Sometimes the best customers (or users, or watchers, or players, etc.) can actually be a liability. Their fanaticism can actually push away those people seeking more casual relationships.
A few examples:
Ever play a competitive multiplayer online game? One I like to indulge in from time to time is Tribal Wars, for instance, but there a million others. The general idea is that each player develops medieval villages, wages war, and trades with others. Working in "tribes" with other players allows for a lot of support and interaction. I only dabble in it and don't devote an enormous amount of time or effort to the game. There seems to be tens of thousands of other players with a similar level of engagement. Unfortunately, a relatively small group of players seem obsessive and ruin it for the rest. They've figured out the exact best approach to the game and play almost mechanically, performing actions in a very formulaic way. To the game's producers, I'm sure these guys seem incredibly valuable: they spend a bunch of time online (which brings ad revenue) and they're the most likely to pay for a "premium" account. Because these fanatics are so deeply engaged, though, they easily defeat the casual players and make the game much less fun. I wonder how many thousands of casual players would be more engaged if the fanatics weren't there.
Similarly, in the real world, ever go to a professional sporting event? Even terrible teams have their share of fanatics. Most of them add to the overall game experience. They lead the cheers, they dress in team uniforms, they yell at the refs and get the crowd going. But some of this crew can also make the sport unbearable at times -- not just at the games, but ongoing. They yell and cheer so much that you can't hear the event, they stand in front of other spectators, they talk obsessively about the sport at work, at the bar, on the street... Sure, this group might buy every piece of merchandise they can find, but how many others' brand experience is harmed by this obsession and discourtesy?
Games and sports are easy examples. So what about more typical businesses?
Here's an example from my personal experience:
A couple of years ago I worked for a well-known, international consumer brand. The company had been around for about a decade and had established itself well. Its products are sufficiently unique and effective to have gained a strong following.
One of my responsibilities was marketing for the mail order division, which included online sales. Before "social media" became the buzzword of the moment, we were operating a very popular and successful online community. About half the discussions in this community were directly related to the company and its products. The other half was all over the map, but a great way to extend the brand. People with little else in common were brought together by various brand principles. The community had its share of fanatics. At times, they were our (the marketing department's) best friends. Many of them bought huge amounts of products. Most of them were invaluable assets for new customers who had product usage questions, etc. And their high level of activity was an excellent example and lead for newcomers. But... they were also some of the biggest thorns in our sides. Some took it upon themselves to speak for the entire customer base (often with limited actual support from others). Some used the community as a place to push personal agendas. Some used their leadership positions to unfairly push the company ("We're really valuable! Gimme gimme gimme!"). Some bullied the newcomers. And so on.
We had to very carefully manage the demands and expectations of this group while also supporting the new or "lesser" customers. Despite the fanatics' value, the long tail phenomenon certainly was in effect at this company, with a huge number of small customers providing a bulk of the sales.
I suppose the keys are:
1. Brands need to look at their "best" customers as more than one homogeneous group.
2. Fanatics can be great, but brands shouldn't be fanatical about them.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Content is Still King
As you've probably surmised from my previous posts on the subject, I have mixed feelings about social media marketing.
In general, my biggest concerns are with the faddy-ness of focusing on particular tools and tactics. MySpace leads to Friendster leads to Facebook leads to Twitter leads to FourSquare...
I recently pondered (see the last paragraph in that link) what evolutionary or revolutionary path social media would take as a marketing tool.
But perhaps that's the wrong question.
We really need to better understand and address what "social" is all about at its core.
First, there's the matter of identifying what types of social media channels/strategies/tactics are out there. I think it comes down to:
1. Networks. Systems that enable connections between individuals, brands, groups, etc. These connections then grow into conversations or other relationships.
2. Consumer Generated Content. In any form -- text, video, photos, music... and in any quantity -- from entire novels to one-word comments.
3. Leads. Things that help participants find and/or use the above. Trending topics and hashtags on Twitter, Digg and Reddit links, or even just a "Hey, I just tried..." posts on a forum.
Is there anything in the social space that doesn't fall into these groups?
So it really comes down to: having something to talk about and a place (and way) to do it.
At the heart of both of these is one simple thing: Content.
Social media Networks and Leads are just another way to spread content (or tell people where to get it). Consumer Generated Content is just plain ol' Content with more contributors.
Here's what I think:
It's time for marketers to take a step back and look at their marketing strategy as a whole as a Content Strategy.
What do you want your brand to say?
What do you hope others will say about your brand?
What existing content do you want to associated with?
Where's the best place to say these things?
How can you help others say these things?
What similar topics or ideas should you align with?
Where are conversations already taking place?
Where should conversations take place?
How can new conversations get started?
How can potential participants find each other?
And this is BEFORE even thinking about a particular channel, or even medium.
It's not about "social media". It's not even about "digital marketing". It's just marketing.
Every single one of the questions above might be addressed with traditional marketing vehicles or real-world venues. Or fancy-pants, newfangled Web 3.0 options might be the best opportunities. Or, obviously, some combination of the two.
I'm working with several clients who are taking this approach. Each is working to establish their brand as experts in their particular industries and/or associated topics (whether that association is through demographic, psychographic, or other qualities). From there, they're determining the best ways to ensure this brand attribute is shared, and to (legitimately) prove their expertise by sharing as much as possible.
I think this makes a lot of sense for building the brands in the long-term.
The sexy-tool-and-tactic-of-the-moment is still important, and is a part of most of these plans. But we won't have to reinvent the wheel when a new flavour of the month comes along.
It's also, frankly, a lot less work in the long run. The same content may be valid for TV commercials, blog entries, Twitter posts, Facebook Fan Page updates, live events, sponsored community organizations, contest, and so on and so on across the entire gamut of potential marketing tools. Effort switches from constantly re-defining what we say to adjusting how and where we say it.
In general, my biggest concerns are with the faddy-ness of focusing on particular tools and tactics. MySpace leads to Friendster leads to Facebook leads to Twitter leads to FourSquare...
I recently pondered (see the last paragraph in that link) what evolutionary or revolutionary path social media would take as a marketing tool.
But perhaps that's the wrong question.
We really need to better understand and address what "social" is all about at its core.
First, there's the matter of identifying what types of social media channels/strategies/tactics are out there. I think it comes down to:
1. Networks. Systems that enable connections between individuals, brands, groups, etc. These connections then grow into conversations or other relationships.
2. Consumer Generated Content. In any form -- text, video, photos, music... and in any quantity -- from entire novels to one-word comments.
3. Leads. Things that help participants find and/or use the above. Trending topics and hashtags on Twitter, Digg and Reddit links, or even just a "Hey, I just tried..." posts on a forum.
Is there anything in the social space that doesn't fall into these groups?
So it really comes down to: having something to talk about and a place (and way) to do it.
At the heart of both of these is one simple thing: Content.
Social media Networks and Leads are just another way to spread content (or tell people where to get it). Consumer Generated Content is just plain ol' Content with more contributors.
Here's what I think:
It's time for marketers to take a step back and look at their marketing strategy as a whole as a Content Strategy.
What do you want your brand to say?
What do you hope others will say about your brand?
What existing content do you want to associated with?
Where's the best place to say these things?
How can you help others say these things?
What similar topics or ideas should you align with?
Where are conversations already taking place?
Where should conversations take place?
How can new conversations get started?
How can potential participants find each other?
And this is BEFORE even thinking about a particular channel, or even medium.
It's not about "social media". It's not even about "digital marketing". It's just marketing.
Every single one of the questions above might be addressed with traditional marketing vehicles or real-world venues. Or fancy-pants, newfangled Web 3.0 options might be the best opportunities. Or, obviously, some combination of the two.
I'm working with several clients who are taking this approach. Each is working to establish their brand as experts in their particular industries and/or associated topics (whether that association is through demographic, psychographic, or other qualities). From there, they're determining the best ways to ensure this brand attribute is shared, and to (legitimately) prove their expertise by sharing as much as possible.
I think this makes a lot of sense for building the brands in the long-term.
The sexy-tool-and-tactic-of-the-moment is still important, and is a part of most of these plans. But we won't have to reinvent the wheel when a new flavour of the month comes along.
It's also, frankly, a lot less work in the long run. The same content may be valid for TV commercials, blog entries, Twitter posts, Facebook Fan Page updates, live events, sponsored community organizations, contest, and so on and so on across the entire gamut of potential marketing tools. Effort switches from constantly re-defining what we say to adjusting how and where we say it.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Beware the Case Study
I really really like case studies. In general, when I attend a conference or industry event, the presentations that I find most interesting and useful are the stories about "Here's what we were trying to do, here's what we did, here's why we chose this approach, and here's what happened."
But I've begun to get a bit more jaded about them lately.
At a recent Internet marketing event that I attended, for example, several case studies were presented. In every case, the brands saw amazing results. The solutions/campaigns/technology used were absolutely the best choices that the marketers could have selected.
Same thing at a recent advertising awards show. Of course, because it was a "creative" event, they didn't actually show any results generated by the winners, but the reels and screenshots and sample images, etc. certainly implied that the featured ads were the greatest pieces of design and copywriting ever beheld by mankind.
But some of us in the audiences at these events wondered aloud -- were these examples actually any good? Is there much we can learn from them?
A campaign by a major beer brand comes to mind. Their case study showed how they generated thousands of contest entries (and, we would assume, a whole pile of brand building value) for a particular promotion. Why was it successful? According to the case study, it had something to do with the amazingly-chosen media mix and the fancy new creative unit (ad size) used. But maybe, just maybe, it was successful because the brand spent millions of dollars promoting the contest. Maybe it had something to do with the prize being a dream vacation. Maybe the fact that the ads were basically just images of beautiful people in skimpy swimsuits had some influence on success. Or maybe the brand's history as the leader in market share for decades helped a little...
I would actually be more interested in a case study where a campaign like this failed miserably. If you have a multi-million dollar budget, few imagery restrictions, a product that's inherently linked to fun, and a well established brand, how on earth could you possibly screw up?
Unfortunately, case studies, like history, are written by the victors. There's not much reason for a marketing manager or ad agency to tell the world about their mistakes. Unless they're blaming someone else, of course.
One of my favourite marketing books is The End Of Marketing As We Know it by Sergio Zyman. Zyman is former CMO of Coca Cola and has been a consultant for numerous other huge consumer product brands. The main message of the book is pretty simple: marketing is meant to sell. One of things that makes the content so interesting, though, is that he spends more time talking about the failures than he does about the successes. It turns out, for example, that classic ad campaigns ("Mean Joe Greene", "Tastes Great, Less Filling", and many others) didn't actually do anything for the bottom line.
Case studies can be very dangerous, and I think it's all about context. If you're a marketer, you need to look very carefully at the similarities and differences between your brand and the examples. Don't assume that because X (seems to have) worked for those other guys it will automatically work for you too. Are their budgets similar? Is their background similar? Is their audience similar? Are the inherent product attributes even remotely similar?
It's pretty obvious to say "Your small brand can't count on the same success that a big brand saw" or "Your boring product can't count on the same success that a fun product saw", but it also works the other direction. Everybody loves the "Little brand that could" stories of some guy in his his mom's garage growing into a multi-national leader. But just as that little guy had to start with a different approach than his billion-dollar competitors, his billion-dollar competitors couldn't just look at this up-and-comer and follow his approach.
Case studies aren't useless, of course. Like I said, I really really like them. The key is to identify the similarities.
If I'm selling banking products, maybe I can relate to the fun-loving attributes of a beer campaign. Who doesn't love money, right?
If I'm selling high-end cosmetics, there's probably something to learn from the techniques of other ridiculously-high-margin products like pharmaceuticals...
A huge baby stroller producer should be able to use similar insights into the minds of new parents as a small, local daycare...
But I've begun to get a bit more jaded about them lately.
At a recent Internet marketing event that I attended, for example, several case studies were presented. In every case, the brands saw amazing results. The solutions/campaigns/technology used were absolutely the best choices that the marketers could have selected.
Same thing at a recent advertising awards show. Of course, because it was a "creative" event, they didn't actually show any results generated by the winners, but the reels and screenshots and sample images, etc. certainly implied that the featured ads were the greatest pieces of design and copywriting ever beheld by mankind.
But some of us in the audiences at these events wondered aloud -- were these examples actually any good? Is there much we can learn from them?
A campaign by a major beer brand comes to mind. Their case study showed how they generated thousands of contest entries (and, we would assume, a whole pile of brand building value) for a particular promotion. Why was it successful? According to the case study, it had something to do with the amazingly-chosen media mix and the fancy new creative unit (ad size) used. But maybe, just maybe, it was successful because the brand spent millions of dollars promoting the contest. Maybe it had something to do with the prize being a dream vacation. Maybe the fact that the ads were basically just images of beautiful people in skimpy swimsuits had some influence on success. Or maybe the brand's history as the leader in market share for decades helped a little...
I would actually be more interested in a case study where a campaign like this failed miserably. If you have a multi-million dollar budget, few imagery restrictions, a product that's inherently linked to fun, and a well established brand, how on earth could you possibly screw up?
Unfortunately, case studies, like history, are written by the victors. There's not much reason for a marketing manager or ad agency to tell the world about their mistakes. Unless they're blaming someone else, of course.
One of my favourite marketing books is The End Of Marketing As We Know it by Sergio Zyman. Zyman is former CMO of Coca Cola and has been a consultant for numerous other huge consumer product brands. The main message of the book is pretty simple: marketing is meant to sell. One of things that makes the content so interesting, though, is that he spends more time talking about the failures than he does about the successes. It turns out, for example, that classic ad campaigns ("Mean Joe Greene", "Tastes Great, Less Filling", and many others) didn't actually do anything for the bottom line.
Case studies can be very dangerous, and I think it's all about context. If you're a marketer, you need to look very carefully at the similarities and differences between your brand and the examples. Don't assume that because X (seems to have) worked for those other guys it will automatically work for you too. Are their budgets similar? Is their background similar? Is their audience similar? Are the inherent product attributes even remotely similar?
It's pretty obvious to say "Your small brand can't count on the same success that a big brand saw" or "Your boring product can't count on the same success that a fun product saw", but it also works the other direction. Everybody loves the "Little brand that could" stories of some guy in his his mom's garage growing into a multi-national leader. But just as that little guy had to start with a different approach than his billion-dollar competitors, his billion-dollar competitors couldn't just look at this up-and-comer and follow his approach.
Case studies aren't useless, of course. Like I said, I really really like them. The key is to identify the similarities.
If I'm selling banking products, maybe I can relate to the fun-loving attributes of a beer campaign. Who doesn't love money, right?
If I'm selling high-end cosmetics, there's probably something to learn from the techniques of other ridiculously-high-margin products like pharmaceuticals...
A huge baby stroller producer should be able to use similar insights into the minds of new parents as a small, local daycare...
Thursday, November 12, 2009
A Million Monkeys
Are thousands of amateurs just as good (or better) than a small number of professionals?
That's the question behind crowdsourcing.
But you could even extend this to other areas of social media -- are the comments and contributions of the general public as (or more) valuable than the comments and contributions of experts? Are you better off connecting with a pro or a bunch of average Joes?
Like most questions (especially those related to marketing), the answer is: It depends.
In some situations, the crowd of amateurs is a much better resource than the professionals. Usually this has something to do with:
a.) The fact that the "professionals" are just amateurs who managed to get themselves a fancy-sounding title.
b.) The topic at hand is a matter of opinion.
c.) The amateurs are extremely enthusiastic.
and/or
d.) The crowd members are well-qualified (vs. anybody who feels like contributing)
Take movie reviews, for instance. I'd much rather hear from other movie-going members of the general public than a journalist or professor or sociologist or "academy".
Or reviews and ideas about favourite hobbies and products. If I like photography, the input I can get from the legions of other photographers out there is at least as valuable as what I might learn from a professional review, an art school, or some other self-proclaimed authority.
But in other situations... Well, all it takes is a glance at the comments on any (really, ANY) YouTube video, most news articles, or countless discussion forums to show just how sketchy the contributions of many people are. Or look at some of the top applications on Facebook, or the inane #hashtagged topics on Twitter, or the sheer volume of juvenile chatter in almost any social network.
It's pretty clear that the biggest problem with addressing the "crowd" is the crowd itself. Makes me wonder how marketers will react in the long term. Will marketers work more on filtering the garbage? (Some would say that this defeats the purpose of an open discussion). Will marketers and users accept all the useless content, but get better at just ignoring it?
There's no doubt in my mind that social media will lose its title of Trendy Tactic of the Moment, but will our collective attention shift to something similar and evolutionary (perhaps classic concepts under a different name, just like word-of-mouth became viral)? Or will there be a radical shift to something very different? Will be people suddenly get tired of belonging to a dozen different "communities", updating their status on a regular basis, and sharing their lives with everybody they've met?
That's the question behind crowdsourcing.
But you could even extend this to other areas of social media -- are the comments and contributions of the general public as (or more) valuable than the comments and contributions of experts? Are you better off connecting with a pro or a bunch of average Joes?
Like most questions (especially those related to marketing), the answer is: It depends.
In some situations, the crowd of amateurs is a much better resource than the professionals. Usually this has something to do with:
a.) The fact that the "professionals" are just amateurs who managed to get themselves a fancy-sounding title.
b.) The topic at hand is a matter of opinion.
c.) The amateurs are extremely enthusiastic.
and/or
d.) The crowd members are well-qualified (vs. anybody who feels like contributing)
Take movie reviews, for instance. I'd much rather hear from other movie-going members of the general public than a journalist or professor or sociologist or "academy".
Or reviews and ideas about favourite hobbies and products. If I like photography, the input I can get from the legions of other photographers out there is at least as valuable as what I might learn from a professional review, an art school, or some other self-proclaimed authority.
But in other situations... Well, all it takes is a glance at the comments on any (really, ANY) YouTube video, most news articles, or countless discussion forums to show just how sketchy the contributions of many people are. Or look at some of the top applications on Facebook, or the inane #hashtagged topics on Twitter, or the sheer volume of juvenile chatter in almost any social network.
It's pretty clear that the biggest problem with addressing the "crowd" is the crowd itself. Makes me wonder how marketers will react in the long term. Will marketers work more on filtering the garbage? (Some would say that this defeats the purpose of an open discussion). Will marketers and users accept all the useless content, but get better at just ignoring it?
There's no doubt in my mind that social media will lose its title of Trendy Tactic of the Moment, but will our collective attention shift to something similar and evolutionary (perhaps classic concepts under a different name, just like word-of-mouth became viral)? Or will there be a radical shift to something very different? Will be people suddenly get tired of belonging to a dozen different "communities", updating their status on a regular basis, and sharing their lives with everybody they've met?
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Tennis, Baseball, and Golf
Play any sport that involves hitting a ball with a stick and the coach will tell you that follow-through (continuing your motion after contact is made) is just as important as your form and strength prior to contact.
Same goes for marketing.
I recently attended the big Home and Interior Design Show that comes to town a couple of times a year. Hundreds of merchants and manufacturers set up fancy (and some not-so-fancy) booths where their salesiest or salesy salespeople try to convince everybody walking past that they need a new roof/hot tub/gutter/shower/furnace/stereo/countertop...
I'm in the process of building a house so I actually welcomed the sales pitches. So, over the course of a couple of hours I gathered together as much information as I could about windows, doors, heating, cooling, and every other topic imaginable.
So on to the follow-through.
A couple of weeks later, and I don't think I've been proactively contacted by anyone I met at the show. Most of those that I've contacted have been very slow to respond (if they've had any response at all) and don't seem interested in answering many questions.
I suspect that, like most small businesses, the participants at the event saw it as a one-off. They simplistically look at the attendance numbers and hope that a significant portion of the attendees will magically turn in to buyers.
I also suspect that there are enough of these instant and easy sales to justify the expense of the show.
But if many people are like me and not quite ready to buy (which should be a safe assumption for high-consideration products like these), the vendors are missing an enormous opportunity.
Same goes for marketing.
I recently attended the big Home and Interior Design Show that comes to town a couple of times a year. Hundreds of merchants and manufacturers set up fancy (and some not-so-fancy) booths where their salesiest or salesy salespeople try to convince everybody walking past that they need a new roof/hot tub/gutter/shower/furnace/stereo/countertop...
I'm in the process of building a house so I actually welcomed the sales pitches. So, over the course of a couple of hours I gathered together as much information as I could about windows, doors, heating, cooling, and every other topic imaginable.
So on to the follow-through.
A couple of weeks later, and I don't think I've been proactively contacted by anyone I met at the show. Most of those that I've contacted have been very slow to respond (if they've had any response at all) and don't seem interested in answering many questions.
I suspect that, like most small businesses, the participants at the event saw it as a one-off. They simplistically look at the attendance numbers and hope that a significant portion of the attendees will magically turn in to buyers.
I also suspect that there are enough of these instant and easy sales to justify the expense of the show.
But if many people are like me and not quite ready to buy (which should be a safe assumption for high-consideration products like these), the vendors are missing an enormous opportunity.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Missed Opportunities (Again)
Promoting film and TV properties seems like such a fun and open area of marketing. I've only done a small amount of work in this field, but have had the chance to run a few campaigns for other fun products over the years, and they're always much more creative (and easy) than trying to market an inherently boring product or service.
So why is so much film and TV marketing so lame?
There are a million interesting and unique methods to try, and some have done a great job. But far too many are just the typical "Run a few TV spots showing a few seconds of the best scenes. Put up a few 'coming soon' Out of Home ads. Maybe run a small viral video campaign or have an interactive Web site of some sort." Yawn.
Especially when it comes to remakes and new versions of iconic characters or shows.
Take the upcoming (it starts tomorrow) new "V" series. The original was nice, cheesy, 80s sci-fi, but it's incredibly recognizable among the target audience. Scenes like Abraham, the concentration camp survivor, spraypainting a big V "For victory" on a piece of Visitors propaganda, for instance... Wouldn't it have been cool for the marketing of the new show to replicate this, with big red Vs painted (with real paint, not just a lame poster) over fake ads (of various types) in outdoor placements across North America?
Or the recent Transformers films (especially the first one) -- there would have been a collective gasp of "Oh my god!" among fanboys if the first teaser trailers had shown absolutely nothing but then played the memorable "chee-choo-choo-chaw-chaw" transforming sound effect from the original cartoon series.
Or how about the hugely-successful Spider-man films... The marketers could have run a guerilla campaign hiring stunt performers to dangle from major buildings around the world.
Just a few silly ideas, but you get the picture.
Many of these big productions pretty much sell themselves, but creating a sense of excitement is still incredibly important. Using a bit of creativity could even save a few million bucks in advertising dollars.
So why is so much film and TV marketing so lame?
There are a million interesting and unique methods to try, and some have done a great job. But far too many are just the typical "Run a few TV spots showing a few seconds of the best scenes. Put up a few 'coming soon' Out of Home ads. Maybe run a small viral video campaign or have an interactive Web site of some sort." Yawn.
Especially when it comes to remakes and new versions of iconic characters or shows.
Take the upcoming (it starts tomorrow) new "V" series. The original was nice, cheesy, 80s sci-fi, but it's incredibly recognizable among the target audience. Scenes like Abraham, the concentration camp survivor, spraypainting a big V "For victory" on a piece of Visitors propaganda, for instance... Wouldn't it have been cool for the marketing of the new show to replicate this, with big red Vs painted (with real paint, not just a lame poster) over fake ads (of various types) in outdoor placements across North America?
Or the recent Transformers films (especially the first one) -- there would have been a collective gasp of "Oh my god!" among fanboys if the first teaser trailers had shown absolutely nothing but then played the memorable "chee-choo-choo-chaw-chaw" transforming sound effect from the original cartoon series.
Or how about the hugely-successful Spider-man films... The marketers could have run a guerilla campaign hiring stunt performers to dangle from major buildings around the world.
Just a few silly ideas, but you get the picture.
Many of these big productions pretty much sell themselves, but creating a sense of excitement is still incredibly important. Using a bit of creativity could even save a few million bucks in advertising dollars.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Getting Unique
Everything's cyclical - it's just the length of the cycle that changes.
Big chain stores and mass-produced products are the norm right now. I don't know if this will ever change.
But I suspect that there is a growing trend of small producers and sellers chipping away at the long-tail of the behemoths. Led largely by the efficiencies that can be experienced at even a small volume online, but also appearing in physical locations, there are a lot of "cottage" companies out there. Why buy the same, generic, everybody-has-one stuff when you could get something of (probably) higher quality that's substantially more unique, interesting, and personal?
It will be interesting to see if this develops into a trend, and if the big guys respond with niche sub-brands of their own.
Big chain stores and mass-produced products are the norm right now. I don't know if this will ever change.
But I suspect that there is a growing trend of small producers and sellers chipping away at the long-tail of the behemoths. Led largely by the efficiencies that can be experienced at even a small volume online, but also appearing in physical locations, there are a lot of "cottage" companies out there. Why buy the same, generic, everybody-has-one stuff when you could get something of (probably) higher quality that's substantially more unique, interesting, and personal?
It will be interesting to see if this develops into a trend, and if the big guys respond with niche sub-brands of their own.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Whither The Clickers?
Last time, I explained why I don't think that clickthrough rate is a dead metric for online advertising.
But this still leaves the big questions:
Why do most campaigns have such low CTRs?
And why do so few people click at all?
I think there are two simple reasons (requiring not-so-simple fixes):
1. It takes a certain type of person to click much.
2. Most campaigns suck. Even the good ones.
A Certain Type of Person
People are people, regardless of the medium they use.
A small portion of the audience are hard-core coupon clippers, sweepstakes entrants, infomercial-callers, letter-to-the-editor-writers, and so on.
It's hardly surprising that a relatively small group of users account for the vast majority of clicks. Even if average clickthrough rates were to dramatically improve, I suspect that the heavy-clickers would keep up the pace and continue to dominate.
I don't have any stats to back me up (anybody know of a good study on the topic?) but I'd bet that this group are a strange mix of extremely high-value consumers (the type who will buy anything, who are easy to sway, and like to tell all their friends about their purchase) and virtually-no-value consumers (the type who don't actually buy anything, but browse anything and everything purely for the sake of their own curiousity). I don't think there are many of the sought after in-betweens in this group: those who browse anything and everything and become experts for their friends. Those guys need to actually be targeted properly.
Most Campaigns Suck
It's true.
Typical online ad creative is awful. Unclear message, weak call-to-action, low-quality imagery or animation, too much copy, not enough copy...
And the typical campaign is very untargeted. Who are you trying to reach? It still amazes me that the bulk of online ads aren't even geo-targeted.
Is it any wonder that very few people respond immediately to an ad that doesn't speak to them, and is just plain lousy?
If advertisers took the time and made the effort to segment (and sub-segment) their target audience, identify targeting filters and techniques, carefully select media providers (not just pick the top 10 in a category on Comscore, say), created multiple creative variations, matched creative execution to placement/audience, and other basics (that we should all understand by now)... Well, I suspect we'd see clickthrough rates improve (along with all the other applicable metrics).
Of course, I completely recognize that sometimes this just isn't realistic. Deadlines, budgets, resourcing requirements, and a thousand other obstacles get in the way.
But I'm sure there are plenty of cases where these obstacles can be avoided and the people involved just didn't bother to do things right. You could write a book on Internet advertising best practices, and hundreds of people have, yet many media planners, brand managers, creative directors, and so on simply don't apply these.
When this changes, brand marketing through online display advertising will have a chance to bounce back. Who knows? Maybe one day it will be the sexy-tactic-of-the-minute...
But this still leaves the big questions:
Why do most campaigns have such low CTRs?
And why do so few people click at all?
I think there are two simple reasons (requiring not-so-simple fixes):
1. It takes a certain type of person to click much.
2. Most campaigns suck. Even the good ones.
A Certain Type of Person
People are people, regardless of the medium they use.
A small portion of the audience are hard-core coupon clippers, sweepstakes entrants, infomercial-callers, letter-to-the-editor-writers, and so on.
It's hardly surprising that a relatively small group of users account for the vast majority of clicks. Even if average clickthrough rates were to dramatically improve, I suspect that the heavy-clickers would keep up the pace and continue to dominate.
I don't have any stats to back me up (anybody know of a good study on the topic?) but I'd bet that this group are a strange mix of extremely high-value consumers (the type who will buy anything, who are easy to sway, and like to tell all their friends about their purchase) and virtually-no-value consumers (the type who don't actually buy anything, but browse anything and everything purely for the sake of their own curiousity). I don't think there are many of the sought after in-betweens in this group: those who browse anything and everything and become experts for their friends. Those guys need to actually be targeted properly.
Most Campaigns Suck
It's true.
Typical online ad creative is awful. Unclear message, weak call-to-action, low-quality imagery or animation, too much copy, not enough copy...
And the typical campaign is very untargeted. Who are you trying to reach? It still amazes me that the bulk of online ads aren't even geo-targeted.
Is it any wonder that very few people respond immediately to an ad that doesn't speak to them, and is just plain lousy?
If advertisers took the time and made the effort to segment (and sub-segment) their target audience, identify targeting filters and techniques, carefully select media providers (not just pick the top 10 in a category on Comscore, say), created multiple creative variations, matched creative execution to placement/audience, and other basics (that we should all understand by now)... Well, I suspect we'd see clickthrough rates improve (along with all the other applicable metrics).
Of course, I completely recognize that sometimes this just isn't realistic. Deadlines, budgets, resourcing requirements, and a thousand other obstacles get in the way.
But I'm sure there are plenty of cases where these obstacles can be avoided and the people involved just didn't bother to do things right. You could write a book on Internet advertising best practices, and hundreds of people have, yet many media planners, brand managers, creative directors, and so on simply don't apply these.
When this changes, brand marketing through online display advertising will have a chance to bounce back. Who knows? Maybe one day it will be the sexy-tactic-of-the-minute...
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
The Reports of The Clickthrough Rate's Demise Have Been Greatly Exagerrated
It's an ongoing debate in digital marketing circles, but really brought to the forefront lately: How valuable is clickthrough rate (CTR) as a success metric?
A recent report, for example, indicates that the majority of clicks come from an extremely small group of people.
At an IAB event last week, a speaker basically said "Clicks are dead. You've got to get past looking at clicks."
Within a typical ad campaign, it's normal to expect a clickthrough rate of around 0.10 to 0.20%. And even that's a stretch for some campaigns. In other words, only one or two people click on the ad for every thousand that see it.
And, of course, clicking on an ad is just one of many steps in any consumer interaction -- alone, it does not give us a very complete picture of what actual happened in that interaction. Many interactions don't even involve a click (such as in cases where a user sees an ad, doesn't respond immediately, but at a later time performs a search for the advertised product or brand).
In addition to all this, CTR isn't even an exact measurement. In most campaigns, the number of clicks registered by the ad server is different than the number of visits registered by a site's log files (or other metrics methods).
So, with all these negatives, why do I think that the CTR isn't dead yet?
Lots of reasons. Among them:
1. Clickthrough rate is still better than most traditional metrics.
How many clicks did your latest out of home ad garner? How many people responded to your multi-million dollar TV campaign? How does this compare to the number that responded to your radio campaign that ran at the same time?...
Most traditional marketers simply cannot answer these questions. Those who can do so by spending a significant amount of time, effort, and money on research and analysis. Or they use direct response tactics (such as a unique phone number, coupon code, or other identifiers) to differentiate between ads, channels, offers, etc. (Which is great, but has all sorts of not-so-good impacts on branding and consistency).
2. Clickthrough rate is good for quick analysis of trends and general status.
At a glance, CTR can tell you if Creative A or Creative B is making a bigger impact, or if Placement A or Placement B is more relevant to your target audience.
Watching clickthrough rates change over time can help warn that your campaign is getting stale or, alternatively, tell you that you're reaching an optimal frequency level.
It's not perfect, and it's not a complete picture, but it can be invaluable when you need a quick-and-dirty understanding of what's going on.
3. Clickthrough rate is an important part of the big picture.
Although its importance as an individual metric is questionable, CTR can give us lots of great information when combined with other data.
Going back to Marketing 101 and the AIDA model (Awareness, Interest, Desire, Action), clickthrough rate can help us understand how well we're achieving some of the earlier metrics (Awareness to some degree, but primarily Interest). This info has a low value by itself (it doesn't do much good to gain someone's interest if they don't eventually Desire your product), but can help you understand where you're going wrong (or right).
A campaign with, say, a high CTR but low conversion rate might indicate that the creative is excellent, or very well targeted, or that the offer is strong at first glance, but that the landing page is weak, or that the details of the offer are disappointing when the user looks more closely.
On the other hand, a campaign with a low CTR but high conversion rate might indicate that the media plan needs to shift focus, or that the creative isn't getting the message across clearly, because the small portion of people who do click are actually quite impressed when they get to the landing page.
An ad with high engagement (like watching a video or playing a game) but low clickthrough rate might indicate that it's doing a great job of branding but needs a stronger sense of urgency.
A campaign with high CTRs -- but only for ads with high impression levels -- might tell us that the ads are too complex, or that a certain level of frequency is required, or that sequential messaging would be beneficial.
And so on and so on.
Without understanding the clickthrough portion of the bigger picture, our understanding of the end result is incomplete.
4. Clickthrough rate has become a standard.
Right or wrong, everybody understands (or can understand) how to calculate a clickthrough rate and what it represents. When we start talking about “engagement:” or “time spent” or “viewthrough” or “complete views” or “post click conversions” other metrics that are typically more valuable to an analyst, the waters get a bit muddy. What does an “engagement” really mean? Does 30 seconds spent playing an online game have the same value as 30 seconds spent viewing an online video? How long after an initial impression is made should its contribution still be attributed to a sale?
CTR might be simple, but that’s part of its value. GRPs don’t tell us much about the value of a TV audience, but they’ve become a standard metric for much the same reason, as have distribution and circulation for print.
So, if clicks are still important, this brings up the equally important question:
Why are clickthrough rates so low?
Some thoughts on this in another entry.
A recent report, for example, indicates that the majority of clicks come from an extremely small group of people.
At an IAB event last week, a speaker basically said "Clicks are dead. You've got to get past looking at clicks."
Within a typical ad campaign, it's normal to expect a clickthrough rate of around 0.10 to 0.20%. And even that's a stretch for some campaigns. In other words, only one or two people click on the ad for every thousand that see it.
And, of course, clicking on an ad is just one of many steps in any consumer interaction -- alone, it does not give us a very complete picture of what actual happened in that interaction. Many interactions don't even involve a click (such as in cases where a user sees an ad, doesn't respond immediately, but at a later time performs a search for the advertised product or brand).
In addition to all this, CTR isn't even an exact measurement. In most campaigns, the number of clicks registered by the ad server is different than the number of visits registered by a site's log files (or other metrics methods).
So, with all these negatives, why do I think that the CTR isn't dead yet?
Lots of reasons. Among them:
1. Clickthrough rate is still better than most traditional metrics.
How many clicks did your latest out of home ad garner? How many people responded to your multi-million dollar TV campaign? How does this compare to the number that responded to your radio campaign that ran at the same time?...
Most traditional marketers simply cannot answer these questions. Those who can do so by spending a significant amount of time, effort, and money on research and analysis. Or they use direct response tactics (such as a unique phone number, coupon code, or other identifiers) to differentiate between ads, channels, offers, etc. (Which is great, but has all sorts of not-so-good impacts on branding and consistency).
2. Clickthrough rate is good for quick analysis of trends and general status.
At a glance, CTR can tell you if Creative A or Creative B is making a bigger impact, or if Placement A or Placement B is more relevant to your target audience.
Watching clickthrough rates change over time can help warn that your campaign is getting stale or, alternatively, tell you that you're reaching an optimal frequency level.
It's not perfect, and it's not a complete picture, but it can be invaluable when you need a quick-and-dirty understanding of what's going on.
3. Clickthrough rate is an important part of the big picture.
Although its importance as an individual metric is questionable, CTR can give us lots of great information when combined with other data.
Going back to Marketing 101 and the AIDA model (Awareness, Interest, Desire, Action), clickthrough rate can help us understand how well we're achieving some of the earlier metrics (Awareness to some degree, but primarily Interest). This info has a low value by itself (it doesn't do much good to gain someone's interest if they don't eventually Desire your product), but can help you understand where you're going wrong (or right).
A campaign with, say, a high CTR but low conversion rate might indicate that the creative is excellent, or very well targeted, or that the offer is strong at first glance, but that the landing page is weak, or that the details of the offer are disappointing when the user looks more closely.
On the other hand, a campaign with a low CTR but high conversion rate might indicate that the media plan needs to shift focus, or that the creative isn't getting the message across clearly, because the small portion of people who do click are actually quite impressed when they get to the landing page.
An ad with high engagement (like watching a video or playing a game) but low clickthrough rate might indicate that it's doing a great job of branding but needs a stronger sense of urgency.
A campaign with high CTRs -- but only for ads with high impression levels -- might tell us that the ads are too complex, or that a certain level of frequency is required, or that sequential messaging would be beneficial.
And so on and so on.
Without understanding the clickthrough portion of the bigger picture, our understanding of the end result is incomplete.
4. Clickthrough rate has become a standard.
Right or wrong, everybody understands (or can understand) how to calculate a clickthrough rate and what it represents. When we start talking about “engagement:” or “time spent” or “viewthrough” or “complete views” or “post click conversions” other metrics that are typically more valuable to an analyst, the waters get a bit muddy. What does an “engagement” really mean? Does 30 seconds spent playing an online game have the same value as 30 seconds spent viewing an online video? How long after an initial impression is made should its contribution still be attributed to a sale?
CTR might be simple, but that’s part of its value. GRPs don’t tell us much about the value of a TV audience, but they’ve become a standard metric for much the same reason, as have distribution and circulation for print.
So, if clicks are still important, this brings up the equally important question:
Why are clickthrough rates so low?
Some thoughts on this in another entry.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Don't Get Defensive
Good advice for personal relationships, and equally so for business -- when confronted with a potential argument (or even just a disagreement), don't get defensive.
Two stories for this one:
A few months ago I was at a local home improvement warehouse store, waiting in line with some lumber. This store has a "contractors" line-up for people with large, bulky items. Due to a bit of ad planning in the store layout, the cashier area only has room for one or two big shopping carts and the line-up is then intersected by a major aisle through the store. So, the line breaks up for twenty feet or so and then reforms. Anyway, I was waiting in the third position (the first person after the break) with two customers in front of me. The second customer had a couple of carts, so they were standing with one by the cashier while their spouse waited with the other a few steps to one side. The person in front of them finished, and the person in line moved forward. Their spouse brought the other cart over to join them.
At this time, a staff member walked past and confronted the spouse. "The line up is back there", she said, pointing in my direction.
Okay, common situation for almost every store. The spouse had a legitimate reason for being there, though, and simply said "Oh, I'm with her".
Instead of smiling and moving on, the staff member decided to get upset. "There's no way I could know that!" she snapped. I still remember this because of the way she said it. You know that episode of Family Guy where Brian has a new girlfriend who's a complete moron? Near the end of the episode, Stewie and Brian are talking about how she talks, where every sentence.. ends with an upwards inflection... as if it's a question. That was exactly how Miss "Angry That A Customer Pointed Out Her Mistake" sounded.
Second story:
Stopped for dinner at a restaurant a couple of weeks ago. One of us wanted to order the soup and salad combination. Unfortunately, they didn't want the soup of the day and tried to substitute French Onion in its place. The waitress informed us that there would be a $2 charge for the substitution. I pointed out to her that, on the menu, the price difference between the two items was $0.50. Unless the soup in the combo is four times bigger than the one on the menu (doubtful, since the combo cost in total was only double the price of the soup alone), the extra charge seemed a bit high.
We didn't care about the $2. It's not a big deal. But the principle of charging a significant premium for a slight alteration seemed like a really poor business practice.
Instead of simply apologizing and saying something like "Unfortunately, we have to charge a standard $2 for all substitutions" or some other excuse, she became very defensive. She proceeded to tell us how she isn't responsible for the pricing. And how she has to enter the substitution into the computer when she orders and can't instruct the cook to make the change. And how it's a much bigger soup bowl than the one on the menu... And on and on. Meanwhile, we're just telling her "Okay fine. It doesn't make sense to charge that much, but we'll just order something else."
In the first case above, the staff member risked making something of nothing, and obviously created a bad impression for any customers within earshot. In the second case, the staff member risked turning a mildly irritating bit of bad pricing decisions into an entirely bad customer experience.
In both cases, the defensiveness was completely unnecessary and was worse than the initial problem itself.
Two stories for this one:
A few months ago I was at a local home improvement warehouse store, waiting in line with some lumber. This store has a "contractors" line-up for people with large, bulky items. Due to a bit of ad planning in the store layout, the cashier area only has room for one or two big shopping carts and the line-up is then intersected by a major aisle through the store. So, the line breaks up for twenty feet or so and then reforms. Anyway, I was waiting in the third position (the first person after the break) with two customers in front of me. The second customer had a couple of carts, so they were standing with one by the cashier while their spouse waited with the other a few steps to one side. The person in front of them finished, and the person in line moved forward. Their spouse brought the other cart over to join them.
At this time, a staff member walked past and confronted the spouse. "The line up is back there", she said, pointing in my direction.
Okay, common situation for almost every store. The spouse had a legitimate reason for being there, though, and simply said "Oh, I'm with her".
Instead of smiling and moving on, the staff member decided to get upset. "There's no way I could know that!" she snapped. I still remember this because of the way she said it. You know that episode of Family Guy where Brian has a new girlfriend who's a complete moron? Near the end of the episode, Stewie and Brian are talking about how she talks, where every sentence.. ends with an upwards inflection... as if it's a question. That was exactly how Miss "Angry That A Customer Pointed Out Her Mistake" sounded.
Second story:
Stopped for dinner at a restaurant a couple of weeks ago. One of us wanted to order the soup and salad combination. Unfortunately, they didn't want the soup of the day and tried to substitute French Onion in its place. The waitress informed us that there would be a $2 charge for the substitution. I pointed out to her that, on the menu, the price difference between the two items was $0.50. Unless the soup in the combo is four times bigger than the one on the menu (doubtful, since the combo cost in total was only double the price of the soup alone), the extra charge seemed a bit high.
We didn't care about the $2. It's not a big deal. But the principle of charging a significant premium for a slight alteration seemed like a really poor business practice.
Instead of simply apologizing and saying something like "Unfortunately, we have to charge a standard $2 for all substitutions" or some other excuse, she became very defensive. She proceeded to tell us how she isn't responsible for the pricing. And how she has to enter the substitution into the computer when she orders and can't instruct the cook to make the change. And how it's a much bigger soup bowl than the one on the menu... And on and on. Meanwhile, we're just telling her "Okay fine. It doesn't make sense to charge that much, but we'll just order something else."
In the first case above, the staff member risked making something of nothing, and obviously created a bad impression for any customers within earshot. In the second case, the staff member risked turning a mildly irritating bit of bad pricing decisions into an entirely bad customer experience.
In both cases, the defensiveness was completely unnecessary and was worse than the initial problem itself.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Oldies are Goodies
My birthday is next weekend.
Like happens with many people, this prompted me to think of some of the positives about getting older.
One that came to mind immediately was: "People take you seriously."
More specifically, business associates, clients, and especially potential vendors.
I want to focus on the last of these.
I'm currently in the process of buying an empty lot, selling my home, moving in with family for a few months, and building a new house. More about this in another post, I suspect.
The incredible thing is that this whole idea and process kicked off with a single visit to an open house. On a lark, we decided to check out a beautiful show home in an area we love, just to see what it was like. Amazingly, the real estate agent showing the home didn't ignore us. She actually spoke to us as if we might buy the place (or one like it). Just as importantly, she didn't seem to be just humouring us -- she really believed that we might actually be capable of buying the place. We continued down the street to a second show home that was having an open house. Considering the good experience at the first one, we decided to check the second one out as well.
Same thing happened. The agent was friendly, helpful, and genuinely seemed interested in taking some time with us. Even when another family arrived to look around, he continued to pay attention to us, answer our questions, etc.
Interestingly, a couple of rooms in this show home were being used as the office for the home's builder. When we were in that part of the house, he greeted us, introduced himself, and said that he'd be happy to answer our questions if we're considering building a house any time in the future. (We hired him, and the second agent, by the way).
I compare this experience to even just a few years ago. The last time I was house-hunting, I was virtually ignored by the agents showing the homes. Same thing with other "grown-up"' products and services.
I remember going into a BMW dealership, just to have a closer look at the current models, and not being approached by a single employee, while others around us were being accosted left and right.
Needless to say, although we were totally capable of affording one of their cars and were actually quite interested in considering one, we didn't hang around. We haven't been back since.
I wonder: If the slightly-younger me was given the same respect as the getting-older me, would I have been much more likely to buy back then? Probably.
Obviously, it might not just be an age thing. But it's the only obvious difference I can think of.
Like happens with many people, this prompted me to think of some of the positives about getting older.
One that came to mind immediately was: "People take you seriously."
More specifically, business associates, clients, and especially potential vendors.
I want to focus on the last of these.
I'm currently in the process of buying an empty lot, selling my home, moving in with family for a few months, and building a new house. More about this in another post, I suspect.
The incredible thing is that this whole idea and process kicked off with a single visit to an open house. On a lark, we decided to check out a beautiful show home in an area we love, just to see what it was like. Amazingly, the real estate agent showing the home didn't ignore us. She actually spoke to us as if we might buy the place (or one like it). Just as importantly, she didn't seem to be just humouring us -- she really believed that we might actually be capable of buying the place. We continued down the street to a second show home that was having an open house. Considering the good experience at the first one, we decided to check the second one out as well.
Same thing happened. The agent was friendly, helpful, and genuinely seemed interested in taking some time with us. Even when another family arrived to look around, he continued to pay attention to us, answer our questions, etc.
Interestingly, a couple of rooms in this show home were being used as the office for the home's builder. When we were in that part of the house, he greeted us, introduced himself, and said that he'd be happy to answer our questions if we're considering building a house any time in the future. (We hired him, and the second agent, by the way).
I compare this experience to even just a few years ago. The last time I was house-hunting, I was virtually ignored by the agents showing the homes. Same thing with other "grown-up"' products and services.
I remember going into a BMW dealership, just to have a closer look at the current models, and not being approached by a single employee, while others around us were being accosted left and right.
Needless to say, although we were totally capable of affording one of their cars and were actually quite interested in considering one, we didn't hang around. We haven't been back since.
I wonder: If the slightly-younger me was given the same respect as the getting-older me, would I have been much more likely to buy back then? Probably.
Obviously, it might not just be an age thing. But it's the only obvious difference I can think of.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Missing The Spirit
I'm going to complain about the concept of "social media" again.
But this time as an example to illustrate a bigger problem.
A lot of brands have the bad habit of diving into a popular topic or concept on a very literal level, but miss its greater purpose (or the reason for its popularity in the first place).
Take iTunes. It's now more integrated with social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter. Your social networks can see what you're listening to.
Okay. Great.
I supposed that, technically, that's making the music software more "social", but what's the point? It's a nice feature, but is it particularly valuable to users?
Social media is really supposed to be about connecting people, finding new connections, and about contributing to a greater whole. (Yes, I know it's a lot more than that, but this is just an example, right?).
So, how about this concept for iTunes: In a public place, listening to your iPod or iPhone or iShoe or whatever, you can choose to broadcast to those in your immediate surroundings. Imagine that you're sitting at a bus station, and people are using their devices to tune into your playlist (and vice versa). Find somebody with musical tastes that match your own and add them to one of your networks. Or discover a new song or artist just because the cute girl across the room seems to be listening to it...
(Again, this is just an example. Don't start with the "but copyright law..." and "but technologically..." stuff.)
I feel like a bit of a broken record (ha ha - it's a pun!), but it's worth repeating: don't focus on the tools. Figure out the WHY and the WHO before you worry about the WHAT and the HOW.
But this time as an example to illustrate a bigger problem.
A lot of brands have the bad habit of diving into a popular topic or concept on a very literal level, but miss its greater purpose (or the reason for its popularity in the first place).
Take iTunes. It's now more integrated with social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter. Your social networks can see what you're listening to.
Okay. Great.
I supposed that, technically, that's making the music software more "social", but what's the point? It's a nice feature, but is it particularly valuable to users?
Social media is really supposed to be about connecting people, finding new connections, and about contributing to a greater whole. (Yes, I know it's a lot more than that, but this is just an example, right?).
So, how about this concept for iTunes: In a public place, listening to your iPod or iPhone or iShoe or whatever, you can choose to broadcast to those in your immediate surroundings. Imagine that you're sitting at a bus station, and people are using their devices to tune into your playlist (and vice versa). Find somebody with musical tastes that match your own and add them to one of your networks. Or discover a new song or artist just because the cute girl across the room seems to be listening to it...
(Again, this is just an example. Don't start with the "but copyright law..." and "but technologically..." stuff.)
I feel like a bit of a broken record (ha ha - it's a pun!), but it's worth repeating: don't focus on the tools. Figure out the WHY and the WHO before you worry about the WHAT and the HOW.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Meaningless Slogans
Ever notice how many slogans, taglines, or other brand statements are completely meaningless?
Real estate agents seem particularly bad for this. "Your professional partner", "A strong choice", "Enabling smart choices"... Did they all attend the same seminar or something, telling that they should start branding themselves?
Or check out hair care brand Tresemme's (one of many) lines:
"Used by professionals"
Wow. This says something and yet nothing at the same time. Could they be any more vague?
How is it used? For their clients or themselves? As a shampoo, or as hubcap cleaner?
Do they still use it, or is the implication that it was once used by professionals at some point in the past?
And who are these professionals? The shampoo company's lawyers? A couple of employees in the HR department?
I hate to think how bad or pointless some of the slogans they didn't pick must have been.
Real estate agents seem particularly bad for this. "Your professional partner", "A strong choice", "Enabling smart choices"... Did they all attend the same seminar or something, telling that they should start branding themselves?
Or check out hair care brand Tresemme's (one of many) lines:
"Used by professionals"
Wow. This says something and yet nothing at the same time. Could they be any more vague?
How is it used? For their clients or themselves? As a shampoo, or as hubcap cleaner?
Do they still use it, or is the implication that it was once used by professionals at some point in the past?
And who are these professionals? The shampoo company's lawyers? A couple of employees in the HR department?
I hate to think how bad or pointless some of the slogans they didn't pick must have been.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Who Are You Talking To?
I'm running into a lot of salespeople lately who don't seem to understand how to address the appropriate person or people in a transaction.
The old cliche, of course, is the construction worker or car salesperson, etc. who, when dealing with a married couple, virtually ignores the wife.
But even on a B-to-B level, things like this happen. I deal with several reps, for example, who insist on cc:'ing everyone on my team when they reply to my e-mails. In the past, I've had numerous experiences where a salesperson will invite my boss to an event or offer them some other goody, completely bypassing me.
Sure, sometimes it's forgivable. In some situations the roles of the people in a client or prospect's organization - or the relationships between those people - are complicated and hard to decipher. It makes sense for an outsider to either deal with everyone or just their "usual" contact.
It would be nice if (in all the other cases where it's not so understandable) the salesperson would simply ask a few questions to help clarify who should be involved. Don't go over my head or around me. Most of the time, you won't get a better response from the other people than you will from me, and in the meantime you're just making me think you're being sneaky or that you're unreliable.
The old cliche, of course, is the construction worker or car salesperson, etc. who, when dealing with a married couple, virtually ignores the wife.
But even on a B-to-B level, things like this happen. I deal with several reps, for example, who insist on cc:'ing everyone on my team when they reply to my e-mails. In the past, I've had numerous experiences where a salesperson will invite my boss to an event or offer them some other goody, completely bypassing me.
Sure, sometimes it's forgivable. In some situations the roles of the people in a client or prospect's organization - or the relationships between those people - are complicated and hard to decipher. It makes sense for an outsider to either deal with everyone or just their "usual" contact.
It would be nice if (in all the other cases where it's not so understandable) the salesperson would simply ask a few questions to help clarify who should be involved. Don't go over my head or around me. Most of the time, you won't get a better response from the other people than you will from me, and in the meantime you're just making me think you're being sneaky or that you're unreliable.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Communications
It's interesting how many different ways people like to communicate.
I know people who seem to use Facebook (and, more specifically, their public "wall" on Facebook) as their primary communications medium.
I know others who would rather send a Twitter "DM" than write an e-mail.
And others who will pick up the phone for every little conversation.
And still others who go out of their way to meet in person.
At the same time, it's amazing how poor many businesses are at dealing with the multitude of preferences their customers may have.
Personally, for example, when looking for a new service provider, I love coming across "contact us" forms. If done well, they give me a great opportunity to send the provider a large amount of pertinent information up front, so I don't have to explain my needs to such a degree during our first phone call or meeting. Unfortunately for me, most service providers offer (at best) a form where I can submit a callback number.
Brands need to recognize that consumers' preferences about this stuff are all over the map. When a client asks me "Should we be using Twitter?" or "Should we advertise our mailing address?" or "Should we include our phone number on our Web site, even though people can just e-mail us?", I usually answer "Sure. Why not?"
Unless it's likely to require a significant investment of time or money to operate a communications channel properly, it certainly doesn't hurt to make it available. Setup a Twitter account as long as you'll be checking it daily -- even if you only post a few times a week... As long as you check the post as soon as it arrives, what can it hurt to advertise your mailing address?...
And finally:
It's even more amazing how many brands miss the most simple of tactics for communicating with customers: Calling people back.
I'm currently going through the process of selling a home, buying a lot, and hiring builders for that lot. I've had to deal with real estate agents, mortgage brokers, land owners, banks, construction firms, inspectors, government officials, cleaners, stagers, and so on and so on.
Sadly, a huge number of people I've contacted or replied to simply don't get back to me in a timely way. I wait days for urgent information to arrive (without receiving even a "It's on its way" in the meantime). I virtually tell suppliers that I have money ready and waiting for them, and they don't bother to get in touch. Are you so busy that you can't even spare a couple of minutes for a conversation with me? Not even an e-mail note? If so, lucky you. But you aren't getting any more business from me if I can't count on you.
I know people who seem to use Facebook (and, more specifically, their public "wall" on Facebook) as their primary communications medium.
I know others who would rather send a Twitter "DM" than write an e-mail.
And others who will pick up the phone for every little conversation.
And still others who go out of their way to meet in person.
At the same time, it's amazing how poor many businesses are at dealing with the multitude of preferences their customers may have.
Personally, for example, when looking for a new service provider, I love coming across "contact us" forms. If done well, they give me a great opportunity to send the provider a large amount of pertinent information up front, so I don't have to explain my needs to such a degree during our first phone call or meeting. Unfortunately for me, most service providers offer (at best) a form where I can submit a callback number.
Brands need to recognize that consumers' preferences about this stuff are all over the map. When a client asks me "Should we be using Twitter?" or "Should we advertise our mailing address?" or "Should we include our phone number on our Web site, even though people can just e-mail us?", I usually answer "Sure. Why not?"
Unless it's likely to require a significant investment of time or money to operate a communications channel properly, it certainly doesn't hurt to make it available. Setup a Twitter account as long as you'll be checking it daily -- even if you only post a few times a week... As long as you check the post as soon as it arrives, what can it hurt to advertise your mailing address?...
And finally:
It's even more amazing how many brands miss the most simple of tactics for communicating with customers: Calling people back.
I'm currently going through the process of selling a home, buying a lot, and hiring builders for that lot. I've had to deal with real estate agents, mortgage brokers, land owners, banks, construction firms, inspectors, government officials, cleaners, stagers, and so on and so on.
Sadly, a huge number of people I've contacted or replied to simply don't get back to me in a timely way. I wait days for urgent information to arrive (without receiving even a "It's on its way" in the meantime). I virtually tell suppliers that I have money ready and waiting for them, and they don't bother to get in touch. Are you so busy that you can't even spare a couple of minutes for a conversation with me? Not even an e-mail note? If so, lucky you. But you aren't getting any more business from me if I can't count on you.
Friday, July 3, 2009
Inventing A Problem
I'm automatically skeptical of any product that makes claims to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Or, at least, a problem that's greatly exaggerated.
The worst offenders are those late night infomercials.
ANNCR: "Isn't cutting fruits and vegetables a nightmare?"
FEMALE: [Pushes down on tomato with dull knife, wobbling this way and that, tomato juice squirts everywhere]
ANNCR: "And storing knives can be a real pain"
MALE: [Walks beneath a rack full of sharp knives, scissors, swords, daggers, and lawn clippers - all precariously balanced and about to fall on his head]
Come on. If your product is good, won't an (honest) demonstration show off its qualities? Why do they need to make the users look like they have the intelligence and motor skills of a 2 year old?
A recent, more mainstream, example is toilet paper ad. You know the ones with the happy little cartoon bear family? Apparently, that brand of paper doesn't "leave lots of little pieces behind". Really? Is that an actual problem for a lot of people? I hate to think of how hard they're wiping if it's tearing pieces off of their toilet paper.
The worst offenders are those late night infomercials.
ANNCR: "Isn't cutting fruits and vegetables a nightmare?"
FEMALE: [Pushes down on tomato with dull knife, wobbling this way and that, tomato juice squirts everywhere]
ANNCR: "And storing knives can be a real pain"
MALE: [Walks beneath a rack full of sharp knives, scissors, swords, daggers, and lawn clippers - all precariously balanced and about to fall on his head]
Come on. If your product is good, won't an (honest) demonstration show off its qualities? Why do they need to make the users look like they have the intelligence and motor skills of a 2 year old?
A recent, more mainstream, example is toilet paper ad. You know the ones with the happy little cartoon bear family? Apparently, that brand of paper doesn't "leave lots of little pieces behind". Really? Is that an actual problem for a lot of people? I hate to think of how hard they're wiping if it's tearing pieces off of their toilet paper.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Imagination Gap
I recently read a couple of classic sci-fi stories: Robert A. Heinlein's Have Spacesuit - Will Travel, and Poul Anderson's Tales of the Flying Mountains.
It was interesting to read "futuristic" novels that were written decades ago. The technical knowledge of both authors is clear, as are their amazing imaginations. Imagine trying to write a realistic account of something that nobody has any practical experience with.
However, one of the things I found most interesting was the gaps. Not in the technical knowledge (it's hardly surprising that some of the authors' guesses about technology would be proven incorrect over time). Actually, it's the gaps in their imaginations that struck me most.
For example, in Have Spacesuit, which is set in a "near future" scenario, Heinlein described computer-controlled spacecraft, yet his protagonist uses a slide rule to do some quick calculations. He imagines (and describes in detail) an alien civilization communicating across enormous distances, yet assumes that humans in the late 20th or early 21st Century would still get most of their information through broadcast TV (and that a colour TV set would be a luxury).
Why would an intelligent, informed, and creative person overlook things like "portable calculation devices" or "something better than TV"? The answer, of course, is "why wouldn't they overlook these?".
When you make a basic assumption like "Computers take up lots of room" or "TV delivers both audio and moving video which is all we need for communication", it's easy to simply move along.
Thinking about it, it's actually easier to visualize big, amazing changes than it is to imagine the little (equally amazing) details.
What's the lesson? Take nothing for granted. Don't assume that even the most basic truths will always be true. Don't think that what exists currently is all that anyone will ever want or need. Little changes can make at least as much impact as the big ones.
Sure, this is all pretty obvious, but we (everybody) constantly overlook all sorts of details in our plans and aspirations. Our imaginations automatically skip over certain "self-evident" truths on their way to figuring out bigger, presumably better, things.
It was interesting to read "futuristic" novels that were written decades ago. The technical knowledge of both authors is clear, as are their amazing imaginations. Imagine trying to write a realistic account of something that nobody has any practical experience with.
However, one of the things I found most interesting was the gaps. Not in the technical knowledge (it's hardly surprising that some of the authors' guesses about technology would be proven incorrect over time). Actually, it's the gaps in their imaginations that struck me most.
For example, in Have Spacesuit, which is set in a "near future" scenario, Heinlein described computer-controlled spacecraft, yet his protagonist uses a slide rule to do some quick calculations. He imagines (and describes in detail) an alien civilization communicating across enormous distances, yet assumes that humans in the late 20th or early 21st Century would still get most of their information through broadcast TV (and that a colour TV set would be a luxury).
Why would an intelligent, informed, and creative person overlook things like "portable calculation devices" or "something better than TV"? The answer, of course, is "why wouldn't they overlook these?".
When you make a basic assumption like "Computers take up lots of room" or "TV delivers both audio and moving video which is all we need for communication", it's easy to simply move along.
Thinking about it, it's actually easier to visualize big, amazing changes than it is to imagine the little (equally amazing) details.
What's the lesson? Take nothing for granted. Don't assume that even the most basic truths will always be true. Don't think that what exists currently is all that anyone will ever want or need. Little changes can make at least as much impact as the big ones.
Sure, this is all pretty obvious, but we (everybody) constantly overlook all sorts of details in our plans and aspirations. Our imaginations automatically skip over certain "self-evident" truths on their way to figuring out bigger, presumably better, things.
Monday, June 8, 2009
Lowered Expectations
Does it ever strike anyone else just how little we expect from brands, as consumers?
Apple can sell gazillions of computers simply because their key advantage is "They just work".
Read through online product, restaurant, or vacation reviews, and you'll frequently see things like "The service was a bit slow and it took three tries before they gave me the right item, but everyone was friendly and helpful. Three out of four stars."
In an age when competitors, niche alternatives, and other options are so readily available and easily found, it's amazing that we put up with anything that's less than ideal.
Perhaps this is proof of the power of brands -- other benefits (real or perceived) make up for these shortcomings.
Or, maybe we're just more lazy than we care to admit, and can't be bothered to look for those alternatives.
Apple can sell gazillions of computers simply because their key advantage is "They just work".
Read through online product, restaurant, or vacation reviews, and you'll frequently see things like "The service was a bit slow and it took three tries before they gave me the right item, but everyone was friendly and helpful. Three out of four stars."
In an age when competitors, niche alternatives, and other options are so readily available and easily found, it's amazing that we put up with anything that's less than ideal.
Perhaps this is proof of the power of brands -- other benefits (real or perceived) make up for these shortcomings.
Or, maybe we're just more lazy than we care to admit, and can't be bothered to look for those alternatives.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
A Quick Brand Review: Trader Joe's
I recently took a short road trip across the border with some friends and family to (in part) check out Trader Joe's, the specialty grocery chain. I'd never been before, but I've heard good things and one of my friends in particular (you know who you are) has said more than once that she wants to marry Trader Joe...
So, here's my "marketer's perspective" on my first experience with this brand.
Pros:
- They're differentiated. Most supermarkets are 99% identical to one-another. This one at least tries to be something unique.
- The brand isn't heavy-handed, and it's positive rather than negative. It's subtle. Despite the "tropical trader" theme, the place isn't filled with silly plastic palm trees and stuffed monkeys. And the merchandising message seems to be "This is a good choice because..." rather than "If you don't shop here, you're less of a person and should be ashamed of yourself" (which is the message I get from a couple of certain enviro- and health-focused food chains).
- The whole place and its people have a friendly, approachable tone. It works for them. It's not overdone and it seems genuine. It's simply a happy place. No cheesy Muzak playing, no old fluorescent lights buzzing away, no faded signs and drab tile like the office at the beginning of Joe vs. The Volcano. There's always a risk that "friendly" can seem unprofessional, but this shop doesn't overstep the boundary.
- It's consistent. Signage, staff, the flyer, Web site... most (but not all -- see below) elements are nicely aligned.
Cons (or Areas For Improvement):
- The brand isn't entirely firm or clear. Are they environmental? Are they selling "special" products? Are they a value or discount chain? There are elements of all of these, but they aren't universal. Most of their products are pretty standard grocery store items... Some products are actually quite pricey... There's lots of unnecessary packaging....
- The theme isn't always extended to its full capability. For example, where are the special imports or limited availability items that "Joe" has found? Why is the store exterior so boring?
- Maybe I'm too much of marketing guy rather than a typical consumer, but... it feels a bit like they're trying to pull one over on me. For example, they only sell "exclusive products", which really just means "We only sell generic store brands". Similarly, the environmental initiatives seem half-hearted (like big paper bags that are touted as reusable, but fall apart so quickly that you can really only use them once).
Conclusions:
- They're obviously doing something right
- They could take the brand further
- They could spend a bit of time and effort filling in some gaps (like the examples above)
- There's room for more clarity in the brand message(s), and a bit firmer definition of where they stand
- Like any brand, they have a risk of outgrowing their image, but are in a unique position to potentially use this to their advantage... I picture images of "Joe" captaining a big old freighter full of goodies from the most mysterious reaches of the world...
So, here's my "marketer's perspective" on my first experience with this brand.
Pros:
- They're differentiated. Most supermarkets are 99% identical to one-another. This one at least tries to be something unique.
- The brand isn't heavy-handed, and it's positive rather than negative. It's subtle. Despite the "tropical trader" theme, the place isn't filled with silly plastic palm trees and stuffed monkeys. And the merchandising message seems to be "This is a good choice because..." rather than "If you don't shop here, you're less of a person and should be ashamed of yourself" (which is the message I get from a couple of certain enviro- and health-focused food chains).
- The whole place and its people have a friendly, approachable tone. It works for them. It's not overdone and it seems genuine. It's simply a happy place. No cheesy Muzak playing, no old fluorescent lights buzzing away, no faded signs and drab tile like the office at the beginning of Joe vs. The Volcano. There's always a risk that "friendly" can seem unprofessional, but this shop doesn't overstep the boundary.
- It's consistent. Signage, staff, the flyer, Web site... most (but not all -- see below) elements are nicely aligned.
Cons (or Areas For Improvement):
- The brand isn't entirely firm or clear. Are they environmental? Are they selling "special" products? Are they a value or discount chain? There are elements of all of these, but they aren't universal. Most of their products are pretty standard grocery store items... Some products are actually quite pricey... There's lots of unnecessary packaging....
- The theme isn't always extended to its full capability. For example, where are the special imports or limited availability items that "Joe" has found? Why is the store exterior so boring?
- Maybe I'm too much of marketing guy rather than a typical consumer, but... it feels a bit like they're trying to pull one over on me. For example, they only sell "exclusive products", which really just means "We only sell generic store brands". Similarly, the environmental initiatives seem half-hearted (like big paper bags that are touted as reusable, but fall apart so quickly that you can really only use them once).
Conclusions:
- They're obviously doing something right
- They could take the brand further
- They could spend a bit of time and effort filling in some gaps (like the examples above)
- There's room for more clarity in the brand message(s), and a bit firmer definition of where they stand
- Like any brand, they have a risk of outgrowing their image, but are in a unique position to potentially use this to their advantage... I picture images of "Joe" captaining a big old freighter full of goodies from the most mysterious reaches of the world...
Monday, June 1, 2009
Downsell Me
Another one of those little things that can make the difference between a brand (or salesperson) I want to deal with and one I don't:
I love it when an employee (or even an ad or other communications) openly tells me what I don't need from them.
Last summer, we replaced the gutters on our house. We have a leaf-spewing willow in the yard and were concerned that it would clog the new downspouts. We gave the gutter guy the perfect opportunity to tell us "Oh yeah, you need a special custom-made gutter, plus a special screen to go over it, and some blockage-clearing doors, and..." Instead, he basically said "Most of that stuff is unnecessary in most cases. There's no reason to sell you any more than a basic screen installed on the worst parts of the roof." His honesty got him the sale. And we've made it through a pretty heavy Fall, Winter, and Spring without any problems whatsoever, so it looks like he was right.
I think this is a sign of an essential difference between the "sales" and "marketing" mindsets. "Sales" can be very short-term focused -- "How much can I sell to this customer right now". "Marketing" tends to be longer-term and bigger-picture "What will help get the customer to gladly say 'Yes' to the sale AND will likely get them to refer me to their friends?"
But even ignoring the long-term benefits: In the above example, another roofing company DIDN'T get my business; largely because they tried too much upselling. Although most of the extras they proposed were optional, the overall impression was still "These guys are trying to sell me everything they can, rather than what I really need".
I love it when an employee (or even an ad or other communications) openly tells me what I don't need from them.
Last summer, we replaced the gutters on our house. We have a leaf-spewing willow in the yard and were concerned that it would clog the new downspouts. We gave the gutter guy the perfect opportunity to tell us "Oh yeah, you need a special custom-made gutter, plus a special screen to go over it, and some blockage-clearing doors, and..." Instead, he basically said "Most of that stuff is unnecessary in most cases. There's no reason to sell you any more than a basic screen installed on the worst parts of the roof." His honesty got him the sale. And we've made it through a pretty heavy Fall, Winter, and Spring without any problems whatsoever, so it looks like he was right.
I think this is a sign of an essential difference between the "sales" and "marketing" mindsets. "Sales" can be very short-term focused -- "How much can I sell to this customer right now". "Marketing" tends to be longer-term and bigger-picture "What will help get the customer to gladly say 'Yes' to the sale AND will likely get them to refer me to their friends?"
But even ignoring the long-term benefits: In the above example, another roofing company DIDN'T get my business; largely because they tried too much upselling. Although most of the extras they proposed were optional, the overall impression was still "These guys are trying to sell me everything they can, rather than what I really need".
Thursday, May 14, 2009
An Untapped Market?
Is it me, or does it seem like a whole new level of "victim opportunists" has emerged lately?
I'm referring to people who have something bad happen to them, and then immediately seek out as much attention as possible.
Take this girl for example.
Girl doesn't wear underwear to school one day.
Photo is taken for the yearbook.
Photo shows more than it should.
Girl is embarrassed.
Mother demands that the school recall the yearbooks.
Mother and daughter go on TV to argue their point.
Whether or not the girl (or her mother) has a valid argument against the school, is going to the media really the best option?
From the article, it doesn't sound like it's an obvious image ("maybe it's a shadow"). Seems to me that years ago the girl would have simply lied about the lack of underwear, told everybody that it must be a shadow, act very angry that the photo is so misleading, and move on. At worst, she might be hassled by a few people and rumours would swirl around, and maybe she would be compelled to change schools.
There are many other examples like this lately.
Like the small village in the UK that raised a fuss about appearing in Google Earth because they were worried that criminals would see how nice their homes are.
Or the celebrities who consistently do stupid things in public, then demand their privacy while giving interviews on some gossip show or another (where the interviewer happily tells viewers a complete summary of the stupid things that were done).
It's more than just wanting attention and sympathy -- it's actually a case of the victim-initiated repercussions being far worse than the initial victimization.
Anyways, maybe there's an opportunity here for marketers.
http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif
The well-known "Whopper Sacrifice" Burger King Facebook promotion related to this strange desire to be a victim and to tell people about it.
It would be interesting to explore this idea of helping customers fulfill a deep desire to be the lovable loser.
I'm referring to people who have something bad happen to them, and then immediately seek out as much attention as possible.
Take this girl for example.
Girl doesn't wear underwear to school one day.
Photo is taken for the yearbook.
Photo shows more than it should.
Girl is embarrassed.
Mother demands that the school recall the yearbooks.
Mother and daughter go on TV to argue their point.
Whether or not the girl (or her mother) has a valid argument against the school, is going to the media really the best option?
From the article, it doesn't sound like it's an obvious image ("maybe it's a shadow"). Seems to me that years ago the girl would have simply lied about the lack of underwear, told everybody that it must be a shadow, act very angry that the photo is so misleading, and move on. At worst, she might be hassled by a few people and rumours would swirl around, and maybe she would be compelled to change schools.
There are many other examples like this lately.
Like the small village in the UK that raised a fuss about appearing in Google Earth because they were worried that criminals would see how nice their homes are.
Or the celebrities who consistently do stupid things in public, then demand their privacy while giving interviews on some gossip show or another (where the interviewer happily tells viewers a complete summary of the stupid things that were done).
It's more than just wanting attention and sympathy -- it's actually a case of the victim-initiated repercussions being far worse than the initial victimization.
Anyways, maybe there's an opportunity here for marketers.
http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif
The well-known "Whopper Sacrifice" Burger King Facebook promotion related to this strange desire to be a victim and to tell people about it.
It would be interesting to explore this idea of helping customers fulfill a deep desire to be the lovable loser.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Freebies
I'm a sucker for free stuff.
I remember, as a kid, going with my parents to shop for a backyard hot tub. The place they bought from was a tiny little operation, but was great. The thing I remember most about it was getting freebies. Even after he made the sale, the owner showered us with goodies. Free extra filters, free chemicals, other free accessories, and even some free rubber duckies. All in all, it was probably worth a tiny fraction of his profit margin on the tub, but it certainly had an impact (not just on me, but my parents were very happy with the service and perceived value, too).
Unfortunately, the shop closed many years ago, but if it hadn't I would certainly be recommending it even today to anyone looking for spa equipment.
Much more recently, I had my dog at a local dog park. On he way out, we were stopped by a person handing out leaflets -- coupons for a couple of free dog biscuits at Three Dog Bakery, which had just opened a location nearby.
(Could you imagine any better targeting of your target audience?)
Anyways, the shop was on the way home, so we stopped there to check it out and get the freebies.
Once inside, the brand experience was great, with an extremely friendly employee and a nice little store to explore. We collected our free treats, and the shopkeeper also included a few other goodies to take home to sample. And gave our dog a bunch of bits and pieces of treats to try right there in the store.
And it worked -- on our way out, we bought several things that we might otherwise have not bothered with. But even more importantly, I was thoroughly impressed with the product quality, attitude, selection, and other aspects of the store and will definitely be returning (and recommending them).
One final note about this experience:
As we were leaving, a couple of little kids came into the store. They were participating in some sort of treasure hunt or "Amazing Race" activity. Apparently, their task at this store was to buy a dog biscuit for $1 and feed it to a dog. Ours was the only one there, so he lucked out yet again. What a great way to end this visit: seeing that the store is participating in a local event or organization, witnessing the store employee being absolutely great with the kids (making sure they asked before approaching a dog, etc.), AND getting another free goody.
I remember, as a kid, going with my parents to shop for a backyard hot tub. The place they bought from was a tiny little operation, but was great. The thing I remember most about it was getting freebies. Even after he made the sale, the owner showered us with goodies. Free extra filters, free chemicals, other free accessories, and even some free rubber duckies. All in all, it was probably worth a tiny fraction of his profit margin on the tub, but it certainly had an impact (not just on me, but my parents were very happy with the service and perceived value, too).
Unfortunately, the shop closed many years ago, but if it hadn't I would certainly be recommending it even today to anyone looking for spa equipment.
Much more recently, I had my dog at a local dog park. On he way out, we were stopped by a person handing out leaflets -- coupons for a couple of free dog biscuits at Three Dog Bakery, which had just opened a location nearby.
(Could you imagine any better targeting of your target audience?)
Anyways, the shop was on the way home, so we stopped there to check it out and get the freebies.
Once inside, the brand experience was great, with an extremely friendly employee and a nice little store to explore. We collected our free treats, and the shopkeeper also included a few other goodies to take home to sample. And gave our dog a bunch of bits and pieces of treats to try right there in the store.
And it worked -- on our way out, we bought several things that we might otherwise have not bothered with. But even more importantly, I was thoroughly impressed with the product quality, attitude, selection, and other aspects of the store and will definitely be returning (and recommending them).
One final note about this experience:
As we were leaving, a couple of little kids came into the store. They were participating in some sort of treasure hunt or "Amazing Race" activity. Apparently, their task at this store was to buy a dog biscuit for $1 and feed it to a dog. Ours was the only one there, so he lucked out yet again. What a great way to end this visit: seeing that the store is participating in a local event or organization, witnessing the store employee being absolutely great with the kids (making sure they asked before approaching a dog, etc.), AND getting another free goody.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
A Higher Bar
People seem pretty good at figuring out solutions if challenged.
Here's one example of something I'd like to see:
At an airport, create a committee of, say, seven or eight people from various organizations and groups -- airline personnel, ground crew, security people, customs people, etc. Connect them to a strong network of people with technical knowledge in assorted areas (technology, law, anatomy, architecture, whatever).
Give them a simple question:
What do we need to do to make it possible for travelers to be on the runway within half an hour of arrival at the airport, without feeling rushed, for any routine flight?
Immediately, the naysayers will pipe up with "But security screening takes a while if we want to do it thoroughly!" or "At peak times there are just too many people in the airport!" or "You can only board so many people at a time!" or "We can't force everyone to arrive on time" or a million other excuses.
But imagine if this committee:
a.) Didn't have any people like this in its membership
and
b.) Believed from the outset that there must be some way to achieve the goal
Maybe it means changing the rules.
Maybe it means changing consumer expectations.
Maybe it means changing employee responsibilities.
Maybe a small fortune would have to be spent on re-designing the airport.
I bet there's a solution, though. And even if it's just a hypothetical one (for now), isn't that better than simply accepting things they way they are? Isn't it likely that some portions of the solution could be realistically implemented in the short term?
So many processes, businesses, places, brands, and organizations are broken that it would be really nice to see some of them push like this.
Here's one example of something I'd like to see:
At an airport, create a committee of, say, seven or eight people from various organizations and groups -- airline personnel, ground crew, security people, customs people, etc. Connect them to a strong network of people with technical knowledge in assorted areas (technology, law, anatomy, architecture, whatever).
Give them a simple question:
What do we need to do to make it possible for travelers to be on the runway within half an hour of arrival at the airport, without feeling rushed, for any routine flight?
Immediately, the naysayers will pipe up with "But security screening takes a while if we want to do it thoroughly!" or "At peak times there are just too many people in the airport!" or "You can only board so many people at a time!" or "We can't force everyone to arrive on time" or a million other excuses.
But imagine if this committee:
a.) Didn't have any people like this in its membership
and
b.) Believed from the outset that there must be some way to achieve the goal
Maybe it means changing the rules.
Maybe it means changing consumer expectations.
Maybe it means changing employee responsibilities.
Maybe a small fortune would have to be spent on re-designing the airport.
I bet there's a solution, though. And even if it's just a hypothetical one (for now), isn't that better than simply accepting things they way they are? Isn't it likely that some portions of the solution could be realistically implemented in the short term?
So many processes, businesses, places, brands, and organizations are broken that it would be really nice to see some of them push like this.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Attention
We "new media" types (myself included) tend to downplay the importance of attention and "eyeballs" when it comes to marketing. "It's all about engagement" we say. "You need a deep, ongoing conversation" we insist.
But sometimes something comes along to show that simply being in the public eye is vitally important to successfully communicating a message or making a point.
Currently, it's the swine flu. Media outlets, governments, bloggers, and everybody else with a voice seem to be falling over themselves to talk about it. In fact, as I was writing this post, a couple of people knocked on my door to tell me all about the "fact" that this epidemic was foretold.
The topic has lots of attention, yet virtually no depth. It's a disease like many others. In the grand scheme of things, it's not much of a danger to the general public (even if and when it gets much much worse) compared to a gazillion other potential hazards that surround us every day. Statistically, even if it's as bad as SARS or the avian flu, the number of deaths it will cause worldwide will be less than a single large plane crash or apartment fire. And I don't mean to be cruel, but it's also worth noting that many of these deaths will occur in places where disease of all kinds is rampant and medical services are lacking.
Disease isn't the only thing that captures our attention like this, of course. There's Missing White Woman Syndrome, for one. For some reason, a big story was shark attacks in Florida a couple of years ago. And of course there's celebrity gossip -- something with absolutely no depth or value whatsoever.
There's no question, though, that the attention that these topics garner is valuable, despite a lack of engagement. Health care facilities are mobilized, search parties organized, Sheriff Brody gets a bigger boat, and People magazine sells millions of copies.
From a marketing perspective, this is old school advertising at its finest. Make a big enough deal about something, spend enough time and effort and money telling everyone you can reach how important it is, and hopefully people actually start to believe it. It doesn't seem to matter how true this importance really is, though.
The down side (besides the expense and the massive potential for failure) is that it's very short term. By this time next year, people will be rolling their eyes at swine flu just like they do at SARS. Actually, this is already happening. There's a nice level of skepticism out there. Maybe some of the masses are finally starting to clue in that every "big story" or "NEW and EXCITING INNOVATION!!!" isn't necessarily any such thing.
But sometimes something comes along to show that simply being in the public eye is vitally important to successfully communicating a message or making a point.
Currently, it's the swine flu. Media outlets, governments, bloggers, and everybody else with a voice seem to be falling over themselves to talk about it. In fact, as I was writing this post, a couple of people knocked on my door to tell me all about the "fact" that this epidemic was foretold.
The topic has lots of attention, yet virtually no depth. It's a disease like many others. In the grand scheme of things, it's not much of a danger to the general public (even if and when it gets much much worse) compared to a gazillion other potential hazards that surround us every day. Statistically, even if it's as bad as SARS or the avian flu, the number of deaths it will cause worldwide will be less than a single large plane crash or apartment fire. And I don't mean to be cruel, but it's also worth noting that many of these deaths will occur in places where disease of all kinds is rampant and medical services are lacking.
Disease isn't the only thing that captures our attention like this, of course. There's Missing White Woman Syndrome, for one. For some reason, a big story was shark attacks in Florida a couple of years ago. And of course there's celebrity gossip -- something with absolutely no depth or value whatsoever.
There's no question, though, that the attention that these topics garner is valuable, despite a lack of engagement. Health care facilities are mobilized, search parties organized, Sheriff Brody gets a bigger boat, and People magazine sells millions of copies.
From a marketing perspective, this is old school advertising at its finest. Make a big enough deal about something, spend enough time and effort and money telling everyone you can reach how important it is, and hopefully people actually start to believe it. It doesn't seem to matter how true this importance really is, though.
The down side (besides the expense and the massive potential for failure) is that it's very short term. By this time next year, people will be rolling their eyes at swine flu just like they do at SARS. Actually, this is already happening. There's a nice level of skepticism out there. Maybe some of the masses are finally starting to clue in that every "big story" or "NEW and EXCITING INNOVATION!!!" isn't necessarily any such thing.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Line Ups
It's the end of an in-person experience with a large retail brand: time to pay.
You walk up to the checkout area and have your choice of three or four lines. Which one do you choose? The shortest? The one where customers only have a couple of items each? The one where the customers look to be primarily young-and-busy-and-kind-of-in-a-hurry types?
The easy answer: it doesn't matter, because you'll probably pick the wrong one. All it takes is a scanner to malfunction, a customer to try writing a personal cheque, or any number of other problems.
What I want to know is:
Why don't more retailers have "bank style" line ups?
Everybody gets in a single line and are then called over to the next available clerk.
Does it take up extra floor space to do this? Is it more difficult for the staff? I can see it being a problem at locations where customers are trying to maneuver big carts filled with awkward items (home improvement stores, for example), but most places...?
Unfortunately, the "supermarket style" is far more common.
Anybody have any insight? Do most retailers even think about this and consider "bank style" as an option?
You walk up to the checkout area and have your choice of three or four lines. Which one do you choose? The shortest? The one where customers only have a couple of items each? The one where the customers look to be primarily young-and-busy-and-kind-of-in-a-hurry types?
The easy answer: it doesn't matter, because you'll probably pick the wrong one. All it takes is a scanner to malfunction, a customer to try writing a personal cheque, or any number of other problems.
What I want to know is:
Why don't more retailers have "bank style" line ups?
Everybody gets in a single line and are then called over to the next available clerk.
Does it take up extra floor space to do this? Is it more difficult for the staff? I can see it being a problem at locations where customers are trying to maneuver big carts filled with awkward items (home improvement stores, for example), but most places...?
Unfortunately, the "supermarket style" is far more common.
Anybody have any insight? Do most retailers even think about this and consider "bank style" as an option?
Friday, April 17, 2009
Co-Branded Ads?
I'm a little surprised that we aren't seeing more cross promotions as brands try to cut marketing costs without sacrificing their marketing plans.
Here's a starter idea for you creative types:
Combine car and grocery chain ads. Instead of demonstrating cargo space by filling the trunk of a car with generic brown bags, show the vehicle parked in front of an actual grocery store. Feature a smiling and helpful store employee helping to load the bags, and... bam! Two positive brand impressions for the price of one!
Just watch... Soon you'll see kids wearing the latest Wal-Mart fashions while playing at a McDonald's. Or formerly-flustered housewives having time to relax with a cool and refreshing Diet Sprite because they've changed laundry detergents to new Double Ultra Cheer.
If companies are going to insist on running old-fashioned P&G-style-formulaic-product-demo ads, they might as well save a little money in the process by sharing costs, right?
Here's a starter idea for you creative types:
Combine car and grocery chain ads. Instead of demonstrating cargo space by filling the trunk of a car with generic brown bags, show the vehicle parked in front of an actual grocery store. Feature a smiling and helpful store employee helping to load the bags, and... bam! Two positive brand impressions for the price of one!
Just watch... Soon you'll see kids wearing the latest Wal-Mart fashions while playing at a McDonald's. Or formerly-flustered housewives having time to relax with a cool and refreshing Diet Sprite because they've changed laundry detergents to new Double Ultra Cheer.
If companies are going to insist on running old-fashioned P&G-style-formulaic-product-demo ads, they might as well save a little money in the process by sharing costs, right?
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Fight Fire With Fire,
By now, you may have seen the YouTube video featuring a couple of Domino's Pizza employees being disgusting (i.e. doing exactly what everyone fears/assumes fast food employees do). It didn't take long for this video to spread widely and, obviously, harm Domino's reputation.
Domino's has apologized using the same medium that caused the problem -- posting a video on YouTube featuring their president. It's very well done, with a lot of honesty and openness (such as identifying the location in the above video), and his feelings about the situation are quite clear.
I'd love to see the company take this a step further, though.
How about encouraging the other Domino's locations to produce their own videos, showing just how clean, fun, and healthy their stores are? Or challenging dedicated Domino's lovers (there must be some out there) to show why they love the brand?
A video press release is a great start, but it's only using a social media platform, not actually being "social".
Domino's is a good position to show that, as a brand, they're the good guys. Support from a few thousand employees and customers would strongly reinforce this.
Domino's has apologized using the same medium that caused the problem -- posting a video on YouTube featuring their president. It's very well done, with a lot of honesty and openness (such as identifying the location in the above video), and his feelings about the situation are quite clear.
I'd love to see the company take this a step further, though.
How about encouraging the other Domino's locations to produce their own videos, showing just how clean, fun, and healthy their stores are? Or challenging dedicated Domino's lovers (there must be some out there) to show why they love the brand?
A video press release is a great start, but it's only using a social media platform, not actually being "social".
Domino's is a good position to show that, as a brand, they're the good guys. Support from a few thousand employees and customers would strongly reinforce this.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Definitions
I've been seeing a lot of misuse of various digital marketing terms lately, so I thought I'd compile some of the most common infractions into a master list. Feel free to add on.
"Banner Ads"
Alright, this one I'm starting to accept. I give up.
Technically, a "banner" is a 468x60 px ad unit.
What people are actually referring to should more appropriately be called a "Web display ad" or similar, though.
"PPC"
Literally an abbreviation for "Pay Per Click", this term is often used to specifically describe paid placements on search engine results (and related networks). Although this is not exactly wrong, it is very limiting. A wide range of other online advertising methods are also available on a per click basis.
"Social Media"
Another one that's not exactly wrong, but is out of scope. Social Media should refer to the broad concepts of consumer-generated content and consumer-to-consumer interaction/communication. Unfortunately, many people seem to confuse this term with "Social Network", which specifically refers to media properties that are made up of groups of users. These networks do tend to use Social Media principles, but there are countless non-network properties and tools that should be considered "Social Media".
"Web 2.0"
It means nothing anymore. Stop using it. This term once referred to some particular changes in technology and user behaviour. But it's been so over-used to describe anything innovative that it's now meaningless.
"Hit"
An oldie, but a goodie. A "hit" is a single call to a server. NOT a visit to a Web site or use of a digital tool. A page with a hundred images on it would have 100 hits with a single visit, for example.
How's that for a start?
"Banner Ads"
Alright, this one I'm starting to accept. I give up.
Technically, a "banner" is a 468x60 px ad unit.
What people are actually referring to should more appropriately be called a "Web display ad" or similar, though.
"PPC"
Literally an abbreviation for "Pay Per Click", this term is often used to specifically describe paid placements on search engine results (and related networks). Although this is not exactly wrong, it is very limiting. A wide range of other online advertising methods are also available on a per click basis.
"Social Media"
Another one that's not exactly wrong, but is out of scope. Social Media should refer to the broad concepts of consumer-generated content and consumer-to-consumer interaction/communication. Unfortunately, many people seem to confuse this term with "Social Network", which specifically refers to media properties that are made up of groups of users. These networks do tend to use Social Media principles, but there are countless non-network properties and tools that should be considered "Social Media".
"Web 2.0"
It means nothing anymore. Stop using it. This term once referred to some particular changes in technology and user behaviour. But it's been so over-used to describe anything innovative that it's now meaningless.
"Hit"
An oldie, but a goodie. A "hit" is a single call to a server. NOT a visit to a Web site or use of a digital tool. A page with a hundred images on it would have 100 hits with a single visit, for example.
How's that for a start?
Friday, April 3, 2009
New Laws
A bit of a rant today...
I don't understand why new laws are constantly introduced to reflect changes in technology.
For example, lawmakers and various "rights" advocates are getting all lawmake-y about Google Streetview. But isn't it covered by some of our country's gazillion existing laws?
Photography's not new.
Distribution systems aren't new.
Public places aren't new.
Archives aren't new.
Why do we need to treat something that simply combines all these things in a new, easy to use way as if it's a completely foreign concept?
Or, another example:
Many places are looking at introducing new laws to outlaw not just cell phones in general, but texting in particular while driving.
Is this really necessary? I agree with the idea behind this type of restriction, but there are plenty of existing laws about exercising "due care and attention" while driving. Whether I'm distracted by a cell phone, a pretty cloud in the sky, a crying baby, or a Nickelback song on the radio (thus requiring me to change stations immediately), the basic fact is that I'm distracted. The person I swerve my car into doesn't care what distracted me.
I don't understand why new laws are constantly introduced to reflect changes in technology.
For example, lawmakers and various "rights" advocates are getting all lawmake-y about Google Streetview. But isn't it covered by some of our country's gazillion existing laws?
Photography's not new.
Distribution systems aren't new.
Public places aren't new.
Archives aren't new.
Why do we need to treat something that simply combines all these things in a new, easy to use way as if it's a completely foreign concept?
Or, another example:
Many places are looking at introducing new laws to outlaw not just cell phones in general, but texting in particular while driving.
Is this really necessary? I agree with the idea behind this type of restriction, but there are plenty of existing laws about exercising "due care and attention" while driving. Whether I'm distracted by a cell phone, a pretty cloud in the sky, a crying baby, or a Nickelback song on the radio (thus requiring me to change stations immediately), the basic fact is that I'm distracted. The person I swerve my car into doesn't care what distracted me.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Phonetic Branding?
By now, you may have already heard about how the "Sci Fi" cable TV network has changed its brand identity to "Syfy".
It's supposed to be edgy, I guess. And according to press releases "...broadens perceptions and embraces a wider and more diverse range of imagination-based entertainment..."
Ho-kay.
Public response has been predictable, with many people disliking the idea completely... and the majority seeming to be not-too-impressed. And now, there's some debate about who is actually responsible -- the agency or the client. According to a recent blog post, the agency are graciously shifting the blame... uh, I mean kudos... to the client.
Personally, if they insisted on this change, I would have suggested at least a slight difference like "Psi-Fi" or something that actually has an alternative meaning, rather than trying to invent a new word.
Amazingly, SyFy is being followed by other TV station re-brands, announced this morning.
National Geographic Channel has announced that they will now be known as "GeoSociety". Okay, that makes some sense.
Animal Planet is changing its name, though, to "HanImaPlant".
And its sister station Discovery is becoming "Very Disco".
Sure to upset certain groups (and maybe that's the idea), Fox News is rebranding as "9/11 Forever". Slightly more subtle is Comedy Central's switch to "Komedy Centraal".
In an age when traditional media are struggling for survival, these are some very bold and strange moves.
Will April 1st, 2009 be known as the day that cable TV imploded?
It's supposed to be edgy, I guess. And according to press releases "...broadens perceptions and embraces a wider and more diverse range of imagination-based entertainment..."
Ho-kay.
Public response has been predictable, with many people disliking the idea completely... and the majority seeming to be not-too-impressed. And now, there's some debate about who is actually responsible -- the agency or the client. According to a recent blog post, the agency are graciously shifting the blame... uh, I mean kudos... to the client.
Personally, if they insisted on this change, I would have suggested at least a slight difference like "Psi-Fi" or something that actually has an alternative meaning, rather than trying to invent a new word.
Amazingly, SyFy is being followed by other TV station re-brands, announced this morning.
National Geographic Channel has announced that they will now be known as "GeoSociety". Okay, that makes some sense.
Animal Planet is changing its name, though, to "HanImaPlant".
And its sister station Discovery is becoming "Very Disco".
Sure to upset certain groups (and maybe that's the idea), Fox News is rebranding as "9/11 Forever". Slightly more subtle is Comedy Central's switch to "Komedy Centraal".
In an age when traditional media are struggling for survival, these are some very bold and strange moves.
Will April 1st, 2009 be known as the day that cable TV imploded?
Friday, March 27, 2009
Dilution in the Name of Innovation
I seem to be writing a lot about fast food lately.
Anyway, have you noticed what Burger King and McDonald's have in common with their latest "new" products?
Both have simply re-presented an existing product as something innovative, new, exciting, and promotion-worthy.
Burger King is pushing their "BK Burger Shots". They're basic hamburgers - but smaller. Wow!
It's an interesting approach, and not as stupid as it might seem at first: the brands can offer a price incentive on popular items without actually affecting the pricepoint of their popular items.
Unfortunately, it's kind of boring.
As well, I wonder if these "new" products will simply dilute sales of the main menu items.
Anyway, have you noticed what Burger King and McDonald's have in common with their latest "new" products?
Both have simply re-presented an existing product as something innovative, new, exciting, and promotion-worthy.
McDonald's has their "mac snack wrap" (notice the edgy lower-case 'm'? How 2.0!). It's a Big Mac in a wrap (but smaller).
Burger King is pushing their "BK Burger Shots". They're basic hamburgers - but smaller. Wow!It's an interesting approach, and not as stupid as it might seem at first: the brands can offer a price incentive on popular items without actually affecting the pricepoint of their popular items.
Unfortunately, it's kind of boring.
As well, I wonder if these "new" products will simply dilute sales of the main menu items.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
The Twitter Challenge
Twitter is obviously the sexy new thing in the world of communications. Nobody's quite sure where it's going, and that makes it even more exciting to watch.
But, there's a steadily growing resistance to Twitter. It, along with other so-called social media tools, has a serious problem with what some have dubbed an "echo chamber" effect: people tweet about Twitter, or blog about tweeting on Facebook, or create meetup groups on Facebook for bloggers to meet in person (and then tweet live from the event)...
A small sampling of the backlash:
There's this article.
Or this video.
Or this article (and comic).
I seriously think that Twitter can be a very useful tool, and that it will evolve into a fairly standard mode of communication. Whether it quietly finds a place in the background, like RSS, or merges with instant messaging tools, or dramatically replaces our e-mail remains to be seen. Trouble is, if it continues to be weighed down by people who's main topic of conversation is Twitter itself, it will have real difficulty becoming "mainstream" in any form.
So here's the challenge for Twitter users who want it to be treated seriously:
For the next week, don't use any of the following words in your tweets:
- Twitter
- social media
- Web 2.0
- any cutesy "tweet speak" like tweeple or twiterrati or twits
Also, remove from your bio any references to being a "guru" or "expert" or "ninja" for any of the above topics. Yes, even in those rare cases when it's true. Tell us something else about yourself.
And finally, do not link to more than a couple of articles, blogs, videos, photos, cartoons, or other media where Twitter is discussed, criticized, or otherwise the focus.
So, who's in?
Are you willing to give it a shot?
Think you can do it?
I challenge you. And if you're following anyone who could stand to cut back on self-referential Twitter-centric posts, send them here.
But, there's a steadily growing resistance to Twitter. It, along with other so-called social media tools, has a serious problem with what some have dubbed an "echo chamber" effect: people tweet about Twitter, or blog about tweeting on Facebook, or create meetup groups on Facebook for bloggers to meet in person (and then tweet live from the event)...
A small sampling of the backlash:
There's this article.
Or this video.
Or this article (and comic).
I seriously think that Twitter can be a very useful tool, and that it will evolve into a fairly standard mode of communication. Whether it quietly finds a place in the background, like RSS, or merges with instant messaging tools, or dramatically replaces our e-mail remains to be seen. Trouble is, if it continues to be weighed down by people who's main topic of conversation is Twitter itself, it will have real difficulty becoming "mainstream" in any form.
So here's the challenge for Twitter users who want it to be treated seriously:
For the next week, don't use any of the following words in your tweets:
- social media
- Web 2.0
- any cutesy "tweet speak" like tweeple or twiterrati or twits
Also, remove from your bio any references to being a "guru" or "expert" or "ninja" for any of the above topics. Yes, even in those rare cases when it's true. Tell us something else about yourself.
And finally, do not link to more than a couple of articles, blogs, videos, photos, cartoons, or other media where Twitter is discussed, criticized, or otherwise the focus.
So, who's in?
Are you willing to give it a shot?
Think you can do it?
I challenge you. And if you're following anyone who could stand to cut back on self-referential Twitter-centric posts, send them here.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Four Levels
There are really only four classifications for any experience:
- Unacceptable
- Barely Acceptable
- Good
- Great
Levels of "unacceptable" aren't important to an outsider. It doesn't matter if something is absolutely terrible or slightly icky; either way, the experience wasn't good enough and shouldn't be repeated.
Barely acceptable is, unfortunately, pretty standard. This is where most businesses and individuals end up the majority of the time. This is survival. Short-term thinking at its finest.
Good is what most brands strive for, and most are able to achieve it occasionally. Big, successful organizations tend to fall in this category.
Great is rare. Unfortunately, most don't even try to get there. Or, they delude themselves to think that their level of "Good" is actually "Great".
Of course, these are all relative. And the only real definition of any of these terms is whatever the audience says it is.
Thinking about these four level of "okay-ness", what's the difference? What makes any experience fit within one rather than another?
I think it comes down to four things.
- Capability (obviously). What tools, experience, and assistance can a brand or person call upon?
- Attention to detail. Are they aware of the little things, and are they at least trying to address them?
- Caring. For those presenting the experience, is it a chore, a burden, a pleasure, or a calling?
- Time perspective. Is the focus on short term "let's just get through this" thinking or long term "where are we going with this?" thinking?
- Unacceptable
- Barely Acceptable
- Good
- Great
Levels of "unacceptable" aren't important to an outsider. It doesn't matter if something is absolutely terrible or slightly icky; either way, the experience wasn't good enough and shouldn't be repeated.
Barely acceptable is, unfortunately, pretty standard. This is where most businesses and individuals end up the majority of the time. This is survival. Short-term thinking at its finest.
Good is what most brands strive for, and most are able to achieve it occasionally. Big, successful organizations tend to fall in this category.
Great is rare. Unfortunately, most don't even try to get there. Or, they delude themselves to think that their level of "Good" is actually "Great".
Of course, these are all relative. And the only real definition of any of these terms is whatever the audience says it is.
Thinking about these four level of "okay-ness", what's the difference? What makes any experience fit within one rather than another?
I think it comes down to four things.
- Capability (obviously). What tools, experience, and assistance can a brand or person call upon?
- Attention to detail. Are they aware of the little things, and are they at least trying to address them?
- Caring. For those presenting the experience, is it a chore, a burden, a pleasure, or a calling?
- Time perspective. Is the focus on short term "let's just get through this" thinking or long term "where are we going with this?" thinking?
Friday, March 13, 2009
The Pizza Paradox
One thing that I try to avoid when ordering from a restaurant is getting items that I could easily make myself. Why pay $15 or $20 for a plate of simple pasta, or $8 for a basic sandwich, if there are alternatives on the menu?
Generally, I also have no interest in fast food. Even if it's cheap, there's really no reason to buy a slab of chewy meat slapped between a couple of tasteless buns.
I will, however, indulge in a fancy version of standard fare. If a restaurant uses unique ingredients and/or a special cooking technique to create a new take on a basic item, I'm all for it.
Pizza is weird, though. I'd rather order from a cheap, lowbrow, fast food pizza place than have a shmancy pizza at a higher-end restaurant. I think this goes back to the first point above: I can easily create a shmancy pizza at home. Flat crust is simple to make... Special ingredients like sun-dried tomato, shrimp, or fancy cheeses can be readily bought at the supermarket. On the other hand, it's time-consuming to make a fluffy, thick crust, and a strange indulgence to pile basic mozzarella and chopped veggies on a pizza.
Right now you're probably thinking "Who on earth analyzes his fast food buying decisions like this?" I know. It's bizarre, but these are the sort of things I think about.
Anyway, I'm strangely fascinated by this conundrum.
Why does pizza break the rules like this? Or, rather, why do two contradictory rules both apply (and both not apply)?
Sometimes the low-end product isn't necessarily the worst choice, I guess.
Generally, I also have no interest in fast food. Even if it's cheap, there's really no reason to buy a slab of chewy meat slapped between a couple of tasteless buns.
I will, however, indulge in a fancy version of standard fare. If a restaurant uses unique ingredients and/or a special cooking technique to create a new take on a basic item, I'm all for it.
Pizza is weird, though. I'd rather order from a cheap, lowbrow, fast food pizza place than have a shmancy pizza at a higher-end restaurant. I think this goes back to the first point above: I can easily create a shmancy pizza at home. Flat crust is simple to make... Special ingredients like sun-dried tomato, shrimp, or fancy cheeses can be readily bought at the supermarket. On the other hand, it's time-consuming to make a fluffy, thick crust, and a strange indulgence to pile basic mozzarella and chopped veggies on a pizza.
Right now you're probably thinking "Who on earth analyzes his fast food buying decisions like this?" I know. It's bizarre, but these are the sort of things I think about.
Anyway, I'm strangely fascinated by this conundrum.
Why does pizza break the rules like this? Or, rather, why do two contradictory rules both apply (and both not apply)?
Sometimes the low-end product isn't necessarily the worst choice, I guess.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Google's Behavioral Targeting Experiment
Another digital marketing post...
Google is now starting to get into the Behavioral space, according to this article.
As usual, there's a potential clash between privacy and targetability.
Google's being careful and very transparent about this, so it will be great to see how this works out. If they can show consumers that non-personally identifiable tracking is actually a good thing, then that opens the doors for advertising through other publishers and networks to be more readily accepted by users.
Of course there are always people like the one quoted in the article who say "If they asked people, 'Do you really want to be followed around and served ads,' most people would say no. Most of us don't really value advertising in any solid way."
Maybe Google needs to start charging for their services for those consumers who are concerned about privacy. No cookies (other than those necessary for basic login purposes), no sharing with third parties, virtually no advertising... but you have to pay, say, $5 a month for access to Gmail, YouTube, Google Docs, advanced search tools like Calculator, and the rest of Google's suite. If they don't value the advertising, at least maybe they'll start to value the things that it normally pays for.
Anyway, that's beside the point.
I'll definitely be trying out Google's BT capabilities (as an advertiser and as a consumer) when I get the chance.
Google is now starting to get into the Behavioral space, according to this article.
As usual, there's a potential clash between privacy and targetability.
Google's being careful and very transparent about this, so it will be great to see how this works out. If they can show consumers that non-personally identifiable tracking is actually a good thing, then that opens the doors for advertising through other publishers and networks to be more readily accepted by users.
Of course there are always people like the one quoted in the article who say "If they asked people, 'Do you really want to be followed around and served ads,' most people would say no. Most of us don't really value advertising in any solid way."
Maybe Google needs to start charging for their services for those consumers who are concerned about privacy. No cookies (other than those necessary for basic login purposes), no sharing with third parties, virtually no advertising... but you have to pay, say, $5 a month for access to Gmail, YouTube, Google Docs, advanced search tools like Calculator, and the rest of Google's suite. If they don't value the advertising, at least maybe they'll start to value the things that it normally pays for.
Anyway, that's beside the point.
I'll definitely be trying out Google's BT capabilities (as an advertiser and as a consumer) when I get the chance.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Digital Advertising's Economics
An interesting article in Adweek entitled "The Surprising Economics of Digital Advertising" got my attention on Twitter today.
It discusses a report published by the AAAA -- "A Marketer's Guide to Understanding the Economics of Digital Compared to Traditional Advertising and Media Services". You can download the full report here.
As always, I have mixed feelings.
The insights in this document are generally good. I'm not sure exactly where the "surprising" part is, though. Digital is different that traditional. Not a big leap there.
One thing I find interesting, though, is that it's really not a matter of "digital" versus non-digital channels. It's about good, well-planned, long-term, targeted, and careful marketing versus sloppy marketing.
Here's what I mean, for each of four primary drivers that the report states contribute to the (seemingly) higher costs of Digital advertising services:
1. "Growth in labor intensity, driven by an increasing volume of assets, technologies required and complexity of the process from creation through measurement and continuous engagement.
This is really only because we demand so much of digital advertising. When we treat it like a traditional campaign on a new medium (and many advertisers do), we simply create a small number of ad variations, run a very straightforward media campaign, avoid unique sponsorships or other custom opportunities, not bother with much tracking and optimization, and report very high-level numbers at the end of each flight.
Because it's possible to do so much more than this, though, the standard is to give much more care and attention to digital campaigns. They're inherently accountable.
One day (soon I hope), clients will demand the "digital" level of care and attention for all campaigns, regardless of medium used. When this happens, digital campaigns will no longer seem so relatively expensive.
2. "Shift from external third-party production resources to in-house agency resources".
Okay, I just don't get this one. Why would digital activities require in-house resources more than traditional ones do? Yes, it sometimes makes a lot of sense to do digital production in-house, but it's hardly a requirement. I would think that this actually makes digital more cost-effective, since an agency can decide ad-hoc whether to use internal or external resources for a particular project or client.
3. "Blurring the lines between media, production and agency services"
As with #1 above, isn't this just a sign of "good" marketing? Some of the best campaigns I've ever worked on, regardless of medium, have come from teams where media, design, production, account planning, branding, copywriting, technology, etc. etc. etc. have worked closely together and where some team members wear multiple hats.
And, as with #2 above, digital campaigns don't require that the lines be blurred, but generally most effective when this happens.
4. "Establishment of new job functions and new organizational structures within agencies and client organizations, with related supply & demand cost ramifications"
(Holy cow. And I thought I tend to be wordy)
This is essentially just re-phrasing the three prior factors and saying "agencies need to change their structure to do digital stuff".
Once again: sort of. It's not a necessity that agencies do this, or that all digital campaigns be managed in a complex, labour-intensive way. But it's great when they do. BUT, they should ideally be doing this for projects in every medium.
The report uses the example that "a traditional 'traffic' function is usually insufficient for managing complex Digital projects."
No offense intended to the traditional traffic people that I've met, but this is only true because the traditional 'traffic' function is so simplistic. It's not because digital projects are complex that this function is insufficient, it's because traditional traffic function has been more closely related to accounting than marketing strategy.
I guess what I'm getting at is:
Agencies, advertisers, and everybody else in the advertising world need to do things in a better way. Digital channels are pushing much of this change, but are not alone in benefiting from it.
Accountability.
Flexibility.
Responsiveness.
Targeting.
Long-term thinking.
These are all great ideas. Take them or leave. Online or offline.
It discusses a report published by the AAAA -- "A Marketer's Guide to Understanding the Economics of Digital Compared to Traditional Advertising and Media Services". You can download the full report here.
As always, I have mixed feelings.
The insights in this document are generally good. I'm not sure exactly where the "surprising" part is, though. Digital is different that traditional. Not a big leap there.
One thing I find interesting, though, is that it's really not a matter of "digital" versus non-digital channels. It's about good, well-planned, long-term, targeted, and careful marketing versus sloppy marketing.
Here's what I mean, for each of four primary drivers that the report states contribute to the (seemingly) higher costs of Digital advertising services:
1. "Growth in labor intensity, driven by an increasing volume of assets, technologies required and complexity of the process from creation through measurement and continuous engagement.
This is really only because we demand so much of digital advertising. When we treat it like a traditional campaign on a new medium (and many advertisers do), we simply create a small number of ad variations, run a very straightforward media campaign, avoid unique sponsorships or other custom opportunities, not bother with much tracking and optimization, and report very high-level numbers at the end of each flight.
Because it's possible to do so much more than this, though, the standard is to give much more care and attention to digital campaigns. They're inherently accountable.
One day (soon I hope), clients will demand the "digital" level of care and attention for all campaigns, regardless of medium used. When this happens, digital campaigns will no longer seem so relatively expensive.
2. "Shift from external third-party production resources to in-house agency resources".
Okay, I just don't get this one. Why would digital activities require in-house resources more than traditional ones do? Yes, it sometimes makes a lot of sense to do digital production in-house, but it's hardly a requirement. I would think that this actually makes digital more cost-effective, since an agency can decide ad-hoc whether to use internal or external resources for a particular project or client.
3. "Blurring the lines between media, production and agency services"
As with #1 above, isn't this just a sign of "good" marketing? Some of the best campaigns I've ever worked on, regardless of medium, have come from teams where media, design, production, account planning, branding, copywriting, technology, etc. etc. etc. have worked closely together and where some team members wear multiple hats.
And, as with #2 above, digital campaigns don't require that the lines be blurred, but generally most effective when this happens.
4. "Establishment of new job functions and new organizational structures within agencies and client organizations, with related supply & demand cost ramifications"
(Holy cow. And I thought I tend to be wordy)
This is essentially just re-phrasing the three prior factors and saying "agencies need to change their structure to do digital stuff".
Once again: sort of. It's not a necessity that agencies do this, or that all digital campaigns be managed in a complex, labour-intensive way. But it's great when they do. BUT, they should ideally be doing this for projects in every medium.
The report uses the example that "a traditional 'traffic' function is usually insufficient for managing complex Digital projects."
No offense intended to the traditional traffic people that I've met, but this is only true because the traditional 'traffic' function is so simplistic. It's not because digital projects are complex that this function is insufficient, it's because traditional traffic function has been more closely related to accounting than marketing strategy.
I guess what I'm getting at is:
Agencies, advertisers, and everybody else in the advertising world need to do things in a better way. Digital channels are pushing much of this change, but are not alone in benefiting from it.
Accountability.
Flexibility.
Responsiveness.
Targeting.
Long-term thinking.
These are all great ideas. Take them or leave. Online or offline.
Bigger Isn't Always The Answer
Haven't we been through this before?
According to AdWeek, it appears that members of the Online Publishers Association have decided to start offering large new ad units later this year in an attempt to combat a decline (or potential decline) in ad sales.
I have mixed feelings about this move.
In general, I like the idea of having more flexibility and additional options when planning a campaign. And the spirit of the additions is good: reduce clutter (as long as these new units replace a couple of old ones each, rather than just being added to the page), and create more of a "sponsorship" style of placement.
But, I'm concerned that this move largely misses the point of online advertising. The idea is to reach the right people in the right place at the right time with the right message... Not just hit them over the head with a bigger message.
If the publishers really want to combat a decrease in demand for their products, or the commoditization of online advertising, how about...
- Improving targeting capabilities?
One of the reasons that I personally like using ad networks is their robust Behavioural Targeting and similar options. But beyond this (as I've mentioned on this blog before), incredibly, a large number of publishers still don't make it easy to target by geography, domain, OS, time-of-day, etc.
- Decreasing minimum spend requirements?
Not everybody wants to give tens of thousands of dollars to one publisher for each short campaign.
- Segmenting site placements to a more granular level?
Let buyers place ads on more specific pages or sections. Sometimes I don't want to just buy, for example, broad topics like "business" or "news" or "technology", but would rather see my ads displayed with only "international trade" or "community news" or "wireless devices" content. Even if there are only a small number of impression on each of these, they're the right impressions.
- Cleaning up page layout and content?
Hiding an ad at the bottom of a page, or artificially driving more impressions by breaking an article into multiple pages, or filling every page with graphics and navigation items, etc. etc. are not just bad usability practices, but they also hurt the effectiveness of ad campaigns. I might advertise with you once because you have a low price or large number of targeted ad impressions or some other value, but if it doesn't translate into strong results, I'm unlikely to give you my clients' money again soon. A huge number of media sites are in desperate need of a redesign.
- Recognizing that sometimes online advertising actually is a bit of a commodity?
Web display advertising often works best as one component of a larger campaign. Reaching qualified consumers at several different points with a consistent message is a standard, and proven, advertising approach. While I don't generally like the "let's just buy a bunch of cheap inventory and reach a huge portion of the population a bunch of times each" approach, sometimes a slightly-refined version of this is all that's needed. When publishers charge a buyer 10 to 20 times higher CPMs than they would pay through an ad network it eliminates much of the extra value that comes from using high-quality placements.
Of course, I'm not talking about every publisher in the above examples, but there are certainly more than a few members of the OPA that could do a much better job of helping advertisers reach the right people in the right way. Without resorting to ad unit changes.
Although the publishers may be well-meaning, trying to build better relationships with advertisers in the hopes of displaying more meaningful, branding-focused campaigns, I suspect that a large number of advertisers and publishers will simply think of larger units as a way to make a bigger splash. "If a half page ad is good, a full page ad for less than double the price is great!" is the traditional thinking that occurs.
Look at pop-ups or page takeovers, and other experimental large format ad units of the past... They've largely died off because they were not used very well. Advertisers implemented them in order to yell louder at users.
I like experimentation, though, and I can't wait to see how the new ad units are used, how they're priced, and how consumers will react. Let's hope that well-planned and well-implemented campaigns are the rule rather than the exception.
According to AdWeek, it appears that members of the Online Publishers Association have decided to start offering large new ad units later this year in an attempt to combat a decline (or potential decline) in ad sales.
I have mixed feelings about this move.
In general, I like the idea of having more flexibility and additional options when planning a campaign. And the spirit of the additions is good: reduce clutter (as long as these new units replace a couple of old ones each, rather than just being added to the page), and create more of a "sponsorship" style of placement.
But, I'm concerned that this move largely misses the point of online advertising. The idea is to reach the right people in the right place at the right time with the right message... Not just hit them over the head with a bigger message.
If the publishers really want to combat a decrease in demand for their products, or the commoditization of online advertising, how about...
- Improving targeting capabilities?
One of the reasons that I personally like using ad networks is their robust Behavioural Targeting and similar options. But beyond this (as I've mentioned on this blog before), incredibly, a large number of publishers still don't make it easy to target by geography, domain, OS, time-of-day, etc.
- Decreasing minimum spend requirements?
Not everybody wants to give tens of thousands of dollars to one publisher for each short campaign.
- Segmenting site placements to a more granular level?
Let buyers place ads on more specific pages or sections. Sometimes I don't want to just buy, for example, broad topics like "business" or "news" or "technology", but would rather see my ads displayed with only "international trade" or "community news" or "wireless devices" content. Even if there are only a small number of impression on each of these, they're the right impressions.
- Cleaning up page layout and content?
Hiding an ad at the bottom of a page, or artificially driving more impressions by breaking an article into multiple pages, or filling every page with graphics and navigation items, etc. etc. are not just bad usability practices, but they also hurt the effectiveness of ad campaigns. I might advertise with you once because you have a low price or large number of targeted ad impressions or some other value, but if it doesn't translate into strong results, I'm unlikely to give you my clients' money again soon. A huge number of media sites are in desperate need of a redesign.
- Recognizing that sometimes online advertising actually is a bit of a commodity?
Web display advertising often works best as one component of a larger campaign. Reaching qualified consumers at several different points with a consistent message is a standard, and proven, advertising approach. While I don't generally like the "let's just buy a bunch of cheap inventory and reach a huge portion of the population a bunch of times each" approach, sometimes a slightly-refined version of this is all that's needed. When publishers charge a buyer 10 to 20 times higher CPMs than they would pay through an ad network it eliminates much of the extra value that comes from using high-quality placements.
Of course, I'm not talking about every publisher in the above examples, but there are certainly more than a few members of the OPA that could do a much better job of helping advertisers reach the right people in the right way. Without resorting to ad unit changes.
Although the publishers may be well-meaning, trying to build better relationships with advertisers in the hopes of displaying more meaningful, branding-focused campaigns, I suspect that a large number of advertisers and publishers will simply think of larger units as a way to make a bigger splash. "If a half page ad is good, a full page ad for less than double the price is great!" is the traditional thinking that occurs.
Look at pop-ups or page takeovers, and other experimental large format ad units of the past... They've largely died off because they were not used very well. Advertisers implemented them in order to yell louder at users.
I like experimentation, though, and I can't wait to see how the new ad units are used, how they're priced, and how consumers will react. Let's hope that well-planned and well-implemented campaigns are the rule rather than the exception.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Maximums
Limits are important. I get that.
But here are two examples of dumb limitations:
1. A pizza chain's flyer arrived in my mailbox last week. One of their featured offers is the "triple decker": three pizzas, three toppings each, three dipping sauces... for a certain price per pizza depending on the size. The kicker? It very clearly states "maximum three pizzas".
So, if I want to buy five or six? Too bad. I have to pay the basic, non-volume-discounted, per pizza price for the additional.
Why would they discourage me from ordering as many as I want at the lower price?
2. I tried to return some empty bottles to the local (government-run) liquor store today. We haven't returned any for several months, so there was quite a few. But, they're all the same type, boxed in their original cases, etc. -- so pretty easy to return.
As I'm lifting the boxes onto the counter to make the return, the staff member informs me that there's a limit on the number of cases that they can accept per person per day. I was about three cases over the limit and had to take the extras back to return another time.
Alright, fine. I understand the need for a limit. They don't want some homeless guy bringing in a week's worth of collections. Or a soccer team returning an entire bottle drive into the store, tying up staff, filling the stock room, and clearing out all their cash.
But c'mon... Make an exception for the handful of extras. It probably took the clerk longer to explain the limits than it would have taken for him to just ring them through.
Besides the general annoyance at his strict adherence to a silly rule, I'm bothered by the rule itself. Shouldn't they be encouraging as much recycling as people are willing to engage in (especially since they're a government-run operation)? And not only that, since I've already paid a deposit on each of these bottles, isn't it really my own money that they're returning to me? Seems pretty cheeky of them to make it extra-difficult for me to get my money back.
I really don't understand the logic or the lack of flexibility in either of the above.
But here are two examples of dumb limitations:
1. A pizza chain's flyer arrived in my mailbox last week. One of their featured offers is the "triple decker": three pizzas, three toppings each, three dipping sauces... for a certain price per pizza depending on the size. The kicker? It very clearly states "maximum three pizzas".
So, if I want to buy five or six? Too bad. I have to pay the basic, non-volume-discounted, per pizza price for the additional.
Why would they discourage me from ordering as many as I want at the lower price?
2. I tried to return some empty bottles to the local (government-run) liquor store today. We haven't returned any for several months, so there was quite a few. But, they're all the same type, boxed in their original cases, etc. -- so pretty easy to return.
As I'm lifting the boxes onto the counter to make the return, the staff member informs me that there's a limit on the number of cases that they can accept per person per day. I was about three cases over the limit and had to take the extras back to return another time.
Alright, fine. I understand the need for a limit. They don't want some homeless guy bringing in a week's worth of collections. Or a soccer team returning an entire bottle drive into the store, tying up staff, filling the stock room, and clearing out all their cash.
But c'mon... Make an exception for the handful of extras. It probably took the clerk longer to explain the limits than it would have taken for him to just ring them through.
Besides the general annoyance at his strict adherence to a silly rule, I'm bothered by the rule itself. Shouldn't they be encouraging as much recycling as people are willing to engage in (especially since they're a government-run operation)? And not only that, since I've already paid a deposit on each of these bottles, isn't it really my own money that they're returning to me? Seems pretty cheeky of them to make it extra-difficult for me to get my money back.
I really don't understand the logic or the lack of flexibility in either of the above.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Good Promotion Ruined By Terrible Ads
So it's Roll up the Rim time at Tim Horton's.
Great promotion that's been running forever. Everybody in the country happily buys a coffee for the chance to win a TV, cash, boat, or whatever else is available.
Along with Camp Day, when proceeds of the day's sales go towards helping kids attend summer camp, the marketing folks at Tim Horton's have shown that they know their stuff.
But I just heard a radio spot for this season's contest...
In a word: Ugh.
Why are the ad concepts, and especially the copywriting, for this company so hit-and-miss? Do they have more than one agency? Is it a case of meddling in the creative process by people who shouldn't be involved?
Some of the nostalgic, small town Canadiana spots they've produced have been great on an emotional, brand-building level. And they're often quite good at launching new products with simple but effective sales-oriented creative.
But then they hit you with cheesy, low-budget, moronic garbage.
The one I heard today had something to do with "rolling up" traditions, and basically featured people (idiots, I assume) chanting and getting all excited about simultaneous rolling. The fact that the voice actors are terrible doesn't help the writing.
The saddest part is knowing that this is the best they could come up with. Several other ideas were considered and then tossed out in favour of this.
Ugh.
It's in the running to beat the ad below for the title of Most Irritating Donut Shop Advertisement.
Great promotion that's been running forever. Everybody in the country happily buys a coffee for the chance to win a TV, cash, boat, or whatever else is available.
Along with Camp Day, when proceeds of the day's sales go towards helping kids attend summer camp, the marketing folks at Tim Horton's have shown that they know their stuff.
But I just heard a radio spot for this season's contest...
In a word: Ugh.
Why are the ad concepts, and especially the copywriting, for this company so hit-and-miss? Do they have more than one agency? Is it a case of meddling in the creative process by people who shouldn't be involved?
Some of the nostalgic, small town Canadiana spots they've produced have been great on an emotional, brand-building level. And they're often quite good at launching new products with simple but effective sales-oriented creative.
But then they hit you with cheesy, low-budget, moronic garbage.
The one I heard today had something to do with "rolling up" traditions, and basically featured people (idiots, I assume) chanting and getting all excited about simultaneous rolling. The fact that the voice actors are terrible doesn't help the writing.
The saddest part is knowing that this is the best they could come up with. Several other ideas were considered and then tossed out in favour of this.
Ugh.
It's in the running to beat the ad below for the title of Most Irritating Donut Shop Advertisement.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
You CAN Argue With Success
Formulas vs. Methods
I've been taking year-old dog to training classes ever since we first got him a few months ago. So far, he's been to two different trainers as he progresses through the lessons. In addition, I've developed a minor addiction to dog training TV shows like The Dog Whisperer and At The End of My Leash. It didn't take long to realize that there can be a huge variation in techniques from trainer to trainer.
Some say "No treats to bribe your dog!", while others say "Use whatever works to get his attention."
Some insist on a close, tight leash that's yanked to discipline and control the dog. Others insist on the exact opposite.
Some focus on getting things right from the very beginning, but others believe that you cann re-teach most things properly later as the dog's general skill improves...
The thing is:
They all work.
Everybody's successful.
The TV guys demonstrate astounding results in even the most extreme cases (no doubt, this is somewhat manipulated for TV, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt).
The trainers we've met in person have held years and years of successful classes with "everyday" dogs and owners.
How can multiple "formulas for success" be not just different but actually conflict with one-another? If there are multiple right ways and multiple wrong ways, it can't actually be much of a "formula", can it?
Sure, it's largely semantics, but what we're really seeing are "methods" for success. It's an important distinction:
A formula is one-of-a-kind. It always leads to the same result. It's predictable and controllable.
A method can be one-of-many. Its outcome is usually quite reliable, but any number of variables can have an effect on its progress and results.
Neither is better or worse than the other, of course, but it's important to know which you're dealing with in any particular situation.
If I'm approaching a problem with a formula, I need to have a huge amount of data available. I need to be certain that my problem will fit within the formula's parameters. And I have to be willing to stick to the formula until the very end, no matter what happens along the way.
If I'm using a method to solve my problem, I gain the benefit of improvisation and flexibility in the face of the unknown. But, my chances of success drop significantly as I move away from the known.
I'd be curious to hear which marketing activities people believe can rely on Formulas vs. which ones should be approached with Methods.
Public Service Announcement: If you're thinking of getting a pet, please visit your local animal shelter rather than buying from a breeder. Our pal Ozzie is from the BC SPCA, and we wouldn't hesitate to return there for another pet.
I've been taking year-old dog to training classes ever since we first got him a few months ago. So far, he's been to two different trainers as he progresses through the lessons. In addition, I've developed a minor addiction to dog training TV shows like The Dog Whisperer and At The End of My Leash. It didn't take long to realize that there can be a huge variation in techniques from trainer to trainer.
Some say "No treats to bribe your dog!", while others say "Use whatever works to get his attention."
Some insist on a close, tight leash that's yanked to discipline and control the dog. Others insist on the exact opposite.
Some focus on getting things right from the very beginning, but others believe that you cann re-teach most things properly later as the dog's general skill improves...
The thing is:
They all work.
Everybody's successful.
The TV guys demonstrate astounding results in even the most extreme cases (no doubt, this is somewhat manipulated for TV, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt).
The trainers we've met in person have held years and years of successful classes with "everyday" dogs and owners.
How can multiple "formulas for success" be not just different but actually conflict with one-another? If there are multiple right ways and multiple wrong ways, it can't actually be much of a "formula", can it?
Sure, it's largely semantics, but what we're really seeing are "methods" for success. It's an important distinction:
A formula is one-of-a-kind. It always leads to the same result. It's predictable and controllable.
A method can be one-of-many. Its outcome is usually quite reliable, but any number of variables can have an effect on its progress and results.
Neither is better or worse than the other, of course, but it's important to know which you're dealing with in any particular situation.
If I'm approaching a problem with a formula, I need to have a huge amount of data available. I need to be certain that my problem will fit within the formula's parameters. And I have to be willing to stick to the formula until the very end, no matter what happens along the way.
If I'm using a method to solve my problem, I gain the benefit of improvisation and flexibility in the face of the unknown. But, my chances of success drop significantly as I move away from the known.
I'd be curious to hear which marketing activities people believe can rely on Formulas vs. which ones should be approached with Methods.
Public Service Announcement: If you're thinking of getting a pet, please visit your local animal shelter rather than buying from a breeder. Our pal Ozzie is from the BC SPCA, and we wouldn't hesitate to return there for another pet.
Friday, February 13, 2009
"New Higher Price!"
I've been thinking a bit about pricing strategies for a client. Here's the dilemma:
Do we launch a new product at a high price, then drop the price over time to compensate as popularity decreases?
or
Do we launch a new product at a low price, encourage as many people as possible to buy it, hope for a pile of good reviews and other buzz, then gradually increase the price?
The first option is definitely the most common pricing strategy, but I'm intrigued by the second. Three main reasons:
1. In a marketplace where consumers, professional reviewers, amateur bloggers, and others can easily compare notes and often become excited about (good) new things, getting a lot of early exposure is vital.
2. Properly communicated, an increasing-price strategy is attention-getting in itself.
3. Scarcity and time-limitations are powerful motivators. Potential buyers who are on the fence might be swayed to buy now if they fear a price increase in the near future. It's a standard used car sales tactic and it works.
The main thing swaying us towards the more traditional approach is that the brand is new, not just the product. Can we get enough early buzz to justify a price increase? Will people ignore us regardless of our price point, and be further turned off when they see we're increasing the price of something they haven't even heard of? More importantly for the long term: Will a low initial price create the impression that our entire brand is low-end? (It's not.)
My gut is saying to take a more traditional approach to this first product to establish the brand as exciting, interesting, reliable, premium, professional, etc. Once these attributes are proven to be true, and we've had a chance to gauge the level of interest that a new product can garner, we could move to an increasing-price model.
Do we launch a new product at a high price, then drop the price over time to compensate as popularity decreases?
or
Do we launch a new product at a low price, encourage as many people as possible to buy it, hope for a pile of good reviews and other buzz, then gradually increase the price?
The first option is definitely the most common pricing strategy, but I'm intrigued by the second. Three main reasons:
1. In a marketplace where consumers, professional reviewers, amateur bloggers, and others can easily compare notes and often become excited about (good) new things, getting a lot of early exposure is vital.
2. Properly communicated, an increasing-price strategy is attention-getting in itself.
3. Scarcity and time-limitations are powerful motivators. Potential buyers who are on the fence might be swayed to buy now if they fear a price increase in the near future. It's a standard used car sales tactic and it works.
The main thing swaying us towards the more traditional approach is that the brand is new, not just the product. Can we get enough early buzz to justify a price increase? Will people ignore us regardless of our price point, and be further turned off when they see we're increasing the price of something they haven't even heard of? More importantly for the long term: Will a low initial price create the impression that our entire brand is low-end? (It's not.)
My gut is saying to take a more traditional approach to this first product to establish the brand as exciting, interesting, reliable, premium, professional, etc. Once these attributes are proven to be true, and we've had a chance to gauge the level of interest that a new product can garner, we could move to an increasing-price model.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
It's a nice change... I guess... Kinda...
Okay, this one isn't "bad branding" so much as "confusing expenditures on a brand's visual identity".
I've noticed lately that some of the local Safeway stores have started changing their logos. Not a small task for such a big chain. There's various signage outside the store, in-store POS displays, packaging, advertising, etc. etc. etc.
I totally respect and appreciate a brand's need to evolve and freshen their visual ID from time to time. But, well, here's the change:
Old logo:
New logo:
As you can see - massive changes! Will anyone even recognize the new one?
Seriously though, I like the new version, but I wonder why this change is being undertaken. I get the sense that the transition has been going on for a while now, probably a multi-year strategy. But it's probably also the type of thing that could easily be put on hold. Is this really a major priority for the company right now?
If Safeway is continuing with the transition because they're being proactive, attempting to counteract negative perceptions of the overall economy, and trying to appear as the fresh, modern, not-at-all-in-any-danger-of-going-bankrupt supermarket chain, that's great. I applaud them for pushing forward when other brands are retrenching.
On the other hand, I can't help but wonder if they're simply spending money on the rebrand because it's time for one... "The project has started, it's in the budget, so we may as well stay on track". Or worse, because of someone's ego, or some other whim.
I haven't been able to find any public explanation of the change and its timing. I'd love to hear any insight anyone might have.
I've noticed lately that some of the local Safeway stores have started changing their logos. Not a small task for such a big chain. There's various signage outside the store, in-store POS displays, packaging, advertising, etc. etc. etc.
I totally respect and appreciate a brand's need to evolve and freshen their visual ID from time to time. But, well, here's the change:
Old logo:
New logo:
As you can see - massive changes! Will anyone even recognize the new one?
Seriously though, I like the new version, but I wonder why this change is being undertaken. I get the sense that the transition has been going on for a while now, probably a multi-year strategy. But it's probably also the type of thing that could easily be put on hold. Is this really a major priority for the company right now?
If Safeway is continuing with the transition because they're being proactive, attempting to counteract negative perceptions of the overall economy, and trying to appear as the fresh, modern, not-at-all-in-any-danger-of-going-bankrupt supermarket chain, that's great. I applaud them for pushing forward when other brands are retrenching.
On the other hand, I can't help but wonder if they're simply spending money on the rebrand because it's time for one... "The project has started, it's in the budget, so we may as well stay on track". Or worse, because of someone's ego, or some other whim.
I haven't been able to find any public explanation of the change and its timing. I'd love to hear any insight anyone might have.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
