Friday, April 16, 2010

How to Talk Your Client Out of a Tree and Other Unsavory Tasks

As an advertising and design professional, I've struggled with many different types of difficult client situations over the years. Here's two from my sample of Greatest Hits:

There's Bob, the client that hasn't paid you his required deposit up front, or signed his contract but who, nevertheless, keeps calling to know "what kind of progress have you made on our web site?"

Or there's Mary who, after having been given a list of required base materials for a project, including photography requirements, copy documents, corporate timelines, etc -- keeps calling and wondering "what's holding this project up?"

Advertising professionals know the pain of working through these difficulties. Financial and "project management" issues, though, are actually some of the easier problems to address. Bob needs to be reminded to pay his bill and Mary needs to be reminded that the agency needs further base resources in order to proceed.

Some of the thornier issues to address are issues related to a client's questionable taste of lack of good critical thinking about their brand identity. In my next series of blog article, I'm going to be addressing a number of these difficult client situations. This week we're starting with one of my favorites, The Copycat Client.

We've all had them. The client that seeks you out, with a printout from a web site they've seen and like and exclaims, "We'd like you to design our site so that it looks like this... we LOVE this..."

Within the spectrum of Copycat Clients, there are different gradations of challenges. In a "not so bad" situation, the client has studied another web site and their reasons to use it for inspiration are well-founded. If, for instance, the site makes visual sense for the identity of the client's brand and the site isn't from a direct competitor, it might make sense to use it as inspiration. Borrowing heavily from a competitor in one's industry sector, though is bound to lead to brand confusion.

More often, unfortunately, the source of the client's desire to duplicate someone else's work stems from either an insecurity in their own ability to create a unique brand presence for their product of an insecurity in the designer's skill to do the same. So, what does a competent design professional do when faced with a Copycat Client? Do what you'd do with any jittery kitty:

Talk them out of the tree they've trapped themselves in.

I usually begin by having a frank discussion about what it is they like about the site they've brought to our attention. Sometimes, you'll find that they actually don't want the entire look of the site duplicated, rather they're fixated on a couple of "likes" which are pretty easy to duplicate in a new, unique web presence. Other times, I go straight to the heart of the matter and express my concerns that, in duplicating the work of (especially) a competitor, the client is really weakening their own brand through lack of differentiation. And, finally, if I detect some insecurity in our ability to create a unique web site for them, I basically restart the sales process. I ask them why they came to us in the first place and take the time to review with them portfolio projects which I know will appeal. I basically try to reestablish the trust that is necessary to successfully move forward.

Copycat clients can be a challenge but, if you understand that, at the root of their insistence on "borrowing" from others' work is a sense of insecurity, you can help talk them through that insecurity and move them to a place where they feel more comfortable letting you do what you know you do best: designing unique, well-positioned and functional web sites for them.

Friday, April 9, 2010

Second Tweet Martini Lunch Question

(Note: Sitegeist is blog written by the folks at Splat Productions, Inc. Images shown above courtesty of IMDB.com and Warner Home Video...)

Released in 1939, this film classic is an exercise in class, bitchiness and extramarital sabotage. Revolving around a plotline of marriage, affairs, divorce and high society, the film is remarkable for its intentional omission of any male character, prop or pet. This all estrogen comedy/melodrama featured many well-known starlets from the Golden Age of Cinema. This week's question: name the film and the three stars shown above...

Remember, winners can either post a comment here, on our Facebook Fan page or direct message me on Twitter at Daaveey. First correct answer wins; full contest details in the Notes section of our Facebook Fan page...

Friday, April 2, 2010

First Tweet Martini Lunch Question...

Out of respect for the holiday weekend, the inaugural launch of our Tweet Martini Lunch promotion starts with a whimper and not a loud bark...

Our first week's question is this: the attached image is of a lesser known dog breed with ancient origins. Name what sort of pooch is pictured above AND name the year in which this pooch took home the biggest honors in the world's largest dog show, Crufts...

Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Does Facebook's Privacy Policy Presage a New Era of Virtual Civil Rights?



(Sitegeist is written by David Hitt, Chief Creative Officer at Splat Productions, a Philadelphia based interactive design and multimedia studio...)

I had yet another either wacky or, maybe, prophetic revelation this morning. I was reading a post on "Augie Ray's Blog For Interactive Marketing Professionals" which details the flap that recent suggested privacy changes on Facebook are creating within the Facebook user community. Essentially, Facebook is floating the idea by its users that would authorize Facebook to share user profile information with other websites, but only when FB users are signed in and browsing the internet. So, in other words, if I happen to log into Facebook and, while I'm using it simultaneously log into another website, FB might share information it has on file for me with that other site, so they can offer me a "more customized" experience.

Reaction to Facebook's idea has been swift and pretty universally negative. Turns out that there are lots of folks out there that are resentful that, now that Facebook has created a desirable online environment for them and collected a lot of (valuable) demographic information, they might actually want to sell that information and make some cashola.

All of this has gotten me thinking about much larger political and cultural issues. This dilemma Facebook finds itself in is fed by the obvious yearning by many for some sort of "universal" public space on the internet. These desires, currently, are at odds with the legitimate commercial interests of that space's creator.

Facebook, it seems, is finally realizing one of the earliest promises of the early dot.com era. They've created a single forum on the Internet where virtually everyone and their grandmother hangs out. (I knew this universality was real when I get a friend invite from my nearly 80 year old Mom two weeks ago...) Their success, though, might prove to be their undoing.

The problem with individuals or companies creating a wildly successful, "game changing" paradigm for the way we live our lives is that sometimes folks start thinking that it's their right to indulge in that new paradigm, absent the commercial aspirations of its creators.

I guess what I'm driving at is: suppose we begin to take the idea of a universal "virtual world" as not a privilege but an actual right? So much of our lives now revolve around our worlds online. I spend my day checking email, Tweeting, writing a blog and checking out CNN.com. At night I play an online multiplayer game for a couple of hours, which is basically like spending my evening in a Virtual World. My experience is more the norm than the exception these days.

So, much in the way that we, as a society, decided that there needed to be public spaces, marketplaces, parks, etc, in the actual world, might we not decide that such places online are also universal rights that everyone should be afforded?

I dunno, maybe it's a wacky thought...

Friday, March 26, 2010

Get ready for the Tweet Martini Lunch!




Hey all --

Next week we're rolling out our homage to the way Old School Advertising used to be done -- with closed doors, some puffy stogies and a couple of Martinis to lubricate the dealmaking...

Here's how it works:

Every Friday we'll be posting a trivia question or contest to our fan page on Facebook. (We'll also be tweeting from Daaveey...) Questions will be posted sometime between noon and 1 p.m. each week. Questions and contests will range in content. The winner of each week's contest will be the first responder to either post the answer on our fan wall, at Sitegeist, or send a direct message to my twitter account at Daaveey. Winners will receive a $25 gift certificate (which oughtta buy you about three martinis!) from either a Philadelphia restaurant or, if the winner is not local, we'll send you a certificate to the national chain of your choice.

Current or past employees or their relatives are not eligible for the contest and winners must sit the bench for six months before they can compete again.

So, roll up your sleeves, square away your paste-ups and join us for a Power Lunch!

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

A Little Unsolicited Advice to Facebook


So I had an epiphany of sorts today... As I was walking to the gym, I was coming to grips with a challenge that's been troubling me in business for the last few months. Basically, our company, like many of our clients, is attempting to develop a comprehensive approach to integrating social media with our business blog and website maintenance. The strategy pretty much exists in my mind...

On the one hand we are about to roll out our new website, which we've built from a Wordpress platform which supports not only blogging but makes the site search-engine-ready. We created a business fan page on Facebook and I'm regularly updating it. Finally, I've been tweeting for months now and, yesterday, was at last able to get my Twitter app (Tweetdeck) to feed directly into our Facebook fan page.

This morning, on my way to the gym, I began banging myself over the head over my lack of blog-writing discipline, when a thought occured to me. Facebook should build a blogging platform
directly within the application. Here's why this would be a good idea:

  1. Businesses, as well as individuals, are already using FB everyday to both market, position and interact with their clients. Blogs are, of course, both a personal and professional means of reaching out and engaging clients or friends.
  2. Social media interactions, it seems to me, fall into three distinct content ranges currently. The first, most transient and sparest in range are the micro-blogging platforms such as Twitter or SMS. The second would be mostly anecdotal or conversational interaction -- longer than what SMS or Twitter allows but often spontaneous and unscripted in nature. This would be the sort of interaction which make up the bulk of communication on Facebook currently. The last piece in the Social Media puzzle is blogging, which represents longer-format communication which, often, is more premeditated and planned. Facebook already has a lock on the second "content level" and is the unchallenged place where this sort of communication takes place. With the easy integration of Twitter feeds into Facebook, it also makes integrating microblog content into fan or personal pages a breeze. If Facebook is interested in getting more businesses to advertise and interact on their platform, which it clearly is, why not go the final mile and build in a blogging platform?
This sure would make my life a lot easier, as I could use FB as a pretty complete portal to the outside world for my business. Customers could still visit www.splatworld.tv when they need detailed information about Splat Productions but, by and large, our FB presence alone would give a pretty complete overview of who we are and what we do. This seems like such an obvious observation on my part that, surely, someone out there must be
working on this...

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

Better Late Than Never...




(Note: Sitegeist is a regular blog focused on issues related to design and marketing and is written by David Hitt, a principal at Splat Productions.)


The great thing about the blogosphere is that, despite the common perception that everything web-related is ephemeral, blog articles actually live for what seems like a relative eternity. Because of the catalog-oriented nature of blogs, a simple reference to an article someone wrote two years ago can instantly resuscitate an idea or discussion.

This happened to me this morning while I was reading a Twitter feed... I came across a blog post written by Jay Ehret from The Marketing Spot. He was talking about a recent facelift he gave his business and was talking about the development of his new logo. He then referenced this blog post he had earlier written, about the relative unimportance of logos for new brands. Having just written an article for the Philadelphia Ad Club about ugly brands, my curiosity was aroused.

Jay's earlier post begins:
"I hate to be the one to break the news, but the importance of logos in branding is overblown. Don't get me wrong, they have their use...somewhat. But when it comes to branding, logos have nothing to do with the establishment of your brand. If you're about to spend some money having a logo designed, you may want to wait."

He then goes on to illustrate a number of well known logos -- Coca Cola, Starbucks, Microsoft, Wal Mart & McDonalds -- and asserts that, essentially, their logos do little to maintain or acknowledge the brands they are paired with. Really, he notes, most logos have little meaning and are only important "after you establish your brand."

He has a point. Certainly the marketing landscape is clogged with big name brands featuring visual slop for identity. (I wrote about those in a previous post...)

But that doesn't mean visual identity isn't important or doesn't play a role in the way your business is perceived by your clients or consumers. In my previous post, I used Google as an example of a business that paid a price for the sloppiness of its visual identity. When I saw the Google homepage for the first time I remember thinking it looked, well, pretty amateurish. I get spareness but, frankly, the designers of that UI looked like they just didn't really care what it looked like. Which, as their customer is, for me, somewhat insulting. (I applaud the simplicity and functionality, though. Functionality and attractive design, though, are not mutually exclusive. ) The brand succeeded in spite of its amateurish mark and look. Imagine if its founders had spent only a few thousand bucks paying a competent design firm to create a memorable mark and finessed their UI a bit.

Which brings me to my last point...

Jay makes the reasonable observation that logos are only important "after you establish your brand." But, if I'm starting a small business, wouldn't my money be better spent if I allocate a small amount of it upfront to get a visual identity for my brand that I don't feel like I have to retroactively fix two years down the road?

In the end, getting it right the first time might be less costly than fixing something at a later time.