I don't think moderate differences make much, well, difference.
Minor little changes or differences (between people, between competitors, between product versions, or whatever else) are good. They play on the familiar and the safe.
Mega changes or differences are also good. Show what's spectacularly new, unique, or exciting about something.
The variations that fall somewhere in the middle are quite ignorable.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Friday, January 25, 2008
Quality: Part 2
When it comes to business success, does quality even matter?
Think about some of the biggest, best-known, longest-lived businesses in North America.
Millions of people shop at Wal-Mart (many of them, almost exclusively). Millions of people eat at fast food chains and drink sugar water daily. More people drink a handful of the big beer brands than all the micro-brews combined. Although the major automakers always seem to be in financial trouble, they're still the big guys by a long shot...
So, do people really care about quality?
It seems like a major portion of the marketplace actually prefers low prices, convenience, selection, consistency, speed, "coolness", and other attributes far more than they care about getting something that works well.
I'm not criticizing or judging. Just an observation.
Or maybe consumers do care, but don't really have the option to go for quality. Financial realities, a busy modern life, and so on might simply make it impossible to buy the good stuff.
But in either case, why oh why are marketers so obsessed with positioning their brands with the "quality" label?
How about being a bit more honest? Don't even bring up your quality if it isn't something you should honestly be bragging about or if your customers have demonstrated it isn't a priority for them.
On the other hand, if you actually do have a quality product you have a great opportunity to expand on what "quality" means (see previous post) and capture the portion of the market that actually appreciates it.
Think about some of the biggest, best-known, longest-lived businesses in North America.
- Wal-Mart is not a quality emporium.
- McDonald's (or any fast food for that matter) will never be accused of focusing too much on the quality of their product.
- Coke and Pepsi are both just sugar water - as long as they don't poison anybody or bottle too many rat heads, their quality is pretty much a non-issue.
- Don't even get me started on Molson, Labatt, Budweiser, and the other big beer brands.
- Ford used to outright say that "quality is job one" even while recalling tens of thousands of vehicles every year. (Check out FordLemon.com to see what some consumers think)
Millions of people shop at Wal-Mart (many of them, almost exclusively). Millions of people eat at fast food chains and drink sugar water daily. More people drink a handful of the big beer brands than all the micro-brews combined. Although the major automakers always seem to be in financial trouble, they're still the big guys by a long shot...
So, do people really care about quality?
It seems like a major portion of the marketplace actually prefers low prices, convenience, selection, consistency, speed, "coolness", and other attributes far more than they care about getting something that works well.
I'm not criticizing or judging. Just an observation.
Or maybe consumers do care, but don't really have the option to go for quality. Financial realities, a busy modern life, and so on might simply make it impossible to buy the good stuff.
But in either case, why oh why are marketers so obsessed with positioning their brands with the "quality" label?
How about being a bit more honest? Don't even bring up your quality if it isn't something you should honestly be bragging about or if your customers have demonstrated it isn't a priority for them.
On the other hand, if you actually do have a quality product you have a great opportunity to expand on what "quality" means (see previous post) and capture the portion of the market that actually appreciates it.
Quality: Part 1
I have a challenge for every Brand Manager and Marketing Manager out there:
When you describe your brand, write a positioning statement, and try to define your competitive differentiators don't use the word "quality".
It's entirely too common to take a very black-and-white approach to branding and decide that a company or its products are focused on either:
a.) Quality
or
b.) Bargain
Since there's only room for one or two "Lowest price. Guaranteed" competitors in any market, that means that the majority of companies are going for the quality angle.
It's lazy and, even worse, almost meaningless. What does "quality" mean, anyway? It seems like a very arbitrary term like "value" and "unique". As a result, most consumers probably ignore the word any time a company claims it.
I'm not saying that quality isn't an important attribute. It definitely is. There's too much garbage out there and I'd love to see more companies strive for a higher level of quality. But, it's too vague.
Pick some different words. Something more detailed. Even just one step more specific would be great. How about "innovative", or "remarkable" (a great term that Seth Godin uses regularly), or "shocking", or "guaranteed", or "unbreakable" for starters?
There are some industries where every single competitor claims to provide "quality". It might be true, but they all take a different approach and have a different definition. I want to see what those differences are.
Remove the word from your vocabulary and I bet you'll get more creative and descriptive.
When you describe your brand, write a positioning statement, and try to define your competitive differentiators don't use the word "quality".
It's entirely too common to take a very black-and-white approach to branding and decide that a company or its products are focused on either:
a.) Quality
or
b.) Bargain
Since there's only room for one or two "Lowest price. Guaranteed" competitors in any market, that means that the majority of companies are going for the quality angle.
It's lazy and, even worse, almost meaningless. What does "quality" mean, anyway? It seems like a very arbitrary term like "value" and "unique". As a result, most consumers probably ignore the word any time a company claims it.
I'm not saying that quality isn't an important attribute. It definitely is. There's too much garbage out there and I'd love to see more companies strive for a higher level of quality. But, it's too vague.
Pick some different words. Something more detailed. Even just one step more specific would be great. How about "innovative", or "remarkable" (a great term that Seth Godin uses regularly), or "shocking", or "guaranteed", or "unbreakable" for starters?
There are some industries where every single competitor claims to provide "quality". It might be true, but they all take a different approach and have a different definition. I want to see what those differences are.
Remove the word from your vocabulary and I bet you'll get more creative and descriptive.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Branding Through Job Postings
It seems like job ads either bring out the worst in a company or expose just how many sham businesses there are out there.
Bad speeling; and grammar. And OVERUSE of CAPS and EXCLAMATION marks!!!
are bad enough.
But take a look through a site like Craigslist, and you'll see a horrible number of deceptive, immature, transparent attempts to con people. I'll ignore the ones that are just con artists trying to off desperate employees as badly as they rip off their customers. Beyond these, though, are plenty of organizations who should know better. Maybe it would be a good idea to have the marketing department review any postings before they go out. What you say to prospective employees (and how you say it) is just as telling as what you say or do in your "customer facing" activities.
Sure, a job posting might not reach the thousands of people who would be exposed to an ad campaign or your storefront or a press release or whatever else you do, but it's not exactly hidden away from the public either.
It's not just the way a posting is written, either. I think a lot of HR people, hiring managers, and companies in general need to re-evaluate who they're looking for.
Some common offenses:
1. Over-promising. If you say I'm going to make thousands of dollars a week in my spare time, I simply won't believe you. You lose all legitimacy to me. Same goes for lesser exaggerations.
2. Being too broad or mis-categorization. If you want a sales rep, don't say you need a marketing person. If you're looking for an administrative assistant, don't advertise under a customer service area. At best you look like you don't understand the definitions of basic terms. At worst, you're as bad as a spammer.
3. Mis-matched titles, job descriptions, qualifications, and compensation. I'm really tired of places that call everybody with more than six months' experience a "manager" or "director". And postings for senior positions that only want to pay a fraction of what that role is really worth. And employers that insist on certain qualifications (degrees or certifications, for example) even when perfectly reasonable alternatives are available (such as years and years of experience or an award-winning portfolio). Again, this paints the employer as either ignorant of reality, sloppy, misleading, or deceitful. Are you trying to trick your customers into thinking your staff are more experienced than they really are? Are you simply close-minded? Are you trying to take advantage of a desperate candidate?
4. Silly titles. I'm sick of every store clerk being called an "associate" or "advisor" or "partner". It's vague and, even worse, goofy. You aren't fooling anyone. The 16 year old who scans my groceries and puts them in a bag is just a clerk. Similarly, it's astounding that the advertising agency industry has decided that "executive" is the code-word for "our most junior employee". Unless you're a senior manager or sit on the Board, you aren't an executive. All you're doing is hurting the legitimacy of the real associates, advisors, partners, and executives.
I'm sure there are lots more.
I should close with an example of good branding in job postings. I love this one from Coast Capital Savings. It has the same voice and attitude of their advertising and in-branch branding. If they talk to job candidates this way, my immediate thinking is that they really mean it when they talk to me in the same way as a prospective customer.
Our business is growing fast. Last year alone we added over 30,000 new members, were named BCAMA’s Marketer of the Year and one of Marketing Magazine’s ‘Marketers that Matter.’ It’s the result of a work environment that people enjoy, where innovation and creativity is strongly encouraged. If that sounds good to you, we should meet. You don’t have to bring donuts, but if you do, we like the ones with sprinkles.
Bad speeling; and grammar. And OVERUSE of CAPS and EXCLAMATION marks!!!
are bad enough.
But take a look through a site like Craigslist, and you'll see a horrible number of deceptive, immature, transparent attempts to con people. I'll ignore the ones that are just con artists trying to off desperate employees as badly as they rip off their customers. Beyond these, though, are plenty of organizations who should know better. Maybe it would be a good idea to have the marketing department review any postings before they go out. What you say to prospective employees (and how you say it) is just as telling as what you say or do in your "customer facing" activities.
Sure, a job posting might not reach the thousands of people who would be exposed to an ad campaign or your storefront or a press release or whatever else you do, but it's not exactly hidden away from the public either.
It's not just the way a posting is written, either. I think a lot of HR people, hiring managers, and companies in general need to re-evaluate who they're looking for.
Some common offenses:
1. Over-promising. If you say I'm going to make thousands of dollars a week in my spare time, I simply won't believe you. You lose all legitimacy to me. Same goes for lesser exaggerations.
2. Being too broad or mis-categorization. If you want a sales rep, don't say you need a marketing person. If you're looking for an administrative assistant, don't advertise under a customer service area. At best you look like you don't understand the definitions of basic terms. At worst, you're as bad as a spammer.
3. Mis-matched titles, job descriptions, qualifications, and compensation. I'm really tired of places that call everybody with more than six months' experience a "manager" or "director". And postings for senior positions that only want to pay a fraction of what that role is really worth. And employers that insist on certain qualifications (degrees or certifications, for example) even when perfectly reasonable alternatives are available (such as years and years of experience or an award-winning portfolio). Again, this paints the employer as either ignorant of reality, sloppy, misleading, or deceitful. Are you trying to trick your customers into thinking your staff are more experienced than they really are? Are you simply close-minded? Are you trying to take advantage of a desperate candidate?
4. Silly titles. I'm sick of every store clerk being called an "associate" or "advisor" or "partner". It's vague and, even worse, goofy. You aren't fooling anyone. The 16 year old who scans my groceries and puts them in a bag is just a clerk. Similarly, it's astounding that the advertising agency industry has decided that "executive" is the code-word for "our most junior employee". Unless you're a senior manager or sit on the Board, you aren't an executive. All you're doing is hurting the legitimacy of the real associates, advisors, partners, and executives.
I'm sure there are lots more.
I should close with an example of good branding in job postings. I love this one from Coast Capital Savings. It has the same voice and attitude of their advertising and in-branch branding. If they talk to job candidates this way, my immediate thinking is that they really mean it when they talk to me in the same way as a prospective customer.
Wanted: Marketing People. Also, donuts.
Coast Capital Savings is Canada’s second largest credit union, and we’re Canada’s number one employer of awesome people. We have absolutely no way of proving that, but we have no way of disproving it either, so we’re sticking with it.Our business is growing fast. Last year alone we added over 30,000 new members, were named BCAMA’s Marketer of the Year and one of Marketing Magazine’s ‘Marketers that Matter.’ It’s the result of a work environment that people enjoy, where innovation and creativity is strongly encouraged. If that sounds good to you, we should meet. You don’t have to bring donuts, but if you do, we like the ones with sprinkles.
Friday, January 4, 2008
Basic Features
A little off-topic from previous posts, but...
I'm currently doing some online media buying for a couple of ad campaigns. Online advertising has been around for, what, over a decade now right? And one of the great benefits of this medium is the ability to precision target.
Why, then, are there still major Web sites that don't offer basic capabilities like geographic targeting of ads? Just as incredibly, some sites that do provide geo-targeting actually charge extra for the privilege.
Any sites that already use an ad server can have geo-targeting capabilities for virtually no additional cost. Maybe a bit of extra time for the technical and traffic people to set up, and maybe a slightly higher ad serving cost, but these shouldn't be sufficient impediments.
Even worse, it's not just a case of "here's something extra we could do for a few of our customers."
By offering geo-targeting, a publisher is actually increasing the value of all their ad impressions -- even those used by advertisers who don't specifically look for this feature.
On a basic level, there's the benefit to those who want this feature: If I'm going after a very specific audience, I'm wasting every impression that's seen by someone other than my target. So, the more targeting capabilities available to me, the better-performing my campaign will be. As a result, the happier with the publisher and will be more likely use them again. I don't mind paying a higher (but reasonable) price because I'm satisfied with the response rate.
Beyond this, there's the benefit to many of the other advertisers: Impressions that a local or regional advertiser takes from the "pool" of avails are ones that national advertisers may not even want anyway. For example, let's say a US-based site has 1,000,000 impressions each month, and that 50,000 of these are from users in Australia. If an Australia-based company buys those 50,000 impressions specifically, the remaining advertisers who are targeting American users know that they aren't wasting their money reaching people who can't or won't buy their products.
Regardless of the details, though, the simple point is that a feature that adds value to someone could be offered with very very little effort to the provider, and yet isn't.
I suspect it's just laziness. One of those things that "we'll get around to eventually." If the bulk of customers are equally lazy (or ignorant of the possibilities) and buying most of what the supplier has available, it's understandable that the supplier feels no pressing need to make even a minimal effort for the time-being.
But:
a.) Money is money and new business is new business. Why turn away a potentially good customer who would like to buy from you?
b.) The marketplace (any marketplace) is competitive. If you don't offer a feature, somebody else does (or soon will). Lose a customer to them now, and you very likely won't easily get that customer later.
c.) Customers won't stay lazy or ignorant forever (in part, because of the competitors from #2).
Edited to add:
Okay, so I got a bit of an explanation about this from one site. They say that it's not worth doing geo-targeting (at least for the markets I'm buying) because they don't have enough impressions in a particular geographic location. Their excuse is that they have a minimum spend amount in order to ensure that a particular campaign gets enough impressions to be effective. In order to reach this minimum spend, I'd have to buy about 2/3 of a market's impressions each month. Okay, fair enough. But... if this is really the case, why not drop the minimum spend for campaigns that use geo-targeting to this degree? If I'm buying 2/3, or even 1/3, or even 1/8 of ALL the targeted impressions on a site, I'm probably getting some pretty strong reach and frequency numbers for my target audience. There wouldn't be much clutter to compete with. I'd much rather monopolize a small target than waste a bunch of impressions on a completely irrelevant broader audience.
I'll keep waiting for a good explanation.
I'm currently doing some online media buying for a couple of ad campaigns. Online advertising has been around for, what, over a decade now right? And one of the great benefits of this medium is the ability to precision target.
Why, then, are there still major Web sites that don't offer basic capabilities like geographic targeting of ads? Just as incredibly, some sites that do provide geo-targeting actually charge extra for the privilege.
Any sites that already use an ad server can have geo-targeting capabilities for virtually no additional cost. Maybe a bit of extra time for the technical and traffic people to set up, and maybe a slightly higher ad serving cost, but these shouldn't be sufficient impediments.
Even worse, it's not just a case of "here's something extra we could do for a few of our customers."
By offering geo-targeting, a publisher is actually increasing the value of all their ad impressions -- even those used by advertisers who don't specifically look for this feature.
On a basic level, there's the benefit to those who want this feature: If I'm going after a very specific audience, I'm wasting every impression that's seen by someone other than my target. So, the more targeting capabilities available to me, the better-performing my campaign will be. As a result, the happier with the publisher and will be more likely use them again. I don't mind paying a higher (but reasonable) price because I'm satisfied with the response rate.
Beyond this, there's the benefit to many of the other advertisers: Impressions that a local or regional advertiser takes from the "pool" of avails are ones that national advertisers may not even want anyway. For example, let's say a US-based site has 1,000,000 impressions each month, and that 50,000 of these are from users in Australia. If an Australia-based company buys those 50,000 impressions specifically, the remaining advertisers who are targeting American users know that they aren't wasting their money reaching people who can't or won't buy their products.
Regardless of the details, though, the simple point is that a feature that adds value to someone could be offered with very very little effort to the provider, and yet isn't.
I suspect it's just laziness. One of those things that "we'll get around to eventually." If the bulk of customers are equally lazy (or ignorant of the possibilities) and buying most of what the supplier has available, it's understandable that the supplier feels no pressing need to make even a minimal effort for the time-being.
But:
a.) Money is money and new business is new business. Why turn away a potentially good customer who would like to buy from you?
b.) The marketplace (any marketplace) is competitive. If you don't offer a feature, somebody else does (or soon will). Lose a customer to them now, and you very likely won't easily get that customer later.
c.) Customers won't stay lazy or ignorant forever (in part, because of the competitors from #2).
Edited to add:
Okay, so I got a bit of an explanation about this from one site. They say that it's not worth doing geo-targeting (at least for the markets I'm buying) because they don't have enough impressions in a particular geographic location. Their excuse is that they have a minimum spend amount in order to ensure that a particular campaign gets enough impressions to be effective. In order to reach this minimum spend, I'd have to buy about 2/3 of a market's impressions each month. Okay, fair enough. But... if this is really the case, why not drop the minimum spend for campaigns that use geo-targeting to this degree? If I'm buying 2/3, or even 1/3, or even 1/8 of ALL the targeted impressions on a site, I'm probably getting some pretty strong reach and frequency numbers for my target audience. There wouldn't be much clutter to compete with. I'd much rather monopolize a small target than waste a bunch of impressions on a completely irrelevant broader audience.
I'll keep waiting for a good explanation.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Eye of the Beholder
It constantly amazes (yet rarely surprises) me just how many brands seem to disregard their best features. I wonder if they're ignorant or just unconcerned.
One of my favourite Indian restaurants is really tacky. Their decor is cheap. The menu and signs look amateurish. The dishes, cutlery, serving trays and everything else on the table are plain and boring. But..
The food is pretty good. The variety of dishes available is wonderful. The staff is great. The prices are very very reasonable. Service is always fast. The location is convenient.
Go to this restaurant's Web site and what does it focus on? "An elegant and sophisticated atmosphere", "a sturdy escape to a more civilized time", "a sophisticated crowd"...
Every first-timer who reads this and then walks into the restaurant will probably think they're in the wrong place.
Aside from this very basic over-promising and under-delivering, though, the deception (or perhaps "inaccuracy" is a nicer term) is completely unnecessary. The business has some great things going for it, yet these things are barely mentioned on the Web site (or in other marketing materials).
I don't think I'm a completely atypical customer.
Do they not know why people buy from them? Do they really think they're offering a "sophisticated and elegant atmosphere"?
Part of the solution seems pretty simple.
I think most organizations need to assign more value to outsiders' opinions. Brand therapists, if you will.
It doesn't do much good to ask your best friends to help you change; they like you the way you are. They might come up with some good ideas for small adjustments, or even pick some great larger goals for you to achieve, but they're unlikely to see the bigger picture of significant changes that will serve you best. And even if they can see that bigger picture, I wonder how many of them would be able to coach you toward the change in a meaningful way.
Same thing for brands. Your employees, volunteers, board of directors, partners, best customers, long-serving ad agency, and so on probably have a pile of great ideas for you. But I bet they're missing the best ones. See a therapist. Maybe they'll notice something extraordinary and can help extract it from your brand's subconscious.
One of my favourite Indian restaurants is really tacky. Their decor is cheap. The menu and signs look amateurish. The dishes, cutlery, serving trays and everything else on the table are plain and boring. But..
The food is pretty good. The variety of dishes available is wonderful. The staff is great. The prices are very very reasonable. Service is always fast. The location is convenient.
Go to this restaurant's Web site and what does it focus on? "An elegant and sophisticated atmosphere", "a sturdy escape to a more civilized time", "a sophisticated crowd"...
Every first-timer who reads this and then walks into the restaurant will probably think they're in the wrong place.
Aside from this very basic over-promising and under-delivering, though, the deception (or perhaps "inaccuracy" is a nicer term) is completely unnecessary. The business has some great things going for it, yet these things are barely mentioned on the Web site (or in other marketing materials).
I don't think I'm a completely atypical customer.
Do they not know why people buy from them? Do they really think they're offering a "sophisticated and elegant atmosphere"?
Part of the solution seems pretty simple.
I think most organizations need to assign more value to outsiders' opinions. Brand therapists, if you will.
It doesn't do much good to ask your best friends to help you change; they like you the way you are. They might come up with some good ideas for small adjustments, or even pick some great larger goals for you to achieve, but they're unlikely to see the bigger picture of significant changes that will serve you best. And even if they can see that bigger picture, I wonder how many of them would be able to coach you toward the change in a meaningful way.
Same thing for brands. Your employees, volunteers, board of directors, partners, best customers, long-serving ad agency, and so on probably have a pile of great ideas for you. But I bet they're missing the best ones. See a therapist. Maybe they'll notice something extraordinary and can help extract it from your brand's subconscious.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
