Ask Terry
This week marks the final episode of the Under The Influence 2016 season. And as we do every year, we're turning this show over to you, our listeners. We'll be answering all the marketing and advertising questions you've sent us through social media. From the strangest place I've ever seen an ad, to the surprising reason behind Canada's required "skill-testing question" to win a contest, to how Under The Influence gets put together each week - this year's questions are fun and insightful.
Often, during the course of a marriage, a wife will turn to her husband, and whisper those five little words:
"Why do you love me?"
And husbands panic when they get that question.
They panic because they know there is no possible answer they can give that will be satisfying. Young or old, gay or straight, doesn't matter.
It's so strange that such a simple question can be so paralyzing.
I still find it difficult to answer that question after 33 years of marriage.
In his terrific book, Start With Why, writer Simon Sinek offers up an explanation for this.
He says there are three major areas of the brain. The outer neocortex, and two inner areas called the limbic brain.
The neocortex is responsible for analytic thought and language.
The limbic brain is responsible for all our feelings and behaviour, but has no capacity for language.
That's why putting our feelings into words is so hard.
So when a husband says I love you because you're smart and funny, that isn't the reason. There are a lot of smart and funny people in the world, but you don't want to marry them. Clearly, there's more to falling in love than IQ and humour.
It's a feeling.
The same is true for other decisions in life. Simon Sinek says when a decision "feels" right, we have a hard time explaining why.
This is where the term "gut decision" comes from. It just feels right in our stomach – yet no part of the stomach controls the decision-making process. It's all done a few floors up in the limbic brain.
That's why smart marketers strive to form an emotional connection with their customers. Because feelings determine behaviour.
As I've often said, the most successful marketers make people feel their messages, not just intellectually understand them.
It's the difference between understanding a commercial, and actually acting on it.
There's no question about it.
Welcome to our final show of the season.
It's an episode dedicated to questions.
Each year, we ask our wonderful listeners to send in any marketing or advertising questions they may have. They could be about the advertising industry, specific commercials, brands or even our show.
And thanks to everyone who sent in questions. They were fun, insightful and amusing. And I'll do the best I can to answer them.
Just don't ask me why I love you…
So let's start today with question from Twitter. Derrick Zito asks:
"In college, I was told 'even if a bad ad gets you talking, it's done its job.' True or false?"
Well Derrick, I think all marketing has two tasks. The first is to get noticed. The second is to convince you the product is worth purchasing.
Getting attention is important, because that attention gets you a small window in time to deliver your message.
But if that message is bad, it's a zero sum game.
Yes, sometimes bad ads get a lot of attention. Sometimes a bad ad gets more attention than a good ad.
But the real measure of an ad is the quality of the message. Is it persuasive? Does it make you like the company?
A bad ad does neither.
So I would say a bad ad that gets attention is not a good ad.
My two cents.
On Facebook, Kevin Radcliffe asks:
"What exactly is a copyright editor?"
I'm going to assume you mean copywriter, Kevin, which is a term I use often on this show.
The newspaper business and the advertising industry both share the term "copy." It seems to have originated from the Latin word "copia," which came to mean "transcript."
By the 1500's, according to the Chambers Dictionary of Etymology, the English word "copy" had evolved to mean any example of writing.
The newspaper business has copy editors, who edit the story drafts written by reporters.
But the term doesn't seem to have been used in advertising until the turn of the century, where the term design & "copy" was used in a book titled The Art Of Modern Advertising, by Earnest Elmo Calkins and Ralph Holden. I own that book, and it's dated 1905.
So, Kevin, an advertising copywriter writes ads.
I was a copywriter for over 30 years.
Facebook listener Kim Logue wrote:
"I think many of us listeners are curious to know more about how the show all comes together – a look behind the scenes. Is the research team different for different shows? How are assignments shared and in what timelines does it all come together?"
And Ryan on Twitter asked:
"How long does it take to make an episode?"
Well, as you've heard me say before, coming up with episode topics is the easiest part of the show. The advertising industry is constantly doing interesting things around the world so the possible subjects are copious…
Once we decide on a topic, I assign one of our four researchers to that episode. I'll do quite a bit of early research, and determine what information I need. I'll then send a list of ten very specific stories for the researcher to chase down.
For example, in our recent Commercial Parodies episode, I remembered a great Saturday Night Live parody ad from the very first season in 1975, where a rabbi does a circumcision in the back of a moving car. I had trouble finding that old ad, so I asked one of our terrific researchers, Jillian Gora, to find it. Which she did in about 9 seconds.
Each researcher has two weeks to find the information. I usually get between 70 and 100 pages back. I'll pour through that research over the course of two or three days, make copious notes, and fold it into the research I've already done on my own.
Then I'll start to formulate the show structure in my mind, decide which are the most interesting stories, which ones create the best script flow – in what order - and which stories amplify our show topic to the fullest.
Next comes the writing, which takes me about two days, with a third day to polish and edit. The very last thing I write for each episode is the beginning, strangely enough. Once the body of the show is written, I sit back and decide what opening story might be best to "set the table," as it were.
Then it's off to the studio to record the episode.
Believe it or not, it takes about 12 hours to record and build our 27-minute show. It's a very textured program, and Keith has to carefully mix lots of sound effects, music, commercials and news clips. Plus we often have our favourite actors come in to do funny bits for us.
We are always juggling four shows at any given time. One is out for research, one is being written, one is being recorded, and one is being revised after the initial recording, as I always want to make small changes before it goes to air.
Phew. There you go Kim and Ryan. Hope that answers your questions.
American listener Joe Isham tweeted this question:
"What's the deal with the skill test to win a contest in Canada?"
Contests and promotions are a big part of marketing.
Every contest winner in Canada must answer a skill-testing question.
Even when you read the fine print on American contests, it says: "Canadian residents will be required to answer a skill-testing question."
It all comes down to Canadian law. In 1892, the Canadian Criminal Code banned every form of gambling. Over the years, exceptions were made. For example, in 1900, bingos and raffles were allowed for charitable purposes. In 1925, fairs and exhibitions were granted the right to stage gambling events. In 1969, the government saw a big revenue opportunity with lotteries, so it began to allow provincial lotteries, and later, licensed casinos. But that said, the Competition Act here still bans all other games of chance.
So enterprising marketers figured out a loophole.
If a correct answer to a skill-testing question was required to claim a prize, then the contest was no longer considered a game of chance. In other words, contestants had to do a little work to claim the prize.
That's when the Canadian government accepted the skill-testing question as a stipulation for winners. The feds aren't too heavy-handed with the rule, but they don't allow cakewalk questions like "What's your birthday." Instead, math questions are usually employed, and they have to be three-step equations.
Here's a typical skill testing question:
What is 8 X 6 - 5 + 9?
Which, by the way, was the actual skill-testing question put to a winner during a Tim Horton's Roll-Up-The-Rim contest back in 2008.
The winning cup had been purchased in Sudbury, Ontario, and when the customer rolled up the rim, she had won a new GPS device. The winner was given a form to fill out, which included the skill-testing math question. She was asked to complete the form, and send the answer and the winning tab to Tim Horton's by registered mail. Which she did.
Except she got the answer wrong. She answered 51, but the correct answer was 52. So Tim Horton's sent it back to her, saying the answer was incorrect, and to try one more time.
She got it wrong again. That's when Tim Horton's advised her that contestants are only given two chances to get the skill-testing answer right.
The winner wasn't happy with that response. As it turns out, she had a learning disability. After repeated calls to Tim Horton's to explain her situation, and with the additional help from the Sudbury Star who reported the story, Tim Horton's sent her the GPS.
So, while buying a coffee at Tim Horton's is hardly gambling, big prizes still involve a skill-testing question – and the correct answer.
So there you go, Joe.
That's the mathematics of winning in Canada.
Miranda Gray asked the following question via Twitter:
"Is it true companies make deliberate spelling or grammar errors to cement their brand in your mind?"
That's a very interesting question, Miranda.
Of course, many brand names are given inventive spellings in order to stand out. Like Cheez Whiz, with Cheese spelled with a Z. Or Netflix with an X, or Toys 'R Us with a backwards R, or Flickr without the E.
That odd spelling makes some brand names easier to trademark, as well.
As for making intentional spelling mistakes in the actual wording or copy, I don't think I've ever seen that. In all my years of writing ads, I was never asked to do that, not did I ever employ that tactic.
But there is a theory in psychology that says moderate amounts of incongruity can increase involvement. In other words, if something doesn't quite fit or is unexpected, it becomes memorable.
The key to that theory is the word "moderate" – the zig has to be small, so the public gets the intention and is not completely puzzled by the grammar.
In the book Drunk Tank Pink, author Adam Alter makes a very interesting observation.
He gave his class three brainteasers. Half the class was given the questions in an easy-to-read font, and the other half was given the same questions in a hard-to-read typeface.
Here's a typical question:
A bat and a ball cost $1.10. The bat costs a dollar more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?
Gah, I hate questions like that..
Most people quickly surmise the bat costs a dollar, so the ball costs 10 cents. Which is wrong. The correct answer is that the ball costs 5 cents.
But here's the interesting thing.
Most of the students who were given those brainteasers in a clear, easy-to-read font got the answer wrong.
But the students who were given the brainteasers in a difficult, hard-to-read typeface got most of the answers right.
It turns out the complex typeface acted as a kind of alarm that signaled the need to recruit additional mental resources to overcome the typeface difficulty – which caused students to think more deeply about the problem at hand.
When they slowed down because the question was difficult to read, their problem-solving ability improved.
So Miranda, making something more difficult could hypothetically make it more memorable because it requires more of our attention.
Maybe a tougher typeface would have made the Tim Horton's skill-testing question easier.
Which raises another interesting question – why do you need a certain skill to use urinals in Brazil…
On Instagram, ElyIsGreat asks:
"Where is the strangest place you've ever seen an ad?"
Well, you can probably guess the location. It was in a urinal. In Brazil. In order to influence men not to overspray, ESPN put a green pad in the urinal, along with a miniature net and a tiny soccer ball.
Men, who have an inherent need to aim at things, were encouraged to score by "pushing" the ball into the net over and over again. When they hit the ball directly, so to speak, the ball changed colour.
A small poster above the urinals said, "Soccer is good everywhere, but it's much better on ESPN."
Funny, novel and surprising.
But there's also another idea I've mentioned in the past that I loved.
It was a surprising message put in a surprising place.
It was in a hotel room. Under the bed, sticking out just enough to catch my eye, was a small card with the hotel's logo on it.
All it said was:
So smart. So surprising.
On Twitter, @kindaRudeChild asks:
"What do you think of this trend of "Real People, Not Actors" in advertising? How do you think it came to exist?"
A very interesting observation and question.
I think two forces converged that resulted in the wave of real people taking over so much commercial time.
First, in the year 2000, there was a long commercial actors strike in the U.S. It lasted over six months.
In that time, advertisers had to figure something else out in order to continue making commercials.
One of the solutions was to employ real people. With no actors required, commercials continued to be recorded and filmed.
With that, advertisers discovered that real people can be persuasive, and their fees were only a fraction of what actors demanded.
So the strike cost the actors big time, because it not only cost them 6 months salary, it created a lingering realization that commercials could be made without actors rates, and without residuals or royalty payments.
At the same time, reality TV hit.
Suddenly, prime time television was full of top rated shows that featured no actors. Survivor, American Idol, Canadian Idol, The Voice, Big Brother, The Amazing Race, Fear Factor, Who Wants To Be A Millionaire, Deal or No Deal, The Weakest Link, Project Runway, The Bachelor, Duck Dynasty, Dog the Bounty Hunter, and on and on.
When you stop for a moment and think of all the prime time hours that are now filled with reality shows, imagine how many actors are not working.
It's staggering.
And in the commercial world, much of the voiceover work is now being done by celebrities, so even that work is thinning out.
So – this trend is now over 15 years old. Maybe you can't even call it a trend anymore. There is a place for real people in marketing – if done well. When it's not done well, it's painful.
On Instagram, georgio_goes says:
"I would like to know more about dog advertising and the growth of the dog market. Also any famously amazing campaigns featuring dogs."
Well, pet food companies are big advertisers. And dog food in particular is the biggest pet food category.
Here in Canada, just over $1 billion is spent on dog food every year to feed 6.4 million Canadian dogs.
Our American listeners spent about $14 billion on their pooches.
To answer the second part of the question, have their been any amazing dog food campaigns, there was an excellent idea done in New Zealand recently.
Pedigree dog food wanted to increase its share of market there, and together with its ad agency created an actual radio station for dogs.
They christened it K9FM.
The idea came from the science-based observation that dogs get stressed and lonely when left at home alone.
As a result, many owners leave the radio on to keep them company. But it's usually radio that isn't calming for dogs – and it's certainly not radio made for dogs.
So Pedigree created this radio station:
During the first three months K9FM was on the air, over 1,000 owners called the station to leave shout-outs to their dogs.
And Pedigree dog food enjoyed a three-year sales high.
It was one of the more novel pet food ideas I've seen in a long time.
If only regular commercial radio was this good.
And that's a wrap for our 2016 season.
It's time for a few important thank-yous.
First, a big thank-you to you, our listeners.
You not only send me great comments and articles, but you also send us great ideas for episodes.
Your input is always welcome and appreciated here.
And being that this is our last show of the season, I'd also like to thank the amazing people behind the scenes of Under The Influence - who work their hearts out for you every week:
Our sound engineer is Keith Ohman, who spends those 12 hours assembling and mixing every single show.
Our theme music was written by the amazing Ari Posner and Ian LeFeuvre. Two of Canada's best composers.
Then there's the O'Reilly department.
Our show is produced by Debbie O'Reilly. She keeps the entire show on the rails. There are hundreds of moving pieces on a weekly show like this, broadcast in two countries, and Debbie keeps that train a-movin'.
Every week, we post the entire transcript of the show on our website, along with all the commercials, photos and videos. Our Facebook and Instagram pages are filled with lots of bonus material – and all that is managed by our Digital Content Producer, Sidney O'Reilly.
The audio editing for our Sirius Satellite broadcasts is deftly handled by Callie Rae O'Reilly.
We have a remarkable Under The Influence research team on our show, as we mentioned earlier. They are Lama Balaghi, James Gangl, Tanya Moryouseff and Jillian Gora. There is nothing they can't find or exhume. The show wouldn't be the same without them.
Thanks to all the wonderful folks at Pirate who help us with the show every week.
A heartfelt thank-you goes out to the amazing Barb Dickie - and all the folks at CBC - who have given us unwavering support since day one.
By the way, the 10 most listened-to episodes from this season will be re-broadcast this summer starting the week of June 27th.
Have a safe and happy summer.
Meet you here next January!
