Kranz On Copy: Insights and answers on copywriting and writing copy

A couple of months ago, I attended a professional association event featuring an award-winning creative director, representing a major agency, discussing multi-million dollar work for a famous credit card account. This famous card-issuer, who will remain unnamed, suffered declining applicants and a customer base that was, in the CD's words, "in the senior bracket and dying."

For the next 45 minutes, he thrilled the crowd with the results of his agency's "innovative strategic thinking" for reaching a young, media-savvy market: a complex multi-media campaign featuring downloadable videos of Jerry Seinfeld and Ellen DeGeneres. These videos were genuinely funny and superbly executed -- absolutely professional through and through. They practically vibrated with the latest industry buzzes -- "viral," "experiential," "permission-based," and "customer-directed" (the fruit of the agency's "innovative strategic thinking," which just happens to sound very much like every other large agency's current "innovative strategic thinking") -- and the commercial plug in each execution was modishly discreet.

The crowd cheered -- mostly. But underneath the laughter, you could feel an undercurrent of vague dissatisfaction, a kind of "this looks good, but..." feeling that wasn't easy to articulate. This mood took on a more solid shape when the speaker was asked about results: Have applications increased? Our CD laughed nervously, then said the numbers were proprietary. When his dodge elicited a few incredulous guffaws, he quickly insisted that the client was very happy with the work. "A great new direction for the brand."

Lights up, applause, end of show. As participants put on their overcoats, you could hear people share their admiration for the funny videos. "Wasn't that Superman thing fantastic?" "Who'd ever guess that Ellen would make such a strong comeback?" No one, however, had anything favorable to say about the card.

Me, I was angry. I thought we were sold a load of shinola. Was this really a "new" kind of strategy from a forward-thinking agency, or just the same-old, same-old wrapped in the latest advertising fads?

Take the demographics, for example. Why assume that the client needs to target the youth market in order to succeed? Yeah, I know -- get 'em while they're young so you capture brand loyalty. But is that really true any more? Was it ever really true? And as the boomers age and the overall population/aging numbers trend upwards with them, shouldn't it be more important to reach the growing market of people 50 and up?

Then there's strategy. I agree with the essential tenet of "experiential" branding that the brand is more than a message, it's the sum of the customer's experience of the brand and the business behind it. But in the case of this card campaign, "experiential" means watching videos. Of famous people. Doing funny things. In what possible way has the prospect experienced the credit card? In truth, the client has spent millions of dollars to build brand -- for Jerry Seinfeld and Ellen DeGeneres. Let's hope they're grateful.

Finally, the underlying strategy seems ruthlessly superficial in its approach, focusing, as usual, on clever creative as a camouflage for tired thinking. If the agency had done a little digging, they might have noticed that the number of merchants carrying this particular card has declined considerably in the last 10 - 20 years; these merchants simply don't appreciate paying a transaction fee (3%, I believe) that's higher than what other cards demand. As the number of merchants has declined, so has the number of card users: When there are other cards that are virtually universal, who needs a card that isn't accepted everywhere?

Real, honest-to-goodness strategic thinking would tackle this dilemma head-on. Perhaps the agency would advise the client to revise the fee structure. Maybe they'd suggest a partnership program targeted to merchants, who would be encouraged to promote bonuses/discounts/premiums/prizes to customers who used this particular card, in return for bonuses/discounts/premiums for the merchant themselves. You could then imagine a scenario in which the merchant actively solicited this card at the point of purchase, explaining the advantages to the customer for doing so. Instead of an expensive media campaign that makes people laugh, maybe you'd have an almost invisible program that steadily increased merchant, then customer, loyalty. Maybe.

But such a campaign wouldn't be "creative." It wouldn't win awards. It would be merely successful. And exactly what the client had really paid for.