Editor’s note: This commentary is by Rich Nadworny, of Burlington, an entrepreneur, writer and VPR commentator.
[O]ne of the more interesting items in Gov. Phil Scott’s budget proposal was a $750,000 line item for increased state marketing and branding. The media focused on the fact that the Agency of Commerce had not requested this increase but seemed pleased to receive it. Since it’s early days, we still don’t know how specifically the agency intends to spend the money. But we’ve seen a growing insistence from business groups in Vermont that the state spend more money on marketing.
This reminds of an episode from the early days of Gov. Jim Douglas’ administration. In 2003, IBM announced yet another round of layoffs, an action that again sent ripples of anxiety through state government. It was hard to spin this in a positive way, at all.
At the time, my team did some online work for a department in the state. My contact there called me up one day and asked if our agency would be interested in helping out with “big” advertising initiative. He told me that the governor felt the need to do something “bold” when it came to the business climate and he and his team had decided to run a four-day print advertising campaign for $100,000 in the Wall Street Journal. They wanted to send the message to the world that “Vermont was open for business.” The goal of the campaign was to attract businesses to move to Vermont. My contact wondered if were interested in helping out.
Of course we were! All of us had a great deal of interest in growing the Vermont economy. We felt glad that the state wanted to invest in that.
So the first thing we told the state was that spending $100K on four mid-week, quarter-page ads in the Wall Street Journal was a complete waste of money. Most advertising works when it has the reach and frequency to make a repetitive impact. Advertising with a clear urgency or call to action (think limited time sale) has a good chance of making people take notice and act. Once in while the actual creative work in the ad is so good and compelling that it works even if it isn’t shown very often (think Apple’s 1984 ad which ran only once in prime time, during the Super Bowl).
We quickly came up with a number of other actions and concepts that we believed had a better chance of attracting business, but they were slower and more serious. No, we were told, the governor wanted to “make a splash.”
We didn’t have the budget for frequency in the Wall Street Journal. We didn’t have a very compelling or time constrained offer. If the state insisted on running four ads in the Journal, we believed our only chance was to create an ad that really stood out among the typical, branded (and expensive) advertising that typically ran in the paper. We also put forth an insight that, if you’re going to move your business to Vermont, you have reasons that may or not be business logical and might have more to do with the type of entrepreneur you are or the life you envision living. In short, those business owners might be a bit different than your typical American business owner.
The most famous example of this is IBM CEO Thomas Watson Jr. An avid Vermontophile, he had already built a ski lodge in the state. Because of his love for the state, business leaders were able to talk him into building an IBM factory here, a move that had profound impact on the state. We figured that we were trying to attract someone who already had great experience with the state or someone who would recognize the advantages of our quirkiness.
He looked for a long time, chin in hand, and finally said, “I always tell my people they have to get out of their boxes. But I’m having a hard time getting out of my box on this one.”
My very clever boss had just read an article in the local paper about artist Dug Nap. I knew Dug through my volunteer work at one of the state arts organization. He suggested I talk with Dug and see if would be interested in helping us develop something unique.
I did and the concept that eventually sprung from Dug’s hand is one of my favorite marketing concepts of all time. It was typical Dug Nap: offbeat pictures that showed the other or “real” side of Vermont, the opposite of those classic beauty shots of our natural beauty. He called it, simply “Entremanure.” It was a series of very surprising pictures of the talents of male and female Vermont entrepreneurs.
Because it was so different, I tested it with a bunch of different people, to see how they’d respond to it. I even pasted it in the Journal to see how it stood out versus other ads there. The response was pretty overwhelming. More important, there was a clear sense of Vermont pride from everyone who saw it.
I’ll never forget when we presented the ads to the department head and his deputy. He looked for a long time, chin in hand, and finally said, “I always tell my people they have to get out of their boxes. But I’m having a hard time getting out of my box on this one.”
In the end the governor’s team decided go with the agency that worked on tourism marketing. And they produced lovely ads, typical of many economic development efforts in rural states. Here’s how the Burlington Free Press described the campaign:
“The ads feature photos of spectacular Vermont scenery. One shows a single car motoring down a long deserted blacktop through farm country: ‘What you get at the end of the day … has a lot to do with where you start it,’ it says. Another with a lake in the foreground, fall foliage beyond and a mountain rising in the background says ‘We’re known for beautiful mountains and lakes. But you should see our talent pool.’”
The ads had the effect the governor desired: both the Burlington Free Press and the Rutland Herald ran big articles on the initiative. The Free Press led with the headline “$100,000 campaign promotes Vermont” on the top of the business section. That headline and article pushed down another article about IBM laying off 400 people below the fold.
For the next 12 months I continually asked my client and contact about the results of those four, $100,000 ads. I was told that the only result were sales calls from a couple of business recruitment and relocation consultants. Not one business moved to Vermont because of that “bold” ad campaign.
I can’t honestly say that Entremanure would’ve done any better. Our original assumption, that short-term advertising to solve a long-term problem was a fool’s errand, had more truth than not. There are a lot of rational and irrational decisions that go into running any business, let alone moving one to another state.
My worry with Gov. Scott’s proposed marketing budget is that it hasn’t learned from past experience. If the goal is truly to recruit businesses to move to Vermont, is advertising, online or offline, really the right way to go? It would be interesting to do some research into what makes owners move a business to a place like Vermont. I would bet you almost any money that a Facebook ad won’t make a big difference.
I still think we’re looking for Entremanures. Free range ones, of course.