just not in the mood to work out - show up anyway. Do just one exercise, walk for ten minutes, or do some light stretching - it's really not that important. All you need to do is make going to the gym a habit. It takes about six weeks to form a habit. Once that habit is established you will want to go to the gym and feel a bit "off" when you start missing days. Then you can look at what program works best for you and try to reach a goal of 30 minutes of solid cardio four times a week.
To paraphrase Yogi Berra, ninety percent of weight loss is half mental, the other half is physical.
I should throw this disclaimer out there: I'm not in what you would call fantastic shape. I'm definitely soft around the middle and although I lift weights, I'm not someone you would consider muscular. Let's just say I'm not turning any heads at the beach. However, I can say this: I have lost over 30 pounds on three separate occasions. Over the past four years I have put on as much as ten pounds but I always lose it again. I also weigh about 30 pounds less than I did when I graduated from high school ten years ago. I also have good blood pressure. My point is that I am in relatively decent shape and I know how to lose weight.
Over the years I've tried different exercise programs and diets resulting in a wide range successes and failures. Over the last four years, my most consistent stretch of healthy weightyness, I haven't followed any plan. Even better, I don't think it is important. I think following a plan puts the cart before the horse. So what's been my secret? Making exercise a habit. It's easier than you think.
When I first started my gym membership five years ago, I could only run on the elliptical for ten minutes. Each week I added a minute until I was running for 40 minutes a clip, as much as seven times a week. Looking back, that was the most important element, starting at a rate I could handle. You know why people's gym memberships go stale after their January surge? They hate going to the gym.
So here is my proposal: it's not the type of exercise you do, how long you do it, how hard you work, or what specific plan you follow. It's all about showing up and the rest falls into place. Pick the number of days you'd like to go to the gym a week and add one to that number (invariably you will have to cancel a day due to life's road blocks).
Then, just show up. If you're tired, sore, or just not in the mood to work out - show up anyway. Do just one exercise, walk for ten minutes, or do some light stretching - it's really not that important. All you need to do is make going to the gym a habit. It takes about six weeks to form a habit. Once that habit is established you will want to go to the gym and feel a bit "off" when you start missing days. Then you can look at what program works best for you and try to reach a goal of 30 minutes of solid cardio four times a week.
To paraphrase Yogi Berra, ninety percent of weight loss is half mental, the other half is physical.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)