I feel sorta bad about the fact that I’m going to go after a post that was written by someone who is probably very good at their job, but hoo boy, the marketing advice they gave was in my view, terrible. At that’s probably the best you can say about it.
The post, How to use emotional triggers for mobile ads people will care about sounds like it could be a very good read. The crux of the problem with the article, outside of the ridiculous number of times the word “contextualize” is used in the first few paragraphs, is that the author assumes that people go on a personal and emotional journey while using a mobile app.
Look, maybe I’m bitter and dead inside, but I don’t feel “high achievement” in any app. At all. My range of feelings with any app on my phone goes all the way from hmmm to meh. I will admit that there are times when reading Twitter and some politician does something exceptionally stupid, I may feel a vague spark of extreme annoyance, but that’s really related to someone’s actions and has essentially nothing to do with the app itself.
My honest feeling is that if you are going on an emotional journey when using an app, you should probably talk to your doctor about antipsychotics.
The example in the article also basically makes no sense whatsoever.
“For instance, when a user is frustrated, brands should “rescue” them with the boost or premium item they need.”
What app is the author using that requires a rescue? Is there some Hunger Games movie or book tie in that teleports you in real life to a dystopian world that requires you fight and kill for survival? I suppose a more banal answer would be that Geico comes to the rescue when I run out of lives in Candy Crush on a difficult level, but I’m not sure many people are going to make their car insurance decisions based on the availability of game boosters.
Maybe that’s not at all what the author is saying, but since that’s the entire “example” I don’t know what he’s trying to say.
The author also suggests that advertisers use “haptic” stimulation, that is, invoke the phone’s vibrate function. If advertisers start using the vibrate function with ads as a result of this man, I wish him paper cuts for the rest of his life. There is not enough NO in the world for ads that trigger my phone’s vibration feature.
This is supposed to be a part of a series from Mashable that “features insights from leaders in marketing, brand-building and public relations.” I read a few others, and my feelings are that you should stay far, far away from whatever is suggested in these articles, assuming you can even figure out what it is they’re actually saying.
A few gems from these articles include:
“…when you promote a tweet on Twitter, you get retweets and favorites for free.”
That’s… not how this works. That’s not how any of this works.
“Compared with other marketing channels — like a billboard or television commercial — email marketing metrics provide exponentially more information regarding the success, or failure, of a marketing campaign.”
Well, yes, this is true, but… what person isn’t aware of this? And this is for an article for small businesses. Most small businesses can’t even afford television advertising. Further, why not compare apples to apples, eg, search engine or display marketing versus email. It’s like an article from 2001.
Similarly, on Twitter, brands can promote their most popular tweets to their own followers to ensure they aren’t missed. Brands can also promote tweets to targeted audiences as an effective way to acquire new followers.
Again, how is this helpful to anyone who hasn’t suffered some sort of major cranial trauma? I mean, I suppose there are business owners who aren’t aware that you can do this, but they probably try to go online with their microwave.
There are a zillion and one great articles for people who own small businesses and are interested in marketing, just not on Mashable, apparently.