Lessons In Brand Marketing: The Life Of Prince

Signature Super Moment

First things first; I'm a lifelong fan of the late and very great artist, going back to high school days with cassette tapes played until the music warped in my car's deck. Since the news came out on Thursday, I've been alternating between joy in viewing so much unearthed archival footage, and reliving all of those hits, and coming to grips with the loss. But you read me for marketing and advertising, and how the man handled his affairs has some lessons for and against our field.

First off, the easy stuff; his uncanny discipline in creating, and success in exploiting, his personal brand. From a signature color to the symbol he used when he became TAFKAP (The Artist Formerly Known As...), he always gave the media what they needed to write about him consistently... and then he gave them reams and reams of content, through a tireless work ethic, an ability to reinvent design looks, and more. From feuds with his label to scandals with any number of people who were convinced that he symbolized the downfall of the culture (and to be fair, that ventilated outfit at the MTV Awards while performing "Gett Off" is as red meat as it gets to goad the goad-able), there was a very long period of time when the sizzle nearly drowned out the steak. Like David Bowie before him and Madonna concurrently, Prince reinvented himself while not losing his core audience, and never limited himself to a single market. This was a global business, and one that ran with a relatively minimal amount of scandal, considering his field and subject matter.

That's not to say that everything was a Gold Experience. Most of his attempts to make it in film, or to recreate the "Purple Rain" success, were bad misses. His relentlessly prolific output exhausted casual fans, and the label battles meant an eventual saturation release experience, with good materials lost in the clutter. He never really adapted to the Internet age of music, and lost relevance and reach by staying away from streaming services. Litigation efforts that prevented his catalog from gaining new fans, and an old-school attitude towards not using his music in commercials, cut back on his relevance to newer audiences. While no one ever doubted his genius, pop music changed, and he, well, didn't.

Here's the thing, though... very little of that did any long-term damage to the brand. Because the plain and simple of marketing is that the quality of the work will overwhelm matters like last-mile creative failures, delivery and distribution mistakes, pricing issues, personal foibles and the other flotsam and jetsam of a real life.

What we do for our clients is important for the success of the enterprise, especially when it comes to finding new markets, monetizing to proper levels, positioning for the future, and so on, and so on. But this isn't alchemy, or the reverse. If you've got the goods, the marketing and advertising can succeed, even if it's sub-optimal. If you don't, all of the tap dancing in the world won't keep the curtain up.

And, well, with a catalog of dozens of hits in a variety of tempos and instrumentation, and a signature sound and acumen that's unmatched by anyone in his field or era, Prince's legacy is secure.

But, sadly, just not as long as it should have been.

* * * * *

Feel free to comment, as well as like or share this column, connect with me on LinkedIn, or email me at davidlmountain at gmail dot com, or hit the RFP boxes at top right. RFPs are always free, and we hope to hear from you soon.

Better Call Another Ad Strategy

The Ad Model Is Also Uphill

A study hit my feed recently, in which a social media researcher blasted a big hole in the idea that second screening for premium broadcast content was, well, something you actually want to advocate or support, as a marketing and advertising professional. This is something of an anecdotal field, because one person's premium content is another person's meh who cares, especially in an era of niche audiences, but the point is still valid. The stuff that people really care about isn't what they live tweet, because they are too busy, well, watching it.

On some level, like a lot of research, this comes down to an Of Course moment, because it matches our own day to day experiences. Prior to writing this, I finished up the second season of "Better Call Saul," the acclaimed AMC drama and spin-off of "Breaking Bad" that's a personal favorite. As the ending came down, despite the laptop in my hand, a side desire to keep abreast of my baseball fantasy team and the NBA playoffs, along with my buzzing smart phone with other accounts firing...

Well, I only had eyes and ears for the principals of that show, and I'm pretty sure you could have set off the fire alarm in my home, and I'd have still stayed with it. Despite having the ability to pause the proceedings at any time, as I wasn't even watching the episode "live."

But here's where my experience gets unfortunate for the show's producers. I have no recall of any of the "BCS" advertisers. And I really *want* to remember them, because that show is just the best, and I want its monetization strategy to succeed. But, well, it doesn't. Second screens exist to distract the audience from the ads, and even my deep fondness for the show can't beat the hard-wired desire to ignore untargeted broadcast ads and remain productive during down time. Especially with deadlines pending and other tasks to complete. I'm busy. And when you've got a second screen, everyone can be.

Which turns into yet another moment that makes sports the be-all and end-all of broadcast, because it's the only content that is simultaneously engaging and yet has clear diversion moments that you can't really avoid. Not to mention the criticizing fun of live-tweeting a game, which does happen, in spades.

But the bigger point is still in play, which is that the age-old marketing and advertising value exchange of getting involved with prestige shows... might be a terrible play. Well, I'm not sure it's a defensible play, honestly. In terms of ad recall, the NBA tie-ins for the rest of my evening's viewing experience were much higher in my consciousness, even if they were not well-regarded. I didn't want to remember those ads, but since there were so much more of them, and they were much harder to avoid, they're in my head. Not to mention the simple fact that a game is going to last two hours, versus "BCS" one. The entire second season of "BCS" was matched by just my weekend of playoff hoop.

Which is the kind of message that few in the field are going to want to admit to, because the alternatives -- saturation messaging on second-tier networks and platforms, and frankly down-market moves like product placement -- just have little appeal. But data isn't something that leads to a human grease element, personal taste, or unprovable benefits. In the long run, it's hard not to see how the commerce goes elsewhere, the content doesn't get more into a pay for play model, or the product placement doesn't get way more over the top. We may be in a so-called golden age of television programming right now, but what works from an artistic level really isn't working from an advertising one.

Because what we're doing now just seems like an increasingly indefensible business model, and unprotectable from market forces. The well-viewed 30-second spot at the end of an act break isn't sacrosanct, and neither is the next move to supplement it.

* * * * *

Feel free to comment, as well as like or share this column, connect with me on LinkedIn, or email me at davidlmountain at gmail dot com, or hit the RFP boxes at top right. RFPs are always free, and we hope to hear from you soon.

Breaking The Boomerang

Solution: No Basement

This weekend, I was talking to some friends whose children are nearing college age. As we chatted about choices and what lies ahead, they dropped the bombshell that, as soon as the kids were in school and away, they were planning on selling their home and going to something smaller. Apparently, they had been waiting to do this for a very long time, and they had only stayed in their home for this long to avoid disrupting the kids' education.

This was delivered without winks or humor, in the earshot of the affected kids. They reacted to the pronouncement with the practiced shrug that you only really perfect as a teenager. But knowing the parents in question as I do, I know they are absolutely serious, and that this is what is going to happen. This is a family that's going to go from a 3-bedroom house to a 1-bedroom as soon as they can, for the clear and simple reason that the house they pay a mortgage to hasn't increased in value, and they have no great faith in the idea that their kids are going to go to school and get out without long-term debt.And that, if they have the option to return after school, they will.

This is where you can pivot, if you like, to a political point about various presidential campaigns, or something about the housing market, or the cost of education. But as the goal of this column is, as always, to discuss marketing and advertising concerns, we're going to pivot to aspects that may be of value in your day to day. Namely:

1) Millennials are going to be co-habitating longer. When I was in my 20s, I spent about five years in the range of having housemates, before my relationships got serious enough to transition to, well, housing with benefits. Maybe that time doubles, or even stays that way after marriage. Which means that your direct mail efforts to that demographic are going to continue to draw lower effectiveness, since the churn isn't going to stop any time soon. That's independent of the demographic not really responding to direct mail in the first place.

2) The small house movement isn't going away, either. While my friends might not be willing to house their offspring into their 20s, and may be aggressively moving to prevent it, that also means that products with a big footprint are also going to be fighting market forces. Combination appliances, space savers, furniture that moves or folds or has additional storage... these are all on the side of the angels. Along with, well, storage service areas.

3) Disruptive technologies that save money, and generic brands, will continue to gain market share. While the affluent might still buy on brand or for a premium experience, Millennials and their parents aren't going to go back to old and more profligate ways of spending. They can't.

4) Retirement isn't seen as an out, either. No one in this demographic class seems to think they've got a pension, good 401K plan, iron-clad stocks or bonds, or anything beyond lottery dreams to get them into a traditional view of one's golden years. Maybe their kids eventually get to prosperity and can help, but pragmatism and just getting through the next year, then the one after that, is seen as far more relevant.

5) Technology makes diaspora much easier. In the past, people like these would be bound to an area from their friends and family, along with their property holdings. Now, thanks to social media, even those who have been in the same place for a long time do not feel obligated to remain there. When long distance phone bills no longer exist, and everyone can stay in touch in ways that were not popular even a decade ago, scattering for low housing costs and a more pleasing population density holds far less sting.

If all of this sounds sad and limiting, I won't disagree with you. My own children aren't as close to their college years, so maybe I haven't been as worn down by their teen age behavior as I will be later... but the idea of forcing a move so that I can prevent their return seems draconian.

But give me another five years, and more time where my home remains underwater, and maybe I get there, too.

* * * * *

Feel free to comment, as well as like or share this column, connect with me on LinkedIn, or email me at davidlmountain at gmail dot com, or hit the RFP boxes at top right. RFPs are always free, and we hope to hear from you soon.