Posted By CWebster on 26 May 2009 01:44 AM Rob, I certainly see the reasoning for using "robot" and no doubt it draws a great many people; however, speaking for my self, I can safely state that if the word had been commonly used in connection with this hobby a couple of years ago, I would probably never would have become involved. The term leaves me absolutely, totally cold. Again, that's just my opinion. This points out one of the important fundamentals of marketing/advertising that is often missed: The same message doesn't always get through to everybody. What grabs one person by the eyeballs & won't let go, another person dismisses completely. One might assume that what catchs my eye will automatically catch the eye of all other like-minded individuals. Unfortunately, that's not always true. Even if it were, the best one could hope for would be to catch the attention of that small minority who happen to think the same as we do, have the same set of interests, talents, life experiences, etc. Our very uniqueness and individuality is our own undoing, if we try to market to others like ourselves. That's part of why multiple messages & themes are needed. Even people who are demographically similar will often respond to different messages. Heck, even the same person can respond differently depending on time of day, day of week, or whatever they just finished doing. Look at how cars are advertised. Some ads will stress performance; others stress safety; still others show how much stuff you can carry, while others show how tough & able to take abuse a vehicle is. Often the same vehicle will be presented multiple different ways. There really isn't one "right" or "wrong" way to market our sport/hobby. With regard to the use of "robot(ic)" in the title, it may attract some while turning others off. That's just like a car ad showing a whole soccer team piling out of a mini van might appeal to some, but others find the image unattractive (never mind that that same mini van, presented differently, might be the ideal vehicle for them if configured to haul other cargo). Different audiences need different presentations. A common technique used in advertising is "split testing". This is where different versions of an ad are used (usually 2 at a time, but sometimes more), and you measure which gets the better response. Adjust the message based on the responses measured, and repeat. Then repeat again, and again, and again, ..., each time refining the message a little more. Professional advertisers use this technique to drill down to details such as which color schemes work best, which spokesperson, etc. Our big mistake, as a group, is in thinking that there is only "one" way to market ourselves, and then expecting to put 100% of our marketing efforts into that one "magic" channel. That's not how Marketing professionals do it, though, and for good reason. JM
Very true. I remember working at my college radio station, back in the '70s, when we had a promotional deal with Anheuser-Busch. They sent us a tape of radio spots to choose from. There must have been 20-30 commercials of different lengths aimed at slightly different audiences. It came with instructions for selecting the perfect spot based on your station genre and audience demographics. Another thing to consider when choosing marketing terms is truth in advertising. Not in a legal sense, but in considering the feelings of you audience. If you call it robotic warships, then people come in thinking they are going to see race boats with claws, and spinning blades. If they feel what we deliver is entirely different they may feel cheated. You run the risk of alienating people that might have otherwise enjoyed the show. At the very least you are less likely to pull new members from a group of people that thought they were coming to see something very different than from those that showed up because they really wanted to see us.
