I love how revealing the language of marketing can be some times. When marketers are insecure about their offerings, it’s a predictable consequence that the presentation will grow ever more over the top.
The long-standing “all-new” trend is a perfect example of this. When an advertiser is claiming something to be an “all-new” car/soap/computer/camera it usually means exactly the opposite. It actually hardly even means new, at best it’s most commonly just “marginally-new” or “just-a-few-tweaks-new”.
In any case, focusing on just the newness of something is usually a pretty weak selling point. How about you just focus on something that rocks about your product? If the product is great, your customers will most likely automatically be buying the new thing.
Jodi
on 28 Apr 09another symptom I see of weak marketing-product, is when the technology used to create the product is used in the product name or description.
there were some early rails examples (product names escape me), where the word “rails” or “ajax” were in the product name.
there are exceptions when the technology is germane to the product – like hosting, but otherwise it’s some weak minded marketing strategy trying to borrow the goodwill or marketing strength of something else (New Good, Verisign Trust, Rails == Cool)
Xavier Cazin
on 28 Apr 09Especially true nowadays, where proven products tend to be more reassuring — even better if they proved flexible enough to made it until today!
Jason Zimdars
on 28 Apr 09I was thinking something similar just yesterday when I noticed a bottle of shampoo in my shower had “new” printed on the package.
“New” is a temporary state, so I’m immediately skeptical of a product who has permanently printed “new” on their package—I doubt they are going to remake their printing plates when the product is established. It would feel much more genuine if “new” was on a label that was clearly applied after the printing on the bottle.
So then “new” just became another hollow nothing on the package and my mind turned to the marketing decisions that lead to just saying “new” for the sake of it. (I should add that this is probably my third or fourth bottle of this “new” product.)
In the end, it really doesn’t matter. I can’t remember the last time I read more than the product name on most product packages. It’s all just visual clutter printed all over wasteful packaging.
Federico
on 28 Apr 09@Jodi … you mean as : “ruby on rails” ? :)
Attila Györffy
on 28 Apr 09You can never underestimate the power of bullshit when it comes to marketing. “All new”, “pioneer” and “leading” are the magical words companies use to sell their products which are quite often don’t differ too much from others’. Bullcrap.
Roland
on 28 Apr 09“new” is just an attribute. like “big” and “old”.
They mean nothing except that you should buy it.
Nothing is better because it’s “only” new, old or big.
Anthony
on 28 Apr 09The other one that has been bothering me lately is over use/meaningless use of the word “exclusive.” I saw a commercial for TV movie that is now available “exclusively on DVD”, but I had noticed it on XBOX Marketplace just moments before. What did they mean, exclusively in old media on DVD? Exclusively in circular form on DVD?
Ravi
on 28 Apr 09That’s true indeed. Another way marketers throw in the bullshit for ‘All New’ is the crappy abbreviations they give for the ‘New’ technology used in the product, especially when it comes to FMCG or Automobiles making people think that there are some drastic changes in the product.
They just put in some abbreviated tag and say that’s new but when you look closely it’s something that is just a tweak as David said or worse, even something that already exists and they’ve just made it up.
Paul Leader
on 28 Apr 09Indeed, I’m reminded of the cosmetics industry and the continuous stream of “new” anti-ageing creams that they release with yet more pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo added.
Almost all of them have fundamentally the same set of ingredients as each other, and none has radically changed in years and yet there seems to be a “new” cream being pushed every month.
It’s up there with Web 2.0 on my marketing-bullshit-o-meter.
Paul
Brooks
on 28 Apr 09Interesting—in the auto industry at least, “all new” generally refers to a new platform and a significant redesign. Cars go through cycles of roughly 5-7 years, which incremental changes to sheet metal and interior during that time, then a major revision. That’s when you usually see “all new” used, I guess to distinguish a model from the usual annual update that is minor tweaks at most.
Curious that other industries don’t follow suit, but interesting to know.
Nick
on 28 Apr 09I hate it when marketers call products or services “the ultimate” or “best ever.” Might that come out with a new version later? What will they say then?
Adrian Holovaty
on 28 Apr 09Reminds me of real estate listings: “This condo is located in the hot Garfield Park neighborhood!” If the neighborhood is hot, a realtor wouldn’t have to point that out.
Ryan
on 28 Apr 09In addition to marketing, my pet peeve is when people (programmers) use the word “new” for method names to distinguish some new approach from the old one.
That is useful for at most a few weeks while the feature is being completed and tested, but like the shampoo bottle example above, they often forget to change the name to reflect its “Current” or “Old” status.
How funny/disturbing it then is for a truly new programmer to come along and find some code created in 2006 all labeled “new”.
coskunlar vinc
on 28 Apr 09They mean nothing except that you should buy it.
Christophe Franco
on 28 Apr 09True, but this is nothing in comparison to the single most infamous marketing word :
FIRST
Can be equally used to try to promote a product or a company btw. Expecially useful for saying something that (the dumbest) people will understand as extremely positive, while at the same time they can always come with a totally explainable justification for the use (you know, it’s not first as “first man on the moon”, nor first as “first in the top 10”, but rather “first in an obscure classification that was specifically handcrafted for the very purpose that it would justify the use of first”.
And it’s just even more ridiculous in some languages like French, where the equivalent word (in French, “premier”) also carry other possible meanings.
Walt Kania
on 28 Apr 09I agree. ‘New’ adds no steam at all.
For an exercise, try talking about a product without saying: improved, advanced, integrated, solution, scalable, strategic, next-generation, paradigm, faster, easier, reduce costs, improve performance, profits, downturn, agile . . .
It forces you to find better ways to show how this thing can help, and what it’s like to use it. Which is what customers want to hear anyway.
Clients, however, will insist on adding back the crap. But it’s worth a try at least.
J
on 28 Apr 09Interesting—in the auto industry at least, “all new” generally refers to a new platform and a significant redesign.
Take a look at the “All New Mini”. Then look at the “old Mini.” And then keep a straight face telling me the new one is ALL NEW.
coskunlar vinc
on 28 Apr 09Especially true nowadays, where proven products tend to be more reassuring — even better if they proved flexible enough to made it until today!
Nate
on 28 Apr 09True that. I get the same feeling when I hear a company say “We are the leading…”. Like Adrian said above, if that were true, you probably don’t need to be pointing that out.
Laurel
on 28 Apr 09Like the “Grand Opening” banners on restaurants that clearly have been through several winters…
Sandeep Sood
on 28 Apr 09The “all new” slogan has deeper roots. Most companies that sell items such as cars, cameras, and televisions work tirelessly to persuade consumers that the “all new” version is worth the hefty price of replacing their current model.
Many product designers take this even further, building products that will require replacement as quickly as possible.
In these cases, “all new” is not just a disingenuous marketing slogan, it’s a disingenuous business model.
Gary R Boodhoo
on 28 Apr 09I like how certain product categories, in an effort to seem more “genuine” will revert back to packaging and ID used in yesteryear – such as a type of sugar I sometimes see. Currently sold in little burlap bags, just as I guess it once was back in the day. In these cases, there’s an implied reassurance “same as it ever was”
I lol when I think of all products doing this. Its my new computer! Its so genuinely computational! Fills a room. USB punch card reader, just like they used in the 1960’s
Jason Zimdars
on 28 Apr 09As long as we’re at it, can we retire “New look, same great taste!”?
This over-used phrase gets dumped on nearly every food product packaging update. You know, for all of the people who think that when they updated the logo, they completely changed the product.
That one drives me crazy!
Paul Magee
on 29 Apr 09It’s true that “New” is used frequently on products that blatantly aren’t new. Mostly fast moving consumer goods. And it’s also no coincidence that quite often the basic claim of these goods is exaggerated. The shampoo won’t get rid of your dandruff, the diet soda won’t make you slim, the wrinkle cream won’t make you younger.
But it’s missing the point to think that marketers are doing this because they are insecure. These products are owned by some of the richest companies on the planet. And our houses are FULL of their crap. They know full well what they are doing.
They aren’t insecure at all. The human brain pays more attention to novelty. We crave new things. It’s a no brainer, when a consumer is faced with 500 brands of shampoo that they are going to notice the New Formula. We are hard wired for it.
Even if your shampoo “rocks”, the brain being what it is, would get used to it and bored with it, pretty quickly. Until it see’s something new.
Stu Collett
on 29 Apr 09Spot on!
Iain Dooley
on 29 Apr 09my favourite was when wonder white (a brand of bread in australia) came out with an entire campaign dedicated to … their new pack. that’s right: absolutely nothing different about the product. there wasn’t actually anything different about the pack’s functional design (like a handy new dispenser or a clamp that keeps the bread fresher), it was simply a different packaging design.
This discussion is closed.