Idaho Ad Agencies

I’d like to take a moment to say “Thank You.”

To all of you who visit the Idaho Ad Agencies blog on a regular basis.  Who put up with my observations, rants, random thoughts and commentary.

To those who take the time to add to the conversation by leaving comments.

And most importantly, to everyone who does outstanding work day in and day out, giving me a variety of material to write about.  I couldn’t do it without you.

Thank You.  Have a Happy Thanksgiving and enjoy a few days away from this crazy business.

-Brian

Yes, the Idaho Lottery is always a subject that will get people talking.  It’s a high profile account and extremely visible work.

That being said, over the past month or so, what looks to be the first large-scale push for the Idaho Lottery from DaviesMoore has been making the rounds.  To date I’ve seen television spots, billboards and banner ads, and it wouldn’t surprise me to find out that radio is also running.

I’m going to reserve judgement on the work, because I’d like to know what you, dear readers, think of it.  Good? Bad? Indifferent?

The comment lines are open, but let’s keep things civil and professional.

That is the second half of a question that’s been bouncing around in the back of my head for some time now (we’ll get to the rest of it in a moment).  Allow me to explain…

When it comes to marketing and advertising, good is just that — it’s good.  It meets the client’s objectives.  It pays the bills and keeps the lights on.  Good work breeds good work.

But is it memorable?

Bad work certainly is.

Let’s play a little game called recall.  The topic: Advertising for local car dealerships.  Television spots, specifically.  Glamorous, I know, but it serves the point.

When I mention the following Treasure Valley dealerships, do you remember what their recent spots looked like?

Meridian Ford
Dennis Dillon
Edmark Superstore
Team Mazda Subaru
Lithia of Boise

Of the five examples above, which garnered the most immediate or strongest response?  I would be willing to bet that it was Team Mazda Subaru.  You know the spots.  You’ve seen them.  Thanks to some effective media buying they’re hard to miss.  And that leads to the rest of the question:

If you’re not willing to be great, is it better to be bad than good?

Bad, in most cases, is just that.  It makes people cringe.  It elicits a strong reaction.  But it’s also memorable.  Despite your best intentions, I’m sure you can rattle off at least a half-dozen examples of bad advertising that you’ve seen over the years.  And in each case, I’d bet you can remember exactly who the ad was for, and what it was about.  Try as we might, bad ads are unforgettable.

But so are great ones.

The great ones do more than just meet the client’s objectives.  They influence an industry.  They change a culture.  As those who study this business come to realize, it’s the great ads that set, and in many cases reset, the bar by which others are judged.

Lest you think this discussion is limited only to television, it isn’t — it applies to all mediums.  The Bad / Good / Great distinction can take place anywhere.  In broadcast, online, direct, even face to face.

In all cases, Bad is just bad — memorable, but bad.  Good is effective and meets expectations.  Great is a game-changer.

So how do you define the difference between good and great?  What are you doing on a daily basis to push your own work from good to great?  Does it matter to you?

Well, how did you do?

Did you treat anyone differently, or were you treated any differently last week?  If so, did it have any effect on you?

Feel free to comment away.

*Opinion*

It’s interesting that I’ve received reports from several sources about layoffs, however there has been no movement on the website(s) of the agency/agencies in question.

It makes the company look bad by not being forthright about their staff.

It also does a disservice to the individuals who were affected.  It has the potential to make it seem that the former employee is still there, effectively creating some confusion as to the circumstances surrounding their departure.

In the end, it’s just bad form, and we’ll leave it at that.

My challenge to you this week:

Rather than telling someone no, that their idea is bad, or some other negative response, make a conscious effort to turn it into a positive.

Do you have to tell someone no?  Okay, but also give the person asking the question something helpful—could be a recommendation on someone else they should talk to or another avenue to try.

Think an idea isn’t the greatest?  Tell them what you think could be done to make it better.

On the other side of the conversation?  You’re the one doing the asking?  Don’t settle.  Ask for more information, more feedback, or what you could do differently.

Try it.  Then let others know how it goes by leaving a comment here.

SEE UPDATE BELOW

There’s been a flurry of talk, rumor and speculation around the Idaho Department of Commerce, and the news that they had awarded their Public Relations contract to a firm based out of New York.

First, some housekeeping. For those who are not yet aware, word came out Tuesday afternoon via the Idaho Business Review that the Department had selected Development Counsellors International to handle the PR contract. This (Thursday) morning, however, the Department announced that it had withdrawn that decision, and they would be “negotiating exclusively with Idaho firms using Idaho talent”.

Commerce Director Don Dietrich provided this statement:

After thoroughly reviewing the contracting process and its result, I determined that it was inappropriate to hire an out-of-state vendor to help us revitalize and expand Idaho’s economy and produce Idaho jobs. The intent letter sent to DCI is being withdrawn, and we will be negotiating exclusively with Idaho firms using Idaho talent for the Idaho Department of Commerce’s public relations needs.

The news has also been picked up nationally, most recently being reported by PR Week.

Since this story first broke, there’s been an uproar throughout the marketing / advertising / public relations community, both online and offline. Much of it is based on a very simple, yet valid argument: With this decision, the Department of Commerce is contradicting it’s mission statement in the worst possible way.

From the Department’s website:

The mission of the Idaho Department of Commerce is to create jobs, strengthen communities, and market the state by:

• Fostering economic development by assisting the growth of existing Idaho businesses and attracting new businesses to the state.
• Assisting Idaho businesses in the exportation of goods and services to nations throughout the world
• Cultivating the development of new businesses and job opportunities across the industry sector
• Expanding Idaho’s tourism and recreation industries
• Promoting Idaho as a location for feature film and commercial production

Through this decision, the Department effectively demonstrated that it had no intention of living up to it’s own mission statement, specifically that of “assisting the growth of existing Idaho businesses.”

Now, let’s step into the Department’s shoes for a moment.

For this, or any government agency, decisions are a numbers game. Typically, those numbers are preceded by a dollar sign. In this case, it came in the form of scoring on a points system. This type of decision-making allows those involved in the process to take any emotion out of the equation – it’s a competition, and the highest score wins.

From an operational point of view, this format is understandable. Without this type of process in place, decisions might never be made. Public agencies, State and Local Governments are under enormous pressure to avoid even the hint of impropriety in their decision-making process. This type of system is in place for that very reason, and it’s not likely to change.

Was there preference given to in-state respondents? Yes, in the form of a 50 point bonus in the scoring. Was the intent of the bonus points to discourage out-of-state responses? Doubtful. It did, however, demonstrate that the Department made a good-faith effort to give those respondents based in Idaho a leg up on the competition.

Knowing that this is a number’s game, let’s look at it from another angle. By selecting an out-of-state agency, the Commerce Department made a huge gamble. The argument can be made that they were gambling on the fact that the revenue that would be generated for the State as a result of future PR efforts would exceed the revenue that the State would receive through employment taxes, sales taxes et. al. as a result of keeping the work in-state. Although the reported $200,000 value is not a large contract when compared to other state agencies, it’s still real money. And it pays salaries, keeps people employed, prevents layoffs, allows companies to hire additional staff. The list goes on and on.

And given recent news about budget concerns for the State of Idaho, that’s a very real concern in the hallways and offices of State Government. Case in point: the PR Week report suggest that “the decision to rescind the offer was a result of internal discussions”, and by “conferring with the Governor’s office”. I’d be very surprised if that wasn’t a topic in those ‘internal discussions’.

So, the question now at hand is: what will the Idaho Department of Commerce do next?

The original RFP was issued in late October/early November, and it took until late January to reach a decision. Will the whole process begin again? If that’s the case, it is likely that everyone involved would have to start from scratch as well, resubmitting their entire proposals and all related materials. And based on that timeline, It’s not unreasonable to think that it could be April before another decision is made.

Or, they could award the contract to the highest-finishing in-state respondent. That would likely prompt others involved to file an appeal, based on the current circumstances alone, which, in turn, would drag out the decision-making process just as long.

Finally, they could piece-meal out the work to a handful of agencies that responded to the RFP. That seems the most likely, and the quickest, solution to the situation. The danger in this course of action, however, is that the Department will likely end up being counseled in several different directions by those involved, and will suffer from a lack of a single, cohesive vision and strategy.

All of the above is pure speculation on my part, of course.

So, who are the winners and losers out of this whole ordeal? Let’s examine:

Winners:
DCI. They played by the rules that were set forth at the very beginning, and according to those rules, they won. They were at a points-disadvantage because they were out-of-state, but they overcame that deficit and still finished on top. There will be those, undoubtedly, that side with DCI in the opinion that they got a raw deal. And perhaps they did. But they’ve also received a tremendous amount of exposure, seemingly none of it negative, for their involvement.

Losers:
Idaho Department of Commerce. This is a no-brainer, but worth mentioning nevertheless. The Department of Commerce is going to be sporting a black eye because of this, and the way the news of the selection was handled. Will they recover? Yes, but it’ll take time.
Idaho PR Agencies. They’re going to be a casualty of this entire event as well. Fairly or not, these agencies are now going to be under enormous pressure to produce spectacular results. That pressure, especially by those watching from within the PR/marketing/advertising world will be unreasonable and unfair at times, but it will still be there. Any misstep will be painfully public, no matter how small. Unfair? Yes. Unreasonable? Yes. The way of the world? Yes.

But then again, I could be wrong about all of the above. It’s been known to happen before.

UPDATE: Andrew T. Levine, President of DCI has submitted A Letter to Idaho: DCI Reponds to the Public Relations Award Retraction (via the Idaho Business Review). Andrew makes very reasonable arguments / points on behalf of his firm, and it’s worth taking the time to read.

And, for what it’s worth, I agree with Andrew and his belief that there are no winners in this whole situation. It would be unfortunate, on several fronts, for the Department of Commerce to have to start from scratch. RFPs are a time- and cost-intensive process for all parties involved, and in any organization those are limited commodoties.

Technorati tags: idaho department of commerce, idaho business review, development counsellors international, pr week

Everybody’s got one.

And when it comes to the College of Western Idaho these days, there’s certainly no shortage.

The Idaho Business Review, and their 60+ comments, leave very little to wonder about where they stand.

TechBoise has an opinion, with more insight and intelligent conversation than what I saw happening on the Idaho Business Review’s site.

Even The Idaho Statesman has an opinion.

So let’s take a look at how this all got started. Much of what has been written centers around the television spots created for the College. For those who may not have seen them, here are the three spots, courtesy of CWI’s YouTube Channel:

So, now that you’ve seen them, we can begin.

Whether you think the ads are good or bad is almost beside the point. Advertising, and particularly the creative that comes out as a result, is subjective. What one person calls “good” the next calls “bad.”

The real question is, have these spots, and other portions of the enrollment campaign, been effective in generating adequate awareness of, interest in, and ultimately enrollment at the College of Western Idaho? Time will tell.

A couple of thoughts to leave with, however:

It escapes me who said it, but in any client/agency relationship, the agency deserves no more than 50% of the praise for the success, or 50% of the blame for the failure. That concept is true in this case as well. CWI is as responsible for these spots as those on the agency side who produced them.

As agencies, and agency folks, it is our responsibility to advise, guide, and direct clients on the best course of action as much as possible. That means proper planning, research and insight into the client’s business or industry. Without that, we become nothing more than order takers, reacting at the client’s whim.

Success takes time, and will certainly be the case here.

For those who were involved, I’d encourage you to take this opportunity to learn from what went right, and wrong, and come back with something even better next time. For those who are watching from the sidelines, this is another case where there’s a lesson to be learned here.

Are you willing to learn it?

Technorati tags: college of western idaho, idaho business review, techboise, the idaho statesman, youtube

This isn’t a post about advertising. Or marketing. Not jobs, layoffs, news or trends either.

This is about life. And about people.

David Armano is one of many that I follow on Twitter. In addition to being active on Twitter he works in the agency business and publishes a blog. On Tuesday evening, he introduced those who are connected to him to a woman named Daniela, who left her husband because she had been abused.

David and his family took in Daniela and her three children, offering them a temporary home, and did what they were able to do to help make this transition as painless as possible.

He also asked his friends for help. He reached out to his 8,000+ followers on Twitter, with a humble plea for assistance. The goal was to raise enough money to Daniela to be able to rent an apartment for her and her children until she could get back on her feet. When he asked, he set a goal of $5,000. By late Tuesday night, that goal had been met, and then some. Today, that number stands at over $14,000.

Over $14,000 in less than 24 hours.

The speed at which this happened, and the generosity that people have shown is just amazing on many levels. There’s no way I could recap what/how/why everything unfolded, but Steve Hall sums it up nicely in part of his recap on Adrants:

It worked because was very personal. It worked because Armano has developed deep relationships with many people online he’s likely never physically meant. It’s that aspect of online social life which fueled this and which fuels social media. It’s never really about the technology. It’s about the people. Social media (or whatever you want to call it) has simply given us new ways to connect with people and, in doing so, has provided us with new and different means to socialize and make friends.

And come to their aid when needed.

Without Twitter, this would not have happened. More correctly, it would not have happened so quickly. This is far from the first time a “fund” has been set up to help a battered woman. Physical communities and neighborhoods have always banded together when needed. But it’s usually very slow moving and when it shifts into old school milk carton and telemarketing pleas, it’s devoid of anything personal or meaningful. With Armano’s digital neighborhood, it was personal and when things are personal, they are meaningful.

A few other people/places where this has gotten coverage:
-David Griner broke it down into 5 points to explain why things worked out the way they did.
-Helen Walters wrote about it in The Collective Power of Individuals on the BusinessWeek website.
-And of course, David Armano has provided updates on his blog.

To David, for setting the ball in motion, and everyone else who was (and is) involved in one way or another:

Well Done.