Thursday, August 26, 2010

Critiquing Our Culture

“I sit here as a government representative for film and television in the province of Alberta and I look at what we produce, and if we’re honest with ourselves ... I look at it and say, ‘Why do I produce so much shit? Why do I fund so much crap?’”
Alberta Culture Minister Lindsay Blackett speaking at the Banff World TV Festival in June to a roomful of Canadian actors and industry professionals (see his defense of his comments)

“What credibility would a list like this have if it didn’t include the absurd figure of Michael Ondaatje, our very own poet laureate of pretentious, purple prose, our king of cliché, a sorcerer who has improbably managed for decades now to pass off his distinctive brand of inert slop as somehow being possessed of a “literary” value only detectable by prize juries, time-serving academics, and a handful of supine reviewers.”
Alex Good and Steven W. Beattie in the National Post’s Don’t Believe the Hype: 10 Overrated Canadian Authors

Talk about sizzle, especially (or because of) the dog days of August! Talk about fightin’ words.

I must admit, my reaction to both stories—Blackett’s poorly articulated and contextualized comment and the National Post’s daring to venture into the overrated game with The Guardian and the Huffington Post (who respectively skewered their own British and American authors)—was of shock, dismay, and a knee-jerk disdain for such blasphemy. I cheered when I heard Canadian actor Peter Keleghan’s able handling of Blackett during the CBC Q debate with the two (listen to the August 25th, 2010, episode it was on); Keleghan was so much better prepared, informed, and eloquent. And I huffed and puffed and felt injured for the top Canadian writers Good and Beattie pilloried in the Post. Writers like Ondaatje and Michaels and Coupland—the poor things. Okay, so I know how successful and well-received they’ve been; but .. c’mon, they’re human, and it would hurt anyone, reading that.

I sat on my indignation for a day and then I reappraised it. I realized my reaction was founded in defensiveness and a misplaced urge to protect. The fact is, a more controversial, polarized critical/review environment engenders a more active, changing, exciting cultural environment. The provocative critiques of Canadian TV content and writers got the kind of mainstream attention that Canadian arts/culture can always use more of (along the lines of “any news is good news”). And a strong culture can support dissension and harsh critique; it is a confident culture—not a defensive one where people like me get upset when it’s called into question in any way that isn’t gentle. Gentle, polite coverage of our books and TV shows and industry, coverage where nothing is unexpected or rankling, does no one any good.

Perhaps best of all, criticism like Blackett’s allows intelligent, well-spoken people like Keleghan to judiciously discuss the real challenges the TV industry faces and to press for change. And Good and Beattie open the door to in turn be assailed by others’ strong opinions (and to publish, the next day, their list of Underrated Authors).

Thoughts?

Thursday, August 05, 2010

Just for Laughs

Even at Turner-Riggs, where we’re all serious and diligent, we take the odd break and even laugh sometimes (at others). In that spirit, and because it’s summer for Pete’s sake, here are a couple of links we found funny this week. With the first, the trick is to refresh the screen once you’re there. Enjoy.

What the f*ck is my social media “strategy”?

Truth in ad sales

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Super Clients, Super Websites

We’ve had the privilege of helping two very cool people launch their brand websites: Carrie McCarthy of Style Statement and Toby Nangle of Nangle+Partners.

Carrie and Toby—despite their very different businesses and audiences—came just as we like ‘em: passionate, intelligent, open-minded, and right on board the idea of strategy driving execution. We developed branding plans for both Carrie and Toby before jumping into tactical work, and it was thrilling to see things progress according to these blueprints.

Congratulations Carrie and Toby for your awesome sites, and big kudos for design and development to Vivien at VG Universe Design (for Style Statement) and Travis and Susie at Hop Studios (for Nangle+Partners).

Wednesday, January 06, 2010

What’s Your Brand’s Major Hurdle and What Can You Do About It?

Every brand has challenges. The best brands—actually, the people behind the best brands—know this, identify the challenges, and come up with solutions to at least minimize them and at best overcome them. Mediocre brands endure a perennial state of a problem’s existing but being ignored in the hopes it will somehow take care of itself or that people—read, audiences—won’t mind too much.

When a brand problem occurs on its public-facing website, it’s a big deal because websites obviously represent such a crucial touchpoint. Following are issues on all too many brand websites:

• failure to state up front what the brand or company is and does, and/or to explain this enough,
• insistence on brand features to the exclusion of benefits,
• presenting in a bland, cold, or otherwise unappealing tone,
• overestimation of the amount of time users want to spend on the site,
• failure to address audiences’ needs, manifested in non-user-centric navigation and/or site behaviour, aka ...
• designing the site according to internal understanding of the brand/company and not according to what audiences want to learn and find.

All of these mistakes are very easy to make, and again, they’re commonly allowed to persist because they’re “not dealbreakers.” Says who? Certainly not the visitors who walk away because of them, since they’re not talking—they’re gone.

Does your website suffer from any of them? We’ll be reviewing ours over the next few months to see where we can improve (do let us know if you have suggestions), but in the meantime, here are a couple of examples of brands that have taken the challenge of confronting—and we think, solving—a major issue they faced.

Brand: Bookriff (currently in closed BETA)
Challenge: Convey a very cool but rather complicated idea as simply as possible so visitors don’t lose interest/get confused/feel it’s too complicated and navigate away from the site.
Solution: Main benefit is written in bold—“build your own book”—with clear explanatory text right below. But most importantly, they include a prominent link to a high-quality how-to video for visitors who would rather learn audio-visually, as well as a link allowing them to try out the concept. We’re excited about Bookriff!

Brand: VisionCritical
Challenge: Bring humanity, energy, and warmth to what could be a very cold, impersonal site (VisionCritical is an online panel research and interactive technology company). Market research sites are often plagued by jargon and boring language.
Solution: On balance, ambitious and interesting copy and content. Lots and lots of video with employees talking like people really do (not canned) about what moves them and excites them. Sometimes the language gets carried away, but for the most part it’s way, way above average for its sector. Take the following for example:

With Vision Critical, grassroots insight is always on, poised to deliver when you need it. Discover and amplify what moves your biggest fans. Find out what your customers want right now. Find out what little touches keep them loyal. See trendsetting customers for what they are: a wealth of winning strategy waiting to be tapped.

Our interactive technology, strategic research and global panels turn customer groundswell into authentic, resonant brands that move with confidence.

Right now.

Because when your customers take the lead, so does your brand.

What comes across with VisionCritical is passion—and that’s a huge achievement considering how dryly the brand could have come across with another treatment. Another nice touch is their interview series: check one out at http://j.mp/6atLaN

So what’s your branding challenge?

And what will you do about it?

Tuesday, December 08, 2009

How to Get Your Target Audience to Open Your Emails

For starters, don’t include the word “free.”

Way back in 2007, Mailchimp, a company specializing in sending clients’ email newsletters, published an excellent article on what works and doesn’t work for email subject lines. We still go back to that article sometimes because it’s so helpful, so we thought we share some of its highlights and provide its link.

The article is based on Mailchimp’s study of open rates for over 200 million emails.

Highlights
Don’t

• Don’t include “free”—it’ll trigger spam filters—and avoid “help,” “percent off,” and “reminder”—they reduce open rates.
• Don’t keep repeating the same subject line from campaign to campaign. It’s good to keep basic branding intact for some consistency but then it’s important to include a focus on new content. So if your September email subject line was “Bookcentral Study Shows No Interest in New Online Bookstore” you could make the next one “Bookcentral’s Top Reading Picks for 2009.”
• Don’t send too frequently—everyone has too much information to process.
• Don’t using splashy promotional phrases, CAPS, or exclamation marks.

Do

• Do keep subject lines short—50 characters or less.
• Do make it clear that your information is timely (e.g., details on an upcoming conference’s speakers).
• Do make it a “newsy” headline with information designed to pique your readers’ curiosity (then make sure you satisfy their curiosity in the newsletter).
• Do put yourself in your readers’ shoes—they are pressed for time and they’re only going to open your email if the subject line is relevant, respectful, interesting, and useful.

Mailchimp ends with this advice: “When it comes to subject lines, don’t sell what’s inside. Tell what’s inside.”

Wednesday, September 09, 2009

Turner-Riggs Lands in Ottawa

Actually we’ve been here for a while, but as anyone who’s moved home + business + baby + neurotic, raccoon-ravaged cat across country can attest to, it takes a while to land in a new town. We’ve now come up for air: our office is mostly unpacked and we both have primo window vistas and official contact info.

391 Kenwood Avenue
Ottawa, ON K2A 0K3

Craig: 613-983-2644, craig@turner-riggs.com
Kiley: 613-875-7231, kiley@turner-riggs.com

Fax: 613-722-0835

As much as we miss Vancouver, we get a good feeling from the new ‘hood. Just down the street from us is a major scenic attraction: Dinosaur Lawn, where roughly 100 dinos of all shapes and inclinations congregate for the pleasure of passers-by. Every time we visit the creatures are up to something new—dangling from this or preying on that—thanks to the whims of the dozens of children who play with them every day. And the people responsible for The Lawn? A middle-aged couple with no kids. Just for fun. Love it. Love it a lot.

Sunday, April 26, 2009

Turner-Riggs Changes (But Stays the Same)

As of June 1, 2009, Turner-Riggs headquarters will be based in Ottawa, Ontario. We’re moving to be closer to family—our one-year-old has been demanding to see his grandparents more than a couple of times a year—and for the short, balmy winters we know await us.

We’ll post full mailing/phone details soon, but please know that we’re always available via our current web/email contact information, and that our clients and networks will continue to be all over Canada and the world. That’s how we like it.

Vancouver and BC in general, we will miss you dearly, but we’ll be back and forth lots so stay beautiful.

Sunday, January 04, 2009

Exit 2008 (And Hello 2009)

At the start of the new year, we can’t help but look back on the last one: a year of fantastic projects, colleagues, and clients. Thanks to everyone we worked with for helping to make 2008 such a success.

2009 promises to be great, too. For starters, Kiley will be returning to work after a first-ever Turner-Riggs maternity leave. This will restore our traditional balance of research, strategy, and creative projects. Within this mix, two of the main areas we’re planning to focus on in 2009 are:

* information design and content development for the web
* digitization and digital publishing, especially for traditional publishers that are shifting to pursue marketing and sales online

While the economic climate will bring new challenges, it will also demand new approaches, collaborations, and creativity. We’re eager to get cracking, and we’re sure you are, too—drop us a line if you have a chance to tell us about your ideas for the year ahead. We’re looking forward to working with and learning from you, as always.

See you there,

Craig and Kiley

Thursday, October 16, 2008

How to Tell Your Customers to Go to Hell and Have Them Love You Even More

I received a message in my inbox a little while ago that made my day. It damned me to hell and told me I was despised.

The message was from a company I have always admired. The message made me love this company even more. The company is The Onion, the very funny “news” organization that parodies the real news.

The Onion knows that anyone who likes them and their merchandise appreciates twisted humour. They know their audience expects marketing to be clever and that we’re thrilled it’s now harder for telemarketers to bombard us during Sunday dinner. They know we like to laugh, and that we don’t like earnest, insincere ploys for our attention and dollars.

The Onion knows their audience, and makes sure everything they do considers our taste and speaks to us in a unified, audacious voice.

The Onion is brilliant.

Thursday, April 03, 2008

Writing to Get Read: Paul Collier

How refreshing! In his Globe and Mail column last Saturday, “How to fix the world? Make aid work for the ‘bottom billion,’” Doug Saunders quotes Paul Collier, professor and author of The Bottom Billion, as saying:

I think that economists have a responsibility to write in such a way as to be read by ordinary people and by political leaders. So I wrote a book that’s very readable.

It sounds so logical, so ... “duh!” But it’s actually a bold and confident move for someone who is normally an academic (Collier is an Oxford professor). For anyone, for that matter. If you want to be read, make your writing readable.

His book’s title alone—The Bottom Billion—is serving Collier very well. The title neatly and plainly sums up Collier’s argument: that foreign aid needs to target not the poor, but the poorest of the poor—numbering one billion people, overwhelmingly in Africa—to reverse a tide of social, political, and economic catastrophe that will reverberate across the whole world unless checked.

Collier could have called his book Alleviating Extreme Poverty: An Argument for Targeted Geographic Reallocation of Aid—or some such jargony mouthful, but he refrained. He went for a simple, memorable, concrete title: The Bottom Billion.

As a result of this and strong, plain-language writing, “the bottom billion” is becoming a catchphrase. As Saunders reports, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Kimoon declared 2008 “the year of the bottom billion.” Collier is arguing his case—and promoting his book—across the world, and he has just won the $60,000 Lionel Gelber Award for non-fiction writing. Would Alleviating Extreme Poverty: An Argument for Targeted Geographic Reallocation of Aid have fared so well? It’s highly doubtful.

The Bottom Billion lesson is one that so many companies and organizations could profit from. It can be difficult to trade in the comfort—yes, the comfort—of industry jargon, since it masquerades as refined or “in-the-know” vocabulary. But “masquerades” is the key term: rest on the laurels of jargon, and you won’t be making meaning at all—you won’t be saying anything.

And guess what? People won’t be interested. They won’t be able to be, because there’s nothing to hang onto.

Summoning up the courage to eschew jargon—even when all your competitors use it—and wrestle to say what you mean, in plain language, is a worthwhile challenge. Just ask Paul Collier.