How (not) to set up your SEM campaign.

Ever since Bud pointed out that no 2010 Super Bowl ads had utilized a custom SEM strategy for the event, I've had some serious longing for smart search strategy in a TV spot. Something inspiring, a la Converse's web of paid search and microsites of 2008. I've come across nothing so far, despite the fact that search and TV are said to work in tandem. Last night, however, a curious bit of voice-over in a spot for DreamWorks' "How To Train Your Dragon" made my ears perk up - would tonight be the night? I wondered.

Watch this trailer, a typical spot promoting the film.



Fairly normal stuff. There are four or so more like it, various cuts and edits, but mostly the same.

Now take a look at this, the cut I saw tonight.



Did you catch it?

Now, I've seen plenty of trailers for this movie, and I probably have a heightened awareness to these spots because I never outgrew kids movies, animation or dragons. Right when it started to roll, I knew it was an ad for "How to Train Your Dragon." I started to pay attention in a 'man! I'm really looking forward to this movie!' sort of way. So, I definitely noticed when I got to the title screen

...and the movie-preview-voice-guy bust out with "DreamWorks' Dragons!"

Nobody in a million years, I decided, would pay millions of dollars to produce and advertise a film and get the name wrong in one cut of the trailer. A clever ruse, to see who's paying attention? I hoped so. It had to be deliberate.

So I Googled, first "how to train your dragon", and saw some pretty standard results,

and then, "dreamworks dragons", hoping for something clever and awe-inspiring.

Disappointingly, nothing was remarkable about the latter. So, I tried a YouTube search.

Nothing.

I Bing-ed, I Yahoo!-ed, I even Asked. Standard results across the board, and no apparent cleverness at play. As it were, the voice-over-guy was just saying the name wrong, and tonight was not the night.

I apologize for leading you down this path, only to dash your hopes for SEM greatness at the end of the road. Trust me, I'm just as disappointed as you are. I do, however, have a few takeaways from this little wild goose-chase. They are threefold.

1. Unless it's deliberately incorrect for a higher purpose, don't be cute about the name of your product in your marketing efforts. Or, if you're going to do so, be consistent. The name of your product is a mainstay of your brand equity. It is important. Calling your product by a different name in just one of a series of ads, that's just bad branding. And it's confusing, especially in an environment where people often multitask, listening and not really watching. Bad idea.

2. Never forget that you always, ALWAYS have the opportunity to do cool things with search. Search can be custom-built to fit literally any campaign, so don't say you can't do it. Cap your budgets at five bucks a day, if you're low on cash. But by all means, utilize this space. It's your playground. People are searching for you - television and search build upon each other, there's no doubt about it. Use this to your advantage.

3. There is always a geek out there somewhere paying attention to your ad, your product, your campaign. Every campaign you put out has the opportunity to be great, even if it's just a movie trailer. Try to produce campaigns worthy of greatness, worthy of scrutiny, wherever possible.

And finally, if your inner child really is a child, like mine is, go see this movie. It looks awesome, whatever it's called.

Let them eat cake, and read it, too.

Flipping through the glossy pages of my hot-off-the-press, brand spankin' new copies of Food Network Magazine, I have to admire the moxie on display by Hearst and the Food Network empire. Really, Hearst? Putting out a new title while the economy continues to wilt and, almost every time I turn around, another magazine bites the proverbial dust? Really? Have you checked out Magazine Death Watch recently? Or, more grassroots, Mag Death Pool? Eager to add your brand to the list?

Something tells me they aren't too concerned. A closer look at the logic behind the launch reveals that the smart cookies over at Food Network are merely another case for the potential of smart marketing.

In the old, musty, ivy-covered lecture halls where I spent the better part of my college years, they warned me to pay attention, that, one day, I would need to know this stuff. Although I found it hard to believe at the time, every once in a while, one of those college-y nuggets of wisdom comes in handy - in this case, the very basics of marketing theory.

Marketing, as a function of business economics, is most successful when the object or idea in question fulfills a need, yes? In theory (there are some exceptions; anything Billy Mays decides to yell about, for example), not even the most brilliant application of the four Ps can create a lasting, successful business out of something that nobody needs. As consumer needs change, your business had better adapt, or before you know it, no one needs your wares, your bottom line doesn't pay the bills, and you're next in line to crumble. Basic marketing theory: listen to the needs of your audience, and find a way to fulfill those needs better than anyone else. Don't move on to the next thing until you've done the first thing correctly. And never stop listening.

(Disclaimer: I know very little, if anything, about businesses and finance and the like. This is just how I see it going down.)

***I Digress***

So-- back to media. It's painfully obvious that the economic crisis did not spare advertising agencies and their vendors. And as people progress and find new ways to get their news, entertainment, and so on, yes - media vehicles can become less relevant. Plenty of whisperings of media vehicles (not just properties) becoming obsolete, and the media world turning on its end, armageddon, etcetera. And, do we give up? Do we throw in the towel, and watch our media properties, along with the rest of the economy, go down the toilet?

No! Marketing 101: we turn our ears to the needs of our audience. We find a way to become relevant, and we do it better than anyone else.

Step 1: Listen to the needs of your audience.
Food Network was born out of an audience want for programming that covered all the food bases: from easy home cooking to restaurant management, from exciting competition to fine culinary education. And their content has adapted to reflect the times. Shows that teach how to make delicious food in a way that fits a busy lifestyle. Shows that teach how to stretch a dollar further without compromising taste or nutrition. You get the picture - this is an empire that was born out of a consumer need, and has kept consumer wants at the heart of its business development.

Step 2: Do one thing, and improve upon it until you do it better than anyone else.
There has almost always been some sort of food programming on television, but never before had there been one channel that delivered 110% of the time on so many aspects of of the food industry. Even with the rise of high-performing dramas such as Top Chef, I don't think there is any question as to which network is providing the best food content. Food Network has been developing carefully as a network for some time now; shaping brilliant and charismatic chefs into legitimate television stars, crafting content for consumer lifestyles, and entertaining audiences while educating. I'm pretty sure I would melt into a puddle of mush if Bobby Flay ever showed up to challenge me to a throwdown, eh?

Step 3: Move on to the next thing, and do that better than anyone else.
The online space was a natural extension for Food Network - people wanted access to the recipes they saw on their favorite shows. Online was the most efficient way for Food Network to repurpose their content and expand their foothold. The site, which houses not only recipe content, but video and original content, continues to serve audience needs and creates a stronger bond between the audience and the stars and shows they love. They are doing food online better than anyone else, and they are using that success to continue to strengthen their flagship property.

Step 4: Lather, rinse, and repeat step 3.
With Food Network as the strongest food entity in cable, and FoodNetwork.com the most-trafficked food site on the internet (comScore), why not continue to bulldoze the competition? Food Network and Hearst weren't carelessly throwing money into magazine at a time when magazines are declining. They were expanding into a new arena at the request of their audience. The magazine is incredibly well-done, with beautiful original photography, all-new recipes tested by the Food Network test kitchens, and edit contributions by 20-30 much-loved Food Network stars in each issue. It has the leverage of a couple of blockbuster properties and a raving fan base as a foundation. There have been two issues on newsstand thus far, and already full-price subscriptions are far over-delivering on projections. The strategic progression from television to online to print would suggest that this is a brand that understands marketing, business, consumerism, and the like. I don't see them waving the white flag anytime soon.

Not to say there aren't plenty of media enterprises doin' it and doin' it and doin' it well. Our dear friend Oprah, for example. Or, how about Martha Stewart? There is no quick fix for the economic crises that are gripping media vendors by the throat. But case studies like Food Network's foray into print tell us that there is still room in this waning economy for strategic marketing. With a little moxie, it still works, when you do it right. Really.