Monthly Archives: September 2012

Naked In The Kitchen

For our Foodie Friday Fun today, let’s get naked.

Ingredients

(Photo credit: Beyond Elements)

Not in the clothes sense – in the foodie sense.  You see, to me the hardest challenge for a cook is to cook something like a roasted chicken.  There’s not a lot of technique to hide behind and generally the seasoning is pretty simple.  Maybe there’s a gravy which is a simple pan sauce but there’s certainly no highly refined, triple-reduced sauce with which to drown the improperly prepared protein.  The quality of the ingredients is naked, as is the cook’s ability to capture and present that quality.

I’m a fan of simplicity in the kitchen as well as in business (an after all, that’s what the screed is about!).  I don’t do molecular gastronomy. I look for great ingredients, prep them using relatively basic techniques (but I practice those basics a lot) an deliver them to the table with a simple presentation,   In short, I try to let the goodness speak for itself.

Ideas are the same way.  Don’t muck up the basic goodness with some overly complex sauce.  Respect the building block, nurture it along carefully and get out of the way of the underlying strength of the idea.  People too – they’re the great ingredients of every business.

We conceal ideas behind layers of complexity and like a heavy sauce that complexity can mask what’s good or bad about what’s underneath.  Generally, if what’s underneath is really excellent, you want it to shine on its own , so when I encounter some idea or business model that’s overly complex I assume there are some serious flaws within.

I like elevator pitches.  They’re the business without the clothing of complexity.  I like one page term sheets – they’re deals without the sauce of lawyer language.  It’s really hard to make a lot of complicated business issues simple.  When you do though you’ll be surprised how much more clear (and delicious!) they are to all concerned – if they’re any good, that is!  If they’re not, you’ll see it right away.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Leave a comment

Filed under food, Helpful Hints

First Impressions

I almost called today’s missive “Don’t Shoot The Messenger.” As a person who has had hundreds of meetings in which the efficacy of advertising is discussed at length I’ve noticed an ongoing theme.  Clients (or their agencies) sometimes complained that they weren’t getting any sort of decent return on their media investment.  In their minds, maybe TV or the Web or (now) Mobile just aren’t worth the investments and perhaps they’d be better served trying something different.  My response usually involved a reminder not to shoot the messenger.

A “medium” (and I’m not writing about psychics here) is an intervening substance, as air, through which a force acts or an effect is produced.  TV is a medium, as are radio, the Web, and others.  Their job is to deliver the advertising message.  To be blunt about it, if the message – the ad – is crap, so will be the response.

In the digital world, there is a lot of literature on the size of ads – size, format, content, design and type – and not surprisingly they generally find that bigger advertisements are more effective in attracting attention which increases response.  On the other hand, other research found that design and content of the
advertisement have an impact on Click-Through Rate (CTR) and increases the interest in Advertising.  The reality is if advertisements, regardless online or offline, don’t catch your attention within seconds they are considered to have failed.  I’d add to that if the intrusiveness of the ad pisses off the consumer, it’s failed as well regardless of the brilliance of the creative.

There is a movement in the digital ad world to move towards a “Cost Per Viewable Impression” model which I’ve said before I think is dumb on web sellers’ parts to encourage unless TV, radio, and other media can fall into the same model (good luck with that).  Regardless of impressions or medium, bad creative equates to bad responses.

You agree?  What creative have you seen lately – good or bad – that really got your attention?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Leave a comment

Filed under digital media

What’s In A Name?

A friend asked me the other day why my brand is Keith Ritter Media when most of what I do is in digital and/or sports.  Not a bad question and since I’m always using the screed to encourage everyone to keep rethinking the business world around them, I did the same about his question.

Choosing “Media” instead of “Digital” was not an accident.  Having spent most of my formative professional years in what is now called “traditional” media (local and national TV), my approach is less focused on the technology and very focused on the business.  Here’s the bulletin:  it’s all media.   Sure, it’s also getting to be all digital but these technologies are nothing but other channels of communication that can be used in a smart marketing/business mix.  They’re other tools in the box.  The business and all of the relevant best practices remain pretty much the same.

I’m not sure that’s what some of the charlatans out there want to hear.  I’ve had clients hand me stuff from other digital specialty shops (most of whom are run by folks with all of 5-7 years in business) that was very tool-intensive but missed the entire reason of why those tools should or should be used.    Think about it.  Have you only heard of a “print” or “TV” or “radio” ad agency?  Sure, some folks focus on the various types of creative but your better shops take a 360 degree view of media because THAT’S HOW YOUR CUSTOMERS INTERACT WITH THE MEDIA WORLD.  Sorry for shouting but the notion of a digital or social agency bothers me.

“Digital” can be anything.  Website development to content creation to hardware to mobile and social applications. I don’t think it’s precise enough.  After all, we call them “carpenters”, not “hammers”.  It’s not about the tools – it’s about the business.

Am I thinking clearly about this?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Leave a comment

Filed under Consulting, digital media, Thinking Aloud