Subject To Flooding

One of my biggest pet peeves is pointing out problems but not fixing them.

I drove past an example yesterday. Instead of improving the drainage, raising the road, or making some other real change, the city decided to erect a sign that says "Road Subject To Flooding".
Thanks, that's really helpful.

So, you know there's a problem.
You know that it's a big enough problem to make note of.
You know that it's a long-term problem (this wasn't a temporary sign).
You're willing to pay for a sign to be made and installed.

But actually fixing or minimizing the problem? Nope.

What exactly is the point of posting the sign, anyway? To warn me to take a different route when it's rainy? To inform me of the reason my car just stalled? Or just to make me aware of something I probably noticed myself?

To paraphrase Brian Regan's discussion on Blasting Zones... "Shouldn't the sign say 'Road Closed'?"

It's Too Late

I planted something in the garden.
I'm carbon neutral!
Everybody look at me!
Aren't I awesome?

At this point, every organization that strives to be carbon neutral should just do it. Don't announce it to the world. Don't make a big deal about it. If you believe it's the right thing to do, just go ahead and make it happen. Sure, mention the fact if it comes up in conversation, make a note about it on your Web site, and so on. But it's not headline news.

If you're doing it just because you want to brag about it, think twice. For one thing, you'll probably screw up if you do something for the wrong reasons. Second, it's pretty obvious that you're not sincere (or, at best, that you're just a follower). And third, maybe your effort would best be spent on something equally important but far more brag-worthy.

Google is a good example -- they've recently partnered in various initiatives to help develop solar thermal energy. This is newsworthy. Honestly, if they were to tell me that they're now carbon neutral my first thought would be "So? Why wouldn't you be?". But the fact that they're proactively doing something unique is extremely interesting, exciting, and (what it really comes down to) makes me think more positively of them.

IAB Canada, on the other hand, doesn't seem to get it. Here's a quote from their latest event announcement:

"Since 2004, there have been over 80 carbon neutral events in Canada; unfortunately, none of them seems to have originated from within the Interactive marketing or advertising sectors... Today, IAB Canada along with the sponsors of our new MIXX Canada Conference Series are stepping up to the plate, and vowing to finally make good on one of the so-called "promises" of the digital age, and harness this technology to deliver less waste and less impact on the environment."

Great. Theyre doing the right thing. I applaud them for this, but it's still secondary to the actual content and value of the event. I don't need an 8 paragraph announcement with 7 paragraphs talking about how they're (finally) being environmentally responsible. If anything, they're reminding me how behind the times they have been until now.

It's like thinking that saying "Good news! Our products are now mostly non-toxic!" is a good announcement....

Missing Opportunities By Being Old Fashioned

I'm working on an online media project for a client right now. We're trying to target the travel trade (travel agents, that sort of thing), so I'll be using several trade magazines' Web sites.

It's been a bit disappointing. There are some very good media properties out there and they're operated by very professional people. But...
They treat their Web sites and e-mail newsletters as if they're merely extensions of a printed publication or (gasp) an old-fashioned "fax alert" service.
They sell ad space based on a time period (weekly, monthly...) rather than CPM or CPC.
They don't offer much in the way of IP-based targeting.
Their creative specs are quite limiting.
And don't even think about "Web 2.0" opportunities like providing social networking tools for their site visitors.

From what I've seen in other industries, their trade publications aren't much better.

There's a huge opportunity for someone to start up a new trade-centric media company providing quality online content for industry professionals, and acting like a proper online media property -- taking full advantage of what the Web can do. That is, unless some of these publishers get their acts together. The incentive is pretty simple: these folks are missing out on a lot of potential revenue. For one thing, they might be able to charge more for the ad space they already sell. But beyond this, there are plenty of B2B providers out there who aren't even considering online advertising in their plans (yet) -- probably in part because the options are so limited.

Fire Your Customers

I love seeing stories like this one: Royal Caribbean bans complaining couple for life.

I've been on both the business and consumer side of situations where a brand fails to meet expectations, and I'm glad to see Royal Caribbean stand up for themselves.

Essentially, a couple complained incessantly about their experiences with the cruise line (yet continued to use the same company over and over again). The company offered compensation but apparently that wasn't enough for these people. So... the company (quite politely) has told them to walk the plank.

People like these complainers ruin brand experiences for everyone. They aren't far removed from the people who like to take businesses to court over every little thing.

From the brand's perspective:
The complainers cost money to fight or compensate, of course, but their behaviour also forces industries to increasingly institute policies to cover their butts (such as these examples), and generally lead to a lowering of expectations -- "We can't guarantee that people won't be disturbed at night, so we better not mention that we offer a quiet environment"... "We might run out of something at the buffet, so let's not say anything about how big it is"...

From the (other) consumers' perspective:
The complainers lead to higher prices, of course, and they inevitably harm the impact of real complaints. This particular article mentions just one legitimate problem (a clogged toilet - and who knows if they didn't clog it themselves). Over the course of six cruises they complained about five, though. So imagine if you're another passenger on those five cruises and you have a real problem. The staff have just had to deal with whatever non-issue these people are whining about. No matter how professional the staff are, will they really be at their most attentive and caring when dealing with you?

With some customers you can just tell that they're looking to get something for nothing. It doesn't matter if they're scammers or they have an unrealistic sense of entitlement - the result is the same.

One example from a previous job sticks in my mind. A customer (using the term loosely - our records showed that she had likely never bought from us), called our customer care department requesting a particular free sample product. They had a few issues with this, tried to appease, but had to bring this case to my attention for help.
Here's the situation:
1. The special offer associated with this free sample had been advertised several months earlier. Although the offer didn't have a stated expiration date, the publication it was advertised in did expire.
2. We no longer had any of these particular samples.
3. The ad in question had two offers: "Free sample with any purchase" and "Free shipping with a minimum purchase". This customer didn't qualify for either of these, but wanted both.

So, we tried to explain this to her. Didn't work. She was convinced that we were trying to pull a fast one.
We tried to satisfy her by extending the expiration date and giving her a different freebie of similar value with her next purchase. Didn't work. She didn't feel any need to make a purchase to get something.
As a last-ditch effort, we offered her a gift card with a value far more than the original freebie and more than enough to cover a small purchase (including shipping, if she didn't want to go to a store). She didn't refuse this one, but she still complained to Advertising Standards.

Long story short, Ad Standards contacted us, I explained the situation, they felt no need to take the concern any further. I don't think we ever heard from this woman again.

I think we reacted appropriately, but in retrospect it would have been nice to simply say "Sorry we couldn't satisfy... 'bye". The time, effort, and expense that went into trying to appease this person could have been much better spent satisfying a "good" customer.

Sprint famously fired a large group of customers a few months ago based on how much they had called customer service. Again, they were nice about it and even gave the customers a free month of service to finish off.

I'd love to see more of this. If every brand cleaned house and refused to do business with the least-profitable, most unfairly-complaining, most frequently confused or angry, etc. customers, I'd bet that the brand experience would improve dramatically for many of the remaining clients.

I'm a huge fan of legitimately complaining about a bad brand experience. That's a major point of this blog, after all. I think it's great that consumers are gaining more and more power, largely due to the capabilities of the Internet. But the Royal Caribbean example shows how this power can be abused.

Another "Which is Better?"

In the long run, given the choice, is it better that front-line staff to be:
a.) A bit incompetent, but friendly and well-meaning.
or
b.) Very efficient and knowledgeable at their jobs, but brusque and cantankerous (or even just inattentive)

?

Don't Even Bother

I can only shake my head when I see the many examples of "marketing" that seem not just useless, but counter-productive.

How many times have you past a rickety old pickup truck with a business name and phone number stenciled (badly) on the side?

Or received a flyer in your mailbox that's filled with mistakes, bad design, or is simply not appealing?

Or passed a business (convenience stores are bad for this) with posters and other POS materials literally covering every bare surface?

What a waste of effort. How many leads does the pickup driver ever get from people who see his truck? Even if he's exposed to thousands of people every day, I really doubt that many:
a.) Make a note of his name and number
b.) Don't mind the fact that his trunk is a junker, that his sign is badly made...
and actually make a phone call.

Maybe I'm an exception, but my first thought as a consumer would be "This guy isn't a professional. Even if I'm looking for the cheapest option available, who knows if he's going to rip me off or something." It's not fair to judge like this, but it's reality.

For something like this, the best option is obviously to make a small investment in better materials, vehicle repairs, or similar. But if this isn't possible, maybe Mr. Pickup shouldn't even bother promoting the fact that this his company vehicle. Who knows what other marketing tactics he could do (or afford), but this one's clearly not for him.

This should be pretty obvious, but it seems like the majority of small businesses make these mistakes.

Cost isn't the real issue. There are plenty of really good ways to promote a brand that are absolutely free (or cheap). If you can't make the leap from "free but good" to "pricey but better", don't try to go halfway (ending up at something like "cheap but... cheap").

I think a lot of business people (using the term loosely) are under the mistaken impression that their prospective customers don't care about image.

Win a House Win a Car!

I wonder which works better for contests:

Offering a small number of really big prizes
or
Offering a large number of smaller prizes.

Both have their pros and cons, of course. But I'm curious if one type has a strong tendency to perform better (as a marketing tactic) than the other.

Do consumers find big prizes more exciting and therefore more remarkable and worth paying attention to? Or do they immediately think "I don't have much chance of winning that. Why should I bother even thinking about it?" ?

Show Them The Back Door

I was in downtown Vancouver last week and walked past the Vancouver Art Gallery. It's a nice old (by Vancouver standards) building famously used in many movies and TV shows and is very popular with tourists.

Because it's an old building that has been re-purposed over the years, the main entrance to the gallery is actually not on the original "front" side. It's not ugly, but this definitely isn't the most attractive and architecturally interesting part of the building. Nevertheless, a group of tourists were taking photos of this side.

It got me thinking: if they like the looks of this section, imagine what they'll do when they get around to the original front side with its wide staircase, tall columns, big doors, fountain, and so on.

In a way, it almost makes sense to purposely lead unknowing tourists to the "back door" first. The concept of "saving the best for last" hardly needs explanation.

A lot of businesses focus primarily (or even solely) on making a grand first impression. They make their front door as impressive as possible to try to draw you in and to "wow" you immediately.

But when you're done, they don't think to impress you with anything more than a cheery thank you. Other than leading you through a gift shop, there aren't many venues (retail, entertainment, or otherwise) that put an enormous effort into making the final impression memorable and exciting.

An obvious example is movie theatres. The same mega-multiplex that spends millions on props and fancy lighting and signs and so on seem to be in a huge rush to just get rid of you as soon as the film ends. Many even make you exit through a different door than the front lobby.

And this doesn't just apply to the real world. Most Web sites try to "wow" you with beautiful home page imagery, a (shudder) Flash intro screen, or similar techniques. This makes sense, since a user needs to be immediately impressed or they're likely to wander off with a simple click of their mouse.

But how many sites put the same effort into impressing you at the end of your visit? Why not do something pretty or interesting or exciting or just plain nice after an online sales transaction? Some sort of reward for going that far. On too many sites, it's unlikely you'll even get a cheery thank you.

Funnily enough, right after I wrote this post initially, I did some online banking. And when I was done, I was shown the following on the final page.


Going back to the literal back door example...

I also started thinking about an experience my parents related to me about a back door they saw on a recent trip. They were in Hong Kong and took a tour of the harbour. One of their first sights was the back of a very famous floating restaurant.

From the front, this restaurant is very striking, especially at night. It's tall, colourful, and definitely has the "wow factor". But the back is another story. It's dreary, dirty, and not at all attractive. For any business this is bad, but for a place where people are literally consuming your product it's terrible.
By showing an okay-but-nothing-spectacular back door, at least a business is illustrating that they're all show and no substance (even if this isn't entirely true, since the back door becomes an extension of the show).

I'd like to see more businesses:
a.) Make the back door (whatever that may mean to them) more remarkable
and
b.) Start with something good, but lead up to the front door (whatever their most impressive feature is).

The Guru is Right and Wrong, Part 3: Intelligence

Okay, last thought on this topic.

Specifically, I wanted to address a certain sentence in the original blog.
He writes "Consumers aren't stupid (we're dumb sometimes, but not stupid.)"

Here's the thing: Yes they are. Quite often consumers are very very stupid.

As a marketer, I'm not supposed to believe this. It's taboo to consider customers anything less than demigods we owe everything to. But unless you're marketing a particularly complex, advanced, or high-end product or service, your audience members are probably pretty average overall.

To paraphrase George Carlin "Just think of how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of them are dumber than that.""

Maybe "stupid" is the wrong word. Ignorant? Naive? Overly-trusting? Overwhelmed? Forgetful? Regardless of what it is (and I'm sure "it" varies from individual to individual and from situation to situation), the important thing is that we need to be realistic about consumers.

There are countless examples of how stupid (or whatever word fits) people are. Entire Web sites are devoted to the concept (try a search for "stupid people" or similar). The Darwin Awards illustrate the most extreme (and entertaining) examples. Just look at which TV shows are popular, which politicians keep winning, the lyrics of top songs, or the comments beneath virtually any YouTube video.

I'm not saying we need to treat our customers like idiots. But we should be prepared for a few things:
1. The need for hand holding.
2. Confusion and misinterpretation of what we say.
3. Gullibility or a tendency to believe whatever was said most convincingly (rather than most intelligently).
4. Sheep-like behaviour.
and so on.

Maybe I'll write something more about each of these later.

The Guru is Right and Wrong, Part 2: Quantifying the Qualitative

In a previous post I mentioned that I saw a few points of note in a recent blog entry by Seth Godin. Part 1 mentioned how I agree with his take on brands approaching the "green" movement too simplistically.

I disagree with his thinking about a potential solution, though.

Seth's idea:
"Here's what's missing: a number. When you buy a fridge, there's a big yellow sticker with a number about relative energy consumption. Now, we could argue all day long about how to figure out the right number (should the number on the fridge include data about the amount of energy needed to make the fridge in the first place?) but an imperfect number sure seems better than no number at all."

The trouble is... the imperfect number would be too imperfect. It wouldn't be a valuable guideline for anyone except those who are blindly environmental and simply following it as a fad. And the whole idea is to treat this brand attribute as something more than a fad.

I recently worked for a very environmentally-conscious company and we faced a situation that demonstrates the complexity of environmental decisions. We wanted to sell a branded re-usable shopping bag.

On the surface you could say "Great. Each reusable bag takes the same energy and material to make as 40 disposable bags. And each one will last about 80 times longer than a disposable. Therefore, it's roughly twice as 'green' as disposable bags."
But, it's far more complex than this. Among the other factors influencing the greenness of a particular bag:
- where is it made? How far does it have to travel to get to the stores where it's sold?
- who makes it? Is it from a sweatshop in Asia? (Apparently, many of the shopping bags sold actually suffer from this problem)
- what's it made of and with what processes? Even if the materials are recycled or organic, there can be issues with sustainability, hazardous byproducts, etc. (Certain materials need special inks in order to screenprint effectively, for example)
- were animals or machines used to make or transport it?
- how biodegradable is it after the bag has outlived its usefulness?
and so on.

And these are just the obvious questions.

So how do you quantify a qualitative brand attribute like "greenness"?

I guess breaking down "the number" into a set of numbers or a little chart would be a good start. "This product scores 12 for distance traveled, a 95 for who made it, and a 34 for materials used."

At least this would help someone make a decision based on what matters to them (I might think sweatshops are okay, but don't want to see animals harmed...).

But it's still trying to put specific numbers to qualitative measurements -- the measurements are just more specific.

I'm not a big fan of certain Olympic sports for the same reason. I can tell who the better runner is because of the speed they completed their race. But who's the better gymnast? As we've seen over and over again, anything that relies on the opinion of judges is far less firm.

With big brand issues like environmentalism, I wonder if it's even possible to:
a.) Remove the judges from the equation
or
b.) Find good enough judges that most people are willing and able to trust.

Branding the Sky

Here's something kind of cool: Flogos are "clouds" made of miniature soap bubbles and helium than can be shaped into the form of a logo or other shape.

In the right setting, these could be a nice little marketing tactic. They launch from a special bubble-blowing machine every few seconds, so they could create a good "trail" effect, leading interested people to the marketer's location. They can add some nice atmosphere and decoration to a special event or place (Disney plans to launch some at one of their parks). They might even be a really good fit to associate with certain brands in general (a mattress company that compares itself to sleeping on a cloud, perhaps?).

But, this isn't a blog about good ideas.

I can imagine these being misused -- something to add to the "nice idea, but... how does it help us?" pile, along with most of the other gimmicks available to marketers.

It's a dumb idea to just pump these out and hope that they help with "awareness" because they stand out from similar tactics like balloons or a banner pulled by a plane. Is anybody really going to buy an extra pair of Nike shoes (or think more positively of them) just because they saw a foam "swoosh" flying through the air?

I'd love to see the company behind Flogos be very particular about which brands, and in which settings and circumstances, they sell to. If they turn into yet another way to put a logo someplace new, they'll end up being completely ignorable and of very limited value to marketers.

The Guru is Right and Wrong, Part 1: The Green Backlash

I don't often completely disagree with Seth Godin. But, I often find myself only partially agreeing with him.

Here's Part 1 of an example from his recent blog post entitled "The coming backlash over green marketing".

I agree with his main point: Too many brands are rushing to make themselves appear "green" and, in Seth's words "...devolving into short-term, often selfish come-ons. That's not going to last and it's not going to scale."

I disagree with two other points that he makes, though, and will write about them in future posts.

But back to the green stuff.

An interesting thing about the current environmental movement is that its value as a marketing or branding direction will die off long before people stop caring about pollution, climate change, extinction, deforestation, and other related issues.

A good comparison is the concept of "healthy".
Consumers never really stop caring about the healthiness of the products they use. But two things are ever-changing:
1. The degree of caring. Interest and attention in well-being trend up and down all the time. We seem to switch back and forth between "I deserve a treat, never mind the ramifications" and "I need to take care of myself or else" -- most of the time, sitting somewhere in the middle ("Sure this treat is naughty, but it's not the worst thing I could get, and besides, I did something healthy earlier..."). These peaks and valleys occur on both a micro (daily or weekly) and macro (yearly or decadely*) scale.
2. The particular shiny thing. We seem incapable of caring about a big concept. We need a specific cause, product, issue, or concern to capture our attention. For awhile "oat bran" was absolutely necessary in everything we consumed. Recently, the looming danger of lead-laced, Chinese-made products was going to wipe out all life in the galaxy. Other times it was powerline radiation, jogging, sunburns, low carb, high carb, salt in our diets, shark attacks, too much fluoride in our water, not enough fluoride in our water...

I think "consumer environmentalism" is going to follow a similar pattern based on this combination of interest and shiny-thing-du-jour.

It's hardly a new concern, but is currently at an interesting peak: total attention is perhaps at the highest it's ever been, and several shiny things are getting our attention concurrently.

Marketers are taking a very simplistic approach, either:
a.) Making vague "green" statements that aren't any more substantial than claiming to be "healthy". While not untrue, they don't mean much when everybody else is doing it too.
or
b.) Focusing entirely on a handful of specific, short-term, shiny things.

Using the environment as a marketing tool or discussion point isn't going to go away.
But most of it is going to become background noise.

Later, I'll finish babbling about the other two parts of the post: How do you quantify the qualitative (and the subjective)? And what really is the intelligence of consumers?




*Decadely is not a word, but should be.

You Didn't Have To Do That

I'm really impressed by the development company that I recently bought an investment property from, Mosaic Homes.

First of all, they did a good job. The quality of construction is great, the development is well designed, most of the project was completed on schedule...

And they also seem to understand the concept of customer service. They see the value in building trust and a good reputation.

For example, they've been extremely accommodating with any requests for repairs or adjustments to the property since purchasing it -- all those little things that are technically covered by the warranty, but that they could probably make excuses about and try to get out of fixing.

They've also been very good at proactively keeping in touch. During construction and after, it wasn't unusual to receive little thank you cards and updates ("Don't worry about all the flooding concerns in the news lately. Here's some info from our surveyors..."). Two weeks ago, the strata held their first AGM and not only did several representatives from Mosaic participate, but they also treated the owners to a few snacks and beverages afterwards.

All of these are nice touches and, really, they're things that every company should be doing for its valued customers. But in this case I'm particularly impressed because there's not much direct, financial benefit to doing so. Very few of the property owners will be buying another place anytime soon. There's really not much chance of gaining repeat business, and therefore little need for "retention" or "loyalty" efforts.

But... they get it. They recognize that the handful of us who will be buying again will probably seriously consider other developments by the same company. They recognize that it's important to build a general consensus that "Mosaic is a good company to work with" in the marketplace and within their own industry. They know that people talk. They know that bad vibes can be as dangerous to a company as an actual, tangible mistake can be.

So, if this company has figured it out, why do so many others - especially those that actually have a direct, financial incentive to build long-term customer relationships - fail to do so?

Okay, I'm sure they make a fairly good profit on each property the sell. So it's not a big deal, financially, for them to take these extra steps. But since when has "we can't afford that" been the only obstacle to doing the right thing?

My guess is that most companies just can't be bothered. Too many are run by accountants and analysts who can't get their minds past the potential (or lack thereof) for immediate, obvious, direct returns. They see "customer service" as a necessary expense to put out fires, not as an opportunity to invest in gaining new business or extending a customer relationship.

It's All About "U"

A basic concept of localization is to use the language of your audience.
I guess some brands (especially those from the US) forget this point when marketing to others who speak the same language.

I just received an e-mail newsletter from Disney, featuring a dining offer at their Florida resorts. It's clearly an office targeted at Canadians (like me), and makes a few obvious references to this point such as being clear that the price is in US dollars and that the Disney Canada privacy policy applies to the newsletter's database.

This is good. You wouldn't expect a major marketer like Disney to screw up those types of things.

What I really like, though, is the less-obvious fact that the copy was written with Canadians in mind: the subject line was "A Walt Disney World offer you'll savour."

Sure, it's a tiny detail. But using the Canadian spelling of "savour" is a nice touch.

Not every brand bothers to make these little adjustments or to write something new for different audiences. For example, we recently received a brochure for a local pizza place in the mail. It's a franchisee in a large chain (Dominoes, I think) that I'm sure just orders brochures from the head office that are simply shells customized with the franchisee's address, phone number, map, etc. It's a food provider, so of course they use words like "flavor" throughout the brochure. Unfortunately, here the word "flavour" would be more appropriate.

Would it really be that difficult for the company to provide "Canadian versions" of their marketing materials? Do the franchisees have any input into the contents and copywriting of those marketing materials? I would assume that the company has a Canadian head office - why didn't they "translate" these materials?

I wonder if it's an oversight, laziness, or a lack of caring.

How big does a difference between target audiences need to be before it's worthwhile to address those differences?

Is That All There Is To It?

Talk about a misleading headline:

P&G Lets Consumers Act as Media Planners


I was expecting something really interesting in which Procter & Gamble were somehow giving control of their media choices to consumers.

Nope. They're just soliciting consumer opinion on some specific ad placements. And not even as a proactive exercise - it's just in response to certain "consumer groups" whining about some of the TV shows P&G chooses to advertise on.

If that's all it takes to "let consumers act as ", I guess every company that's conducted a survey or had a consumer help line is doing this.

And this article is in AdAge, a respected industry publication.