The Spaghetti Meets the Wall

Eric Frenchman deconstructs Vonage's marketing campaign in two posts. When smacking folks over the head with your ad a kajillion times doesn't "work," maybe try something else - like figuring out if you still have a product that can be differentiated from everything else on the market. I've got Optimum Voice at home, and the offering is nearly identical to what Vonage could give me. But my bill comes along with my cable bill and it works with my existing cable modem, so I didn't have to run out for any additional hardware.

On nothing more than gut feel, I'll postulate that Vonage's problem is differentiation. People probably don't see enough incremental value in Vonage's VOIP product to want to go with Vonage vs. the VOIP offering from their current access provider.

In cases like this, where the product is at best at parity with similar products from competitors, you can have the brand serve as a differentiator, and hope that your customers align more closely with your brand than that of your competitors. But that begs the question - Vonage is all over the place, but are their ads responsible for any brand-building activity? Not by my assessment. The ads seem to be largely DR-focused.

If I were their CMO, I'd first look to existing and prospective customers to find a differentiator (or something ownable to be added to the product), I'd also take a nice chunk of that marketing budget and earmark it for brand-building activity. (As long as you're wasting money on $130 CPAs, there's plenty of money for brand building.) I'd pull out of TV and radio entirely until we latched on to a brand idea and an easily defendable product differentiator.

Someone should do some variable isolation analysis to find out whether Vonage's advertising is actually good for its competitors. I suspect that their advertising prompts consideration, and when potential customers see they can get a similar product from their existing broadband provider, they go with the offer that makes more sense. I bet Vonage is, to an extent, building a business for their larger competitors, especially cable companies offering broadband access.

Not Quite What I Was Imagining, But Close

In my predictions column this year, I said:

A label-less artist will make a big splash in 2006 At some point during 2006, someone like you and me, armed with only a home computer (and perhaps a few musical instruments) will create a piece of music that will become popular without the support of a record label. It could be someone’s mash-up, a mobile ringtone, or an original piece of music created with a Mac and a copy of GarageBand. Whatever it is, it will be created at home and made popular by viral means and by distribution in alternative channels (i.e.–other than MTV and major label marketing).

Well, I had envisioned someone succeeding to the point that they might say to themselves "What the hell do I need a label for?" In this case, it looks like Sony snapped up an entertainer who had already built her following via the Internet.

So my prediction wasn't too far off, and we still have nearly 9 months for someone to hit it big and refuse all advances from major labels.

Here's my question for Sandi Thom... If you have 100,000 people waiting for your next webcast, why sign with Sony? Why not continue to build your following organically and make money selling digital downloads to your loyal fan base? What the hell do you need Sony for?

I Have Joined Crackberry Nation

So I caved today and joined the company Blackberry plan. I've had so many problems with Sprint and my Treo in the past year that it makes my blood boil just thinking about it. I can't wait for the number portability gnomes to switch my number over to the new 7105t. Once the number switches over, I need to plan some sort of elaborate ceremony to permanently retire the Treo. I never want to see this phone again in my life. The idea currently leading the pack is placing it within my skeet launcher and blowing it away with buckshot. However, I will take ideas in comments.

Avoid Dialogue At All Costs

From here:

As it did during "Super Size Me," the marketer told franchisees that its communications will play up the company's menu variety, new products, and community involvement to remind consumers of the chain's more admirable activities.

So in other words, instead of addressing any issues raised by the film and any ensuing discussion, the company plans ahead of time to sit in its ivory tower and keep hammering away with the broadcast mallet.

This is a huge opportunity for McDonald's. I never had any doubt they'd blow it, but a forward-thinking company would welcome the chance to discuss the important issues behind what people eat and the ethics of selling their "food" when it's so unhealthy.

Schlosser nails it:

Mr. Schlosser wants to hear from them. "I hope [McDonald's] engages in a substantive debate about the issues raised by the film and avoid personal attacks on the filmmakers, not to mention the threat of legal action," he said. "They get their point of view across every single day on TV. If they believe in democracy, they should welcome criticism and debate...and not engage in the kind of personal attacks that are attempts to distract people from the really important issues."