Callahan nails it re:missed marketing opportunity
Posted by Trey Reeme on January 23rd, 2007
In her post today on CreditUnions.com, Melanie El-Sabaawi relays a recent CUNA radio spot that “cited credit unions’ role as trusted financial providers to the ‘little guy.’”
Melanie writes:
Given the station’s generally progressive listenership, it struck me as a clever marriage of message and audience.
The spot ended with an invitation to visit the website www.lookoutforthelittleguy.com. As soon as I got to work, I typed out the URL, eagerly anticipating a new consumer-oriented site explaining why and how credit unions are the protectors of economic democracy and equality. The link opened up CUNA’s regular home page. The top of the page featured a link to a credit union locator, but no other obvious consumer-oriented information, actions to take, or reference to the “little guy” theme.”
Contrast this with an advertisement currently running in the current issue of Fast Company magazine. This full-page ad reads “I don’t [heart symbol] my bank.” It sounds like a theme that credit unions could build on, but it actually directs readers to the site www.startabank.com.
Melanie goes on to bring up some great points and she asks, “If www.lookoutforthelittleguy.com was a brand-new site, what do you think are the most compelling points it should provide to consumers? What actions should it enable visitors to take?”
Glad you asked!
My thoughts are (and I posted these as a comment on the article):
Great article, Melanie. What a terrible call for CUNA to have that URL redirect to the main CUNA site! Wasted opportunity.
What would the ideal site look like?
- It would present credit union vs. bank rate averages.
- It would show the amazingly high customer loyalty scores that CUs get vs. banks.
- It would focus on initiatives like the NCUF’s REAL Solutions project.
- It would provide a simple zip code locator for consumers to find local credit unions and see how membership requirements could be met.
- It would speak in plain language and incorporate social media elements like a blog/podcast dealing with financial literacy.
- And it would focus on telling real stories about CUs standing up for the little guy.
What other ideas can we throw CUNA’s way to make this message more effective if they continue giving out that URL in this campaign?
Update: The address is actually http://www.lookoutforthelittleguy.org. So why not have the .com point there? See the comments in this thread for more advice to CUNA now that we see the URL they want folks to visit.
The Little Guy brand URL is
www.lookoutforthelittleguy.org
Definitely a better message there.
MC, many thanks for the comment. I’ll update the post with the .org link.
A couple of things. Click here to learn more from the .org address points to the consumer part of the CUNA website.
The slideshow: well, it’s a little pointless. Here are pictures of random people standing beside a character that looks like Stewie Griffin in twenty years (I know, die-hard Family Guy fans will say we already know what he looks like because they covered that in the movie, duh! Just play along for now.)
Finally, why in the world doesn’t the .com point to the .org site instead of the CUNA site?
Not trying to be a Debbie Downer here; just trying to offer some constructive advice for this. It’s a great opportunity that still needs work.
I fear my opinion on this won’t be a popular one, but I think the “little guy” approach is misguided.
Much like the BankerSpank ads that try to portray credit union members as fundamentally different from consumers who use banks, the “little guy” site does the same.
It’s credit union insiders projecting THEIR differences onto the consumer.
Granted, there may be a segment of consumers who see themselves as the “little guy”, betrodden by behemoths.
But CU execs are missing the point—they think THEY’RE the “little guy” getting trampled on by the big bad banks.
Consumers could care less—they want high quality financial products and services from firms that are easy to do business with and care about them as people.
Commerce Bank has proven that you can be a “big bad bank” and still deliver on the this promise.
PLEASE credit union execs: Wake up, quit whining, and start competing.
Ron, I actually agree with you. When I was at the Yes Summit this December, one of the main points I walked away with was that most people don’t care whether they belong to a bank or a credit union. They aren’t swayed by the credit union difference. Yes, it might be icing on the cake, but it’s not the reason they are going to use our products/services over a bank’s.
Terrell: Thanks for agreeing (phew!). But I think people ARE swayed by the CU difference – the difference in the EXPERIENCE they get – not the difference in legal structure and not-for-profit status.
Ron, I’ve been following you since I discovered “advocacy” – while you were at Forrester. So glad you are interested in the future of CU’s. I contend that the CU’s are missing out big time by not including “marketing to women” in their strategy. What a natural for them – and talk about “advocacy”. Example – CU’s and CUSOs (I work in marketing for a “home loan” CUSO) are trying to figure out how to resonate with Realtors. That’s valid, but why don’t they direct some of that “creativity” towards the ONLY stat that grew in this years National Association of Realtors Homebuyers survey – single women moved up to 22% of all homes sold last year. And women will head 28% of all households by 2010 (Fannie Mae). I have had some dialog with Glen Urban about this. So glad to have you in our balcony! Roger
A campaign is really directing people to this text heavy landing page?
1) Why not even animate these CU vs. Bank factoids – to make them more visually interesting to the consumer? Something like “What is the Credit Union difference?” – or something like what the Credit Union Assoc. of Oregon’s did with their site: http://www.you-belong.org/generator.html
2) Not to harp on the “Stevie” image – but is this cartoon “little guy” the image we want to portray as a “general credit union memeber”? Wouldn’t it be more fun to have a little person (real person) vs. “big suit” (like the WaMu ads making fun of bankers) – to make the “people like you & me” vs. “stockholders” distinction. Maybe the “big suit” could even sport a monicle like the guy on the Monopoly board!
3) Text question: ”...”America’s non-profit credit unions…” Aren’t we credit unions not-for-profit … To me “non-profit” seems to imply some sort of charitable organization?
4) Text question #2 ”...89 million Americans in working families…” Perhaps this is capital hill speak – why not just “89 million Americans” and leave it at that -> working, not-working / retired, families, singles, etc.
5) “Click here to learn more” I thought would take me to more info about how banks and CUs are different… Instead its just the main page on CUNA. Why not – learn more about Credit Unions and how you can join one – and start looking out for YOU – today!
Just some ideas…
VSelfridge- The “working families” language is specifically because that’s what the bankers are focusing on in the results of the NCUA survey and GAO report. Just my guess—-
Yikes!!!
The LITTLE GUY is a balding 47 year-old white man. The typical credit union member.
And we are PROMOTING this difference? As banks get bigger, less personal, blah blah blah…....
Have you SEEN how many credit unions are doing the same thing??
CUNA—wake up. Get out of the office and look around.
www.bankerspank.com is the best credit union advertising I have ever seen. The best thing about it? Someone younger than LITTLE GUY will actually take the time to watch it.
At CUNA, we appreciate the comments of everybody on the subject of “the Little Guy,” the website, and the opportunities presented to credit unions in this effort.
But let me put things into context, which (I think) may clarify some things …
The website – and The Little Guy himself – is entirely aimed at Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., and the audience there (Members of Congress and their staffs, who collectively total about 16,000 souls). The purpose of all of this: Change the conversation on Capitol Hill – from what the banking industry wants to talk about, to what credit unions want to talk about.
A device for helping us accomplish that is the Little Guy.
Who is the Little Guy?
He represents the working men and women of America from all walks of life who are credit union members – the owners and focus of credit union service. Credit union members are what Congress should be thinking of when considering issues affecting credit unions. On Jan. 4, the opening day, the 110th Congress met the Little Guy.
To see a video of that day, and what people on Capitol Hill think of credit unions and the Little Guy, click here.
We hope to be doing more. Keep your eyes on CUNA’s website and “Look out for the Little Guy.”
PK, Thanks for responding here and for being receptive to the comments.
CUNA’s shooting for a (forgive me for stereotyping here) fairly intelligent audience of 16,000 members of Congress and their staffs.
But the audience is shown a static chart that, well, sounds like name-calling. “Anyone who can afford high fees and can maintain high balances can use a bank.” I mean, do we really believe that about all banks? From experience, I don’t. Also, what would most CUs do without their own fee incomes, after all?
Moreover, the site shows them (along with the Bankerspank link) a slideshow of pictures including this one (I hope CUNA takes this pic down when it’s noticed that the person in the camera is picking the little guy’s nose)?
My point is the website needs help – especially if The Hill’s the primary audience. I do realize that I’m offending a web developer right now who put a lot of work into uploading photos to that slideshow, but this needs to be said, and the web strategy needs a complete shift.
Doing a Google search for ‘little guy’ and ‘credit union’ brings some familiar results (today, we’re number one). I’ll be the first one to admit that the number one result should not be this blog. It should belong to CUNA’s website. And I’d be happy to advise anyone at CUNA who wants to ask me how I’d get it there.
Thanks again for responding, and I sincerely hope the campaign is successful (that wish is what inspired this post).
Some background on the 148 photographs posted to lookoutforthelittleguy.org…
In addition to the concurrent radio and print ads/cartoons with the URL, the photos were intended to drive very targeted traffic to the website. How?
Each person, mostly congressional staffers, who had his or her photo made with the Little Guy was given a card which directed them to view or download their photos from the website.
Klav, I appreciate the comment. I have the utmost respect for you and the cause you’ve been fighting on your blog. I want you to know this is not a personal attack on you or PK. This is strictly business.
I’ll start by saying I’d be a fool to try to advise CUNA on the message that should be preached to Congress or your agenda there. CUNA is the undisputed expert on that.
What I do feel qualified to advise CUNA on is the effectiveness of the campaign website and even the CUNA website as a whole (which I’ve stayed out of) at engaging an audience online even if that audience is Congressional staffers.
My job, day in and day out, involves engaging people online – building websites and social media campaigns, and teaching credit unions how to use the web more effectively. I’m not a professional writer (which I’m sure is obvious to anybody with a hatred of passive voice), but I would consider myself (and our team) to be professionals at online engagement. We’re providing free, unsolicited advice to CUNA here, and I don’t know of many people who care enough about credit unions to do that.
My next point: when it comes to the message, I’m not going to try to convince CUNA that the Little Guy is wrong as an icon on The Hill. However, if CUNA is planning on expanding this beyond that, the Little Guy 2.0 is not going to unite credit union members like it did eighty years ago when Roy Bergengren drew Little Man 0.1.
If the only audience CUNA cares about reaching with this campaign is 16k, CUNA is thinking on way too small of a scale here. Thus, my “wasted opportunity” assessment still stands.
Finally, I hope CUNA is tracking the stats of how many of these people have directly downloaded the pictures or visited the site.
If CUNA is monitoring traffic, most will be coming from this blog post and the original one from Callahan. If CUNA wouldn’t mind sharing that data, we’d love to know. You’ll find that this campaign is not engaging.
The nature of the web has changed. Simply having a website is not enough. It has to engage and provide real value.
I believe no one (ok, maybe one person out of the 148) cares about downloading their photo. Would you?
Thanks again for the comment and the discussion here. I don’t believe we’re beating a dead horse and it’s encouraging that the conversation continues.
The campaign’s success is based on the idea that the Capitol Hill Kids will have enough of a lull in managing America on any given day to dig out a little card (that CUNA is wishfully thinking has actually made it past the nearest trash can), dial in a website and download a photo of themselves with cardboard cut-out of a cartoon (that they were probably irked to have had to stop for anyway). That’s CUNA’s plan?
If all the more engagement they’re offering is the downloadability of a photo opp with a “celebrity”, then make it a real celebrity. Find someone well-known who has bought in to the CU ideal, BIll Gates for one, and persuade him to show up for a few point ‘n’ shoots on the Hill one afternoon. Even a known cartoon would be better than one with no extra-credit-unional history.
Or make the little guy an actual guy. Make another Jared from Subway. An honest-to-goodness success story, someone who got financially skinny, as it were. Not only will he/she be the physical proof of your value, but he/she is registered to vote.
Charlie, those are not bad ideas at all. However, we wanted to roll out the Little Guy as an empathetic character (some may agree or disagree Mr. Gates is such), and then build on the character as a metaphor for credit union members.
Regarding the staffers on the Hill; well, yes, they do have some downtime now and then, and the photos were a technique (OK, a gimmick) we employed to get them to look at the CU/Bank differences. Lots of newbies up there, so we felt it was a worthwhile approach.
Trey,
Only time will tell if the CUNA campaign is successful in achieving its intended goals. Like you, I too question some of the delivery, but I also realize that marketing campaigns are far from a science. I encourage you to step back some and recognize that your 3-4 years of experience, no matter how insightful, is still largely based on opinion and should be communicated as such. Overall I think you and Trabian bring interesting and challenging thoughts into a movement that needs some shaking up; I just caution you to recognize and embrace the subjective nature of your subject matter, which ultimately will make you more effective in getting others to hear your perspectives.
Chuck
Chuck,
I have been in the “movement” for 26 years now. I truly believe in people helping people, and I certainly don’t want credit unions to go under on my watch.
I have been waiting for CUNA to say what Trabian has been saying, since the HR 1151 days. We need to get serious and be honest about what we are becoming.
89 million Americans in working families. Okay,those are some impressive numbers. The charter structure is the same. Each member is an owner (on paper) they elect board members that are not paid.
But now it gets fuzzy.
Since our “victory” with 1151, credit unions have converted in record numbers to community charters. Many have taken in the “underserved” definition to expand—without a real watchdog to make sure they are serving the underserved. That’s like taking in foster kids for the checks.
They exist SOLELY to serve their members?
I remember the Little Guy. Then, as now, he was living paycheck to paycheck. And sometimes he would mess up. Courtesy pay back then involved a phone call asking him to make a deposit by the end of the day to avoid those pesky NSF fees. I made those calls—and 90% of the members would do it and thank us profusely and tell their co-workers how much better we were than their bank.
Today, courtesy pay means charging him $25.00 PER ITEM – to avoid those pesky NSF fees (on the other end).
Community banks are credit unions that pay taxes. I know why they’re angry. And I know why we’re fighting for our lives. The fight is getting bloody. We go to the hill once a year to “rally the troops” with the exact same message I’ve heard for a quarter of a century. But the rest of the year, we are not “staying in shape” for the fight.
We are allowing credit unions to merge at record rates and management to profit from many of these. Viable “little guy” credit unions who are just giving up. I know some of these are necessary—but many are not.
NCUA is doing a decent job of throwing up barriers on conversions to Mutual Savings Banks but what is CUNA doing to keep credit unions in shape for this fight?
When Dick Ensweiler was the chairman of CUNA I heard him speak at a Texas Chapter meeting. He said, “The best way to fight the bankers is to act like a credit union,every day.”
The Filene Research Institute has become my favorite credit union website (ironically designed by Trabian) because there is a wealth of information about credit unions AND they are always challenging themselves.
We’ve lost our mojo – our soul. That’s why the Little Guy creeped me out so bad. He has no eyes…..he looks old and tired and one dimensional. He looks like CUNA.
The boys at Trabian are my shining hope for the future of credit unions. They are credit union members – have been for years. They could probably make a lot more money developing webs for big companies. They are good. But they care. Like I do, about the future of credit unions.
Denise,
Did you even read what I said before your verbose rant? Credit unions are indeed at a critical juncture and need to start executing better on what the movement is capable of bringing to people’s lives. I too like the folks at Trabian and believe they can and do add value to the movement. I just hope to think that Trey has no interest in pontificating and alienating folks and that he would rather be more effective at changing perspectives and building consensus.
Dear Chuck,
To quote my friend Voren Hughes: I see Trey and all the folks at Trabian as watchmen on the tower wall. They survey the land looking for any kind of threat that would cause the kingdom harm. The kingdom being the Credit Union movement.
They are the first line of protection always on alert and ready to sound the horn in a moments notice to warn the kingdom of any oncoming danger. Although I don’t believe they are alone in sounding the horn, I do believe their voice is the one that resonates with the greatest clarity.
My comments were intended to encourage them to continue to speak up. I believe that there is a remnant that is standing along the wall lifting their voices with them and hopefully someday they will rise up and become the decision makers that will guide the CU movement back to its roots.
Political correctness has stymied the credit union movement for too long.
Trey,
I am surprised that I have not received a response from you. I am hopeful that you actually welcome opinions beyond the love fest you normally enjoy in this blog.
I do generally agree with you folks at Trabian and think you bring interesting thoughts to the space.
Sorry I missed you in Seattle.
Chuck
P.S. The WSA is having an interesting session on social networking in the business world and includes some high-profile and seasoned folks in the space. Check out: http://www.wsa.org/events/event.asp?EventID=659
Chuck,
You never asked me a question, and both of your comments mentioning me got a response from someone I deeply respect.
You expressed concern that I’m not objective. I would like to point out that I’m writing on a blog, not for a mainstream media pub and not in a business letter. I would hope that opinions come across as such because of the forum.
You say that I alienate others, but I keep my criticisms directed toward companies. I strive not to get personal. Making it personal isn’t a good practice in social media – in posts or comments.
I don’t know why you would think that I don’t welcome debate. I’ve never shut a commenter down no matter how negative he’s been. That being said, I reserve the right to say what I want here – just like you reserve the right to unsubscribe if you have our RSS feed, or just not visit the site if you don’t like the “love-fest.”
Thanks for your comments.
Trey,
I only took the time to provide constructive criticism because I believe that you and the folks at Trabian add valuable perspectives in the credit union space and I want your collective voice to be heard by as broad an audience as possible. Net result: bigger impact.
I thought my comments warranted a response directly from you and appreciate you taking the time to respond, although you have seemed to embrace nothing that I said.
I too am passionate and opinionated and firmly believe that you need to say what you believe. You know what I mean, the “everyone has a right to my opinion” kind of thing. However, with age I have also come to realize the importance of how things are said and that the best approach is usually a blending of many different and sometimes conflicting perspectives.
Back to building a company that I too believe has a positive impact on consumers through credit unions….Just not enough hours in the day between work and family!
Chuck
P.S. My RSS feeds to opensourcecu remain in tact and I will be sure to throw some “love” your way when I read stuff I agree with. Keep shaking things up in the credit union space.