I love cars. I mean I really love cars. I remember the night that Dad took my brother and I into town for the local launch of the new 1988 EA Ford Falcon. From then on I was hooked, I'd borrow Wheels magazine from the library every month and read every word and state including the spec sheet at the back. And although I now buy my own, I still do!
Anyway I paused to think recently about Mazda's Zoom Zoom Zoom catch cry. They've been using it since 2000 and show no signs of getting tired of it and I think that's because it's not just good, but its great. As far as tag lines go its one of the best ever.
But why? Firstly it taps into an innate human emotion, that feeling of freedom and movement, when children run around a park with gay abandon, the feeling you get when your dad picks you up and spins you through the air, riding a push bike down a hill and of course zooming your toy cars around the room.
But more than that Mazda haven't just tapped into this feeling with their customers, they have tapped into it with their entire company, from the CEO, to product engineers, to marketers and sales staff they all embody the Zoom Zoom philosophy.
I know this because I read what the product engineers and designers say at vehicle launches, it's all about quick steering, styling that conveys movement, engines that are quick to respond to to throttle inputs and lightness. They say things like "We could have done that but then it wouldn't have been Zoom Zoom". They have literally taken the essence of Zoom Zoom and put it on the road.
And now in changing times when other car makers are pursuing small capacity, low boost turbo engines to improve economy and emissions, Mazda are saying NO, lets find another way, low-boost turbos aren't Zoom Zoom, not responsive enough they say, so what do their engineers do? The go away and invent Skyactiv a part by part re-design of the old fashioned non-turbo internal combustion engine and transmission, seeking lightness and efficiency gains with every micrometre. With the last MX5 they even weighed the rear view mirror and made a handful of grams lighter!
You can even see Zoom Zoom at work in the things that Mazda HAVEN'T been good at recently (but are fixing) - road noise, ride refinement and interior quality. Why haven't they been good at these things? Because they aren't Zoom Zoom, soft touch plastics don't make a car any more Zoom Zoom than hard ones!
So that's to me why Zoom Zoom is the best tagline ever, because it truly means something, its inherent in all of us, the thrill of movement, the thrill of freedom and no one feels this more than the people who work at Mazda all the way to the top.
The lesson for other marketers? Search for your organisation's fundamental truth, its fundamental human reason for being, express it well and then make sure that your whole company embraces it so that it shows up in the product.
OH and results? Mazda since 2000 has developed one of the most critically acclaimed car model ranges on sale today and the Mazda 3 has just become the first imported car to top Australian sales charts since the 1920's. Seems lots of other people relate to Zoom Zoom too.
Wednesday 25 January 2012
Tuesday 17 January 2012
Arts Marketers and the glass ceiling
Sorry for the delay in posts but its Christmas and Summer and real life has a way of intruding into one's blogging activities.
This is an article that has troubled me for a little while, mainly because it's difficult to write about without sounding like a whinger, but it is an idea that I believe is worth exploring and it certainly isn't confined to the Arts. Many industries exhibit the same behaviour, the practice whereby accountants, lawyers and product engineers and even sales execs seem to have better luck than marketers when it comes to landing themselves in the big chair - CEO and (in the arts) Artistic Director, ie the Boss Boss or the Product Boss.
Heck! In many arts organisations the Marketing Manager doesn't even get a say in programming decisions at all, it's simply handed down and we are told "Sell monkey-boy sell!". Luckily this is not the case at my current place of employment!
In my decade in the arts business, I have worked for and with Director's, CEO's, AD's and Programming Managers that come from acting, directing, stage designing, back stage, venue hire and general arts administration but only once have I reported to or worked with a manager who's main claim to fame prior to assuming the top job was as a Marketing Manager, although he's done heaps of other stuff too. (Simon Hinton, Merrigong - this is you!)
Now luckily for my argument he's a successful CEO but perhaps surprisingly for some, but not to me, his main strength in my eyes is as a programmer. Pretty much everything I learnt about good arts programming I learnt from him. One year he programmed the MacBeth meets The Simpsons show, MacHomer, this is classic marketing strategy, give people who might never want to see Shakespeare an irresistible lure into the art form, once you have them you then have a list to mine to encourage more artistic purchases and engagement. It's like Neil Perry and Stefano di Pieri opening bistros as an entrée to their fine dining restaurant experience's. You end up having such a good time that you promise yourself to try the posh one next time. Its also a programming decision that many classically trained AD's would run a mile from.
Now its obvious to me that an arts organisation would benefit from a marketing trained CEO or General Manager - they know how to project manage, lead teams, stick to tight budgets with looming deadlines, deal with pressure, work directly with artists and communicate. Yet still the attitude seems to exist that you need to come from either serious arts admin or backstage in order to do this job. (I might also ad that talented Box Office Managers and Front of House Managers rarely get the chance to rise beyond their ranks either). For me it beggars belief.
Now where it gets really controversial is when you say "Can an experienced arts marketer be an effective Artistic Director?"
Once upon a time I myself would have said no, that was when theatre companies all ran ensembles of actors and made pretty much all their shows in-house, with the AD directing most of the plays. Recently the trend however has seen companies of actors dissolve and theatre companies filling their season with co-productions and bought in works, an AD these days is much more of a curator than a direct theatre maker. And of course venues rarely if ever make an work from scratch it's all about selecting ready made work. Melbourne Theatre Company has taken the step of employing some most well known as a Festival Director in Brett Sheehy, pretty much heralding the fact that they too agree that the role of AD is much more curatorial than it is hands-on artistic.
Now to my mind what an AD really needs to know is A. Their Audience and B. Their Brand, who better within the arts but a talented and trained marketer to do this? Some of the best AD's have been theatre makers who know these things intuitively. Sheehy follows Simon Phillips, a theatre maker of international renown and one who really knew his audience and programmed accordingly. Now proponents against my hypothesis might argue that all a marketer would do is program safe sell-able product, not true, they might if your brand was safe and sellable, but if your brand was defined as risk taking, they would program accordingly. Also marketers by their very nature as risk takers so you would see this reflected in their programming.
Now as far as I know you can't go to NIDA and study programming, you kind of become one by pursuing other professions and hope do them well enough for someone to give you the chance to program. Because of this people like to promote it as kind of a black art, it's not, its really simple, look at what has sold well in the past and give people more of that sort of thing, look at your brand values and company vision and insert some product that reflects that, then with one show present your own personal favourite.
Now you could say that one needs training of some sort in the dramatic arts in order to be able to assess quality and artistic merit, possibly true, but then just as a good AD or CEO should listen to the expert advice of his marketer, as good marketing trained AD or CEO should listen to the advice of there trained internal experts.
Now, I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. Am I right is there a ceiling beyond which certain types of arts industry professional are a\rarely able to break through? Can you think of examples where marketers have made the top level of management in the arts? Does the AD always have to be a trained theatre-maker of some sort? Why is it that marketers seem unable to rise to the top jobs in the arts biz?
Anyhow would love to hear your thoughts.
Regards
Ricky
This is an article that has troubled me for a little while, mainly because it's difficult to write about without sounding like a whinger, but it is an idea that I believe is worth exploring and it certainly isn't confined to the Arts. Many industries exhibit the same behaviour, the practice whereby accountants, lawyers and product engineers and even sales execs seem to have better luck than marketers when it comes to landing themselves in the big chair - CEO and (in the arts) Artistic Director, ie the Boss Boss or the Product Boss.
Heck! In many arts organisations the Marketing Manager doesn't even get a say in programming decisions at all, it's simply handed down and we are told "Sell monkey-boy sell!". Luckily this is not the case at my current place of employment!
In my decade in the arts business, I have worked for and with Director's, CEO's, AD's and Programming Managers that come from acting, directing, stage designing, back stage, venue hire and general arts administration but only once have I reported to or worked with a manager who's main claim to fame prior to assuming the top job was as a Marketing Manager, although he's done heaps of other stuff too. (Simon Hinton, Merrigong - this is you!)
Now luckily for my argument he's a successful CEO but perhaps surprisingly for some, but not to me, his main strength in my eyes is as a programmer. Pretty much everything I learnt about good arts programming I learnt from him. One year he programmed the MacBeth meets The Simpsons show, MacHomer, this is classic marketing strategy, give people who might never want to see Shakespeare an irresistible lure into the art form, once you have them you then have a list to mine to encourage more artistic purchases and engagement. It's like Neil Perry and Stefano di Pieri opening bistros as an entrée to their fine dining restaurant experience's. You end up having such a good time that you promise yourself to try the posh one next time. Its also a programming decision that many classically trained AD's would run a mile from.
Now its obvious to me that an arts organisation would benefit from a marketing trained CEO or General Manager - they know how to project manage, lead teams, stick to tight budgets with looming deadlines, deal with pressure, work directly with artists and communicate. Yet still the attitude seems to exist that you need to come from either serious arts admin or backstage in order to do this job. (I might also ad that talented Box Office Managers and Front of House Managers rarely get the chance to rise beyond their ranks either). For me it beggars belief.
Now where it gets really controversial is when you say "Can an experienced arts marketer be an effective Artistic Director?"
Once upon a time I myself would have said no, that was when theatre companies all ran ensembles of actors and made pretty much all their shows in-house, with the AD directing most of the plays. Recently the trend however has seen companies of actors dissolve and theatre companies filling their season with co-productions and bought in works, an AD these days is much more of a curator than a direct theatre maker. And of course venues rarely if ever make an work from scratch it's all about selecting ready made work. Melbourne Theatre Company has taken the step of employing some most well known as a Festival Director in Brett Sheehy, pretty much heralding the fact that they too agree that the role of AD is much more curatorial than it is hands-on artistic.
Now to my mind what an AD really needs to know is A. Their Audience and B. Their Brand, who better within the arts but a talented and trained marketer to do this? Some of the best AD's have been theatre makers who know these things intuitively. Sheehy follows Simon Phillips, a theatre maker of international renown and one who really knew his audience and programmed accordingly. Now proponents against my hypothesis might argue that all a marketer would do is program safe sell-able product, not true, they might if your brand was safe and sellable, but if your brand was defined as risk taking, they would program accordingly. Also marketers by their very nature as risk takers so you would see this reflected in their programming.
Now as far as I know you can't go to NIDA and study programming, you kind of become one by pursuing other professions and hope do them well enough for someone to give you the chance to program. Because of this people like to promote it as kind of a black art, it's not, its really simple, look at what has sold well in the past and give people more of that sort of thing, look at your brand values and company vision and insert some product that reflects that, then with one show present your own personal favourite.
Now you could say that one needs training of some sort in the dramatic arts in order to be able to assess quality and artistic merit, possibly true, but then just as a good AD or CEO should listen to the expert advice of his marketer, as good marketing trained AD or CEO should listen to the advice of there trained internal experts.
Now, I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. Am I right is there a ceiling beyond which certain types of arts industry professional are a\rarely able to break through? Can you think of examples where marketers have made the top level of management in the arts? Does the AD always have to be a trained theatre-maker of some sort? Why is it that marketers seem unable to rise to the top jobs in the arts biz?
Anyhow would love to hear your thoughts.
Regards
Ricky
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)