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.

Gourmet Everything

I love food. I love cooking from scratch. I love finding a new cuisine or menu. I love watching the Food Network.

It's amazing how much variety can be produced by only a handful of ingredients and techniques.

It's also amazing how much variety there can be in the taste, texture, and general deliciousness of the end result even when using virtually the same ingredients and techniques. Coffee can be a burnt, tasteless sludge or an incredibly smooth delight. Ice cream can taste like slightly-flavoured frozen milk or can have a burst of flavour that you crave for days. In Vancouver, you can find some of the world's best sushi within a couple of city blocks as some of the worst I've ever tasted.

The quality of the initial ingredients (and the tools used) certainly makes a difference. But I'd bet that any top chef could shop at exactly the same market as you or I, buy exactly the same things, cook them with regular home appliances, and still produce a much better end product.

Working in the opposite direction, it seems logical to assume almost any food could be made "gourmet".

Meatloaf, fruit cake, mac and cheese, green salads, and a thousand other dishes are considered almost a chore to eat by many many people. Yet there's no reason for that. Add a couple of new ingredients to a meatloaf and cook it a little slower and it will be juicy and tasty. Lighten up your fruit cake recipe and you'll probably win over a bunch more fans...

I think the same logic applies to almost any product.
Why is it such a chore to buy insurance or, at best, something to barely think about? Shouldn't I be excited to be buying something that will protect me?
When I get a tire fixed, shouldn't I find the experience at least a little bit interesting?
Same thing with visiting the dentist, shopping for shoes (if you're someone like me), doing your taxes (if you're a normal human being), and on and on.

Some of the companies that provide these products and services are clearly trying to position their wares in a favourable way, of course. But I doubt that many customers actually think of "chore" companies in the way they want to be positioned.

I'd like to see brands in these types of industries make a radical change to their experience so that it's something you look forward to. Add some spice, cook it a little slower, steam instead of fry, or maybe try adding some garnish.

Families

Did you know that the same company that owns the Ferraro Rocher brand also owns Nutella? And Kinder Surprise? And Tic Tacs?

Sure, Nutella makes sense. Hazelnut + chocolate. Gotcha.
Kinder... a bit of a stretch, but okay. Chocolate goodies.
Tic Tacs? Interesting addition to the portfolio.

For a multi-brand company, I wonder if there's really any clear point where affiliations or relationships between the brands should be promoted or not. Is there any benefit to the Ferrero Group to make it clear to consumers that their favourite chocolate-egg-with-a-choking-hazard-in-the-middle comes from the same people as their favourite mint-so-small-that-you-need-to-consume-eight-of-them-every-time?

That One Person...

I know it's a bit of a cliche, but it's worthy talking about: people are more likely to remember (and talk about) a bad experience than a good one.

Just as importantly, one bad experience can completely undo the effects of many good experiences. All it takes is that one person who screws up.

There are, of course, the obvious examples like getting great help from a salesperson, low prices, and a friendly checkout person at a store only to have the experience ruined by a grumpy delivery person.

But it goes far further than getting lousy service from "that one person".
Who hasn't been in a meeting or sat on a committee with someone who just doesn't get it? You know - the person who interrupts, changes subjects, whispers to the person next to them, and asks endless stupid questions.
Or when you walk out of a restaurant and see a member of the kitchen staff leaning against the garbage cans, smoking a cigarette?
Or how about watching a TV show and have the experience ruined by one wooden actor (or that one person on the laugh-track who's laughing a little too hard)?

Okay, maybe "ruined" is going a little far. But you get the point. One little detail harms the overall impression.

And it usually seems to be the person least-vital to the experience who ruins things. In meetings, it's the person who doesn't really contribute much. At the restaurant, it's a dishwasher or deep-fryer operator. In the TV show, it's the background character who just has to mutter a couple of lines.

Not always, of course. But it certainly seems to be normal.

So why don't we do something about it? These aren't exactly power players who we need to fear. Meeting organizers should be daring enough to ask the disruptors to leave. Managers at restaurants, retailers, and other businesses serving the public should be laying down the law with (especially) their junior staff. Directors should be furious if anyone on their set just can't act.

Sold Out & Coming Soon

Several local radio stations now have online "clubs" where listeners can accumulate points for various actions (listening daily, participating in polls, visiting advertisers...), and then use these points to participate in contests or purchase goodies like concert tickets or advertisers' merchandise.

It's a great idea. Advertisers can extend their marketing beyond a 15- or 30-second spot. The radio station encourages habitual and dedicated listening, and becomes a more multi-channel media provider. Consumers get free stuff and can gain (to a small degree) a sense of participation.

But here's what bugs me about one local station: every time I go to their "store" to spend some points, there's almost nothing available. Once in a while there might be a CD or some movie tickets, but that's about it. The more interesting and valuable products and services are almost always Coming Soon! or Sorry Sold Out!

So, this tells me that my points really have no value.

Other loyalty programs suffer from similar problems. How many times have you tried to book a trip in an airline's Miles program only to discover that the flights you want are excluded?

For the radio station, there doesn't seem to be any excuse for a lack of items. Surely they can find a handful of advertisers willing to provide merchandise in exchange for the extra exposure of being on the Web site. Most major companies have some sort of sampling program -- what could be better than having consumers "pay" for samples that you would give away anway? Something tells me that the station staff just aren't trying very hard. After all, the people dealing with advertisers are traditional radio reps, not Internet media salespeople or promotions experts.

But, reasons aside, back to the impact on brand.
If you're going to offer something, you better make sure it's available.

If not, you're hanging on the edge of a dangerous spiral...

"They don't have anything fun to buy"
"I won't bother looking for anything to buy very often"
"I won't bother to collect points very often"
"This station is kinda disappointing"
"Now that you mention it, why do they play that 'Delilah' song every ten minutes?"

Either step away from the spiral or plug it up with something.

Currency and Volume

One of Google's latest announcements raises an interesting question about their brand.

They announced this morning that they will now offer real-time stock quotes on Google Finance.

Great news for anybody who follows the markets but doesn't want to log-in or subscribe to a brokerage service, etc. They aren't the first and only to offer this, of course; but being Google means that they'll probably soon be the widest-reaching provider to offer this.

Which raises the question:
What's more valuable about Google - the currency or the volume of the information they provide?

(Currency obviously meaning"how current is it", not "how much does it cost")

The easy answer is "It's the combination that really matters. Lots of info, available right now, that's accurate as of a nanosecond ago."

I doubt they could choose between the two even if they have to. Given the choice, should they add more and more data sources to their services, or do they make their current data more timely?

Since timeliness is really just one aspect of "quality" or accuracy of information, it's not really a question of choosing between currency and volume, of course. But I'm looking forward to seeing how much Google continues along the "real time" path, to see how it impacts their brand. They're already known as the company that provides easy access to just about any information in the world... Maybe they'll evolve into the company that provides easy access to the current state of the world.

My bet (hope) is that Google Maps and Google Earth are next in line to see more frequent updating (beyond specific services/mash-ups like tracking cabs in NYC).