Vox Fortis Communications

There seems to be an eternal struggle between creatives and marketers, and these differences manifest themselves daily. I could likely devote this entire blog to nothing but those slight differences in the ways both groups want to do things, and still be writing when I’m 95 years old.

Let’s dissect one of those otherwise miniscule things that I’ve seen create huge discord: button naming. It seems like such a small thing, doesn’t it? A button is a button, a link’s a link, whatever…you click and something happens. It should seem so easy.

Having been on both sides of this fence, and understanding the motivations for both, I have to weigh in on the side of the marketers this time. Let’s explore each camp’s viewpoint, shall we?

The creative stance: Let’s face it, web pages can get really boring. Same text on everything, same call to action…there’s a tendency to want to be clever because you CAN be and you figure it will stand out. I’ve been there, totally. Naming links something that was probably pretty witty (well, in my mind, anyway) and perfectly matched the theme, intent and feel of the page. Original. Different. Which you can sometimes confuse with engaging for a consumer/web site visitor.

The marketer/analytic stance: Web pages exist for a purpose. In the case of something like e-commerce, your intent is to convert to sale…any distraction from that purchasing path is a very bad thing. That said, button naming needs to be incredibly clear and straightforward. It needs to say what people are pre-programmed to believe it will: “buy now.” It doesn’t show off the company’s smarts and wit, but that’s not what the consumer is coming there for, either.

I haven’t dealt with this issue directly for awhile, but it was refreshed for me this week as I was doing some research. I was checking into how vendors are using things like community and consumer-generated content to further the reach of the brand, and was browsing around KitchenAid.com. I knew they had forums somewhere, but after scanning the home page, I couldn’t find them. I Google’d it and it popped up right away, so I knew I had to be missing something.

 I finally found it…on the home page, a link to the lower right that reads “Join others at KitchenAid Conversations.” I had completely glossed right over it. Even though I appreciate the language used as a writer, as a consumer this was very frustrating. I am already programmed to look for something that says “forum” and when it wasn’t evident I missed the fancy wording. Plus, how am I supposed to know what KitchenAid Conversations is? It could be a blog for all I know.

My point is, as both a writer and marketer, it’s important to know which hat to wear. Make sure you’re doing the same for your clients. Sometimes you want to scrath the creative itch so badly that you forget your company has a business need that needs attention as well. Always stay clear about the intent of the piece you’re working on, and be open to the knowledge your client has about what their audience will be looking for, and the keywords that will keep them engaged.

 I was thinking about co-partnerships among companies today, and which ones work well and which ones are just kind of….lame.

Case in point. A few months ago when HBO launched John From Cincinatti, Billabong, the surf gear company, partnered with HBO to “create excitement” for the show.

There are a few things that come to mind, especially when I read stuff like this before my morning coffee.

I cringe when I hear “create excitement.” It’s a falsehood. Maybe “create interest” is more accurate, but I feel like “excitement” is something better applied to things that people give a hoot about. Excitement conjures up mental images of carnivals, scary clowns, and pony rides, not Hawaiian-print button-up shirts. It’s compounded by the fact that the surfer demographic isn’t one I can see showing overt excitement about a clothing line. Apparently there will be co-branding at flagship Billabong stores, and some point of purchase materials for their “Catch the Wave and Win” sweepstakes. (Shudder. It’s too early to get into cheesy sweepstakes names.)

Here’s the thing. Brand association can certainly be sexy, but I always feel like it has to be appropriately done. Take Sex and the City. Carrie Bradshaw become synonymous with Manolo Blahniks, but it worked. It was never the sole design line referenced, and it fit into the context and characters of the show. You certainly didn’t go into a store that sold them and saw a “Runaway Runway Sweepstakes!” sign by the register. (Ok, obviously not too early for cheesy sweeps.)

I question the motive behind the partnership, mostly because I think HBO would probably stand more to gain than Billabong. I have not watched John From Cincinatti, though it’s sitting there on my DVR collecting dust, but from what I’ve heard, it needs all the excitement it can get. I found this suprisinng based on the promos I saw which cited the NYTimes and the NYPost using all the rave phrases you’d expect, but Jossip.com may have uncovered why the show doesn’t remotely match those reviews…because those reviews don’t even remotely exist, possibly.

Is HBO ever going to produce another drop-dead hit (pun completely intended) like The Sopranos? Maybe not one big enough to be considered a cultural icon, but they certainly turned out great shows with others like Rome, Six Feet Under, etc. Maybe they need fresh blood, or maybe they’re hitting some kind of mid-life crisis. Either way, I think it’s clear that crappy shows can’t be saved simply by taking a Bong hit.