Working in the direct response lead generation and incentive promotion space can skew one’s perspective on life. The way we evaluate businesses differs from the average person. We look at the world in terms of traffic flow and monetization. We look for undervalued opportunity and reach. That type of mindset is often considered at odds with the needs of brand marketers. The needs of the two types of marketers do differ, but they reach out to a largely overlapping audience. What differs between brand and performance deals less with the individual being targeted and more about their intent and perceived receptiveness. In this week’s Digital Thoughts, we draw upon a theme presented in the keynote speech profiled last week titled “For-Profit Eye for the Non-Profit Guy” and given by University of Phoenix President Dr. Noone at the EduVentures conference earlier this month. Instead of dealing with for profit education, we present the direct response eye for the branding guy.
We couldn’t print this in the first paragraph, because many of you might have scoffed at the idea, but the basis for this story came about from a recent trip to Disneyland. Having grown up more on Warner Bros. distributed cartoons and never having been hooked on Mickey as a kid, the craving for Disney products and need to go to Disneyland did not exist. That said, as a brand, especially for those whose formative years occurred before the 90’s, it remains hard to imagine a stronger one than Disney. Their brand grew out of viewers’ often intense emotional connection to the stories and characters. Equally if not more important, that bond formed during childhood, providing an almost mystical component to the attachment. Disneyland, by extension, represented the physical manifestation of that emotional bond, a place of escape, of happiness and of joy.
To a direct response marketer, Disneyland is a theme park, but more than that it’s a microcosm of the web, of direct response marketing and arguably the first incentive promotion “site”. Disneyland, like a free Xbox ad, relies heavily on the power of other brands to attract users. Some of the best attractions take their name and appeal from other brands; this is certainly the case for the rides leveraging Indiana Jones and Star Wars. Another theme that runs throughout Disneyland, and is a mainstay of the incentive promotion world, is Disneyland’s attempts to monetize all available real estate. Virtually every restaurant and many attractions carries the name of a major brand, be it McDonalds for French fries, Johnny Rockets for the diner, or Chevron for Autopia. They are like one big co-registration. If it can be sold, both B2C and B2B it is sold. Another lesson, and among the best lessons taught by Disneyland to incentive promotion and direct marketers is user flow. Disneyland in many ways is all about sucking people in, and then keeping them in. People are moved along quickly and efficiently with minimal opportunities to exit. And after the rides end, many of them have efficient systems for upselling merchandise or photos. Each ride feels like a mini-incentive promotion ad.
From a direct marketing perspective, the rides at Disney teach us many things, but from direct marketers’ take on branding, the rides and attractions at Disneyland do not impress. Some are quite fun, but when viewed objectively, they come out looking outdated, under maintained, and at times downright flimsy. For direct marketers, technology maintenance is equally if not more important than the appearance. For a brand with such potential, the experience of Disneyland did not live up to the promise. It is a remarkable machine though, and therein lies the disconnect. The park, more than any other place in recent memory, understands how to move people through and deliver on customer service. Lines exist everywhere, but each moves so predictably and the staff so nice that it’s hard to mind. But Disneyland was not created to be a machine. As realized later in the evening during the impressive 50th anniversary fireworks show and mentioned earlier in the article, Disneyland exists to provide a material realization of emotional connections. It is a place to connect with some of the most positive memories and feelings in one’s life.
Content is king. Without a compelling offer and an image that continually evolves over time, no brand can last. Nike understands this better than perhaps any of the modern area. They both resemble and yet have radically departed from the company they were fifteen, ten, and even five years ago. They know when to launch new lines, update existing lines, and reintroduce old ones. They balance content – the actual shoes, production, and marketing. Disney on the other hand, appears to have slipped into a production and marketing company. It appears in many ways a company clutching onto the past, one that like George Lucas lost site of that which made them a success. They simply worked too hard on moving people through the machine that they ignored why they came to the machine in the first place. Disney won’t go out of business, but they might find themselves in the unfamiliar position of being in second place. Even the best brands must remember to take a step back from the machine, or we might find that the mousetrap they built, ensnares them instead.
