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.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Monday, November 17, 2008
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.
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.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
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?
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?
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
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.
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.
Monday, November 3, 2008
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.
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.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
