WELCOME TO BIRD DROPPINGS

Ramblings of a deranged mind.

Leave now if easily shocked or politically correct. Otherwise, please leave your comments.

If you like, I'll e-mail you each new dollop of drivel when I publish it. Just click here to subscribe.

If you want to succeed in business, get my 101 helpful marketing ideas, one every 3 days. People love them - maybe because they're free. Just e-mail drayton@draytonbird.com saying "Ideas"

Wednesday, 11 November 2009

What the greatest fraud in history can teach you about marketing

There is no more perceptive, wise or helpful commentator on marketing's many lunacies than Denny Hatch.

Here is an extract from his latest.

I never really understood exclusivity until Bernie Madoff’s $50 billion Ponzi scheme put a spotlight on it. As Laurence Leamer wrote in The Huffington Post:

"It was an honor having him handle your fortune. He didn't take just anybody. He turned down all kinds of people, and that made you want to give the man even more of your money. When he took your fortune, he told you that he would tell you nothing about how he achieved his returns. He was a god. He had the Midas touch."

Web sites have been built on this exclusivity thing. Among them: Gilt.com, RueLaLa.com and HauteLook.com. They offer to “members only” the same upmarket designer merchandise sold by Saks, but at deeply discounted sale prices during specific time periods.

Saks is fighting back with an exclusive online “private event” that the CEO of HauteLook.com calls “the new way of retail.”

It ain’t new.

Saks is engaging in a technique as old as the hills. It’s called good, ol'-fashioned, time-tested, accountable direct marketing.


Go now and read the rest at http://www.targetmarketingmag.com/article/advertising-goes-high-tech-its-data-arithmetic-and-its-time-414303.html.

I'm afraid he quotes one of my most appalling jokes - but apart from that it's all pure gold.

Tuesday, 10 November 2009

My Aussie renegade client Rod Laird sent this little piece of get to the point communication

Sunday, 8 November 2009

Oh, and by the way, fellow cynics ...

My old Ogilvy Direct colleague George Machun who has been languishing disguised as an academic at SF State University sent me this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKCdexz5RQ8

If it doesn't make you laugh, you're on the wrong blog

The mystery of Twittermania - and just about every other fad - explained

Greetings from Bucharest, where I'm sitting with a couple of colleagues in what I guess must be the penthouse flat, since we're on the top floor. Shame about the hot water system.

Anyhow I just stuck this picture up because it explains exactly why most people do the things they do.

Years ago when the dotcom euphoria was raging I used to ask audiences how many of them had websites.

Most would raise their hands. Then I would ask two more questions. First, could they tell me why they had a website; and second, what exactly their website was doing for them in the way of business.

This used to get a lot of blank looks. The answers, of course were: 1. "because everyone else has one" and 2. "I have no idea."

This is still largely true, and applies to most things marketers do. They institute CRM programmes without the vaguest idea what they will do for them - or even what the initials stand for; they decide "digital" is the thing - and for a glorious few, golden years from which I profited, direct marketing was all the rage.

All this was prompted by a very funny and perceptive piece from the estimable Ken McCarthy called "How to get big numbers on Twitter (or anything else)" from which I quote here

As soon as people see numbers, a few things happen to their brains.

1. They marvel at people with REALLY BIG NUMBERS
2. They look at their own puny numbers and despair
3. They look for ways to get more numbers

It seems like there are a few tried and true ways to get big numbers on Twitter.

1. Be on TV (or be an already fantastically well known brand.)
2. Have a big list from some other source and relentlessly ask your list members to follow you
3. Be a Twitter, social media and/or tech expert who spends a big chunk of his or her time in front of audiences that have super high densities of Twitter users flashing their Twitter address and relentlessly ask your list members to follow you.

There may be some exceptions to this rule, but I don’t see them in the upper listings.

Why people follow

People seem to follow for five reasons:

1. They’re collectors (a nice word for “pack rats”) and if it’s free, they want a lot of them
2. They’re followers and like having icons of their favorite celebrities on their profile page
3. They’re status seekers and want to be seen following “cool” people
4. They’ve been guilt tripped into following a friend or acquaintance (usually by their own minds)
5. They’d like to guilt-trip someone else into following them (to increase their own number of followers.)

It’s these last two that I find really interesting: “Please follow me.” “Thanks for following me.”

We’ve left the land of the rational and gone deep into the social brain on this one (i.e. back to high school.)

There’s a bit of the old MLM mentality in play too:

“You follow me and I’ll follow you and we’ll both have one more follower and that will make us more attractive so we’ll both be more likely to get more followers who will do the same…and somehow this will all end up with all of us making money.”

What really made me laugh in Ken's piece is a line he repeats three times:
Follow Ken on Twitter:http://www.Twitter.com/kenmccarthy

Don't follow me, though. I'm just as lost as you are.

Thursday, 5 November 2009

Sex in schools? Watch out, Ed's about!

When I whizzed off to New York the last thing I recall was reading about how teachers are spending their time making sure little kids are not being racists to each other.


This was no doubt another initiative from the supernaturally brilliant "Ed" Balls, our education "supremo". The man never stops, does he? No sooner did I land in London this morning than I saw the great man has instituted a new rule for schools: 5 year olds are to be taught all about sex'n'drugs.

Did any of you British readers vote for that? Thought not. But there's nothing like getting them off to flying start, eh, "Ed"?

But would it not be just faintly more useful to concentrate a little more on teaching the poor little buggers to read, write and add up before they leave school and join the great unemployable swamp you've helped to create?