What's up with Rogers?

I would be the first to admit that Rogers has one of the best cellular networks and provides really good cable services, and its union with Yahoo! has really benefited its broadband service. My problem with Rogers revolves around who's in charge, and what they're doing to keep customers.

Firstly, let me say that I'm with Rogers cable, internet, and wireless. If there was another provider who could give me cable and internet, I'd switch in a second. It's not that I'm unhappy with their services, I'm unhappy with their customer service. From what I can tell, not actually having had the opportunity to work in a Rogers call center, there are many different departments within the Rogers call centers that don't communicate very well together.

I hate calling in to Rogers, only to wait for 5 minutes to speak with my first representative, who will inevitably transfer me to someone else, who will transfer me to someone else. Each time I'll have to recite my name, address, phone number, birth date, and several other answers to questions just to be able to speak with anyone. With some luck, I'll find out that my question does have an answer and will eventually find someone who knows what the answer is. If I'm unlucky, I'll find out that "something is wrong" and a technician may need to come out in 24 hrs. This has happened a couple times, but the problem is usually corrected before the technician arrives.

I have to say, that the technical support team knows how to set up email, voicemail, and can turn off and on digital terminals and cable modems like no one else. I think my problem is that no one really cares about you. Each person is so busy that they can't be bothered to see a customer through to the end of the issue. This kind of customer service takes small issues requiring simple answers and escalates them to lack of faith in the company's that we spend hundreds of dollars on each month.

I would be happy to spend an extra 20 bucks a month if I could get the type of customer service Dell Canada, or Capital One offers its clients. I'm going to keep this post short because I'm really annoyed at the fact that they spend millions of dollars getting new business and almost nothing (in comparison) making sure customers are happy. They claim to be a cutting-edge technology company, but use 10 year old systems in their customer service industry. Is there no way to update and integrate the old technology into making it easier for your representatives to provide a high level of service? I'm going to start youtubing my conversations with Rogers, I'm fairly certain they still won't take the hint. INCREASE YOUR CUSTOMER SERVICE LEVEL, OR SOMEONE ELSE WILL. DISHLESS SATELLITE SYSTEMS AREN'T THAT FAR OFF!

ROGERS, YOU NEED WORK!

Is it true? Do we suck?

Having been in advertising and having seen the work that goes into creating 30 seconds of television, it's been very hard for me to understand what people were talking about when they made claims like: "Advertisers are musicians, film makers, and writers who aren't talented enough to make real music, real films or real books." I know for a fact that some people in advertising are definitely creative enough to make a film, book or legitimate music. I think problem lies in the people who try to make ads look filmy or musicy or wordy and then fall short by forcing business sense in with the artsy aspect of the ad.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about:

Seiko Ad

This is a Seiko ad that starts off provocative, complete with a cool location and shot in 'black and white'. The ad gets interesting until you find out that the climax of what your watching involves this tag line: "You can tell more about a person by the watch they wear than anything else." Come on... this is shot with an indy feel, and that's the best you got? I feel like I should be laughing at someone who jokingly said that tag line; or I should be spitting in the face of someone who said that about the Cheerios watch I wear.

If you can really tell something about someone by the watch they wear, show me how to read someone. If you can really fit a lesson in 'how to determine someone's status by taking a glance at a watch' into a 30 second spot then you'd give a good name to advertisers.

Here's where it starts to get a bit dirty. Those same people who say that advertisers suck ad making film, music and novels were the first to say that the big H&M ad/ short film/ music video felt like a big soggy diaper of shit. This ad was directed by David Lachapelle who kicked ass in other music videos such as The Red Piano DVD's by Elton John, and the Moby: Play DVD. Tamyra Gray is a musician and this was produced with a huge budget. So why did it suck?



I think the answer is, in the end, there are too many people with a vested interest in the project. The director has a vision, producers have a vision, writers have a vision, H&M has a vision, Tamyra Gray has a vision, and together it ends up being the cheesiest, piece of film since Paris Hiltons sex tape. If you want a real film quality ad, here's a hint: don't try to fit a film in a couple minutes of ad space. Have a very simple message, or a complex message that can be delivered in a simple way, that you can fit in 15 second. If you can shoot the whole thing in one continuous shot, you've hit it out of the park. If you're going to use music use it in one of two ways: one, sell out completely and use a song everyone knows. Make sure you use the catchiest part of the song. Two, use a song 90% of the population doesn't know. This way if they like it, they'll go out and find it, and every time they hear it after, they'll think of your commercial.

So do advertisers have a bad rap? Are they really, under it all, good at doing what they do? I think the answer is that there are some very good, creative people who probably could make great films, but after making a bunch of ads, now think in 30 second blocks of time. Same goes with music and writing. I think there probably is a 5% break-away potential. Where 5% of advertisers actually do break out of advertising and write a good book, or make a good film, or produce a good song. I think everyone else is just happy to be associated with an industry that allows their work to reach a massive audience.

I recently read an article comparing and contrasting the advertising industry with the film and television industry. The article made the advertising industry look like the sugar-daddy of television and film. It implied, in a weird way, that advertisers would love to pay the price to get their work to appear between an episode of CSI and The Family Guy simply because we can then associate ourselves with good work. In the end it's not us, but corporations, who pay the price, and reap most of the gains.

Just as a final thought: in at time of PVR systems, Internet TV, and the ability to skip over commercials all together; wouldn't it make sense to start producing such entertaining, helpful, or informative commercials that people would not only choose not to skip past them, but may actually start keeping them to watch? In a time where shows like The Family Guy, Simpsons, and CSI are cleaning up in the ratings by pushing the envelope of what's acceptable on TV, when will advertising stop worrying about being politically correct and appealing to everyone, and start worrying about appealing to THEIR AUDIENCE.

Dumb Luck?

Ok, first let me explain that the headline is meant to mean when dumb advertising produces lucky results. That being said, I'm going to focus on two very successful dummies: Brad J. Lamb, and Billy Mays. Both of these people are regarded as moguls in their respected industries (real estate, and cleaning products); both run pretty fantastic businesses; both have the most retarded advertising I've seen in a long time.

I think the reason I hate their ads so much is because they feature themselves in all their advertising. It's the old 'used-car-salesman' approach, where the owner of the business says something like "I'm paying for the ads. I should get some personal exposure." Not only do these ads seem cheesy and occasionally freak the hell out of people (a-la Brad J. Lamb's head appearing on a sheep's body) but they are generally ineffective. Here's the kicker though: both people have seen results and assume their ads kick ass. In my opinion this kind of backward thinking is like saying getting noticed for wearing a nice perfume is the same as walking around in a soggy diaper full of crap and being asked about the smell.

The thing is both companies are well managed, and employ great people. The management skills of both men are pretty spectacular. The business sense of either individual is above reproach, except as far as admitting bad advertising. Billy Mays buys up TV ad space and appears as an over-caffeinated infomercial spokesman pitching the likes of 'OrangeGlo', 'Kaboom', and 'Oxy Clean'. These commercials SUCK! The products kick ass. I've used several and love them, especially because I have some weird obsession with cleaning things.

If you live in Toronto, I'm sure you've seen those creepy outdoor ads showcasing Brad J. Lamb's head on the body of a sheep. So what are his wears? Sheep? Wool? Hair products? No, real estate. Yep, he has a brokerage that specializes in selling condo's. I've seen a few of his new ad's too; they appear in random washrooms as Brad Lamb standing next to an Aston Martin. Luckily, I was already in the washroom taking a dump when I saw the ad.

In the end, what is it, really, that all this says about advertising? We already know good advertising produces awesome results. Does this say that bad advertising will produce good results as long as you can back up your crappy advertising with good business? If you attract negative attention, and are able to turn it around using good business, are you obligated to keep using your bad ads? I enjoy bad advertising because it makes mediocre ads look better, but doubt it's the best for business.

In the end, here's my comment for Brad Lamb, and Billy Mays: If your ad's are working now, and you've been told over-and-over that they suck, imagine your success if you had good ads.

Finding your context

Alright...

I like to believe that everyone is capable of learning forever, but what's the point of learning without context? I suppose there are going to be a lot of people who say: learning without context is impossible. Let me just tell you what I mean when I say "learning without context".

I'm talking about learning something without having anything to relate to what you've learned. For instance, reading a news article about a bombing in Nigeria. Unless you have some link to bombings, or Nigeria, you're learning about something without having any context or relationship to what you've learned. Some say that learning the context of any information involves learning the surrounding story of the material. I propose that it's more. I propose that learning in context involves actually experiencing things. If you want to learn in context about the bombing in Nigeria, visit Nigeria, see ground-zero, smell the smells of the area, touch whats left, experiencing something allows you to learn more than you could ever learn simply reading about it.

So why am I talking about experiencing to learn? It all has to do with my blog. I know reading about events, is basically like learning without context, so it's going to be my goal to write about experiences, opinions, and news in a way that will allow you to relate, and experience in some way. My goal will be to allow you to experience who I am, as much as possible, and experience what I do.

So hold on, this is my superpower... (to be continued)