RedMedia / Digital Brand Marketing / Buzz Marketing / Internet Marketing

I pulled this off from the realities of punk marketing. It is an extension of relationship marketing through radical approach. Knowing the attitude of your consumers is very important and only few companies are sensitive about doing it. Terribly depressing to ad agencies is the way they sell their creativity which most of the time (especially in the first world countries) is traditional. Maybe creative but not innovative. Innovation is the commercialization of invention. Invention is any product – either goods or services.

When I was in high school (not a long time ago), our batchmates embraced the idea of punk fashion and injected a little bit of attitude. It was an expression of something unusual. In general, punk is a rebellion. Meaning, there are things that don’t work anymore so you have to change them. It is usually a negative connotation. Many express them in music and fashion. Some do it by lifestyle. Punk, therefore, gets attention. People comment about this kind of expression. They give disgusting impression. Nevertheless, it is effective. It works.
What about applying punk attitude in marketing? What about the straight-forward approach to consumers? Before, organizations and their system are made big and simple. Today, it has evolved in making every single enterprise small and yet complex. Ad agencies wouldn’t understand why big clients slowly are in the transition of outsourcing the jobs to small marketing and creative companies. That means small companies with better people (and leaders) are more effective where communication happens at a personal level at times. Why is it so? Small creative and marketing companies have many options other than doing the mainstream. The main competition is not on TV. It will be in the Internet. One very good example is the budget of Hillary Clinton and Obama for presidential campaign. Did you know that they spend 30 pct of their marketing campaign in the Internet? Nike uses cross-media communication strategies in launching the latest Jordan’s shoes.

So who’s threatening? It is probably not the same words and phrases we use to convey the message across the target market. It is the democratic way of emerging new ideas that include using different tools to reach your consumers. It means getting them involved in your product and building a relationship with them by knowing their lifestyles and what they really want by listening to them (even if you hear negative feedback). I tell you, Twitter.com works. In this way, being innovative and creative makes more sense. It is because we would also like our clients to be smarter on diverting more on the most-and-cost effective marketing communication tool.

Below is what I got from “punk marketing”.
“Not long to go now before advertisers and their agencies get the bad news they’ve been avoiding for so long – viewer ratings on their TV ads. For the first time on a widespread basis Neilsen Media Research will start releasing data on how many viewers (if any) continue watching a channel during the breaks. We Punks predict the data will make depressing reading for the majority of the people who are responsible for the $70 billion of TV advertising stuffed on our screens each year. Who will be the most depressed? We’ve ranked them, in order of decreasing depression:

1. TV network executives (because they’ll continue to lose ad dollars to other media)

2. Ad agency executives (they have focused too heavily on TV campaigns and DON’T KNOW WHAT ELSE TO DO)

3. TV production companies (their business is built around TV ads, but the smart ones are honing their skills for other forms of film content)

4. Marketing executives (they will realize how much money they’ve been wasting – not “half” as Mr. John Wanamaker said all those years go, but maybe seventy, eighty or ninety percent). And when will they learn their lessons?

And who’s most to blame? Weve ranked them too, in order of decreasing blame:

1. Ad agency executives (they’ve pigeonholed themselves into experts at making TV ads when the writing has been on the wall for years that they should be thinking far more broadly to other formats). At saka di nila alam how to use the Internet as a strategic marketing tool.

2. Marketing executives (they allowed their weak agencies to make terrible ads containing no Big Ideas that are irritating to watch). It is because most of them think like their weak agencies. They are also weak.

3. TV network executives (they should have said “no!” to bad ads or at least charged a premium for them a long time ago – bad TV ads weaken the content on the network)

4. TV production companies (for agreeing to make crap ads because the money was good – shame on you)

To the few smart marketers and agencies who have seen this coming and are now thinking Punk, we salute you!”