Converting - Part 2

After years of anti-Macism, I'm considering a MacBook for my next computer.

A few things have brought this on:

• I'm tried of my current computer crashing or slowing to a crawl regularly. Part of the problem is hardware, part seems to be the evil Windows registry.
• I'd like my software to work more seamlessly with one-another.
• The number of my friends and associates using Macs has reached a critical mass.
• Macs seem to actually be decent machines now.
• A major project that I'm working on is very Apple-related.

However, I'm still not convinced that it will be worth it to change operating systems and all my hardware.

The biggest hurdle is still price.

On one monitor, I'm looking at Dell.ca. On the other, Apple.ca.
I've selected two fairly comparable laptops.
At first glance, the "base" price is pretty similar for the two computers. But then I start customizing...
By the time I've created the systems I want, the Mac is at least $600 more expensive. And the Mac is actually still a little less powerful (though it's hard to compare apples-to-apples, since they don't use resources identically). AND, this is just based on the Dell's standard price -- it's very easy to find a discount for a couple of hundred bucks off.

Is the Mac really worth that much more? Seems like that price difference would buy me a lot of anti-virus protection, other helpful utility software, an occasional "tune up" by a professional, and various hardware upgrades.

Then there are the conversion costs. I'll need to buy new software to replace what I already use on my PC. Some of my peripherals, cables, etc. will need to be replaced by Mac-friendly alternatives. And, I'm sure there will be a bit of downtime while I learn how to use the thing.

Here's the thing that bugs me: Much of Apple's extra cost appears to be unnecessary.
Take the hard drive, for example.
Adding 130GB to the Mac costs $150.
Adding 130GB to the Dell costs $80.
It's a hard drive. Nothing fancy. It doesn't care (for the most part) what OS is running or what device it's put inside. In short, it's a commodity. Why is the upgrade on the Mac nearly twice as expensive?

I realize that it's an "upgrade", not an outright purchase, so perhaps there's some sort of cost related to the customization. Or maybe the smaller drive is subsidized on the Mac or the larger is subsidized on the Dell. Or maybe some other weird reason exists.
But it still seems a little shifty.

Is Apple trying to charge me more just because they're Apple?

Even if the computer IS that much better, this "Apple-tude" (haha) continues to make me wary of switching.

What do you think?

Converting - Part 1

After 20-or-so years of avoiding Apple products, I'm considering a MacBook for my next computer.

Three main things that have kept me from Apple in the past:

1. Bad history. My first experiences with Macs involved trying to use them at school in the 80s. They were slow, black-and-white, and didn't really do much. At the same time, I had PCs at home that could do all sorts of amazing things in full colour (or whatever passed for "full" colour at the time - probably EGA). The so-called better interface never had a chance to impress me. Or maybe I was just used to DOS by then and didn't need a pretty GUI.
Over the years, additional attempts to use Macs were similarly disappointing. The original iMac was a mediocre computer in a fancy case, for example. Simple little things like the lack of a second mouse button drove me nuts.

2. Price. Even if Apple products were better, the amount better never seemed to justify the extra cost. I just knew that much of the pricetag was going towards the pretty housing, slick (but unnecessary) animations, etc. The benefits of everything being proprietary (basically, the fact that the various components would work together nicely) didn't override its resulting expense nor compensate for the lack of flexibility and options. Lack of viruses and a nicer interface don't mean much if they cost me an extra thousand dollars.

3. Apple fans. Hardcore Apple customers have always been a little annoying. To the point where I actually avoided Apple just to avoid being one of them or to give them any sense of satisfaction from converting someone.
They're perfectly wonderful people most of the time , but as soon as you try to talk with an Apple customer about technology, branding, design, or other areas where Apple stands out, they turn in to some sort of religious fanatic. Not only could Apple do no wrong, but nothing Microsoft, IBM, Compaq, or other related companies did was any good.
Any time someone got even a minor virus, the Apple people had to speak up. If a PC advertisement was made using an Apple product, you were always sure to hear about it.
Even when an Apple product failed miserably or the company did something stupid, they would find the silver lining. Newton wasn't successful... well, at least the company tried something new and helped launch the PDA concept! iPod batteries don't work very well... but the company was willing to replace them!

So, that's the perspective I'm coming from.
Up next: A comparison of my current options.

Good News/Bad News?

There's a Linens N Things store near me. They have two big banners hanging out front:

"Going out of Business!"
and
"Now Hiring!"

Huh?
Either the going out of business process is going to take a while, or they're having trouble retaining employees. Or both. Not the most enticing mixed message to be giving to either customers or workers.

My initial pessimistic interpretation was:
"We're going out of business, but you'll probably get an even better deal if you come back in a couple of months"
and
"Our former employees would rather be unemployed now than work with us for a little bit longer"

(The first is actually accurate - they have another sign that shows the available % discounts and it's been increasing week-by-week. I have no idea if the second statement is true.)

Show Me

Received an e-mail from Las Vegas' New York New York resort promoting their new casino.

This is the image it included:


Instead of showing me a shot of the actual casino, they choose the most generic, over-used stock-style photo possible. Why?

The Tub Story - Part 3

And here's the response that eventually came from the tub manufacturer about a month after we sent the letter. The following is the actual voicemail message I received (with just a couple of omissions for privacy's sake).

"Hello. I'm calling back on behalf of MAAX Canada. I'm just phoning to let you know we did receive your letter regarding an issue you had with your tub. Unfortunately at this time we are not prepared to offer any compensation as we do not offer compensation just for loss of use on a unit. And unfortunately that is probably our final stance on this. If you would like to call me back and discuss it further you can..."

So there we go.
Here are the key lessons I would want to learn from this, as a marketer:

1. Timing counts. By the time I received this message, I had already been contacted by the retailer and given the response outlined in the previous post.

2. Tone matters. It's certainly not hostile, but not exactly friendly. Basically, it's dismissive, with a "tough luck" attitude right from the beginning.

3. "Any" is a strong word. They're not prepared to offer any compensation? Not even a bit of money back? Not a coupon towards another purchase? Not a set of towels? Nothing?

4. Don't belittle the complaints. "...just for the loss of use..." Just? Just? First of all, "loss of use" is pretty important. Second, either they didn't bother to read the whole letter or they didn't take the (many) other issues very seriously.

5. Don't start off in your ending position. It's not very good form, in any context, to start a discussion with your "final stance". It comes across as uncooperative, and implies to me that they're not even interested in hearing anything further. Even if it really is the case, and it's the best they can do (which is just sad), common etiquette would be to at least say something like "Unfortunately, our policies are fairly specific in this regard, but let's discuss your situation to make sure everything is clear."

Overall, it's the attitude that bugged me the most. The attitude of this response just reinforced all the negative thoughts I had about this company after months and months of dealing with screw-ups, costs, and inconveniences of all types.

And this was emphasized even more because it was such a contrast to the response from Home Depot I had received a few weeks prior. I suppose it's possible that the retailer was the true cause of most of the problems, but I can't help but assume that MAAX was the really issue.

The Tub Story - Part 2

Here's the response from the retailer, Home Depot.

Unfortunately, I don't have a transcript of the exact conversation. But, essentially they said:

"We're sorry. You're right; this shouldn't have taken anywhere near as long as it did, and the problems you encountered were far from normal. We've removed the entire purchase from your account balance. "

This reply came about a week after we dropped the letter to them in the mail.

Obviously, I'm very happy with this conclusion. They're willingness to make things right almost makes up for their contributions to the original problems. In my mind, they're not the bad guys, and I'm happy to continue shopping with them. I'm confident that any potential future problems would be dealt with fairly (although not necessarily promptly).

Coming next: the transcript of the phone message I received from MAAX, the manufacturer.

The Tub Story - Part 1

I've been planning to post this ever since I started this blog. Warning: it's long. Yes, even longer than my normal ranting.

As you read through this, you'll get the point. First, below is a letter we sent to two businesses (a retailer and a manufacturer) regarding a bathtub we bought. Next, I'll post the responses I received from both businesses.

I've edited a just a few small details for the sake of privacy. Otherwise, the following is what both companies received from me.


______________________

We are writing to you regarding our ongoing issues with the purchase of a MAAX jetted tub through our local Home Depot store. We have waited for final completion of the tub installation (and a sufficient “testing period”) prior to summarizing this experience, its costs, and the difficulties we have faced in order to ensure that there are likely to be no further problems.

We feel that Home Depot has made some effort to compensate us for the extremely negative experience we have endured, but they appear unwilling to take further steps. We are unsure if any of the compensation to date has been shared by MAAX.

Quite simply, we require additional compensation (whether from MAAX or Home Depot is not our concern) due to the degree of inconvenience, sacrifice, and unnecessary cost we have endured.

The experience:

- First tub arrived with damage to a jet – noticed upon initial fill and test.

- Contacted MAAX by telephone. Very gruff and uncooperative representative agreed to send a plumber to look at it. Did not provide any information about how long this should take, normal process, etc. without prompting from us.

- Waited over a week for plumber to make arrangements for inspection/repair, but received no phone call.

- Contacted MAAX by phone again to see what was wrong. Rep offered to contact plumber again.

- Shortly after, plumber called and indicated that it would be a couple of weeks before he would be in our area and able to come to the house. It struck us as extremely poor customer service that the "local" service representative did not even live or work in the region.

- Plumber finally came to the house, saw the damage and agreed that it should be covered by warranty. But, he did not have the necessary parts for the repair with him.

- Plumber called a few days later to say that he had received the parts, but did not get a tool he needed.

- Plumber made his own tool to replace the one that didn’t arrive, and returned about a week later to repair the jet. Made the repair, but in the process noticed that there were miniscule cracks throughout the bottom of the tub that neither he nor we had noticed before. We suspect that this was because dust had accumulated in the cracks, allowing us to see them. Plumber’s opinion was that the cracks were due to damage at the factory or in transit to us.

- Unsatisfied with the service or quality of product provided by MAAX, we contacted Home Depot. They sent the local Kitchen and Bath department manager, about a week later, to inspect the tub. Immediately upon viewing it, he agreed that it should be replaced, verifying the plumber’s belief that the damage was caused by MAAX, shippers, or Home Depot staff.

- Home Depot re-ordered the tub from MAAX.

- Approximately a month later, the new tub arrived.

- Upon delivery to our home, we opened the cardboard packaging and found that one corner of the tub had been badly damaged.

- We refused delivery of the replacement tub.

- Delivery driver indicated that he would have Home Depot management contact us. After several days of no contact, we phoned them and finally made arrangements to re-order the tub yet again.

- Approximately one month later, a new replacement tub arrived. Upon unpacking, it appeared to be in good condition. However, we soon saw that the motor/pump was located on the incorrect side. We returned this tub and a replacement was ordered.

- Approximately a month later, another replacement tub arrived. We inspected this in the driveway, prior to the delivery drivers even fully removing the tub from the vehicle. It also had the motor/pump on the wrong side. We returned this tub.

- Finally, approximately one month later, a tub arrived and we inspected it at the Home Depot store, prior to delivery. It was without damage and with the correct configuration.

Because Home Depot dealt with MAAX on our behalf, we don’t know whose fault the various mistakes were. However, we know that:

- the MAAX service person is very inconveniently located a days' drive away and unable to deal with problems in a timely matter.

- re-ordering the same product multiple times resulted in the incorrect product delivered twice.

- two tubs arrived in damaged condition

- proactive communications from both MAAX and Home Depot were very poor

The entire experience took over 7 months from ordering of the tub to arrival of a final, working product.

We feel that we have been extremely patient during the process, but believe that we are entitled to significant compensation. Home Depot has offered a refund of $300 off our original price quote. This represents a price of $1,125 plus taxes, equivalent to a discount of 21% off our quoted price. We feel that this is highly insufficient.

Please note that, in addition to all the above problems with the tub itself, the $300 credit has not appeared on our Account Statement.

Our original price was based on a 10% discount promotion. Had we made the purchase mid-way through the process of waiting for the tub, we actually could have taken advantage of a further 10% discount offer available to all purchasers. This makes our “extra” discount intended to compensate us for the problems just $141.60 or 10%. This is, frankly, a pittance and hardly more than a gesture.

Please advise how you propose to compensate us further for the following:

- Extra tile, plumbing materials, and other supplies purchased when waiting for the initial tub under the assumption that any extra could be returned to the suppliers for refunds. Due to the extremely long timeframe, the maximum return dates for these have long passed.

- Various car trips to Home Depot to deal with the problems in person.

- Various days home from work to be available to meet service and delivery people.

- Untold hours of extra time for phone calls, store visits, receiving and inspecting product, re-installation of the final tub, etc.

- Having a completely unusable bathroom for many months.

- Having a completely unusable garage (as it was storing the various other supplies for the bathroom project) for many months.

We estimate that the out-of-pocket expenses for the first two of the above (extra supplies, materials, gas, etc.) is at least $250. Our time for the next two of the above (missing work and actual time invested) is worth significantly more than this. The inconvenience for the final two points above is of immeasurable value, but significant – for example, we avoided gatherings with friends, having guests, etc. for months due to a lack of sufficient bathroom and storage facilities.

We have also spoken with friends who experienced very similar problems with a MAAX tub. After discussing their issues and compensation (full reimbursement), we are very secure in believing that the complaints outlined in this letter are not unreasonable.

Please contact us as soon as possible to discuss what options are available for appropriate compensation. Ideally, we believe that full reimbursement for the cost of the tub is in order and hope that the events surrounding our purchase experience are far from ordinary for Home Depot and MAAX customers.

Disappointed

I've said a few negative things on this blog about several brands and organizations. So far, only one (hi Paula!) has bothered to comment publicly or contact me privately.

I'm disappointed. It's not that I've purposely tried to instigate anything, and I don't think I've said anything particularly shocking, but I would expect someone (officially or not) to question some of my opinions and conclusions.

Do they not care? In their minds, is this "just another blog" where some jerk is complaining because he can?

Or are they ignorant? Do they not bother folowling how they're being discussed online?

Priorities - 53% is More Than a Third

Here's an article on ITBusiness.ca discussing how banks need to add Web tools to attract younger consumers.

First of all: "Well, duh."

Second: Okay, it's not really an article. More like a Microsoft and BMO (Bank Montreal Of) press release discussing the findings of a Microsoft sponsored study.

Third: Something bugs me about this line:

"When choosing a new bank, one-third of millennials cite online services as important. That's second only to competitive rates and fees, at 53 per cent."

As a Web guy, I appreciate the long-overdue attention that online tools are getting. But, as a marketing guy, I can't help but wonder if this is enough, based on the above numbers. Unless the banks improve their fees and interest rates, all the fancy widgets, site features, instant messaging, twittering, etc. won't do a thing to help them. (At least for as long as competitors are offering those better fees and rates).

Fix your product, not just your communications.

Bad For You

McDonald's and their media agencies should really be more careful.

For some reason I actually watched non-TiVo, live TV a couple of times recently.

One instance was an episode of "Jamie's School Dinners", in which celebrity chef Jamie Oliver helps convince schools and their students to change from fast food style meals to healthier options in their cafeterias.

The other time was last night, when I was watching a couple of shows on TLC. One was about Polygamy, and has almost nothing to do with this post.

But the other was about treatments being undertaken by various "super morbidly obese" people -- individuals so large that they can't even leave their house (and often can't even get out of bed). Obviously, a key part of these patients' problems stems from enablers who bring them too much junk food. The TV program was not subtle at all about showing all the fast food garbage that these peoples' families bring into the house.

In both cases, fast food is the enemy. McDonald's, as one of the biggest names in the field, was a common example; maybe not by name, but certainly implied.

Here's the head-slapping part:
In Jamie's School Dinners, he shows a group of young students how chicken nuggets are made. It's disgusting ("all white meat" or not).
Not two minutes later, a commercial break comes on. Guess who's advertising? Yup. And guess what product they're promoting? Yup.

The obesity show wasn't quite so bad, but in the following program (the above-mentioned polygamy show), there's our friends Mickey D again.

Okay, maybe the second example is forgivable. Perhaps its not realistic for the media planners to see what else is on the schedule near the advertised show. And it might not be feasible to avoid that channel altogether.

But, c'mon. Who was the idiot who thought "We should promote something that we know isn't the healthiest in the world on a show that's very overt and explicit about how bad our food is!" ???
It's not a new show. It's not a surprise that the "nuggets" example will come up.

Great branding, McD's.

We Used To Suck

I don't know if it's a growing trend, but I've noticed a strange increase of (supposed) honesty in ads lately.

The Republican party had a well-known one during McCain's campaign. Basically, the approach was "The last eight years have been pretty bad, haven't they? Well, we're going to change that" (And never mind the fact that our candidates voted in favour of most of the bad decisions of the past eight years).

Gillette is now encouraging consumers to toss out their old re-usable razor handles and buy new ones, because the old ones actually aren't that good. But the new ones are great!

Campbell's soup has a really interesting ad. Its voiceover talks about a man who, in the not too distant past, told them that he didn't feel comfortable feeding Campbell's to his family. The catch: they were concerned because he's a Campbell's employee. But now, everything's great and the food is no longer horrible!

The optimistic part of me wants to praise these brands for having the courage to own up to not-so-great past.

But the pessimistic part of me wonders if things have really changed. Is this just the new "open" way to say "New and Improved!" ? You told me your product or service or ideas were great years ago, so why should I believe you now?

Social Media in a Nutshell

Every election, people put up lawn signs to proclaim who should be elected or how you should vote.

The signs on people's lawns actually have some value: you see how your neighbours plan to vote. This is worth something. If my whole community seems to be leaning one way, maybe theres a reason I should think about. Or... if I go past a neighbourhood that I don't relate to (too rich, too poor, too old, too family-oriented...), I might see their votes as contrary to the direction I want to go.

But...
The signs in public places -- highway exits, construction sites, parks -- are meaningless. All they tell me is which candidates have the most marketing money. I don't know where they got it. And I don't now who is supporting them.

The first example is social media.
The second is plain ol' ordinary mass advertising.

It's not the number of signs that matter, it's where they're put.

How Do You Define "Valuable"

What makes a customer "valuable"?

Big spender? Usually.

Low cost and effort to serve? Probably.

Tells lots of friends about you? Should be.

Regularly comes back to you? Of course.

Readily forgives you? Hope so.


You see where I'm heading.
Yet the first of these seems to be the only definition many companies care about.

Pay Us To Fix Our Mistakes

Air Canada has a policy that if you call their customer "service" phone number to do anything that could be done online, you pay a fee of $25.

Wow. Talk about a bad customer experience.

If I'm phoning, it's probably because:
a.) The Web site sucks
b.) I don't have Web access at this particular moment
c.) I'm not familiar with or comfortable booking or changing or doing whatever else online
or
d.) Air Canada has screwed something up and it needs to be fixed. In this case, I wouldn't have to pay the fee, but its very existence would just remind me of their anti-customer attitude and reinforce my frustration at needing to call in the first place.

In any of the first three situations, why demand payment from a customer?

I'm sure this policy began as an honest attempt to reduce call centre costs, shifting routine bookings and other common transactions to the Web. But it's so broad that it does more to discourage booking with Air Canada than it does to encourage booking online.

A Test of Celebrity Endorsements

If there's one thing that brings out the celebrities with opinions, it's a US election.

First, there's the (supposedly) non-partisan efforts to simply encourage people to vote.
This year's "Don't Vote" campaign is a prime example. (Heads up - there's some strong language in the video below).



Then, there's the party- or candidate-specific endorsements.

It's hard to think of a celebrity who hasn't weighed in on who they support. And let's face it: this time, it's clearly Obama that virtually everyone is endorsing.

Performers ranging from Jay-Z to Jimmy Buffett to Bruce Springsteen to Billy Joel have given concerts in support of him. Sarah Silverman's contribution has been viewed over a million times on YouTube. (Watch out - even more strong language in this one).



And there are about a gazillion other examples.

So... here's the test:

1. Will voter turnout, especially among young adults, be particularly high?

and

2. Will Obama win in a landslide?

If the answer to either of these isn't a resounding "Yes", marketers need to consider giving up on the idea of celebrity endorsements once and for all.

I mean, if they can't encourage people to do something that's obviously important and easy (vote), and/or encourage people to do something that most seem in favour of anyway (vote Democrat), how can we possibly expect them to successfully encourage people to buy over-priced shoes, switch razor brands, or save Tibet?

Oops

Coincidence, intentional shenanigans, or an inherent problem with keyword targeting?

In the olden days (using print) this has happened to me as a media buyer. One of the first ads I placed was for a natural gas company. The ad ended up on the same page as a story about a house explosion AND another story about a gas leak.

Sure, there needs to be a separation between editorial and advertising interests, but it was still inexcusable that the person doing the page layout didn't notice the inappropriateness of a gas ad for that page.

Is the above example excusable because the ad is served automatically?
Is it the buyer's responsibility to create a set of "do not place my ad beside..." rules and criteria?
D0 digital media publishers have a responsibility to keep an eye on each of the millions of ad impressions they serve?

Studies... and Reality

JP posted an interesting article on his blog recently:

"Are video ads really worth the added cost? An iPerceptions study may suggest otherwise. The study found that, despite current buzz around video ads, marketers do not need to spend on fancy interactive ads in order to reach consumers. In fact, consumers are most likely to click on simple text ads..."

It then goes on to point out various stats to support this position, including
"...only 11% of consumers said they were likely to click on video ads..."

The emphasis above is mine. You can probably guess where I'm going with this.

Regardless of what the respondents said, I care more about what they actually do.

Let's compare this study to an online campaign I'm currently working on:
In this campaign we're running some ads with very basic animation, some with fancy animation and interactivity, and some with full-motion video.
The average CTR for the "fancy" animated ads is roughly two-thirds better than that of the "basic" ads, and the average CTR for the video ads is approximately two-thirds better than the "fancy" ads.

Quite clearly consumers - at least those in our target audience - are more likely to respond to the more interactive, more engaging, more video-y ads.

This makes me really question the accuracy and validity of any of this study's conclusions.
And this isn't the only thing that's rubbing me the wrong way.

It also bugs me that they assume that clickthroughs are the main objective for advertisers, or at least a primary measure of success. Yes, clicks are important, but they aren't everything. Perhaps the study as a whole addresses other success measures, but I didn't get that -ahem- perception from their release.
For example:
- what about people who see "fancy" ads, don't click on them, but are influenced to go to the advertised site anyway? (perhaps when they see a simple text ad at a later date and are reminded of the video ad they saw earlier...)
- what about the role of the "fancy" ads in educating and informing consumers? Isn't there some value in a user gaining some insight into an advertised brand before they even get to the landing page? A simple text-only ad might get a click, but it isn't necessarily a well-qualified click.

And so on and so on and so on.

"Best". Yeah right.

I received an e-mail about an event being presented by the AMA next week. A screening of award-winning ads from Cannes.

The tagline from the e-mail:
"See the world's best advertising. Where the ideas are big and the logos are small."

I can't stand (most) advertising industry awards. Their definition of "best" is exactly why traditional marketing budgets are cut so quickly by the bean counters. It's also why so many billions of dollars are moving to (highly accountable) online channels.

I would define "the world's best advertising" as advertising that strongly communicates a brand's identity AND presents a call-to-action that successfully encourages the target audience to (directly or indirectly) do something that benefits the brands long-term goals.

In fact, I would go even further. I wouldn't just consider how well the ad conveys the desired message, but also how well it even reaches the right people in order to convey that message. In other words, it's not just about the creative department.

Instead, the presenters, sponsors, judges, and participants in awards shows are more likely to define "best" as the prettiest or funniest. That's it.

The above tagline really shows how a lot of so-called creative people think. If it were up to them, they wouldn't show the client's logo at all. Actually, in their perfect world, the client wouldn't be involved in the process at all.

At a conference I attended a couple of years ago, someone in the audience made an excellent point during a session about the creative process. In a nutshell, he said "Unfortunately, most advertising isn't about being creative; it's about being clever. Clever gets attention, but creative makes an impact."

More Lies

I'm currently disputing a charge with a credit card company.
They sent me a form to complete, and indicated that I have to return it within 10 days or they'll consider it closed.

The form is dated 6 days ago.
The envelope is postmarked 2 days ago.

If I wasn't on top of my mail, there's a very good chance I wouldn't have been able to get this back to them within their 10 day window if it's based on the date they've put on the form.

Nice try, guys. Either your outgoing mail department is very inefficient or you're not being entirely honest. Either way, that's a bit ridiculous.

See What I Mean?

Looking back at my last post, check out this bit of purposely-shocking "reporting":

My RSS reader shows me the headline: "Wall Street set for dive after futures freeze"
I then click through to this article, titled: "Wall Street plunges at open on recession fears"
The article, though incredibly short, uses a couple more fun adjectives and verbs, like "plummeted" and "dumped".

Not only do the two headlines not even match up, but there's no information in the article about "futures" specifically. And not even any evidence, quotes, or analysis to confirm that today's dive/plunge is related to recession fears at all. Beyond this, the drop it talks about is about 4 to 6%. Hardly the biggest or fastest change we've seen in recent months. AND... if today is like most others recently, the markets will probably "rally back" at some point and recover a lot of this value.

I understand that fear-mongering is a major part of journalists' jobs, but every day I feel like they're trying harder and harder to collaboratively push towards a particular result or sentiment among consumers.

Economy Branding

Hey media: Knock it off.

We get it.

Economies worldwide are having difficulties. Investments are losing value. Consumer confidence is decreasing.

Talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy. A so-called "expert" starts shouting "Everyone's selling! You might want to sell now before it's too late!" And (gasp!) people start selling and (gasp!) prices drop, prompting (gasp!) more selling...

I'm no economist (thank goodness), but it seems to me that a lot of the panicking (at least in the places I've personally been living during the past few months) is enormously unjustified and exagerated. I still see pages upon pages of Help Wanted ads in the paper.... Housing prices are still at ridiculously high levels... Shops and malls are stuffed with people... Construction projects are still going full-steam, and new ones continue to be announced... I have difficulting finding avails when booking an ad campaign...

So why does it feel, even to me, like I should be nervous? Why is there this general sense of "the sky is falling"? Why is, literally, everyone talking about economic tough times?

It almost feels like a really successful branding campaign.
Somehow the governments, media outlets, activists, and other fear-mongers have managed to create a general sense of economic unrest, uncertainty, and even panic.

I can almost picture a boardroom filled with marketing-types reading through a client brief and brainstorming ways to build their message.

"Okay, so a few sectors are having trouble. US banks really screwed up. Iceland is having some troubles. Consumers are currently thinking 'I should be careful where I invest and what I spend'. How do we change this to 'Oh my gosh! Everything is terrible! I'll be unemployed and living on the street in a week!', guys?"

"Let's release a white paper showing the worst-case scenarios!"
"How about a PR blitz with some experts talking about how scary everything is!"
"Great idea! And I'll send out some talking points to my media contacts that they can refer to in every single article they write!"
"Can we get a few celebrity endorsements? Maybe a pop star or former world leader?"
"We need a tag line. What do you think of 'It's an economic crisis!' or 'Here comes the Credit Crunch(tm)!"
"Awesome!"
...


(No, I'm not a conspiracy nut who actually thinks this happened. I just think it could almost make a case study for building a brand image and shifting consumer perspectives)

(And yes, I realize that the economy IS having a lot of difficulty in certain industries and geographic locations.)

Rule #2

Open the door.
Or, if you can't open the door (yet), tell me when it will open and what I'll be able to find at the time.


It's disappointing to see businesses that are uninviting and drab -- the sort of places a new customer doesn't want to bother entering. But I'm talking about something even more basic.
Literally, just open the door.

In Spain, if you walk through a town during siesta or any other time outside of business hours (and there are a lot of times outside of business hours), you'd swear that certain streets must be purely residential, or perhaps all the shops and restaurants have gone out of business. Doorways are blocked by big metal shutters. All the lights are turned off and blinds are drawn. Neon signs are turned off. Not a single "Back in an hour!" sign is hanging on a door. And worse still, even during business hours store after store looked closed.

During a recent trip there, I was constantly encountering difficulty in simply window shopping. I had no idea which businesses were open. I couldn't tell (from the street) what many of them even sold. Very few restaurants placed their menus in the window for future reference -- nor did they indicate when I should return for dinner.

Openness (again, quite literally) should be a key feature of almost any brand. Hiding from your customers just doesn't seem like a good idea. (Maybe with the exception of a ultra-exclusive, members-only, high-end brand).

Rule #1

Hey, here's a crazy idea for businesses:

Make it possible for people to give you their money.

A couple of examples...

I tried booking a flight with Atlas Blue between Morroco and the UK. After going through the whole process of selecting a flight, entering passenger details, and entering my credit card info, it told me there was a problem with my card. I called their call centre to find out why, and learned that they can only accept European credit cards. I asked if there's was any alternative way to pay, such as a money transfer, cheque, cash at the airport, or anything else. Nope, credit card only.
Apparently, it never occurred to them that:
a.) Some customers might not have (or want to use) a credit card
and
b.) Some customers of an airline might be from other parts of the world.


More commonly, I've also encountered several businesses in Europe that only accept credit cards with "chip and pin" technology -- something relatively uncommon in North America right now. It's annoying, but at least most of these businesses accept other forms of payment. But, still, is it really that difficult or expensive to setup your point-of-sale systems to accept "swipe" style cards?

Even more annoying was the inconsistency. Some companies accept only one type of card at their self-serve terminals, but both types if you paid a cashier/attendant. It was a complete crapshoot with the train system in the UK. Two identical-looking machines would behave completely differently from station to station. Even the staff were unsure whether or not a particular terminal or location would accept my card.

Of course, the dumbest part is, again, that a lot of the places were traveller focused. Surely I wasn't the first person from North America to visit these tourist attractions, restaurants, transportaion companies, etc.

Is this something that somebody forgot to teach in business school? "If people want to give you money, help them out."

One Thing

I've been spending a lot of time in England lately and I've noticed an interesting tendency.  It's probably not all unique to the UK, but one of those things that you notice as an "outsider".

In a way, it's scapegoating.  Basically, when talking about their problems, English people will pick one thing to blame, depending on the context of the conversation.

For example, a lot of traditional olde fashioned neighbourhood pubs are closing down.  Now, if the conversation started as a discussion on what they charmingly call "the credit crunch", THAT will be the reason that pubs and so many other businesses are closing.  Those darn bankers are the cause of all the troubles.

However, if the conversation started off as a discussion on the latest smoking laws, THAT is the reason (and the only reason) why pubs are having trouble.

Or, if the conversation was about immigration... well, you get the idea.

People like simple answers.  I guess it makes even the most ignorant or uninformed person feel proud of themselves.  By latching on to part of the actual answer, they can feel content in knowing that they've figured it out.

In marketing, it's much the same.  Marketers constantly have to feed a simplified, singular idea to the masses.  "Our product does X."  "You need Y to fix your life."  "The best thing about our service is how much it Z"...

I suspect that to an "outsider" this is no less ridiculous than making a single (yet completely changeable) issue the reason for an entire country's ills.

A Quick One

I haven't posted in a while (that will change soon), but here's just a couple of quick little thoughts.

A friend recently sent me a link to a contest presented by GasPedal.com (a viral and word-of-mouth marketing resource), where entrants have a chance to win a copy of Guy Kawasaki's new book.  Very simply, you get a chance to win for each friend you e-mail about the contest.

Two things came to my mind as I filled out my entry form:

1. I love how they phrase their contest rules/disclaimer.  Obviously, there are plenty of ways that someone could mess around, trying to get a gazillion entries.  Instead of worrying about a long legalese statement, they simply say:

"Enter as many times as you want, but if you try to somehow rig the system or spam anyone, we'll delete your entries and tell everyone what a loser you are."

I wish more sites (and brands in general) were like this.

2. I'm curious to see if I see much advertising for this book on sites like Facebook or LinkedIn.  I've included "Guy Kawaski" as an interest or favourite author, book, etc. or various profiles I've created.  Seems like a perfect place to target me.  Pretty easy to set up, too.  

Any established brand, but especially a personality like Guy with a loyal fan base, should be taking advantage of the great ability marketers now have to target prospects based on interests (and brands) that they've explicitly expressed an interest in.  No fancy behavioural targeting algorithms or anything else like that -- just look around for the people who already like you...

The Most Important Part

We all know that "marketing" is actually the collective name for a vast assortment of tasks and activities -- advertising, sales, customer care, distribution, and so on. But, it seems like the most important aspect of this collective is one that most people don't even think belongs under the marketing umbrella.

I've mentioned this area before, but recent personal experiences have reminded me of it.

I think the key to marketing and branding is: human resources.

Obviously having good people in your customer service department and other customer-facing roles is vital. But it goes a lot further than this.

Here's an example:
I was recently visiting Paris and trying to enjoy the city. The obvious "customer service" side of things is apparently not-so-obvious to the French. Unfortunately, the majority of employees simply did not even bother to pretend that they were happy to see me, let alone serve me. (There were exceptions of course -- most staff at my hotel were quite good, for example).

But, this was hardly a surprise. To be honest, even before the trip I assumed that I would get the stereotypical, almost cliche, French attitude to "service" and didn't get my hopes up.

Who really let me down were the behind the scenes people.
The people who would call themselves "logistics" or "operations" or "administration" or anything except "marketing".

Why, for example, would a person in the transit system's planning department create a ticket structure that requires a new ticket to be used for each journey but not account for the fact that some "journeys" require leaving a station (or section of a station) and re-entering another (and therefore need a new ticket)?

Why does the operator of a paid toilet facility have an employee who's sole purpose is to take a 50 cent coin and give a token (worth 50 cents) back for the customer to use in a turnstile?

Similarly, when there's a line stretching around the block at the entrance to a museum, why use a valuable employee to - instead of selling tickets and alleviating some of the lineup - glance at each customer's ticket as they enter? (A ticket that was sold to the customer 10 seconds earlier by another employee just a few feet away. )

Who would schedule room service in a hotel to start at 9am -- long before check-out time and before many people are even out of their rooms?

Back to the transit system: Why shut down the EXITS from a station when it's closed, but leave the ENTRANCES open?


I bet that NONE of the people responsible for setting up or maintaining the above systems, processes, procedures, etc. would ever describing themselves as working in a marketing, branding, or customer service department.

Maybe we shouldn't even have marketing departments. Instead, change the CEO into a CMO and make it clear to all staff that they are actually reporting to this head of marketing. Continue doing the same job, but perhaps change mindsets so that everyone is thinking "My job is to profitably do XYZ for customers and clients".

The Last Minuters and Other Exceptionals

Traveling by plane and going to a show (concert, film, or whatever) have some strong similarities.

-You're supposed to show up at a certain time.
- You go through some sort of production where you're searched or a piece of paper is scanned, ripped, marked, etc.
- You either have an assigned seat or there's a mad rush to find a good one.
- You sit or stand for an extended length of time, pretty much staring forward the whole time.

And so on.

Both types of experience are often ruined by a certain group of people. I'm not referring to the staff (though there are plenty of horror stories about them), nor the majority of the other patrons. I'm talking about the handful of exceptional people. And not "exceptional" in a good way.

These are the folks who show up at the last second and have to be rushed through the lineup so that they don't miss their flight.
Or the couple of guys who decide to start jumping up and down and whistling during a concert (while everybody else is still seated).
Or the family that wanders into a general admission show five minutes before the curtain rises and shove their way into the empty area in front of the front row, only to get upset when people try explaining that they can't sit there.
Or the person who thinks that it's perfectly acceptable to have "carry on" luggage that's so big and heavy that they can't actually CARRY it ON without a great deal of struggle and assistance. (Rule of thumb: if you need little wheels on your carry on, it's probably too big).

I won't even try to understand what goes on in their tiny little brains. Maybe they're selfish, maybe they're just oblivious, or maybe they're complete idiots.

Regardless, the actions of the Exceptionals hurt the experience of everyone else. And therefore harm the brand. Brands need to recognize this and push back (nothing gives me greater pleasure than to see a security guard, gate attendant, or other employee explain the rules to someone and send them away).

(Can you tel that I've been traveling a lot lately?)

Doing the Math

Following up on my last post:

I was just on a flight (Alaska Airlines - usually a really good company), where they wanted to charge us $10 for a portable entertainment device thingee. It sits on your lap and plays movies, TV shows, music, etc.

Looking around, it appeared that maybe one in 10 (if that) people actually paid for one.

So, let's do the math:
Assuming 1 in 10 buy, a plane with, say, 200 passengers = 20 buyers.
At $10 each, that's $200 revenue.

Compare this to the "old way" of just having a few screens drop down from the ceiling.
If the airline simply added $1 to every ticket on the flight, revenue would also = $200.

Cost-wise, both options have their own pros and cons.
As far as actual "product", I'm sure the personal players are better in many ways, since they allow users to pick and choose their entertainment.

But, all these other things being equal, what's the brand impact?

Personally, I feel that the airline is being cheap with the "personal player approach". It just serves to remind me of all the other things that used to be included in the price of a flight that are no longer available (at least not for "free"). I'd much rather pay an extra buck for my ticket and put up with a mediocre movie or two. Or, ideally, still keep a handful of the personal players for those passengers who want them -- treat it like an extra, not a substitute.

I'm a cheapskate, so I appreciate airlines reducing costs by cutting services. That's especially good for short, low-price, regional or commuter flights. But when we're talking about a several-hundred-dollar, multi-hour flight, how many passengers would care about (or even notice) a price difference of less than, say, $10 on their ticket?

A Quick Question

Has nickel and dime-ing customers every worked? Ever? For anyone?

If anybody has an example of this business model or direction working for a brand, let me know.

Airlines and banks are the worst offenders, but there are plenty of other industries that have started to do this.

"We won't raise the price of our core product or service (much), but we'll add a 'fuel surcharge' or a 'convenience fee' or a 'service charge'..."

I'd really like to know if this has worked in the real world, or if the airlines, banks, etc. are fooling themselves thinking that this direction will help save their failing businesses.

Digital Is Unlimited

There's virtually no extra cost or effort involved in making something "bigger" in a virtual medium.

Yet for some reason, some brands act like they're paying by the word.

I've been planning a trip for the last couple of months and in the search for places to stay I'll often come across online listings like "Great accommodations near town. Low prices. Includes kitchen."
That's it.
Why not write something descriptive? I'll even excuse poor writing if it means I'm getting lots of content.

Same goes for Web sites. It's incredible how many sites have almost no useful information in them. It almost seems like the company has purposely held back. Why not share everything that you'd like people to know? Put it on a sub-sub-sub-sub page if you don't want it to distract users. But at least make it available.

This isn't just an "online" concern, now that almost any medium could incorporate digital aspects.

Here's an idea: Payment machines at parking lots usually have a tiny little LCD screen and about three or four buttons. How often do customers have a question about operating hours or emergency contacts, or some obscure question? Pretty often, I'd venture. So most lots have rules and regulations posted on signs scattered throughout the area. Why not turn the machine into a payment AND information centre? How difficult could it be to add a simplified "FAQ" to the machine, and let people scroll through information about common issue? The display doesn't have to be pretty.

Another example along the same lines: Why are security system panels so brief and vague? You know the ones -- a small scrolling LCD window that says something like "Dr 4 Zone 3 warning". Is there really any reason why this couldn't say "Obstruction detected in south side of warehouse, near kitchen door" ?

Information is great, and having it available will (usually) immensely help improve the customer's experience.

Lower Price Alternatives

Depending on the airline you use, it's now becoming cheaper to ship your bags ahead of time rather than checking them onto your flight.

This chart breaks down several options, including two ends of the airline spectrum, a couple of couriers, regular mail, and a couple of specialty operations.

Assuming that the trend continues, here are my two cents:

1. Fedex, UPS, and other courier companies would be very smart to open branches inside airport terminals. Both Fedex and UPS own chains of business service retail outlets (Kinkos and what used to be Mailboxes Etc.), so they certainly already understand the model of a small storefront location. Bonus: they could offer airport customers other services like Internet access, printing, and so on -- something severely lacking in most airports.

2. Comparing the two airlines on the chart... Southwest's fees are low and they're doing relatively alright. Delta's fees are high and they're constantly in financial trouble. Coincidence, or is this just an illustration of how screwed up the big "legacy" airlines are? Hmmm, I wonder.

Oblivious

My wife finally closed a mostly-inactive bank account last weekend.
She would've liked to have kept it (for a number of reasons) but was finding it hard to justify paying fees each month for something that she used for paying a single recurring bill (and even that was recently changed to a different bank).

Anyway, it struck me while we were there just how out of touch with reality the institution was. They seemed entirely oblivious to:
- what their competitors are offering
- the fact that consumers have a choice
and
- what's standard in other industries (and therefore coming to be expected by customers)

They seemed to have no knowledge of (or even interest in) the fact that other financial institutions had zero-fee options.

We were there mid-afternoon on a Saturday, and they were already closing up for the weekend. Meanwhile, the stripmall they're located in was still packed with people going to various other businesses. Not to mention that at least two of their major competitors are quite aggressively promoting their extended operating hours.

Adding insult to injury, peppered throughout the branch were signs announcing their new fee structure, in which the majority of the most-common transactions were increasing in cost.

And then there's the brand impression of the actual closing of the account:
First, they didn't seem too concerned to be losing a customer. Made no effort to try to find a solution that might keep us happy.

Second, the actual process involved a security check (to make sure they give the balance remaining in the account to the right person) in which they had to request a signature card from my wife's "regular" branch (that she hasn't actually been to in years). This signature was from 1980-something. Really useful. And of course the account is in her maiden name, so her current ID wasn't sufficient. After much waiting around, they eventually decided to just give her a bank draft in her maiden name, without actually requiring any valid ID. So much for security.
They somehow simultaneously managed to make the process both:
a.) Pointless
and
b.) Time consuming
One of these is acceptable, but both is bordering on an airport security level of ridiculousness.

I really wonder if this institution will continue to exist for many more decades if they don't change. How many people out there are actually satisfied with the extremely-limited bankers' hours, being forced to go in-branch for things that could be done by phone or Internet, paying fees for (literally) nothing, etc. etc. etc.?

How To Tell That An Ad Was Written Elsewhere

I just heard a radio spot for a credit card that earns airline mileage points.
It's a discussion between two people. Pretty standard: one talks about all the miles she's earning just by making regular purchases.

Here's the great part: she's excited by the prospect of earning enough miles to fly to Seattle.

From Vancouver.
A three hour drive.
A trip that can actually take longer by plane due to check-in requirements, waiting for luggage, the fact that both cities' airports are located somewhat outside of the city centre, and other factors.
A trip that few people would really get excited about taking. (Nothing against Seattle, but people in Vancouver hardly think of it as an exotic destination)
A trip that nobody in Vancouver would actually spend mileage program points on.

I get the funny feeling that this ad resulted from the following conversation:

Toronto Ad Agency Account Manager: "We need a Vancouver version of the radio spot."

Toronto Ad Agency Creative Type: "The usual?"

TAAAM: "Yup. Two people talking. Excited to earn miles. Flying to a fun destination. Blah blah blah"

TAACT: "Okay. What destinations are within the lowest reward level for Vancouver flights?"

TAAAM: "Ummm. Vegas... Portland... LA... Seattle..."

TAACT: "Vegas and LA are a little overdone. I don't know anything about Portland. Seattle sounds nice."

TAAAM: "Beautiful. Go for it."

More Than Art

I just re-read my last post and think I should elaborate or clarify one point.

When I mentioned the need for a campaign's intangible "atmosphere", I'm referring to a lot more than art direction or the literal look-and-feel. And when I say "pervade", I'm not simply talking about lots of impressions or a heavy ad frequency.

Pervasiveness throughout every possible aspect of the marketer's contact with the target audience is key.

Everything in, say, a horror movie conveys "scary" (except when it's dramatically more noticeable or necessary to lighten things up): the music is deep and spooky, the lighting is a little bit shadowy, things don't always appear in perfect focus, the costumes have a certain roughness to them, there are lots of subtle sound effects, and on and on...

Same with a light-hearted romantic comedy: the music is light and usually uses a familiar hum-able tune or two, everything is well-lit, the main characters are dressed immaculately and have perfect hair and clothes...

I should get the same feeling from a marketing effort. I might not even consciously notice most of the little details that are creating this "feeling", and maybe that's a sign of success.

Making A Movie

The topic of "direct response" vs. "branding" advertising came up during some meetings yesterday. The consensus is pretty obvious that some combination is necessary for virtually any campaign. I like the analogy of filmaking:

You've got the straightforward, memorable, quotable, easy-to-tell-others-about aspects like the script, locations, and the big special effects sequences.

But equally important is the intangible stuff -- the score, the camera angles, focus techniques, editing style...

Sure, you could do without the latter, but it will probably be pretty boring story (even if the actual dialog is amazingly written). This part (the atmosphere, for lack of a better term) is what makes a film stand out with fans and critics. But in the business world, its marketing equivalent tends to be overlooked or under-appreciated.

Branding and the overall "feel" of a campaign need to somehow pervade everything you do. It's almost impossible to attach an ROI to this type of thinking, though, and even harder to be quantify the impact it has on the success of the more tangible components.

Something Airlines Actually Get Right

Airlines have a bad reputation for customer service. Very few have a strong, respected brand when it comes to treating us like anything but cattle or anonymous seat-fillers. However... generally, if there's a serious problem with a flight (delays being the most common, of course) they'll actually try to compensate the affected passengers.

Here's the important thing: they don't just compensate you with "Here's your money back; you can have this flight for free" or something similar. They will often go an extra step and offer an additional flight (usually anywhere in the region), a free upgrade to Executive class, or something else that's above and beyond what you "lost".

Restaurants sometimes do this as well. Your entree was screwed up? Have the entree for free, and we'll give you a free dessert, too.

Sadly, though, most businesses (most industries, actually) don't take this approach. Even companies well-known for taking care of customers will stop at "making it right". No-hassle return policies, for example, or replacing a broken item with a brand new one.

I'd like to see more brands go that extra step. They should recognize that it's not just about the broken product, or the delayed flight this time, or whatever. Beyond the negative brand perception caused by a problem, there's generally a literal, tangible extra "cost" to the consumer.

Thanks for replacing that broken DVD player with No Questions Asked, but:
a.) Why did it break in the first place? I'm not so sure about buying from you again... What happens if the replacement breaks, too? Am I going to look like the bad guy?...
and
b.) I had to unhook the broken unit from my home theatre, package it up, hop in my car, drive to the store, explain the situation, get the new product, and re-install it.

(The above's just an example. This exact situation hasn't actually happened to me, but you could substitute a hundred other things in place of "DVD player")

Once in a while, I'd like to see a customer service clerk actually say "Sorry about the broken DVD player. Here's a new one. Want us to test it out before you take it home? We'd be happy to attach a bunch of the cables for you as well to save you time when you get home. And here's a $15 gift card. Go ahead and pick out a DVD of your choice (or anything else, for that matter) while we're doing that..."

Now THAT would impress me. I'd have no hesitation about buying from that store again. My impression of the product manufacturer would also improve. It would simply be nice to see that the full impact of the problem is recognized and appreciated.

Do You Really Know What's Important?

Here's a great video of Malcolm Gladwell from the 2008 New Yorker Conference.

He discusses the "mismatch" problem of using the wrong metrics to predict success. Some really interesting ideas here. As usual, after listening to his perspective, you tend to think "Well, obviously." Yet it's quite likely a completely different perspective than you started with.

Why do we automatically assume, and simply accept, that smaller class sizes are better for students?
Why do we automatically assume, and simply accept, that testing athletes' strength, endurance, etc. through a series of drills will show their capacity to compete in their sport?
Plus a bunch of other examples.

In a way, his ideas relate to my previous post about trying to quantify the qualitative. It's not just that we've chosen the wrong metrics to examine, but that some things are simply too complex or variable (human, in other words) to even try applying any fixed metrics.

This perspective adds credibility to the shotgun approach. Perhaps we're better off trying many different things (on a small-scale, test basis, of course) to see what really works.

Instead of job interviews, for example, what if every halfway decent candidate actually tries doing the job for a couple of weeks? Sure, it would be expensive and time consuming, but is it any worse than having an ongoing staff turnover problem because you're constantly the wrong people?

When launching a new product, how do we know if it will be successful or not? Most companies apply a series of assumptions: the price is similar to what customers already pay for a comparable product... it fulfills a need that focus groups tell us customers want... it's the same shape and colour as the industry's best seller... And on and on. Yet even though we "know" all these things, an enormous number (I would even suggest the majority) of new products fail miserably.

I'm looking forward to reading Gladwell's new book when it comes out this Fall. In the meantime, this video has made me think about a few things:
1. Re-evaluate the metrics and success criteria. Do I actually know that a certain measurement is a good indicator, or is it just a long-standing assumption?
2. Re-evaluate the very "quantifiability". Can success even be measured at all using a strict, quantifiable set of criteria?
3. Test and trial. Whenever possible, see how well alternative ideas/people/products/directions work.

Great Expectations

1. Google Analytics has been giving me troubles lately. For some reason, the tracking code disappeared from this blog, but Analytics was still saying that data was being received correctly.

My expectation was: "It's weird that I'm no showing any visits, but hey, it's Google. It'll probably fix itself. This should be idiot-proof."

I guess there's a real risk in people thinking too highly of you.

2. Waiting for a bus last week, the one scheduled for 10:00 never arrived. No sign of it anywhere. No notice on their Web site (or anywhere else) that there was a problem. The 10:30 bus arrived a couple of minutes late, but within the normal time. It was as if the 10:00 bus never existed.

My expectation should be: "It's the bus company. Their entire purpose is to move people around on a specific schedule."

Instead, my expectation (because this has happened countless times before) is: "Don't count on the bus system to get you anywhere at the time its supposed to. Only use the bus when you've got plenty of time to kill."

No wonder ridership never reaches the levels it should.

3. Went up a local mountain yesterday for a hike. Discovered that there's a lot of snow up there still, but we decided to hike up anyway. Nothing too dangerous or steep, but it's still a good workout to walk in the snow uphill. Coming down we decided, totally out of the blue, to pull a plastic bag out of the backpack and slide down the hill. One of the most fun things we've had a chance to do for a while.

I knew I was going to have an enjoyable hike, but had no idea that it would be such a fun day.


Based on these rigorous experiments, here's my expectation formula:

s = a/e

"s" being "satisfaction"
"a" meaning "actual"
and
"e" meaning "expected"

When the actual experience is better than expected, satisfaction is high. When the expectations are set high, and the actual experience is relatively poor, satisfaction is low. When actual and expected experiences are similar, satisfaction is minimal.

Might be a bit obvious when you think about it, but it looks more impressive as a formula, doesn't it?

Thinking about changes over time, you could make this more complex...
As "s" decreases or increases due to the above, it causes "e" to decrease or increase, which then sets a new level of "e" (e2), resulting in a new "s" (s2)...

I guess the main thing I'm getting at is that it's a good idea to think about this relationship from time to time. If you aren't keeping up with expectations, you need to either improve your actual experience or lower the expectations that you're setting. If you don't, consumer expectations are going to change anyway (and you've lost the chance to direct that change in a desirable direction).

Robbing Peter to Pay... Peter

I recently received a big shiny $100 cheque from the provincial government. It's part of their
"climate action" scheme. I guess I'm supposed to use it to do something good for the environment.
Tomorrow, gas taxes go up 2.4 cents per litre for similar reasons (and to pay for these $100 cheques).

Governments do this all the time. Essentially: we'll take a bunch of money from you, then give some of it back (after covering administrative and bureaucratic costs of course).

I can sort of see the logic behind the program, since the people who drive least will benefit the most, and its the government's job to redistribute wealth. But it still seems convoluted (and more than a little unfair -- why pick on driving but not the thousand other ways that people hurt the environment?).

Businesses are just as bad.
It's not quite the same, but price promotions seem to follow the same kind of logic.

Rebates are the worst...
"We'll charge you more than we have to, then give you back a portion of it. Eventually."
(I'm still waiting for a TiVo rebate from last Christmas).

Tell you what, Mr. Shopkeeper: Instead of giving me $10 off and paying $5 towards the administration of the rebate program, just give me $15 off at the till.

I recognize the value of discounts, rebates, coupons, sales, etc. and have even used them in marketing programs that I've run. But they need to serve a purpose, or at least be special in some way. Use coupon codes to track which marketing initiatives have been effective... Hold a big, attention-grabbing, newsworthy sales event...

Just giving a discount to try to create the illusion that customers are getting a deal is extremely wasteful and inefficient.

Of course, everybody does it. It's the standard "marketing" solution for any company that needs to temporarily boost revenue.

But how long before consumers get tired of it and start to ignore it? Or worse, how long before people clue in and just wait for a price promotion, never buying anything at regular price?

Personally, when I see a big "Everything 50% off!" sign, my first thought is "They can afford to sell everything for half price, still make a profit, and cover the cost of all the promotional materials. I guess that means I'm paying way too much the rest of the time."

Wal-mart may be a big evil corporation, but one thing you have to give them credit for is that they simply charge low prices all the time. No gimmicks or temporary discounts (well, a few, but those aren't their main promotional message).

Another "Does This Actually Work?"

Why are banks and credit card companies such annoying marketers?
Not always, of course (some of my favourite clients are in the financial industry), but there seems to be a disproportionate amount of bad marketing coming from them.

I just received a DM piece from American Express informing me that I've "...been selected to apply for a no-annual fee..."

Wow! I've been selected! I get the rare opportunity to apply for a credit card!

Seriously - do they think that any consumer is actually going to receive this and be excited at their good fortune?

It's not even addressed admail, so I'm assuming this is just a mass mailing to my neighbourhood.

Don't pretend that I'm special.

Part of a Complete Breakfast

You know what the most amazing health food is? Chocolate sauce mixed with nuts. You should give it to your kids. For breakfast.

Yup.

According to the sample of Nutella that I received in the mail this week, Nutella is all about nutritious breakfasts. The little brochure that came with the sample even says "Learn more about nutritious breakfasts at www.nutella.ca."

Unfortunately, when I go to the Web site there's not really any information about nutritious breakfasts. They use the tagline "Spread some energy", which is kind of related, I guess, but not exactly the same thing. There's one page of nutritional information about the product, but that's hardly teaching me about nutritious breakfasts either.

It doesn't even have that silly "Part of this complete breakfast" thing that you see in cereal commercials (where the bowl of cereal is surrounded by about fourteen bananas, six oranges, a bale of hay, a gallon of apple juice, a pair of running shoes, a set of weights, and a personal trainer).

Based on the brochure and the Web site, here's the entirety of what I know about the product's nutritional features and benefits:
1. It uses all natural ingredients.
2. It has no preservatives
3. It has no artificial colours
4. It is a source of vitamin E.

Wow! It's practically a green salad with low-fat dressing!

Okay, sacrasm off.

Is it just me, or is this a stretch for the brand?
I have to wonder why they've chosen to position this product with the term "nutrition".
I can understand that they don't want to be associated with ideas like "give your kids candy for breakfast", and probably don't want to be limited to being seen as an "adult" product. But... there's a big leap from "this product is actually not that bad for you" to "this product is great for you!".

The "spread some energy" slogan seems like a much better fit, so I wonder why "energy" isn't their driving message. I can also see some value in an approach like "Even fussy eaters love Nutella for breakfast", since I'm sure a lot of parents have trouble getting kids to eat a proper meal in the morning. So it's not like the product has nothing going for it and has to focus on nutrition. The quality of ingredients needs to demoted to a secondary message.

Maybe I'm totally wrong, but is anybody* really buying the idea that a chocolate spread is a generally healthy choice for kids? To me, all they're doing is reminding me that this is the same stuff that Ferrero Rochers are made from.






(* or, at least, anybody who can afford this premium product? I doubt that the target market is the "bag of Doritos for breakfast while watching wrestling in a trailer down by the river" audience)

Official

Pet peeve time.

For some reason, I really don't like it when marketers use the phrase "The Official (insert product/service) of (insert season/holiday/occasion/emotion)"

Soft drink companies are particularly bad for this ("The official taste of summer!", "The official drink of Christmas!"). But they're not alone. Some companies even use a variation of this as an ongoing slogan ("The official source of relaxation!" "The official home of saying 'I do'!).

Now Airmiles is doing it:

Stop it. Nobody has granted you this "official" status. Nobody even has the right to grant you this. It's just silly.

It's Never Too Late

So, following up on my previous post about how sometimes brands need to just do things because they're expected and not make a big deal about it.

A good example is the reusable shopping bag. By now, it's too late for any company to start selling these and expect it to automatically be a great marketing opportunity.

There's a difference between "noteworthy" and "newsworthy". Do something good that others are already doing is just noteworthy.

BUT...
Do something good in a new way and it might become newsworthy.

UK retailer Tesco is launching and selling a series of reusable bags that are created by a well-known designer, and with proceeds going towards a charitable cause. They aren't the first to do this, of course -- as this article points out.

However, the combination of:
- a high-profile designer
- releasing a series of bags (thus making them somewhat collectible) rather than just one
- the charity tie-in, and
- the fact that this is one more stage in an already-started program to reduce plastic bags
helps make this a bit of a big deal.

It's not a drastically different approach, but its enough to make it more than just another bag.

The Value Is In The Second Beer

I had a nice "networking evening" with other local marketing folks a couple of weeks ago. Nothing fancy - just a casual gathering of various people who work in the same field. It seems like everybody in this city is "two degrees" from everybody else -- anytime you meet somebody new, chances are you share a mutual friend or business associate -- so it's always nice to combine some of the various circles.

Anyways, something that made the event even better was that everybody attending got a drink ticket and shared some appetizer platters. There was no charge to attend and it wasn't sponsored by anyone, but we still got some goodies.

I didn't ask, but I assume these were provided by the pub where we met. (If I'm wrong, somebody else who was there please let me know). If I'm correct (and let's assume I am for the remainder of this post), it's great to have a pub (or restaurant or any other business for that matter) that understands the value of hosting group functions.

They know that the average person is going to have a least a couple of drinks (alcoholic or otherwise), and that several people in the group are going to order additional food items beyond the appy platters. They also know that most people in the group are going to get a good impression of the place and come back again (paying fully next time).

How many businesses, though, don't get this? They see a large group of customers as a chance to sell a larger-than-normal volume. The last thing on their mind is "Let's automatically give the people in this group a bunch of stuff for free that they would probably pay for anyway."

Extra Shiny (But is it current?)

Following up on my previous post about presenting timely information vs. deep or broad information...

In that post, I wondered about Google's brand direction, using their presentation of real-time stock data as an example of "currency".

Now they've released something pretty neat that demonstrates the opposite (yet complementary) side: lots and lots of detail.

Teaming up with Disney, Google Earth now allows you to explore a highly detailed virtual Disney World.

Very fun, but is it particularly useful? Can I plan a trip to the real Disney World better because of this? Will I better remember past trips there, using this like a computer-generated photo album?

Google's brand is supposedly about presenting all the world's information in an easy-to-find-and-use way. This certainly succeeds, though I think it will be a gazillion times better if overlaid with real-time data.

Imagine if I could "fly" through the virtual park, see a ride that interests me, zoom in, and immediately learn valuable information? Not just facts and figures, images from the past, etc. but current line-ups, maintenance schedules for the next few weeks, how the ride might be effected by current weather conditions, and so on?

Just some thoughts.
I'm still eager to see where Google is taking their brand in regards to timeliness vs. depth.

Here's a video someone has made using Google Earth. (Warning: You will get the French version of It's a Small World stuck in your brain).

A Model, Not A Unit

Monster.com has announced that they're shutting down their "social network" Tickle. This follows Conde Nast, Verizon, and other major brands who seem to giving up on using this approach.

I think the major problem is that companies see the whole "social" online space as a new business unit, not as a business model that impacts their existing operations. When it doesn't pan out as an easily defined revenue-generator or marketing tool, they panic.

Monster didn't need Tickle as a separate entity. What they need are ways for their millions of job-seekers, employers, and workers to compare notes, meet each other, and contribute to something valuable. How is filling out a bunch of quizzes on a subsidiary network helping achieve this? If they really want to take advantage of the Internet as a social medium, they need to implant social thinking and capabilities throughout their main brand site. They've got a great opportunity -- who wants (needs!) to socialize more than people looking for work, career advice, or a new hire? The company should be putting its energy into figuring out ways to help this socialization on monster.com, not into trying to build a new place to do it.

Looking at Microsoft, they're trying to compete with MySpace and other social networks through their Live Spaces product. It's not a bad collection of tools and places allowing users to meet and share with one another. But MS have another product that I think will be an even bigger application of the social phenomenon: Photosynth. This tool literally pieces together thousands of shared photos (and other data down the road, I imagine) to create an enormous collage.

The social aspect is described towards the end of this video:


They also show some other pretty cool technology.

Steal a Business Model

Why do certain businesses (and industries) do marketing in a certain way?

For example, it seems like every timeshare company uses the same shtick:
Acquire a broad list of prospects.
Filter with very loose requirements (not too poor, not too young, preferably married...)
Contact them by phone and offer a free trip or other goodies just for attending a short sales session.
(They probably don't use the word "sales", but some sort of euphemism).
Convert a bunch of these prospects to attend the session.
Know that only a small portion of those who commit will actually attend after thinking about it some more.
At the session, try to wow them with your amazingly wonderful investment and vacation opportunity.
Hold back on giving away the freebies as long as possible.
Try to wear away their resistance a little bit a time.
And so on.

Why?

Surely some timeshare companies must be offer a good, legitimate product. So why not approach marketing it in a way that isn't associated with a high-pressure sales scam?
I'm sure the above process must work, to some degree, but I'd love to see a brand take a completely different approach to:
a.) Get even better results
and
b.) Differentiate themselves in a competitive marketplace

They don't even have to come up with a completely original scheme* - why not just borrow one from a different industry?
Just a few ideas, totally off the top of my head, for the timeshare example:
- sell them through travel agents like other vacation options
- sell them through financial advisors like other investment opportunities
- setup a retail storefront where people can browse the available properties in a comfortable, low-pressure setting
- use the capabilities of the Internet to sell extra-small shares efficiently

There are probably a million reasons why these are bad ideas, but I'd be there's a way to make at least one of them (or something similar) work quite well.

Here's an example of a company that's broken out of their industry's "normal" sales and marketing processes: Spence Diamonds.

Buying jewelry can be quite a stressful (and, obviously, expensive and serious) experience. It seems like most jewelry stores are designed more to keep people out than to invite them in. The decor is pretentious, the staff are often snobby (I'm not sure why - they only work there, they don't own the place), the products are all under lock and key, you have to shop with a salesperson looking over your shoulder, you have to ask permission to see any items you're interested in...

At Spence, though, the store looks and feels more like any other retailer. Some of their locations look like they could be selling furniture or electronics. All the products on display are fakes, designed to let you see what the real items will look like, but made of much cheaper materials. So, you can pick up and check out any ones you like. Staff will leave you alone if you want them to. It's actually quite a high-volume business, so the staff make very good money for a retail position and are quite cheerful and friendly (interestingly, since they're the ones who could get away with being snobby)...

The strange thing is that they're very successful with this approach yet few of their competitors have changed to follow suit.

It would be great to see other industries with a negative or controversial or questionably-successful approach have their own highly-successful exceptions.

And if the industries that have any sort of negative reputation can do, why not the "good" industries? Let's see a restaurant that takes some good ideas from a plumbing company, or vice versa. Or a car dealer that acts more like an appliance store. Or a lawyer that feels like anything but a lawyer.


* Funny how the word "scheme" has a bit of a negative connotation in North America. Maybe it sounds too much like scam? In other English-speaking regions, it seems to be used in a much more positive light.