An important step on the route to a more self-sufficient lifestyle is taking back your economic power. As a culture, we indulge in a lot of thoughtless buying. We purchase on auto-pilot, using the retail environment as a way to meet our emotional and spiritual needs. That's not always a bad thing - but we need to be aware of when it's happening. That way we can be more conscious of our economic power, and make choices that enrich our own families rather than keep them on the brink of perpetual bankruptcy.
Here are 10 questions to ask yourself before you make a purchase - any purchase, large or small! Get in the habit of asking yourself these questions, and you'll find you buy less and enjoy what you have more. You'll also save money, which is always nice.
Before you buy anything, ask yourself:
1. Do I need this? Not all of our purchases have to be needs, but it's important to recognize which ones are, and which ones aren't.
2. Do I need to own this? Can I derive the same benefits I expect to get from buying this item through any other method - can I borrow the book, watch the movie online, use the slide at the public playground? Sometimes you can derive the benefits desired without the cost of ownership.
3. Do I need to get this brand new? Our country has an extensive secondary marketplace. What would happen if you got the item you wanted at a yard sale, via eBay, at a consignment shop or a flea market?
4. Do I want to take care of this item? Clothes need washing. Some clothes need ironing. Some clothes have to be dry cleaned. Every tangible thing needs some level of physical care. Are you willing and able to commit to providing that care?
5. Is there something else I want more than the item I'm thinking about buying right now? Once my daughter stopped spending her chore money on candy bars, she found it much easier to save up for the toy she wanted. This lesson doesn't stop being true just because we grow up!
6. Do I need to buy this right now? Sometimes I'm convinced I really need or fervently want an item, and am forced by financial circumstances to put off the purchase. Then when I'm in a position to buy the item, I've found the driving need or want has been fulfilled in some other way. You don't have to buy something just because you were planning to - you are allowed to change your mind!
7. Do I want this? There are all things we want, and that's okay. The world is full of amazing stuff. Before you make a purchase, make sure that you're getting the amazing stuff you want. Don't settle for weak substitutions. If you're buying to satisfy a want, get what truly makes you happy. This might mean saving up for a while, but you'll find the process goes faster if you're not spending money on things that in the long run you didn't want and don't make you happy.
8. What level of quality to I need to meet my need/want? We tend to buy as if "Only the best will do!" But we don't all need only the best, all of the time. If you're a hardcore handywoman who's actively in the process of remodeling your home, it's a smart decision to get a contractor grade screwgun. If your home improvement efforts are more in the line of hanging a picture once every year or so, it's a smart decision to get a screwdriver from the dollar store.
9. Who are the people influencing my purchasing decision? None of us live in isolation. Our purchasing decisions are influenced by the people we interact with. When I go to the grocery store, I get food my family likes. When I buy clothes to wear to work, I choose what would be appropriate for the workplace environment. Think about the times you've made choices based on what your romantic partner, neighbors, family, colleagues, or friends think. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but you need to be aware of who you're letting influence your purchasing decisions. You get to choose how responsive you are to those influences.
10. Can I make what I'm thinking about buying? Once upon a time, I wanted a Boston Creme Pie for my family. But we were tight on funds, and the bakery wanted $15 for that cake. A DIY version cost $6.50 for ingredients and my time. Once upon a time, people made all sorts of things for themselves - and today, more people than you might suspect still do. The Maker, Crafting, and DIY communities are very inspiring and good places to learn how to do almost anything. You might be amazed at the impact in your life if you choose to make just one thing you want or need. It's an addictive sensation, and will totally transform your relationship with retail.
Showing posts with label marketing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label marketing. Show all posts
Friday, August 30, 2013
Sunday, August 18, 2013
How Much Does It Cost To Raise a Child? We Need To Look at These Numbers
A little over a week ago, CBS reported that it costs $241,080 to raise a child from birth to adulthood. I've spent a lot of time looking at that number, because I have 2 children, and we're roughly halfway through their rearing and there's NO WAY I've spent $241,080 on them so far, for the simple fact that I haven't made that much money.
There's a breakdown of how the USDA says we're allocating this $241,080, with a chart comparing how the same information in 1960.
I find it amazing that housing costs have only gone up 1% while the size and cost of houses has gone up exponentially. In the 1960's, a new house, on average, cost around $12,700. Today, that number is closer to $250,000.
To afford these more expensive houses, both parents are working outside the home, more often than not. We've seen the childcare expense go from 2% to 18%: in the CBS story, we see a young man who's wife makes six figures staying home to provide childcare because they can't afford it.
I'm puzzled by some of these other numbers. Why has there been a 10% increase in the cost of food; 5% in clothing, 4% in health care? Part of this may be attributable to having both parents work outside the home; in homes where one or more parents are in the home more regularly, these costs are consistently lower.
When someone in the home cooks dinner, you don't go out to a restaurant. Yet it is commonly reported that the typical American family eats out 4-5 times a week; the US Bureau of Labor Statistics said the average American family spent $2,505 in restaurants in 2010.
And as for that growth in the miscellaneous category? In the 1960's, kids didn't have cell phones, lap tops, tablets or video games. While tech is ubiquitous among all generations, it's important to recognize that this is an expense parents didn't have 40 years ago. Today, video gaming is a $66 billion dollar industry - and most gamers start playing while they are still children.
Raising Kids When You Don't Have $241,080
Childcare, food, clothing, and health care are all controllable expenses. As parents, we can make lifestyle choices that bring these numbers dramatically down - but we have to be willing to go against what society tells us we should do, and instead do what actually makes sense for our families and our finances.
To the people who say this is impossible, I'd like to remind you that nearly half the world's population - 2.8 billion people - survive on less than $2 a day. Nothing is impossible! Although certainly we are aiming for a better standard of living than that.
I'm not advocating for a life of self-denial and no pleasures. However, anecdotal observation has shown me that the people who are spending the most on their children are not actually the happiest, nor do their children overwhelmingly appear to be more successful in the long run.
We need to be aware that numbers and reports like this serve a cultural purpose. By purporting to describe what's typical, what's average, what 'everyone else' is doing, these reports contribute to a "Keep Up With the Jonses" pressure that is killing us. Couple that with advertising that continually tells us we're too busy to cook, that there are all these fun, brilliant restaurants, that your kids need the hot new looks for school (and a cart full of supplies for one kid, thank you, Target!), and my personally favorite, that we've got all kinds of illnesses we need to talk to our doctor about, and you get a lot of bad economic decision making as a result.
A Consumption Based Economy
Consumer spending - money that people like you and me spend in retail shops, restaurants, car dealerships, and more - accounts for 71% of the economy. But in return, what do we get? Schools that are underfunded, infrastructure that is falling down all over the place, foreign policy most people don't even know about much less agree with, and a government that spies on us.
This is not a good deal.
It shouldn't cost $241,080 dollar to raise a child. And if it did, I'd expect that child to be exceptionally well educated, extremely healthy, and prepared to change the world when they reached maturity. That's not what we're getting, even if it is what we're spending. Changes to the system are essential, and maybe it begins by buying less stuff for our children and spending more time with our children.
What Do You Think?
I'd love to hear what you think about the report that it costs $241,080 to raise a child. Do these numbers sound realistic, given your own experiences? What do you do to provide your kids with a high quality of life on a limited budget?
These are the discussions we need to be having. I'd love to see the USDA reporting in 5 years that people have brought their spending down and raised their quality of life. I think we can make it happen. But it has to start with someone saying, "No, those numbers are ridiculous, and here's why..."
When people hear that there's another way and that they can make better decisions, they can opt out of the consumer based lifestyle and enjoy their lives more. Even a small change has a positive impact, and we all have to start somewhere!
There's a breakdown of how the USDA says we're allocating this $241,080, with a chart comparing how the same information in 1960.
To afford these more expensive houses, both parents are working outside the home, more often than not. We've seen the childcare expense go from 2% to 18%: in the CBS story, we see a young man who's wife makes six figures staying home to provide childcare because they can't afford it.
I'm puzzled by some of these other numbers. Why has there been a 10% increase in the cost of food; 5% in clothing, 4% in health care? Part of this may be attributable to having both parents work outside the home; in homes where one or more parents are in the home more regularly, these costs are consistently lower.
When someone in the home cooks dinner, you don't go out to a restaurant. Yet it is commonly reported that the typical American family eats out 4-5 times a week; the US Bureau of Labor Statistics said the average American family spent $2,505 in restaurants in 2010.
And as for that growth in the miscellaneous category? In the 1960's, kids didn't have cell phones, lap tops, tablets or video games. While tech is ubiquitous among all generations, it's important to recognize that this is an expense parents didn't have 40 years ago. Today, video gaming is a $66 billion dollar industry - and most gamers start playing while they are still children.
Raising Kids When You Don't Have $241,080
Childcare, food, clothing, and health care are all controllable expenses. As parents, we can make lifestyle choices that bring these numbers dramatically down - but we have to be willing to go against what society tells us we should do, and instead do what actually makes sense for our families and our finances.
To the people who say this is impossible, I'd like to remind you that nearly half the world's population - 2.8 billion people - survive on less than $2 a day. Nothing is impossible! Although certainly we are aiming for a better standard of living than that.
I'm not advocating for a life of self-denial and no pleasures. However, anecdotal observation has shown me that the people who are spending the most on their children are not actually the happiest, nor do their children overwhelmingly appear to be more successful in the long run.
We need to be aware that numbers and reports like this serve a cultural purpose. By purporting to describe what's typical, what's average, what 'everyone else' is doing, these reports contribute to a "Keep Up With the Jonses" pressure that is killing us. Couple that with advertising that continually tells us we're too busy to cook, that there are all these fun, brilliant restaurants, that your kids need the hot new looks for school (and a cart full of supplies for one kid, thank you, Target!), and my personally favorite, that we've got all kinds of illnesses we need to talk to our doctor about, and you get a lot of bad economic decision making as a result.
A Consumption Based Economy
Consumer spending - money that people like you and me spend in retail shops, restaurants, car dealerships, and more - accounts for 71% of the economy. But in return, what do we get? Schools that are underfunded, infrastructure that is falling down all over the place, foreign policy most people don't even know about much less agree with, and a government that spies on us.
This is not a good deal.
It shouldn't cost $241,080 dollar to raise a child. And if it did, I'd expect that child to be exceptionally well educated, extremely healthy, and prepared to change the world when they reached maturity. That's not what we're getting, even if it is what we're spending. Changes to the system are essential, and maybe it begins by buying less stuff for our children and spending more time with our children.
What Do You Think?
I'd love to hear what you think about the report that it costs $241,080 to raise a child. Do these numbers sound realistic, given your own experiences? What do you do to provide your kids with a high quality of life on a limited budget?
These are the discussions we need to be having. I'd love to see the USDA reporting in 5 years that people have brought their spending down and raised their quality of life. I think we can make it happen. But it has to start with someone saying, "No, those numbers are ridiculous, and here's why..."
When people hear that there's another way and that they can make better decisions, they can opt out of the consumer based lifestyle and enjoy their lives more. Even a small change has a positive impact, and we all have to start somewhere!
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
Losing Home: The Impact of Declining Social Structures on our Quality of Life
You should know who Ray Oldenburg is. Way back in 1991, he wrote "The Great Good Place" and it's there that we see one of the first descriptions of how society falling down as retail rose. There's a lot in there about community planning and suburban development. Bedroom communities, for example, are entire neighborhoods where people retreat to sleep at the end of a workday - and then leave again in the morning for work and school.
Oldenburg identified some ways in which changes in the ways we live impact the quality of life we have. The big one is the disappearance of social structures -the formal and informal community groups people used to belong to. I realize this is a broad description, but it used to be a big category. You'd find everything in it from church membership to participation in your kids' PTA. Some social structures were organized for very serious purposes - think of your volunteer fire department - while others were more fun, such as the community softball team.
Some Quotes from Roy Oldenburg
In the absence of informal public life, living becomes more expensive. Where the means and facilities for relaxation and leisure are not publicly shared, they become the objects of private ownership and consumption.
Life without community has produced, for many, a life style consisting mainly of a home-to-work-and-back-again shuttle. Social well-being and psychological health depend upon community. It is no coincidence that the ‘helping professions’ became a major industry in the United States as suburban planning helped destroy local public life and the community support it once lent.
Totally unlike Main Street, the shopping mall is populated by strangers. As people circulate about in the constant, monotonous flow of mall pedestrian traffic, their eyes do not cast about for familiar faces, for the chance of seeing one is small. That is not part of what one expects there. The reason is simple. The mall is centrally located to serve the multitudes from a number of outlying developments within its region. There is little acquaintance between these developments and not much more within them. Most of them lack focal points or core settings and, as a result, people are not widely known to one another, even in their own neighborhoods, and their neighborhood is only a minority portion of the mall’s clientele.
The Rise of Retail
Nature abhors a vacuum, but nature's got nothing on a brand manager desperate to keep their job. It's not rocket science to see that people have a deep-seated need for community. If the community is no longer there, people will seek out the connection and purpose that community provided somewhere else. Retailers have stepped in to fill that gap.
Think about the classes offered at home improvement stores like Lowe's and Home Depot. In some measure, people take these classes because they want to learn how to accomplish a specific task, such as installing closet dividers or replacing a toilet. But there's something deeper going on here. When people gather, with like minded individuals, who all have a common challenge, they're forming a community. Some of the need that would have once been filled by the casual sideline conversations that take place while parents watch their kids' soccer games, for example, has now been moved into the retail environment.
We Lost Home, Too
Other thought leaders, such as Jean Zimmerman, in Making Scratch: Rediscovering The Pleasures of the American Hearth, and Shannon Hayes, in Radical Homemakers, have detailed how the erosion of community structures Oldenburg documented has extended even further.
Home, which has traditionally been the center of all human endeavors, has evolved into a place to be avoided or escaped. It's very weird: as houses get larger and larger - Bloomberg News reports that
the median new house built in the U.S. is now about 50 percent larger than its counterpart from 30 years ago - people are spending less and less time in them.
Part of this is economic. Large homes are expensive to acquire and maintain. You generally need at least 2 incomes to keep the household going. When everyone is working outside the home, there's no one left inside the home.
When there's no one left inside the home, the home becomes no more than a house -and a house as it stands is not an exceptionally compelling place to be. Retail and the entertainment industry provide an attractive alternative. For a few - or not so few- dollars, you can have an experience designed to delight you, or at least satisfy you, and don't you deserve it? After all, you've worked so hard this week, paying for the house you don't want to be in.
It's a vicious cycle. We have to be willing to look at it critically, examine our role in it, and finally, if we're going to change our lives, step off of it. I think it starts with taking home back, but it can't stop there. Isolation within the home is part of the root of this problem. We need to build communities and connections with people, both online and in real spaces, if we want things to change. We need Oldenburg's Third Spaces, free from the influence of commerce.
It's not going to be easy, but essential things never are.
Oldenburg identified some ways in which changes in the ways we live impact the quality of life we have. The big one is the disappearance of social structures -the formal and informal community groups people used to belong to. I realize this is a broad description, but it used to be a big category. You'd find everything in it from church membership to participation in your kids' PTA. Some social structures were organized for very serious purposes - think of your volunteer fire department - while others were more fun, such as the community softball team.
Some Quotes from Roy Oldenburg
In the absence of informal public life, living becomes more expensive. Where the means and facilities for relaxation and leisure are not publicly shared, they become the objects of private ownership and consumption.
Life without community has produced, for many, a life style consisting mainly of a home-to-work-and-back-again shuttle. Social well-being and psychological health depend upon community. It is no coincidence that the ‘helping professions’ became a major industry in the United States as suburban planning helped destroy local public life and the community support it once lent.
Totally unlike Main Street, the shopping mall is populated by strangers. As people circulate about in the constant, monotonous flow of mall pedestrian traffic, their eyes do not cast about for familiar faces, for the chance of seeing one is small. That is not part of what one expects there. The reason is simple. The mall is centrally located to serve the multitudes from a number of outlying developments within its region. There is little acquaintance between these developments and not much more within them. Most of them lack focal points or core settings and, as a result, people are not widely known to one another, even in their own neighborhoods, and their neighborhood is only a minority portion of the mall’s clientele.
The Rise of Retail
Nature abhors a vacuum, but nature's got nothing on a brand manager desperate to keep their job. It's not rocket science to see that people have a deep-seated need for community. If the community is no longer there, people will seek out the connection and purpose that community provided somewhere else. Retailers have stepped in to fill that gap.
Think about the classes offered at home improvement stores like Lowe's and Home Depot. In some measure, people take these classes because they want to learn how to accomplish a specific task, such as installing closet dividers or replacing a toilet. But there's something deeper going on here. When people gather, with like minded individuals, who all have a common challenge, they're forming a community. Some of the need that would have once been filled by the casual sideline conversations that take place while parents watch their kids' soccer games, for example, has now been moved into the retail environment.
We Lost Home, Too
Other thought leaders, such as Jean Zimmerman, in Making Scratch: Rediscovering The Pleasures of the American Hearth, and Shannon Hayes, in Radical Homemakers, have detailed how the erosion of community structures Oldenburg documented has extended even further.
Home, which has traditionally been the center of all human endeavors, has evolved into a place to be avoided or escaped. It's very weird: as houses get larger and larger - Bloomberg News reports that
the median new house built in the U.S. is now about 50 percent larger than its counterpart from 30 years ago - people are spending less and less time in them.
Part of this is economic. Large homes are expensive to acquire and maintain. You generally need at least 2 incomes to keep the household going. When everyone is working outside the home, there's no one left inside the home.
When there's no one left inside the home, the home becomes no more than a house -and a house as it stands is not an exceptionally compelling place to be. Retail and the entertainment industry provide an attractive alternative. For a few - or not so few- dollars, you can have an experience designed to delight you, or at least satisfy you, and don't you deserve it? After all, you've worked so hard this week, paying for the house you don't want to be in.
It's a vicious cycle. We have to be willing to look at it critically, examine our role in it, and finally, if we're going to change our lives, step off of it. I think it starts with taking home back, but it can't stop there. Isolation within the home is part of the root of this problem. We need to build communities and connections with people, both online and in real spaces, if we want things to change. We need Oldenburg's Third Spaces, free from the influence of commerce.
It's not going to be easy, but essential things never are.
Monday, August 12, 2013
Transitions
I quit one of my jobs today. It wasn't a bad job, as ghostwriting gigs go: the clients are pleasant, knowledgeable people; the money decent and always paid promptly. But I just couldn't do it anymore. Here's why:
It's no secret that the world's best brands are successful because they do a great job of meeting their customers' needs. That's Marketing 101, right there. But what isn't so well understood is that human needs are incredibly complex. They have both tangible and intangible components.
That's why when winter rolls around and you go coat shopping, you're not just looking for a coat that's warm, weatherproof, and affordable. You want a coat that's stylish as your community of choice defines stylish, so you can feel good about yourself and your place in society.
My now-former clients do a great job educating business leaders about the complexities of human need and teaching them how to best meet as many of those needs as possible in the retail setting. Better, more comprehensive customer service leads to more sales, greater organizational profitability, increased market share...it all sounds good, right?
Except for one little thing.
I have become increasingly convinced that having too many of our needs - of both the tangible and intangible variety - met by retailers is disastrous. It's a catastrophe on the individual level, and collectively, for our society as a whole, it's a cluster-fuck of truly epic proportions.
People who can buy everything - everything from apples to aspirations, eggs to esteem, chocolate to confidence - are people who don't need to do anything. We don't need to make, manufacture, discover, or create. It all comes from the store. When all of our needs are met for us, we don't even have to think.
People who don't think make bad decisions. When we're not thinking, we make decisions that actually go against our own self-interest and the well-being of the communities we live in. Look around your circle of family, friends, co-workers and acquaintances. Look at society at large - especially as it's presented to us on the news.
Do you see a lot of good decision making going on?
The other day, I was down at a little local grocery store in my neighborhood. A young couple stopped in. They were in search of hamburger patties.
"We don't sell the pre-made patties," the proprietor told them, "But we do have the meat - we grind it fresh every morning!"
The young woman shuddered, and the young man slid a comforting arm around her shoulders. "No thank you," he said. "We'll just get some someplace else."
That young couple had a twenty mile drive ahead of them, in any direction, before they'd find a store that sold pre-made hamburger patties. There was high quality, freshly ground beef right in front of them. But they were willing to travel a significant distance (and I don't know what gas costs where you are, but it starts at $4/gallon up here) to find hamburger patties already made for them.
Why?
I believe that the narratives we've been given by marketers - stories about what we need and who were are - hold some, if not all, of the answer to that question.
One of the most pervasive marketing messages, delivered daily in dozens of different ways, is "You shouldn't have to work so hard." It's a message that helped spur the public enthusiasm for electricity, with countless labor-saving devices that promised to free women from a lifetime of drudgery at the washboard or slinging sad irons. Decades later, we've internalized the message so completely that no one wants to do anything - even if the task is no more taxing than shaping a few ounces of ground meat into a patty.
This type of thinking is destroying us. I don't want to contribute to the problem. I want to help solve it. We can take our lives and our futures back from the marketers. We just have to remember how to meet our needs without the assistance of retailers.
It's no secret that the world's best brands are successful because they do a great job of meeting their customers' needs. That's Marketing 101, right there. But what isn't so well understood is that human needs are incredibly complex. They have both tangible and intangible components.
That's why when winter rolls around and you go coat shopping, you're not just looking for a coat that's warm, weatherproof, and affordable. You want a coat that's stylish as your community of choice defines stylish, so you can feel good about yourself and your place in society.
My now-former clients do a great job educating business leaders about the complexities of human need and teaching them how to best meet as many of those needs as possible in the retail setting. Better, more comprehensive customer service leads to more sales, greater organizational profitability, increased market share...it all sounds good, right?
Except for one little thing.
I have become increasingly convinced that having too many of our needs - of both the tangible and intangible variety - met by retailers is disastrous. It's a catastrophe on the individual level, and collectively, for our society as a whole, it's a cluster-fuck of truly epic proportions.
People who can buy everything - everything from apples to aspirations, eggs to esteem, chocolate to confidence - are people who don't need to do anything. We don't need to make, manufacture, discover, or create. It all comes from the store. When all of our needs are met for us, we don't even have to think.
People who don't think make bad decisions. When we're not thinking, we make decisions that actually go against our own self-interest and the well-being of the communities we live in. Look around your circle of family, friends, co-workers and acquaintances. Look at society at large - especially as it's presented to us on the news.
Do you see a lot of good decision making going on?
The other day, I was down at a little local grocery store in my neighborhood. A young couple stopped in. They were in search of hamburger patties.
"We don't sell the pre-made patties," the proprietor told them, "But we do have the meat - we grind it fresh every morning!"
The young woman shuddered, and the young man slid a comforting arm around her shoulders. "No thank you," he said. "We'll just get some someplace else."
That young couple had a twenty mile drive ahead of them, in any direction, before they'd find a store that sold pre-made hamburger patties. There was high quality, freshly ground beef right in front of them. But they were willing to travel a significant distance (and I don't know what gas costs where you are, but it starts at $4/gallon up here) to find hamburger patties already made for them.
Why?
I believe that the narratives we've been given by marketers - stories about what we need and who were are - hold some, if not all, of the answer to that question.
One of the most pervasive marketing messages, delivered daily in dozens of different ways, is "You shouldn't have to work so hard." It's a message that helped spur the public enthusiasm for electricity, with countless labor-saving devices that promised to free women from a lifetime of drudgery at the washboard or slinging sad irons. Decades later, we've internalized the message so completely that no one wants to do anything - even if the task is no more taxing than shaping a few ounces of ground meat into a patty.
This type of thinking is destroying us. I don't want to contribute to the problem. I want to help solve it. We can take our lives and our futures back from the marketers. We just have to remember how to meet our needs without the assistance of retailers.
Thursday, June 27, 2013
Be A Better Marketer: Do You Have Someone to Tell You No?
I just finished watching a train wreck of a commercial. I'm not going to name names, but let me fill you in on the concept. The owner of a local car dealership is at the wheel of his truck. As he's driving along, he continually looks up at the camera - clearly mounted on the passenger side visor - and in a demanding tone, tells the viewing public that if they're not buying their car from him, he wants to know why. He gives his personal cell number, assures people he'll answer the phone himself, and then we go to the dealership logo. The entire time, his attention is clearly divided between the camera and the highway he's driving on.
Yeah, that's real safe!
Conceptually, there's nothing particularly wrong with this ad - chances are you've seen variations of it thousands of times. But execution really is everything. A noticeably distracted driver is not the best choice to sell cars! This man's tone of voice was aggressive, not inviting. He didn't look good, sound good, or reflect well on his business.
Be A Better Marketer: Looking Bad is Entirely Avoidable!
Advertising is never free. Even in this small market, a television commercial is a significant investment for the small business owner. Before you spend that money, you want to make sure that you're making a wise decision. This requires an essential step: having someone who can tell you "No!"
What this car dealership owner clearly needed was someone on his side to take a look at the commercial - BEFORE IT AIRED - who would say "Dude. You're a great guy, but this commercial's just not working. Why don't we try it again? You'll be just as effective - and a whole lot safer and more focused! - if you're standing in front of one of your trucks instead of driving. If we change a few sentences around, you'll sound friendlier and less scary, too!"
It's important to understand that the TV ad rep is not going to do this for you. Their job is to sell ad time. They don't care if your ads are good, bad, or indifferent: they just want you to buy a bunch of them. The same dynamic is at play when you're buying print advertising, radio advertising, or doing online advertising. Some reps are better than others, but it's always, always, always a bad business decision to leave the responsibility for your company's image in their hands. That's yours, and you need to own it.
Everyone needs a second set of eyes to look at their work. In this instance, it was very clear that this dealership owner was handling production duties on his own, probably to keep costs down. The skills you need to be a great car dealer are not necessarily the same as the ones you need to be a great commercial producer.
Have a trusted employee, colleague, or friend review your all of your advertising before it goes live. This should be someone who is both sensible and confident enough to tell you "No way!" when an ad will make you look bad. It can be hard to hear that the ad you worked so hard on is a stinker, but it's much better to hear that before your market has seen the ad! Money spent on crappy ads is money wasted, and in this economy, who can afford to do that?
Yeah, that's real safe!
Conceptually, there's nothing particularly wrong with this ad - chances are you've seen variations of it thousands of times. But execution really is everything. A noticeably distracted driver is not the best choice to sell cars! This man's tone of voice was aggressive, not inviting. He didn't look good, sound good, or reflect well on his business.
Be A Better Marketer: Looking Bad is Entirely Avoidable!
Advertising is never free. Even in this small market, a television commercial is a significant investment for the small business owner. Before you spend that money, you want to make sure that you're making a wise decision. This requires an essential step: having someone who can tell you "No!"
What this car dealership owner clearly needed was someone on his side to take a look at the commercial - BEFORE IT AIRED - who would say "Dude. You're a great guy, but this commercial's just not working. Why don't we try it again? You'll be just as effective - and a whole lot safer and more focused! - if you're standing in front of one of your trucks instead of driving. If we change a few sentences around, you'll sound friendlier and less scary, too!"
It's important to understand that the TV ad rep is not going to do this for you. Their job is to sell ad time. They don't care if your ads are good, bad, or indifferent: they just want you to buy a bunch of them. The same dynamic is at play when you're buying print advertising, radio advertising, or doing online advertising. Some reps are better than others, but it's always, always, always a bad business decision to leave the responsibility for your company's image in their hands. That's yours, and you need to own it.
Everyone needs a second set of eyes to look at their work. In this instance, it was very clear that this dealership owner was handling production duties on his own, probably to keep costs down. The skills you need to be a great car dealer are not necessarily the same as the ones you need to be a great commercial producer.
Have a trusted employee, colleague, or friend review your all of your advertising before it goes live. This should be someone who is both sensible and confident enough to tell you "No way!" when an ad will make you look bad. It can be hard to hear that the ad you worked so hard on is a stinker, but it's much better to hear that before your market has seen the ad! Money spent on crappy ads is money wasted, and in this economy, who can afford to do that?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)