Bad Branding

Doo dah, doo doo, doo dah, dee dee

2010-07-30T12:29:00.000-07:00

The marketing world is enthralled by "Old Spice Guy" these days, with countless articles, blog posts, and keynote addresses talking about how well the campaign is performing in both traditional and new media. So here's one more.

As a consumer, I like the ads and I think their efforts in addressing the social media space are fun and unique. As a marketer, I appreciate that they're successfully breaking through a very cluttered marketplace and are successfully repositioning a very old and tired brand.

However, most "successful" marketing efforts are either great at driving sales or in building positive brand metrics. One is a short term measurement, the other is long term. Rarely does a campaign succeed at both.

I was initially skeptical of the Old Spice campaign -- in fact, it seemed to be failing in both areas, despite its apparent awesomeness.
For one thing, initial sales figures weren't impressive.
Beyond this, I still see many comments from people saying "Fun ads, but Old Spice reminds me of my grandpa, so I'd never wear it."
And... quick: name the specific product being advertised in this campaign. A lot of people aren't sure.

Even some of the "best" campaigns in the history of advertising failed to achieve both.
"I'd like to buy the world a Coke"
"Tastes Great / Less Filling"
"It's Patrick! He took out life insurance! Good for you son! At my age it's probably too late..."

You probably recognize all three of the above phrases.
Here's the thing: The first two didn't actually achieve the great immediate sales results (the second actually helped its competitor more than the advertiser itself, apparently). But they helped establish some powerful brands for years to come.
The third example is one of those "Man, I hate that ad" spots. It's hardly endeared the advertised brand to the public. But it works. The horribly-written, terribly-acted TV commercial ran for years and years because it continually sold insurance.

One of the challenges as an outside observer is not knowing how many hits there are for every shot fired, so to speak.

Case Studies are great. I love to learn about what works and would much rather see a real world example than some academic, theoretical opinion. But we only get to see the best-of-the-best and the worst-of-the-worst when it comes to case studies. We'll surely see plenty more analysis of The Old Spice Guy campaign in years to come. The folks who created it will be the stars of the marketing industry conference circuit for at least a few more months.

But what about the brand's relative failures (or the ad agency's failures for other clients)?

Old Spice had a great (from an "entertained consumer" perspective) campaign featuring Bruce Campbell a few years ago. Very very very similar to the current ads (even including some cool online stuff, before the exact same activities were labeled as "social media"). But these didn't move the needle. They got some word-of-mouth, a few gazillion plays on YouTube, and so on, but never really caught on with the public. Clearly, based on the latest campaign, the strategy and creative direction is a good one for this brand, and yet it clearly isn't a formula for automatic success.

I'm fascinated by this "X Factor". Hollywood has shown us that it's almost impossible to predict which movies and TV shows will be a hit. Two almost identical shows will almost always have completely different results (and it's just as likely that the lower-budget, cheesier, dumber, less-marketed one will actually perform better). Same seems to go with marketing. The people behind Old Spice's resurgence probably had their fair share of unremarkable campaigns in the past, and will probably be hit-and-miss with their future efforts. If these people -- who seem to "get it" and have clients with deep pockets -- can't be consistently amazing, what hope do the rest of us have?

If any of my clients are reading this: big budgets help. It's pretty clear that the "Guy" campaign has a lot more financial support than the Bruce Campbell one did. It's almost always a good idea to spend more. The latest campaign is one of the very few examples of campaigns where it was worthwhile to advertise during the Super Bowl, for example.
But there are also countless examples of campaigns with big money, "star" creative teams and more, that have failed miserably.

Maybe it's a form of chaos theory. There are just so many variables when dealing with unpredictable things (like human beings) that the same actions will rarely generate the same results every time.

Sell The Dream, Or Make It Painless?

2010-06-07T15:45:00.000-07:00

I'm considering buying a home automation/distributed media system for my new house. Nothing fancy, but something that will let us listen to music in various parts of the house, maybe control some of the lights from a central location, and so on.

Researching my options, it seems that most suppliers really focus on a "sell the dream" approach. They showcase the ultimate system, featuring drool-worthy photos and descriptions of amazing, futuristic homes. As much as this makes me want one even more, it also has the opposite effect of scaring me away. There's no way I can afford a powerful mega-system. My rational side starts immediately thinking of reasons not to buy: I'm not really going to use it that much... it's not really hard to manually turn on the lights... I could buy a separate stereo system for each room for the same price...

Even the suppliers that emphasize the affordability of their offerings still position them as a luxury item.

Perhaps some of them would be wise to focus on entry-level consumers and realize that most of us probably won't just jump in to the full-meal-deal. Concentrate on communicating some bite-size pieces that anybody with a decent job could (and should! darnit) buy today. They can always up-sell us later in the process, of course.

Oversight, Ignorance, Compromise, or Dumb?

2010-04-14T15:04:00.000-07:00

Walking the dog today, I passed a house that got me thinkin'.

No camera with me, so I'll have to describe it.
The front of the house faces south. It's a two-level with a garage on one side. The first floor looks pretty normal: front door, windows... But the second floor facing south is all roof. A steep roof-line runs from the top of the first floor all the way to the top. No windows or anything. It's not just a giant attic, though, as there appear to be windows at the back of the house.

Why would someone design their house like this?
It's not a particularly busy street. It's in a rural area, on a large lot, well away from the road.
Why not have a few windows on the south side? Living in the northern hemisphere, southern exposure is usually a key location benefit for real estate properties.

I can only think of four reasons someone would choose this design:
1. Oversight. Very unacceptable for professional designers and builders, but excusable for a homeowner who lacks experience. This seems like a fairly major thing to overlook, though. So, perhaps it's better described as:
2. Ignorance. Same description, bigger scale.
3. Compromise. Hopefully this is the most likely explanation. Every window that's installed, every angle that's cut, etc. has a cost attached. Maybe the budget didn't allow for this side of the house to look good. Maybe the owners preferred putting their efforts elsewhere. Maybe they recognized that this design direction wasn't perfect, but gave them the best results for their priorities (for example, if they like lots of un-broken wall space but couldn't make the rooms larger).
or
4. Dumb. Some choices are just unexplainable. Maybe you could call it "personal taste", but this particular case seems as much about utility as tastes.

I wonder if I could apply the same four reasons to other baffling decisions that I see made around me.

Aren't Greyhounds Supposed To Be Fast & Sleek?

2010-04-02T12:36:00.000-07:00

Want to play a fun game?

Try to book a ticket on Greyhound Canada from Victoria, BC to Nanaimo, BC with the following restrictions:
- pick a travel date that is around 7 to 9 days from today
- choose to buy a 7-Day Advance Purchase ticket
- go through the process as if you're buying the ticket on behalf of someone else

Perhaps start with their Web site at www.greyhound.ca

What's that? Even though tickets appear to be available for the trip you can't buy them online? Hmmm. Strange.

Maybe it's worth a phone call to the toll free number listed on the site. Let's see... according to the Need Help? link shown on the page, that number is 1-800-231-2222. Okay.

Oh. That number is for trips within the United States, is it?
At least there's an option on the automated phone system for trips within Canada. Maybe try that? Alright, that just gives another phone number. 1-800-661-8747, gotcha.

Ahh, another phone system. Fun.
Okay, let's walk through the process.

Select an option to get ticket info (since there is no option to just "Buy").
A seemingly-random selection of departure cities is given. Nope, none of those.
Okay, type "8" for cities that start with T, U, and V.
Nope, none of those are correct either. Nope, we don't need to hear more "T" cities. Oh, thanks for informing us that there are no "U" cities -- good trivia to tell the grandkids one day.
Alright, select the option for more "V" cities. Yay, there it is.
And... repeat the process for the destination city.
Now listen to a list of all the departure and arrival times for that route.

I guess it's time to talk to an agent now that it finally provides that as an option.

Let's tell them our relevant info. Departure city. Destination. Date. Time...

What's that? Why, no, actually, the credit card being used to book the trip is not in the same name as the traveler. But it's a valid card. Honest!

There's an $18 fee for that? Why, that's almost as much as the ticket price! What on earth does this fee cover? If the credit card is invalid, what good does it do for them to add an extra fee anyways? Ohhhhhhh, I see: the ticket agent has absolutely no empowerment and only basic training. Alrighty.

Hold on, let's grab the traveler's credit card info, then. Okay, got it.

Ready. Let's get a-buyin'!

Excuse me? There's a $6 fee for booking by phone? What's that about? They're encouraging use of the Web site? Okay, fine. But the ticket isn't available through the Web site...

Aha! So the ability for purchasers to print their own ticket at home is only available in certain cities. Which means that Greyhound want to mail a ticket. Which takes up to ten days. That's why you can't book online. So, really, if you want a 7-Day Advance Purchase fare, you have to book at least 10 days in advance. And be available to collect the ticket in the mail when it arrives (not much good if you're, say, traveling around the country at the time).

But if you book by phone, they can somehow have your tickets waiting for you at will-call... Right.

Wow.
Amazing that airlines, hotels, and countless other businesses manage to sell bookings(and other products and services) worth thousands of dollars without these sorts of restrictions.
No way to just give a confirmation number and show ID at the ticket booth? Nope.
No way to just print an e-mail or other basic content instead of a full "ticket"? Nope, only for certain cities. ("What does that have to do with anything?" is, of course, the next logical question).

Alright, game over.

Does Greyhound actually successfully sell any tickets online or by phone? Does everybody end up paying extra fees just to get the process complete?

The above is, as you've probably guessed, based on an actual occurrence. And it went on from here. Just imagine the above stretched out over several phone calls trying to find someone who can expedite the process or waive the ridiculous fee(s). Ugh.

Sure, this particular situation just happens to be a weird exception that falls between the cracks (cities without full ticketing capabilities, dates that are more than one restriction allows but less than another, etc.). If this was the extent of the problems it would be forgivable.

But the issues seem to be systemic.
The customer service and ticket agent staff are next to useless. No apologies or efforts to make the process smoother. No suggestions for how to deal with the problems. No effort to make the eventual purchase process go as quickly as possible.

The IVR phone system has got to be the worst I've ever encountered. Ever. Really: Try it out. Call the above phone number (it's toll free) and pretend to book a ticket. Time how long it takes to get to any useful info. God forbid you want to just buy something right away.

The Web site is some antiquated thing that looks like something I would have been ashamed to produce in 2001.

The fare and fee structure looks like something designed by a sociopath.

I could go on for hours outlining just a few of the things wrong with this company. And the worst part: this is before even setting foot near their actual facilities or staff. I shudder to think what they'll screw up. Can I actually trust them to have a record of the ticket at will-call? Will there be room on the bus? Will the bus be even running?

I wonder if the reason Greyhound has a virtual monopoly on most routes is that their potential competitors see only a handful of people traveling and assume that there's no demand. Little do they know that most of the potential customers are still waiting on hold somewhere.

Everyone's A Winner Baby

2010-03-14T12:02:00.001-07:00

The idea of "best" is incredibly arbitrary and fleeting. Even in areas where reliable, absolute data is available, results seem to change on a constant basis.

(Before I get started, here's a previous post about what I think of "Best").

In the world of sports, why does the gold medal winner at the Olympics only finish is seventh place at their event's World Cup a few weeks later? Why is it so rare for a particular golfer or race horse and jockey or Nascar driver to win multiple big events in a single season?

If you're the best at something, shouldn't you be winning event after event, show after show, award after award?

The most obvious explanation is that there are an enormous number of variables in every activity. Even the best athlete in the world can have a bad day. Track conditions vary. The whole "butterfly beating its wings" thing comes into play.

This might explain the differences on a particular occasion, but shouldn't things average out over time? A single race or run or game might go badly, but the "best" should bounce back and be on top again soon afterwards. A lot of the time, though, this doesn't seem to be the case -- someone who has been declared the best at some point will typically see results that go up and down for years at a time.

Another explanation is the simple arbitrary nature of the term. What does "best" even mean? In many ways, it's like "quality" -- something I've complained about previously. Even when something can be judged based on absolute, irrefutable data it's still debatable which data is actually the most important, how results should be weighted, when variables should be taken into account, etc.

And a third explanation relates to timeframes. Is consistency over the long-run more important, or is it better to have an absolutely stellar performance once in a while? Again, this is arbitrary, but it's interesting how it relates directly to marketing vs. sales -- marketing is more concerned about consistency in the long run and driving towards lifetime achievement whereas sales is much more about doing really well this time (even if it means doing nothing to improve your chance of success next time).

It's pretty clear that these issues regularly pop up in the business world. A simple example is how Canada's three big cell phone companies have been arguing over claims of "fastest", "most reliable", and even just "reliable" lately.

In the end, if you're truly the "fastest", "best" or whatever, shouldn't it be obvious? Would you really need to constantly prove yourself? Why don't you go out and win a dozen big events in a row if you're so awesome? You probably don't even need to say so; people will just know.

A Theory About Social Media Experts

2010-02-24T12:26:00.001-08:00

If you've read this blog before, you've probably noticed that I have a bit of a problem with the over-use (and sloppy usage) of the term "social media".

In a nutshell, the Internet is inherently "social" (weren't e-mail, chatrooms, and discussion boards the first widespread uses of the Net?) and good marketing is also inherently "social" (great marketing is shared, sharable, parodied, copied, etc. and always has been). The idea behind social media is nothing new and often merely refers to the growing ease with which new tools let us work.

I have a new theory:

This term is being used as a synonym for Digital Marketing as a whole, and I think it's largely due to people who previously missed the boat finally jumping on board.

If you're a marketing professional, you can't simply admit that you've been ignoring or under-valuing the Internet for the past decade. And you'd look like a fool if you were to now brag about how you're embracing online channels. But if you position yourself as a "social media expert", well... that's a whole different story! You're on the cutting edge. You're pushing the envelope and embracing new stuff left and right.

Don't get me wrong -- there are plenty of true social media experts out there. These are people who understand the tools and have been actively evolving their skills and experience to the industry's current state.

As usual, though, the real experts are drowned out by countless others whose expertise is largely self-professed and often merely academic.

Next time you talk to a "Social Media Expert", ask them how they were using Digital Marketing in 1999, or 2003, or 2008.

Don't Bother

2010-02-20T21:51:00.000-08:00

I've noticed a few sales lately, especially at the grocery store, where the savings are virtually nonexistent. "Regular price $1.19 a pound, now just $1.11"

I have to ask: Why bother?
Is the store really attracting much (any?) incremental sales from this? Are consumers really going out of their way to purchase the "special" products?

Even better, I came across the following promotion on a loaf of bread:

It's a little blurry, but the amazing promotional offer is a free toaster oven with 12 proofs of purchase, plus $18 shipping and handling. www.thinkbreadinstead.ca

I wonder how many redemptions they had. How many people:
a.) Even want a toaster oven
b.) Want that particular brand
c.) Are willing and able to save 12 proofs of purchase without losing them (and before the promotion expired)
d.) Are willing to pay $18 for shipping and handling
e.) Actually believe the "suggested retail price" is what they would have to pay otherwise

I could, of course, be completely wrong and this may have been an incredibly successful promotion. But it's hard to imagine anyone going out of their way to buy extra bread (or switching to this particular brand) in order to save a few bucks on a small appliance.

Shouldn't a special promotion offer -- especially one with plenty of marketing support -- be, y'know, special? It doesn't have to be the greatest offer in the history of the universe, but should be a little bit noteworthy and memorable.

(As an aside: I don't really get the whole "Think Bread Instead" promotion. Instead of what? How many people don't already consume bread as a staple? Are there really people out there who don't "think of bread" at most meals? Seems weird.)

Give Me A Sign

2010-02-14T09:01:00.000-08:00

I think I've written about this before, but it's an ongoing problem:

Want to improve your brand? Put up a few informational signs.

I'm not talking about advertising or other promotional activities, but simple directions and basic information.

I attended an Olympic hockey game last night. The venue is set up very differently from when it hosts NHL games: all spectators are being funneled to a single entrance area, then go through security checks, then proceed to the arena. Besides being a stupid process (instead of putting 20 metal detectors in one place, why not put 2 in each of 10 different places?), its also quite confusing. Literally thousands of people were circling the building in both directions trying to find an open entrance.

The maps in the official spectator guide are equally confusing. One shows the location of each of the entry "gates" to the arena, but another only vaguely indicates where the security entrance is.

Because of street closures, this all results in the need for a long walk around the building, several city blocks away and often walking in what seems to the opposite of the desired direction.

Staff and volunteers were helpful and were directing people in generally the correct direction, but still faced a lot of questions.

Meanwhile, I kept asking myself "Why don't they just put up a few signs?". Even a basic cardboard sign proclaiming "This Way to All Gates" every block would have been useful.

Why are the most simple solutions so overlooked?

Of course, it's not just a problem with big venues and huge events. How many stores actually clearly indicate where different products are? How many smaller events tell you which way to go? How many construction sites tell you about road and sidewalk closures before you get right up to the closure? How many businesses give you useful information about where to park?

Extra Extra

2010-01-24T17:31:00.000-08:00

I wonder why newspapers still seem to follow the old fashioned direction of creation splashy headlines and cover stories.

Once upon a time, newspapers were the primary source of news and information for most people. There were lots of competitors vying for readership, and multiple editions of each paper were published throughout the day (and night). Most readers would buy at least one of each day's newspapers from a store, newsstand, or even a good ole "Extry extry!"-style paperboy.

It made sense, then, that papers would not only compete for the best stories and other content, but would also try to write the biggest, most attention-getting headlines that they could.

Now, however, most markets have only a couple of newspapers. Even the huge ones only have a couple of editions each day. Circulation numbers might vary a bit from day to day, but are pretty steady these days -- people subscribe to their favourite, grab certain ones on the way to work, read certain ones at the office, etc.

For most consumers, newspapers are just one of many news sources they refer to throughout the day. The information they get from a paper is a complement to stories they'll see, hear, and read elsewhere.
Most people also know that the vast majority of content of any paper is non-exclusive.

So why do newspapers still act like a shocking headline is really going to help attract more readers and sell more papers?

Pennies

2010-01-23T00:02:00.000-08:00

Okay, a short one tonight:

What's with miniscule, almost non-existant, discounts?

I've been noticing this for quite a while, especially at the supermarket: items marked on sale for just a few cents below regular price.

Why bother? Is anyone actually rushing to buy extra Jello because it's $0.89 instead of $0.95? Anybody heading to the store just so they can pick up some special 1% off rice noodles?

All this does is make me think the store are being cheap.

Fanatics

2009-12-30T09:20:00.001-08:00

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.

Content is Still King

2009-12-09T10:31:00.000-08:00

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.

Beware the Case Study

2009-12-07T10:31:00.000-08:00

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...

A Million Monkeys

2009-11-12T09:16:00.000-08:00

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?

Tennis, Baseball, and Golf

2009-11-08T15:49:00.000-08:00

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.

Missed Opportunities (Again)

2009-11-02T20:51:00.001-08:00

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.

Getting Unique

2009-10-21T11:43:00.000-07:00

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.

Whither The Clickers?

2009-10-14T09:45:00.000-07:00

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...

The Reports of The Clickthrough Rate's Demise Have Been Greatly Exagerrated

2009-10-13T09:05:00.000-07:00

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.

Don't Get Defensive

2009-10-05T09:24:00.000-07:00

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.

Oldies are Goodies

2009-09-14T09:51:00.000-07:00

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.

Missing The Spirit

2009-09-10T21:31:00.001-07:00

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.

Meaningless Slogans

2009-08-04T13:18:00.001-07:00

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.

Who Are You Talking To?

2009-07-31T10:22:00.000-07:00

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.

Communications

2009-07-27T19:09:00.000-07:00

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.

Inventing A Problem

2009-07-03T09:20:00.000-07:00

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.

Imagination Gap

2009-06-15T10:48:00.001-07:00

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.

Lowered Expectations

2009-06-08T13:09:00.000-07:00

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.

A Quick Brand Review: Trader Joe's

2009-06-04T09:23:00.000-07:00

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...

Downsell Me

2009-06-01T15:08:00.000-07:00

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".

An Untapped Market?

2009-05-14T10:12:00.001-07:00

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.

Freebies

2009-05-08T10:38:00.000-07:00

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.

A Higher Bar

2009-05-03T17:37:00.001-07:00

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.

Attention

2009-04-29T09:29:00.000-07:00

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.

Line Ups

2009-04-27T12:19:00.000-07:00

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?

Co-Branded Ads?

2009-04-17T17:54:00.000-07:00

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?

Fight Fire With Fire,

2009-04-16T09:53:00.000-07:00

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.

Definitions

2009-04-10T11:21:00.000-07:00

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?

New Laws

2009-04-03T09:48:00.001-07:00

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.

Phonetic Branding?

2009-04-01T06:33:00.000-07:00

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?

Dilution in the Name of Innovation

2009-03-27T09:26:00.000-07:00

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.

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.

The Twitter Challenge

2009-03-21T10:39:00.000-07:00

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.

Four Levels

2009-03-19T11:56:00.000-07:00

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?

The Pizza Paradox

2009-03-13T14:53:00.000-07:00

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.

Google's Behavioral Targeting Experiment

2009-03-11T16:47:00.000-07:00

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.

Digital Advertising's Economics

2009-03-10T14:18:00.000-07:00

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.

Bigger Isn't Always The Answer

2009-03-10T11:25:00.001-07:00

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.

Maximums

2009-03-08T17:20:00.000-07:00

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.

Good Promotion Ruined By Terrible Ads

2009-02-25T10:07:00.000-08:00

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.

You CAN Argue With Success

2009-02-22T12:03:00.000-08:00

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.

"New Higher Price!"

2009-02-13T09:22:00.001-08:00

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.

It's a nice change... I guess... Kinda...

2009-02-10T19:02:00.000-08:00

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.

Tell Me Why...

2009-02-08T10:26:00.000-08:00

... and don't make excuses.

Many brands act like the marketplace, including their customers, must be kept in the dark. I don't know if it's because they don't trust anyone, or that they drastically over-estimate their competitors' capabilities, or some other reason.

My local Petcetera store just closed their doors. With about 48 hours notice.
No explanation, no apology, no easily-accessible information about who to contact with questions or concerns.
The store staff clearly had very little advance warning either -- they were taping up cheap-looking, photocopied "store closing" signs on the second-to-last day. They've been told that a new store will be opening, but have no idea when or where.

Let's assume the company had no choice. Maybe a legal issue requires them to leave. Maybe they're in a dispute with their landlord. Whatever.

Would it be that hard for head office to have a nice-looking poster printed, explaining the situation and apologizing for the short notice and inconvenience?
How about taking a few minutes to write a "cheat sheet" that could be distributed at the checkout, describing what do to in various situations (where to take returns, how to pick up ordered products, alternative locations for incomplete training classes, how to change grooming appointments...)?

I'm not saying they need to tell us everything. I understand the need to keep some things quiet, and the need to coordinate communications. But let's see something.

This is just one example, of course.
I suspect that a lack of communication (even just a simple answer to the question "Why?) is one of the largest sources of bad brand experiences. Think about the last time you were bothered by a brand. It probably had something to do what (and how) they told you something.

Most people are pretty reasonable when they understand your situation. And everyone -- reasonable or not -- at least knows what to do next when they're given more information. This probably saves the brand effort in the long run: who wants to deal with grumpy, confused customers?

So why all the secrets and mystery?
Sure, it's none of my business most of the time, but where's the harm in at least satisfying my curiousity?

And don't get me started on excuse-making...
Take Canadian Tire's recent decision to eliminate e-commerce from their Web site. Baffling most digital marketing professionals, the announcement was made with very little explanation. The reasons giben were, frankly, just vague excuses. Any competent team could (and should have) overcome any of the stated obstacles. So, are they telling us that they're incompetent, or is there something else that they won't open up about?

In either case, wouldn't a greater explanation in the first place be to everyone's advantage?

Make It (at least a little bit) Personal

2009-02-07T11:55:00.000-08:00

Some not-at-all-surprising results of studies by ChoiceStream, Harris Interactive, TNS Global, and TRUSTe:

1. People are more attentive to personalized advertising messages online
and
2. People are concerned about the privacy implications of being monitored online (which is what allows their messages to be personalized)

Nothing really new here. Almost any old-school direct marketer will tell you that mailings with the recipient's name and other personal info will usually get a better response than more generic pieces.

The two challenges are:
1. Getting past the contradiction. People like the results of personalization but not the process.

The solution to this one is education and familiarity. Over time, Internet users will get used to being tracked. The longer they can go without a negative experience, the better. The industry needs to actively educate these users, though. We need to clarify just how much information is monitored, how personally identifiable it is, and the potential ramifications. With a thorough understanding of things like Behavioural Targeting, I suspect that most users will not mind it.

2. Personalizing without scaring anyone. I'm still annoyed by the the number of completely un-targeted, non-personalized advertising online.
Okay, consumers are afraid of BT. Fine.
And many advertisers don't even understand it fully. That's a shame, but acceptable.

So, why not start things slow? You don't have to address your audience "personally", but at least start segmenting into some relevant groups.

How about the simplest, easiest, and one of the most basic things:
Do some geo-targeting, and change your messaging to reflect this -- dynamically serving ads that are relevant to that area... "Fly from Dallas to London for $320!", "Free shipping to Michigan", "Upcoming events in the Northwest"...

It's not difficult, and it has obvious advantages for both advertiser and audience. So why is so much advertising so untargeted (in both media buy and creative)?

Anti-Social Behaviour

2009-02-03T11:18:00.000-08:00

I'm starting to dislike the term "social media" more and more every day.

First of all, it seems like everybody who uses it considers themselves a "social media expert". No you're not. Enthusiast does not equal expert.

Secondly, it really feels like the flavour of the week. For a while, "banner ads" (another term I dislike -- a banner is just one format within a broad spectrum) were the king. Then e-mail became the sexy online marketing tool. Then SEO. Then SEM. Then Blogs. Then podcasts. And now "Social".

Thirdly, too many people are focusing on the tools rather than the spirit. Facebook is just one social network. Twitter is just one social communications channel. Adding customer comments to an e-commerce site is just one way to enable conversations.

All of these factors combine to create a situation where the true value of consumer-driven decision making, open communication among stakeholders, etc. are lost. Or at least buried under a lot of nonsense, jargon, and expense.

Social media shouldn't be a fad. It shouldn't be identified by a set of tactics.

Here's the thing:

The Internet is inherently social. Actually, even pre-WWW, online communications have been inherently social. Ever since the early days of bulletin boards, Compuserve, AOL, and so on, the main attraction has been sharing and communicating with other users. Discussing brands online is nothing new.

And this goes beyond digital channels.

Good marketing is, and always has been, inherently social. Back when "brand" was, quite literally, a reference to markings on livestock, how did anyone know which brand had which qualities? Simple: by talking to other buyers, sellers, users, etc.

What has changed recently, prompting the excitement over social media for the last couple of years, is that technology has made these converstations easier and more prevalent. The tools are great, but they're only enablers.

We need to make "being social" part of every campaign, product, conversation, and communication. Think of ways to connect people. Think of ways to improve the chances of your message can be spread. THAT is social.

It might mean setting up a YouTube channel or a MySpace page, sure. But it also might mean any number of other tactics, techniques, and methods that don't fall nicely into an existing toolbox.

Is It Worth It?

2009-01-30T14:21:00.000-08:00

I love this quote:

Logic examines. Belief accepts.

It's from an 1970's sci-fi book called The Masters of Solitude. Taken entirely out of context, it applies nicely to my approach to marketing: be as logical, inquisitive, and analytical as possible, but at some point you just have to go with the flow and believe that something is right (or wrong).

The big question, to me, is:
When do you put logic aside and start to believe?

JP examines a couple of recent viral marketing campaigns on his blog.
(One example is the same Honda campaign I linked to in my last post, the other is from T-Mobile in the UK).

In both cases, a pile of money is involved. Maybe not relative to the billions that these particular companies make and spend every year, but it's still a lot of money. I'm sure somebody in Accounting and other departments must have said "Whoa, hold on. Shouldn't we put that cash towards something else? How about some R&D? Or paying off a loan? Or new chairs for the Accounting department?"

Logic says:
Does having a musical road make people any more likely to want a Honda?
Do the thousands of viral video views equate to sales at some point?

What's the cost-per-acquisition for acquiring an incremental wireless subscriber?
What retailer incentives could we put in place for the same cost and effort?

But at some point Belief has to kick in.
Maybe, in the short run, the numbers don't justify staging a stunt.
Maybe, even in the long run, we can't possibly measure the whole emotional impact of doing something fun for our audience.

As professionals, we have a responsibility to ask all the "logic" questions. Fact is, some (I would actually assume most) big, expensive, complicated, creative promo ideas aren't worth the effort or money. We shouldn't do stuff just because somebody's ego thinks it would be a cool idea and might win an award or two.

(Read The End of Marketing As We Know It by Sergio Zyman for plenty of examples of classic campaigns that everyone loves, but could never justify their own existence. )

But, as professionals, we also have a responsibility to recognize that sometimes we don't know all the answers. Sometimes something beautiful is worthwhile simply because it's beautiful. Sometimes, the benefits of a campaign will never clearly and obviously show up in a metrics report, a financial statement, or anywhere else. Sometimes you have to believe that it was worth it.

Brand Passion

2009-01-29T20:34:00.000-08:00

Do we, as marketers, miss out on the love of brands, the passion, the excitement?
Do we see through too much, or read too deeply?

Check out the comments about Honda here.

Can you imagine a marketer really, truly loving a brand this much?

The amazing fact is: some "regular consumers" really do love brands.

We'll Solve Your Problem So You Can Do It Again!

2009-01-19T09:03:00.000-08:00

I don't know if this is a brilliant retention technique, good insight into the target market's mindset, or just bad copywriting:

On the train last week, I saw an ad for a credit counseling / debt consolidation organization. Basically, it showed an image of an ecstatic guy giving an enthusiastic endorsement. Something like "Thanks to them, soon I'll be able to afford a vacation, a new car, and maybe even my own house!"

Yes, in that order.
Quite the prioritization.
I think the term "vicious cycle" may apply.

Imagine if other advertisers took the same approach...
"Weight Watchers helped me take off so many inches that now I can go gorge myself on a buffet every weekend, take that two week all-inclusive cruise, or maybe even buy some nice new clothes!"

"This cancer treatment was so effective that I'm going to start smoking again, and maybe even spend more quality time with my kids!"

"These lawyers were so great in getting me early parole that now I can stab an old lady, rob a convenience store, or maybe even apply for a legitimate job!"

How I'll Know The Economy Is Bad

2009-01-15T09:37:00.000-08:00

You can probably tell from some of my past posts that I think much of the doom-and-gloom about the economy is overblown. I'm willing to acknowledge that there are lots of problems, though.

However, here's the signal that will tell me that things are actually as bad as people say:

I'll get amazing service from every business I contact.

Three reasons:

1. Companies need to try harder to win my business. They're more desperate and desperation leads to extreme actions.

2. Companies that are laying off workers will start by eliminating the worst ones, improving the average. (Though, this also means more workload for those who remain, but I believe that the best workers will be able to handle this)

3. Companies that are hiring workers (whether through growth or just to replace those in #2) will have a bigger bucket of prospects to choose from, including a lot of great people.

We're not there yet, at least not where I live.

I still speak with phone reps who sound like they're just awakening from a coma.
I still face retail staff who'd rather hit on their cute coworker that talk to any customers.
I still find obvious mistakes in invoices and receipts.
I still read basic spelling and grammar errors on signs, menus, and even in newspaper columns.
I still know that half the products I buy are going to fall apart before their time.
...

When the day comes that I'm thoroughly impressed by the service I've received all day, I'll really start to worry.

Toilet Paper Math

2009-01-13T11:44:00.000-08:00

One of the most annoying things to shop for is toilet paper.
Not because it's embarrassing.
Not even because of the stupid "bathroom tissue" euphemism.
Nor the inconvenience of carrying the big package through the store and/or home.

It's the math.

One package has 12 rolls of 180 sheets of 2 ply for $3.99.
Another is a 24 roll of 160 sheets of "ultra soft" 2 ply for $4.99.
Still another contains 12 "double" rolls with 240 sheets each, 2 ply for $8.99.
Or 18 rolls with 180 sheets of "quilted ultra soft with extra large sheets" for $4.95, on sale from $5.45.
Then there's the 3 ply super-deluxe-ultra, the 1 ply campground outhouse stuff...
And multiply all this by five or six different brand names.

You need to open up Excel just to figure out the relative value per ply per square.

Why so complicated? Are people's wiping needs really this diverse? Even with a dozen different products, why not standardize things like roll size and sheet dimensions? Why even sell a "single roll" if we now have space-aged "double roll" technology?

I assume the complication is intentional.
When you can't differentiate your commodity very much (at the end of the day, a square is a square is a ply is a ply), confuse the market to make the differences seem more substantial or the pricing less consequential.

Social Growth

2009-01-12T09:18:00.000-08:00

Interesting chart from eMarketer was posted today on Mashable.

It clear that "Social Networking" is the growth area for digital marketing these days. No surprise, but some of the figures are a bit confusing (perhaps even concerning) and could use more context.

For example, how is social networking defined?
Does this include all forms of social media, or just actual networks like Facebook and LinkedIn? (i.e. media placements with "social" aspect)

If I include a "send to a friend" link on a site or ad, does that make it "social"?
Don't many people include blogging as a type of social networking? So why is it a separate category? Or is it just a sub-category?

I'd also love to see how responses relate to one-another.
Are the businesses who plan to spend more on e-commerce, for example, the same ones who plan to spend more on their Web sites, or is one gaining investment at the expense of the other?

I suppose I'm a bit cautious to take these numbers at face value, primarily due to a observation made in the Mashable post: is it really true that more companies are currently engaged in social networking than have a corporate Web site?
Somehow I doubt this.

If the survey participants were free to apply their own definition of each of these categories, perhaps there's a lack of consistency. If I run a display ad that includes video, am I using "online display" or "online video"? What if I run a static diaplay ad within a video? Or a display ad on a video page?...

Still, it's interesting to see some quantitative data to confirm the growing interest and investment in the "social" space.

Apologize For The Right Thing

2009-01-11T12:22:00.001-08:00

Here's a weird one.

I was out for dinner with four other people recently at The Old Spaghetti Factory in Gastown. Not the fanciest place in the world, and the food is hardly exceptional, but it's comfortable, affordable, and generally a nice place to eat.

Anyway, when we arrived we gave them our name and were told that we'd have about a 20 minute wait. No big deal, and quite common for a popular place.

We waited a while and began to notice (after about 10 to 15 minutes) that other parties who arrived after us were being seated. At first I wasn't bothered -- these were typically groups of two or three or four. Perhaps they simply didn't have a large enough table for the five of us. I had to wonder, though, if there were really no opportunities to push two tables together.

As the 20 minute mark came and went, the restaurant was getting a bit quieter and people who walked into the lobby would be seated almost immediately. Including a group of 5.

At this point, everybody in my group must have been thinking the same thing, and two of them approached the staff. The hostess checked her little list of names and, lo and behold, they were just about to call our name. What a fantastic coincidence!

Give me a break.

So, as we were being led to the table, I complained aloud (as I tend to do when I'm annoyed by poor service or ridiculous people) abou tthe fact that others were seated faster.

She responded by apologizing. But, for the wrong things.
It was an apology, but came out like excuse-making.

She said that the other groups were smaller than ours.
I pointed out that at least one was exactly the same size.

She said that larger tables weren't available.
I pointed out several places where large tables sat empty, or where smaller empty tables were side-by-side and could have been moved.

She said that some people had reservations.
I reminded her that any time we try to make reservations, the restaurant tells us that it's only possible to reserve a table for 6 or more.

She said that some wait staff were just coming onto their shift.
... only to take us to a table immediately beside the other party of five who were brought in before us, and served by the same waitress.

Throughout all theses "explanations" she apologized. Sorry for the wait. Sorry that our wait staff weren't ready for you...

But no apologies for the real issue.

Let's face it: she somehow skipped over our name on the list, and as soon as it was brought to her attention she was able to seat us.

How hard would it be to say "Oh my gosh, I'm so sorry. I don't know why I missed your name." ?

I didn't mind the wait, since it was pretty much what I expected. Everything else about the experience was fine. So why lie or make excuses? If you're going to apologize anyway, why not apologize for the real problem?

Billboard Ads

2009-01-06T19:10:00.000-08:00

A collection of outdoor ads.

Not to be grumpy, but...
I only followed a couple of the links, but it appears that many of these are just spec or completely fictional ideas.

I remember, back in a media class 11 years ago, coming up with an idea to spray a (diluted) perfume out of the top of a giant perfume bottle-shaped billboard. Who knew I was so ahead of the times?

Some fun ideas in the link, although it's often a lot easier to come up with a clever concept than to actually implement it...
Several of these, for example, would require the light and weather conditions to be just right in order to get the full effect.

Harder still is convincing a client to pay a gazillion dollars for a single piece of creative.*

And, on top of this is my usual comment: they're fun to look at, but how many actually cause anybody to buy anything and/or think more highly of the advertiser?

I have to admit, though, that some of these are actually really good ideas. I particularly like the Tide example (a new take on the old P&G TV formula of demonstrating the product in action), and the clarity of the Economist "lightbulb" concept.

Enough already, though, with the "let's-put-a-car-on-the-billboard" and the "let's-show-what's-on-the-other-side-of-this-sign" ideas. Thanks.

* Although, let's face it, half the time ads like this are done without a gazillion dollar budget, just so the agency can win a couple of awards.

More To Consider in the Mac Decision

2009-01-05T20:43:00.000-08:00

Oh great. As if it wasn't enough of a challenge deciding whether or not to convert to Mac... Now Apple launches this amazing innovation:

Apple Introduces Revolutionary New Laptop With No Keyboard

;-)

Converting - Part 2

2008-12-22T15:16:00.000-08:00

After years of anti-Macism, I'm considering a MacBook for my next computer.

A few things have brought this on:

I'm tried of my current computer crashing or slowing to a crawl regularly. Part of the problem is hardware, part seems to be the evil Windows registry.
I'd like my software to work more seamlessly with one-another.
The number of my friends and associates using Macs has reached a critical mass.
Macs seem to actually be decent machines now.
A major project that I'm working on is very Apple-related.

However, I'm still not convinced that it will be worth it to change operating systems and all my hardware.

The biggest hurdle is still price.

On one monitor, I'm looking at Dell.ca. On the other, Apple.ca.
I've selected two fairly comparable laptops.
At first glance, the "base" price is pretty similar for the two computers. But then I start customizing...
By the time I've created the systems I want, the Mac is at least $600 more expensive. And the Mac is actually still a little less powerful (though it's hard to compare apples-to-apples, since they don't use resources identically). AND, this is just based on the Dell's standard price -- it's very easy to find a discount for a couple of hundred bucks off.

Is the Mac really worth that much more? Seems like that price difference would buy me a lot of anti-virus protection, other helpful utility software, an occasional "tune up" by a professional, and various hardware upgrades.

Then there are the conversion costs. I'll need to buy new software to replace what I already use on my PC. Some of my peripherals, cables, etc. will need to be replaced by Mac-friendly alternatives. And, I'm sure there will be a bit of downtime while I learn how to use the thing.

Here's the thing that bugs me: Much of Apple's extra cost appears to be unnecessary.
Take the hard drive, for example.
Adding 130GB to the Mac costs $150.
Adding 130GB to the Dell costs $80.
It's a hard drive. Nothing fancy. It doesn't care (for the most part) what OS is running or what device it's put inside. In short, it's a commodity. Why is the upgrade on the Mac nearly twice as expensive?

I realize that it's an "upgrade", not an outright purchase, so perhaps there's some sort of cost related to the customization. Or maybe the smaller drive is subsidized on the Mac or the larger is subsidized on the Dell. Or maybe some other weird reason exists.
But it still seems a little shifty.

Is Apple trying to charge me more just because they're Apple?

Even if the computer IS that much better, this "Apple-tude" (haha) continues to make me wary of switching.

What do you think?

Converting - Part 1

2008-12-16T10:51:00.000-08:00

After 20-or-so years of avoiding Apple products, I'm considering a MacBook for my next computer.

Three main things that have kept me from Apple in the past:

1. Bad history. My first experiences with Macs involved trying to use them at school in the 80s. They were slow, black-and-white, and didn't really do much. At the same time, I had PCs at home that could do all sorts of amazing things in full colour (or whatever passed for "full" colour at the time - probably EGA). The so-called better interface never had a chance to impress me. Or maybe I was just used to DOS by then and didn't need a pretty GUI.
Over the years, additional attempts to use Macs were similarly disappointing. The original iMac was a mediocre computer in a fancy case, for example. Simple little things like the lack of a second mouse button drove me nuts.

2. Price. Even if Apple products were better, the amount better never seemed to justify the extra cost. I just knew that much of the pricetag was going towards the pretty housing, slick (but unnecessary) animations, etc. The benefits of everything being proprietary (basically, the fact that the various components would work together nicely) didn't override its resulting expense nor compensate for the lack of flexibility and options. Lack of viruses and a nicer interface don't mean much if they cost me an extra thousand dollars.

3. Apple fans. Hardcore Apple customers have always been a little annoying. To the point where I actually avoided Apple just to avoid being one of them or to give them any sense of satisfaction from converting someone.
They're perfectly wonderful people most of the time , but as soon as you try to talk with an Apple customer about technology, branding, design, or other areas where Apple stands out, they turn in to some sort of religious fanatic. Not only could Apple do no wrong, but nothing Microsoft, IBM, Compaq, or other related companies did was any good.
Any time someone got even a minor virus, the Apple people had to speak up. If a PC advertisement was made using an Apple product, you were always sure to hear about it.
Even when an Apple product failed miserably or the company did something stupid, they would find the silver lining. Newton wasn't successful... well, at least the company tried something new and helped launch the PDA concept! iPod batteries don't work very well... but the company was willing to replace them!

So, that's the perspective I'm coming from.
Up next: A comparison of my current options.

Good News/Bad News?

2008-12-11T12:30:00.000-08:00

There's a Linens N Things store near me. They have two big banners hanging out front:

"Going out of Business!"
and
"Now Hiring!"

Huh?
Either the going out of business process is going to take a while, or they're having trouble retaining employees. Or both. Not the most enticing mixed message to be giving to either customers or workers.

My initial pessimistic interpretation was:
"We're going out of business, but you'll probably get an even better deal if you come back in a couple of months"
and
"Our former employees would rather be unemployed now than work with us for a little bit longer"

(The first is actually accurate - they have another sign that shows the available % discounts and it's been increasing week-by-week. I have no idea if the second statement is true.)

Show Me

2008-12-10T14:39:00.000-08:00

Received an e-mail from Las Vegas' New York New York resort promoting their new casino.

This is the image it included:

Instead of showing me a shot of the actual casino, they choose the most generic, over-used stock-style photo possible. Why?

The Tub Story - Part 3

2008-12-09T19:31:00.000-08:00

And here's the response that eventually came from the tub manufacturer about a month after we sent the letter. The following is the actual voicemail message I received (with just a couple of omissions for privacy's sake).

"Hello. I'm calling back on behalf of MAAX Canada. I'm just phoning to let you know we did receive your letter regarding an issue you had with your tub. Unfortunately at this time we are not prepared to offer any compensation as we do not offer compensation just for loss of use on a unit. And unfortunately that is probably our final stance on this. If you would like to call me back and discuss it further you can..."

So there we go.
Here are the key lessons I would want to learn from this, as a marketer:

1. Timing counts. By the time I received this message, I had already been contacted by the retailer and given the response outlined in the previous post.

2. Tone matters. It's certainly not hostile, but not exactly friendly. Basically, it's dismissive, with a "tough luck" attitude right from the beginning.

3. "Any" is a strong word. They're not prepared to offer any compensation? Not even a bit of money back? Not a coupon towards another purchase? Not a set of towels? Nothing?

4. Don't belittle the complaints. "...just for the loss of use..." Just? Just? First of all, "loss of use" is pretty important. Second, either they didn't bother to read the whole letter or they didn't take the (many) other issues very seriously.

5. Don't start off in your ending position. It's not very good form, in any context, to start a discussion with your "final stance". It comes across as uncooperative, and implies to me that they're not even interested in hearing anything further. Even if it really is the case, and it's the best they can do (which is just sad), common etiquette would be to at least say something like "Unfortunately, our policies are fairly specific in this regard, but let's discuss your situation to make sure everything is clear."

Overall, it's the attitude that bugged me the most. The attitude of this response just reinforced all the negative thoughts I had about this company after months and months of dealing with screw-ups, costs, and inconveniences of all types.

And this was emphasized even more because it was such a contrast to the response from Home Depot I had received a few weeks prior. I suppose it's possible that the retailer was the true cause of most of the problems, but I can't help but assume that MAAX was the really issue.

The Tub Story - Part 2

2008-12-04T08:34:00.000-08:00

Here's the response from the retailer, Home Depot.

Unfortunately, I don't have a transcript of the exact conversation. But, essentially they said:

"We're sorry. You're right; this shouldn't have taken anywhere near as long as it did, and the problems you encountered were far from normal. We've removed the entire purchase from your account balance. "

This reply came about a week after we dropped the letter to them in the mail.

Obviously, I'm very happy with this conclusion. They're willingness to make things right almost makes up for their contributions to the original problems. In my mind, they're not the bad guys, and I'm happy to continue shopping with them. I'm confident that any potential future problems would be dealt with fairly (although not necessarily promptly).

Coming next: the transcript of the phone message I received from MAAX, the manufacturer.

The Tub Story - Part 1

2008-12-02T13:31:00.000-08:00

I've been planning to post this ever since I started this blog. Warning: it's long. Yes, even longer than my normal ranting.

As you read through this, you'll get the point. First, below is a letter we sent to two businesses (a retailer and a manufacturer) regarding a bathtub we bought. Next, I'll post the responses I received from both businesses.

I've edited a just a few small details for the sake of privacy. Otherwise, the following is what both companies received from me.

______________________

We are writing to you regarding our ongoing issues with the purchase of a MAAX jetted tub through our local Home Depot store. We have waited for final completion of the tub installation (and a sufficient “testing period”) prior to summarizing this experience, its costs, and the difficulties we have faced in order to ensure that there are likely to be no further problems.

We feel that Home Depot has made some effort to compensate us for the extremely negative experience we have endured, but they appear unwilling to take further steps. We are unsure if any of the compensation to date has been shared by MAAX.

Quite simply, we require additional compensation (whether from MAAX or Home Depot is not our concern) due to the degree of inconvenience, sacrifice, and unnecessary cost we have endured.

The experience:

- First tub arrived with damage to a jet – noticed upon initial fill and test.

- Contacted MAAX by telephone. Very gruff and uncooperative representative agreed to send a plumber to look at it. Did not provide any information about how long this should take, normal process, etc. without prompting from us.

- Waited over a week for plumber to make arrangements for inspection/repair, but received no phone call.

- Contacted MAAX by phone again to see what was wrong. Rep offered to contact plumber again.

- Shortly after, plumber called and indicated that it would be a couple of weeks before he would be in our area and able to come to the house. It struck us as extremely poor customer service that the "local" service representative did not even live or work in the region.

- Plumber finally came to the house, saw the damage and agreed that it should be covered by warranty. But, he did not have the necessary parts for the repair with him.

- Plumber called a few days later to say that he had received the parts, but did not get a tool he needed.

- Plumber made his own tool to replace the one that didn’t arrive, and returned about a week later to repair the jet. Made the repair, but in the process noticed that there were miniscule cracks throughout the bottom of the tub that neither he nor we had noticed before. We suspect that this was because dust had accumulated in the cracks, allowing us to see them. Plumber’s opinion was that the cracks were due to damage at the factory or in transit to us.

- Unsatisfied with the service or quality of product provided by MAAX, we contacted Home Depot. They sent the local Kitchen and Bath department manager, about a week later, to inspect the tub. Immediately upon viewing it, he agreed that it should be replaced, verifying the plumber’s belief that the damage was caused by MAAX, shippers, or Home Depot staff.

- Home Depot re-ordered the tub from MAAX.

- Approximately a month later, the new tub arrived.

- Upon delivery to our home, we opened the cardboard packaging and found that one corner of the tub had been badly damaged.

- We refused delivery of the replacement tub.

- Delivery driver indicated that he would have Home Depot management contact us. After several days of no contact, we phoned them and finally made arrangements to re-order the tub yet again.

- Approximately one month later, a new replacement tub arrived. Upon unpacking, it appeared to be in good condition. However, we soon saw that the motor/pump was located on the incorrect side. We returned this tub and a replacement was ordered.

- Approximately a month later, another replacement tub arrived. We inspected this in the driveway, prior to the delivery drivers even fully removing the tub from the vehicle. It also had the motor/pump on the wrong side. We returned this tub.

- Finally, approximately one month later, a tub arrived and we inspected it at the Home Depot store, prior to delivery. It was without damage and with the correct configuration.

Because Home Depot dealt with MAAX on our behalf, we don’t know whose fault the various mistakes were. However, we know that:

- the MAAX service person is very inconveniently located a days' drive away and unable to deal with problems in a timely matter.

- re-ordering the same product multiple times resulted in the incorrect product delivered twice.

- two tubs arrived in damaged condition

- proactive communications from both MAAX and Home Depot were very poor

The entire experience took over 7 months from ordering of the tub to arrival of a final, working product.

We feel that we have been extremely patient during the process, but believe that we are entitled to significant compensation. Home Depot has offered a refund of $300 off our original price quote. This represents a price of $1,125 plus taxes, equivalent to a discount of 21% off our quoted price. We feel that this is highly insufficient.

Please note that, in addition to all the above problems with the tub itself, the $300 credit has not appeared on our Account Statement.

Our original price was based on a 10% discount promotion. Had we made the purchase mid-way through the process of waiting for the tub, we actually could have taken advantage of a further 10% discount offer available to all purchasers. This makes our “extra” discount intended to compensate us for the problems just $141.60 or 10%. This is, frankly, a pittance and hardly more than a gesture.

Please advise how you propose to compensate us further for the following:

- Extra tile, plumbing materials, and other supplies purchased when waiting for the initial tub under the assumption that any extra could be returned to the suppliers for refunds. Due to the extremely long timeframe, the maximum return dates for these have long passed.

- Various car trips to Home Depot to deal with the problems in person.

- Various days home from work to be available to meet service and delivery people.

- Untold hours of extra time for phone calls, store visits, receiving and inspecting product, re-installation of the final tub, etc.

- Having a completely unusable bathroom for many months.

- Having a completely unusable garage (as it was storing the various other supplies for the bathroom project) for many months.

We estimate that the out-of-pocket expenses for the first two of the above (extra supplies, materials, gas, etc.) is at least $250. Our time for the next two of the above (missing work and actual time invested) is worth significantly more than this. The inconvenience for the final two points above is of immeasurable value, but significant – for example, we avoided gatherings with friends, having guests, etc. for months due to a lack of sufficient bathroom and storage facilities.

We have also spoken with friends who experienced very similar problems with a MAAX tub. After discussing their issues and compensation (full reimbursement), we are very secure in believing that the complaints outlined in this letter are not unreasonable.

Please contact us as soon as possible to discuss what options are available for appropriate compensation. Ideally, we believe that full reimbursement for the cost of the tub is in order and hope that the events surrounding our purchase experience are far from ordinary for Home Depot and MAAX customers.

Disappointed

2008-12-02T08:50:00.000-08:00

I've said a few negative things on this blog about several brands and organizations. So far, only one (hi Paula!) has bothered to comment publicly or contact me privately.

I'm disappointed. It's not that I've purposely tried to instigate anything, and I don't think I've said anything particularly shocking, but I would expect someone (officially or not) to question some of my opinions and conclusions.

Do they not care? In their minds, is this "just another blog" where some jerk is complaining because he can?

Or are they ignorant? Do they not bother folowling how they're being discussed online?

Priorities - 53% is More Than a Third

2008-11-19T07:45:00.000-08:00

Here's an article on ITBusiness.ca discussing how banks need to add Web tools to attract younger consumers.

First of all: "Well, duh."

Second: Okay, it's not really an article. More like a Microsoft and BMO (Bank Montreal Of) press release discussing the findings of a Microsoft sponsored study.

Third: Something bugs me about this line:

"When choosing a new bank, one-third of millennials cite online services as important. That's second only to competitive rates and fees, at 53 per cent."

As a Web guy, I appreciate the long-overdue attention that online tools are getting. But, as a marketing guy, I can't help but wonder if this is enough, based on the above numbers. Unless the banks improve their fees and interest rates, all the fancy widgets, site features, instant messaging, twittering, etc. won't do a thing to help them. (At least for as long as competitors are offering those better fees and rates).

Fix your product, not just your communications.

Bad For You

2008-11-17T10:07:00.000-08:00

McDonald's and their media agencies should really be more careful.

For some reason I actually watched non-TiVo, live TV a couple of times recently.

One instance was an episode of "Jamie's School Dinners", in which celebrity chef Jamie Oliver helps convince schools and their students to change from fast food style meals to healthier options in their cafeterias.

The other time was last night, when I was watching a couple of shows on TLC. One was about Polygamy, and has almost nothing to do with this post.

But the other was about treatments being undertaken by various "super morbidly obese" people -- individuals so large that they can't even leave their house (and often can't even get out of bed). Obviously, a key part of these patients' problems stems from enablers who bring them too much junk food. The TV program was not subtle at all about showing all the fast food garbage that these peoples' families bring into the house.

In both cases, fast food is the enemy. McDonald's, as one of the biggest names in the field, was a common example; maybe not by name, but certainly implied.

Here's the head-slapping part:
In Jamie's School Dinners, he shows a group of young students how chicken nuggets are made. It's disgusting ("all white meat" or not).
Not two minutes later, a commercial break comes on. Guess who's advertising? Yup. And guess what product they're promoting? Yup.

The obesity show wasn't quite so bad, but in the following program (the above-mentioned polygamy show), there's our friends Mickey D again.

Okay, maybe the second example is forgivable. Perhaps its not realistic for the media planners to see what else is on the schedule near the advertised show. And it might not be feasible to avoid that channel altogether.

But, c'mon. Who was the idiot who thought "We should promote something that we know isn't the healthiest in the world on a show that's very overt and explicit about how bad our food is!" ???
It's not a new show. It's not a surprise that the "nuggets" example will come up.

Great branding, McD's.

We Used To Suck

2008-11-12T13:38:00.000-08:00

I don't know if it's a growing trend, but I've noticed a strange increase of (supposed) honesty in ads lately.

The Republican party had a well-known one during McCain's campaign. Basically, the approach was "The last eight years have been pretty bad, haven't they? Well, we're going to change that" (And never mind the fact that our candidates voted in favour of most of the bad decisions of the past eight years).

Gillette is now encouraging consumers to toss out their old re-usable razor handles and buy new ones, because the old ones actually aren't that good. But the new ones are great!

Campbell's soup has a really interesting ad. Its voiceover talks about a man who, in the not too distant past, told them that he didn't feel comfortable feeding Campbell's to his family. The catch: they were concerned because he's a Campbell's employee. But now, everything's great and the food is no longer horrible!

The optimistic part of me wants to praise these brands for having the courage to own up to not-so-great past.

But the pessimistic part of me wonders if things have really changed. Is this just the new "open" way to say "New and Improved!" ? You told me your product or service or ideas were great years ago, so why should I believe you now?

Social Media in a Nutshell

2008-11-05T16:24:00.001-08:00

Every election, people put up lawn signs to proclaim who should be elected or how you should vote.

The signs on people's lawns actually have some value: you see how your neighbours plan to vote. This is worth something. If my whole community seems to be leaning one way, maybe theres a reason I should think about. Or... if I go past a neighbourhood that I don't relate to (too rich, too poor, too old, too family-oriented...), I might see their votes as contrary to the direction I want to go.

But...
The signs in public places -- highway exits, construction sites, parks -- are meaningless. All they tell me is which candidates have the most marketing money. I don't know where they got it. And I don't now who is supporting them.

The first example is social media.
The second is plain ol' ordinary mass advertising.

It's not the number of signs that matter, it's where they're put.

How Do You Define "Valuable"

2008-11-03T18:40:00.000-08:00

What makes a customer "valuable"?

Big spender? Usually.

Low cost and effort to serve? Probably.

Tells lots of friends about you? Should be.

Regularly comes back to you? Of course.

Readily forgives you? Hope so.

You see where I'm heading.
Yet the first of these seems to be the only definition many companies care about.

Pay Us To Fix Our Mistakes

2008-11-02T15:46:00.000-08:00

Air Canada has a policy that if you call their customer "service" phone number to do anything that could be done online, you pay a fee of $25.

Wow. Talk about a bad customer experience.

If I'm phoning, it's probably because:
a.) The Web site sucks
b.) I don't have Web access at this particular moment
c.) I'm not familiar with or comfortable booking or changing or doing whatever else online
or
d.) Air Canada has screwed something up and it needs to be fixed. In this case, I wouldn't have to pay the fee, but its very existence would just remind me of their anti-customer attitude and reinforce my frustration at needing to call in the first place.

In any of the first three situations, why demand payment from a customer?

I'm sure this policy began as an honest attempt to reduce call centre costs, shifting routine bookings and other common transactions to the Web. But it's so broad that it does more to discourage booking with Air Canada than it does to encourage booking online.

A Test of Celebrity Endorsements

2008-10-31T09:36:00.001-07:00

If there's one thing that brings out the celebrities with opinions, it's a US election.

First, there's the (supposedly) non-partisan efforts to simply encourage people to vote.
This year's "Don't Vote" campaign is a prime example. (Heads up - there's some strong language in the video below).

Then, there's the party- or candidate-specific endorsements.

It's hard to think of a celebrity who hasn't weighed in on who they support. And let's face it: this time, it's clearly Obama that virtually everyone is endorsing.

Performers ranging from Jay-Z to Jimmy Buffett to Bruce Springsteen to Billy Joel have given concerts in support of him. Sarah Silverman's contribution has been viewed over a million times on YouTube. (Watch out - even more strong language in this one).

And there are about a gazillion other examples.

So... here's the test:

1. Will voter turnout, especially among young adults, be particularly high?

and

2. Will Obama win in a landslide?

If the answer to either of these isn't a resounding "Yes", marketers need to consider giving up on the idea of celebrity endorsements once and for all.

I mean, if they can't encourage people to do something that's obviously important and easy (vote), and/or encourage people to do something that most seem in favour of anyway (vote Democrat), how can we possibly expect them to successfully encourage people to buy over-priced shoes, switch razor brands, or save Tibet?

Oops

2008-10-30T09:30:00.000-07:00

Coincidence, intentional shenanigans, or an inherent problem with keyword targeting?

In the olden days (using print) this has happened to me as a media buyer. One of the first ads I placed was for a natural gas company. The ad ended up on the same page as a story about a house explosion AND another story about a gas leak.

Sure, there needs to be a separation between editorial and advertising interests, but it was still inexcusable that the person doing the page layout didn't notice the inappropriateness of a gas ad for that page.

Is the above example excusable because the ad is served automatically?
Is it the buyer's responsibility to create a set of "do not place my ad beside..." rules and criteria?
D0 digital media publishers have a responsibility to keep an eye on each of the millions of ad impressions they serve?

Studies... and Reality

2008-10-29T20:16:00.000-07:00

JP posted an interesting article on his blog recently:

"Are video ads really worth the added cost? An iPerceptions study may suggest otherwise. The study found that, despite current buzz around video ads, marketers do not need to spend on fancy interactive ads in order to reach consumers. In fact, consumers are most likely to click on simple text ads..."

It then goes on to point out various stats to support this position, including
"...only 11% of consumers said they were likely to click on video ads..."

The emphasis above is mine. You can probably guess where I'm going with this.

Regardless of what the respondents said, I care more about what they actually do.

Let's compare this study to an online campaign I'm currently working on:
In this campaign we're running some ads with very basic animation, some with fancy animation and interactivity, and some with full-motion video.
The average CTR for the "fancy" animated ads is roughly two-thirds better than that of the "basic" ads, and the average CTR for the video ads is approximately two-thirds better than the "fancy" ads.

Quite clearly consumers - at least those in our target audience - are more likely to respond to the more interactive, more engaging, more video-y ads.

This makes me really question the accuracy and validity of any of this study's conclusions.
And this isn't the only thing that's rubbing me the wrong way.

It also bugs me that they assume that clickthroughs are the main objective for advertisers, or at least a primary measure of success. Yes, clicks are important, but they aren't everything. Perhaps the study as a whole addresses other success measures, but I didn't get that -ahem- perception from their release.
For example:
- what about people who see "fancy" ads, don't click on them, but are influenced to go to the advertised site anyway? (perhaps when they see a simple text ad at a later date and are reminded of the video ad they saw earlier...)
- what about the role of the "fancy" ads in educating and informing consumers? Isn't there some value in a user gaining some insight into an advertised brand before they even get to the landing page? A simple text-only ad might get a click, but it isn't necessarily a well-qualified click.

And so on and so on and so on.

"Best". Yeah right.

2008-10-26T13:21:00.000-07:00

I received an e-mail about an event being presented by the AMA next week. A screening of award-winning ads from Cannes.

The tagline from the e-mail:
"See the world's best advertising. Where the ideas are big and the logos are small."

I can't stand (most) advertising industry awards. Their definition of "best" is exactly why traditional marketing budgets are cut so quickly by the bean counters. It's also why so many billions of dollars are moving to (highly accountable) online channels.

I would define "the world's best advertising" as advertising that strongly communicates a brand's identity AND presents a call-to-action that successfully encourages the target audience to (directly or indirectly) do something that benefits the brands long-term goals.

In fact, I would go even further. I wouldn't just consider how well the ad conveys the desired message, but also how well it even reaches the right people in order to convey that message. In other words, it's not just about the creative department.

Instead, the presenters, sponsors, judges, and participants in awards shows are more likely to define "best" as the prettiest or funniest. That's it.

The above tagline really shows how a lot of so-called creative people think. If it were up to them, they wouldn't show the client's logo at all. Actually, in their perfect world, the client wouldn't be involved in the process at all.

At a conference I attended a couple of years ago, someone in the audience made an excellent point during a session about the creative process. In a nutshell, he said "Unfortunately, most advertising isn't about being creative; it's about being clever. Clever gets attention, but creative makes an impact."

More Lies

2008-10-24T13:12:00.000-07:00

I'm currently disputing a charge with a credit card company.
They sent me a form to complete, and indicated that I have to return it within 10 days or they'll consider it closed.

The form is dated 6 days ago.
The envelope is postmarked 2 days ago.

If I wasn't on top of my mail, there's a very good chance I wouldn't have been able to get this back to them within their 10 day window if it's based on the date they've put on the form.

Nice try, guys. Either your outgoing mail department is very inefficient or you're not being entirely honest. Either way, that's a bit ridiculous.

See What I Mean?

2008-10-24T08:15:00.000-07:00

Looking back at my last post, check out this bit of purposely-shocking "reporting":

My RSS reader shows me the headline: "Wall Street set for dive after futures freeze"
I then click through to this article, titled: "Wall Street plunges at open on recession fears"
The article, though incredibly short, uses a couple more fun adjectives and verbs, like "plummeted" and "dumped".

Not only do the two headlines not even match up, but there's no information in the article about "futures" specifically. And not even any evidence, quotes, or analysis to confirm that today's dive/plunge is related to recession fears at all. Beyond this, the drop it talks about is about 4 to 6%. Hardly the biggest or fastest change we've seen in recent months. AND... if today is like most others recently, the markets will probably "rally back" at some point and recover a lot of this value.

I understand that fear-mongering is a major part of journalists' jobs, but every day I feel like they're trying harder and harder to collaboratively push towards a particular result or sentiment among consumers.

Economy Branding

2008-10-18T09:27:00.000-07:00

Hey media: Knock it off.

We get it.

Economies worldwide are having difficulties. Investments are losing value. Consumer confidence is decreasing.

Talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy. A so-called "expert" starts shouting "Everyone's selling! You might want to sell now before it's too late!" And (gasp!) people start selling and (gasp!) prices drop, prompting (gasp!) more selling...

I'm no economist (thank goodness), but it seems to me that a lot of the panicking (at least in the places I've personally been living during the past few months) is enormously unjustified and exagerated. I still see pages upon pages of Help Wanted ads in the paper.... Housing prices are still at ridiculously high levels... Shops and malls are stuffed with people... Construction projects are still going full-steam, and new ones continue to be announced... I have difficulting finding avails when booking an ad campaign...

So why does it feel, even to me, like I should be nervous? Why is there this general sense of "the sky is falling"? Why is, literally, everyone talking about economic tough times?

It almost feels like a really successful branding campaign.
Somehow the governments, media outlets, activists, and other fear-mongers have managed to create a general sense of economic unrest, uncertainty, and even panic.

I can almost picture a boardroom filled with marketing-types reading through a client brief and brainstorming ways to build their message.

"Okay, so a few sectors are having trouble. US banks really screwed up. Iceland is having some troubles. Consumers are currently thinking 'I should be careful where I invest and what I spend'. How do we change this to 'Oh my gosh! Everything is terrible! I'll be unemployed and living on the street in a week!', guys?"

"Let's release a white paper showing the worst-case scenarios!"
"How about a PR blitz with some experts talking about how scary everything is!"
"Great idea! And I'll send out some talking points to my media contacts that they can refer to in every single article they write!"
"Can we get a few celebrity endorsements? Maybe a pop star or former world leader?"
"We need a tag line. What do you think of 'It's an economic crisis!' or 'Here comes the Credit Crunch(tm)!"
"Awesome!"
...

(No, I'm not a conspiracy nut who actually thinks this happened. I just think it could almost make a case study for building a brand image and shifting consumer perspectives)

(And yes, I realize that the economy IS having a lot of difficulty in certain industries and geographic locations.)

Rule #2

2008-10-15T16:55:00.001-07:00

Open the door.
Or, if you can't open the door (yet), tell me when it will open and what I'll be able to find at the time.

It's disappointing to see businesses that are uninviting and drab -- the sort of places a new customer doesn't want to bother entering. But I'm talking about something even more basic.
Literally, just open the door.

In Spain, if you walk through a town during siesta or any other time outside of business hours (and there are a lot of times outside of business hours), you'd swear that certain streets must be purely residential, or perhaps all the shops and restaurants have gone out of business. Doorways are blocked by big metal shutters. All the lights are turned off and blinds are drawn. Neon signs are turned off. Not a single "Back in an hour!" sign is hanging on a door. And worse still, even during business hours store after store looked closed.

During a recent trip there, I was constantly encountering difficulty in simply window shopping. I had no idea which businesses were open. I couldn't tell (from the street) what many of them even sold. Very few restaurants placed their menus in the window for future reference -- nor did they indicate when I should return for dinner.

Openness (again, quite literally) should be a key feature of almost any brand. Hiding from your customers just doesn't seem like a good idea. (Maybe with the exception of a ultra-exclusive, members-only, high-end brand).

Rule #1

2008-10-10T17:28:00.000-07:00

Hey, here's a crazy idea for businesses:

Make it possible for people to give you their money.

A couple of examples...

I tried booking a flight with Atlas Blue between Morroco and the UK. After going through the whole process of selecting a flight, entering passenger details, and entering my credit card info, it told me there was a problem with my card. I called their call centre to find out why, and learned that they can only accept European credit cards. I asked if there's was any alternative way to pay, such as a money transfer, cheque, cash at the airport, or anything else. Nope, credit card only.
Apparently, it never occurred to them that:
a.) Some customers might not have (or want to use) a credit card
and
b.) Some customers of an airline might be from other parts of the world.

More commonly, I've also encountered several businesses in Europe that only accept credit cards with "chip and pin" technology -- something relatively uncommon in North America right now. It's annoying, but at least most of these businesses accept other forms of payment. But, still, is it really that difficult or expensive to setup your point-of-sale systems to accept "swipe" style cards?

Even more annoying was the inconsistency. Some companies accept only one type of card at their self-serve terminals, but both types if you paid a cashier/attendant. It was a complete crapshoot with the train system in the UK. Two identical-looking machines would behave completely differently from station to station. Even the staff were unsure whether or not a particular terminal or location would accept my card.

Of course, the dumbest part is, again, that a lot of the places were traveller focused. Surely I wasn't the first person from North America to visit these tourist attractions, restaurants, transportaion companies, etc.

Is this something that somebody forgot to teach in business school? "If people want to give you money, help them out."

One Thing

2008-10-05T14:55:00.000-07:00

I've been spending a lot of time in England lately and I've noticed an interesting tendency. It's probably not all unique to the UK, but one of those things that you notice as an "outsider".

In a way, it's scapegoating. Basically, when talking about their problems, English people will pick one thing to blame, depending on the context of the conversation.

For example, a lot of traditional olde fashioned neighbourhood pubs are closing down. Now, if the conversation started as a discussion on what they charmingly call "the credit crunch", THAT will be the reason that pubs and so many other businesses are closing. Those darn bankers are the cause of all the troubles.

However, if the conversation started off as a discussion on the latest smoking laws, THAT is the reason (and the only reason) why pubs are having trouble.

Or, if the conversation was about immigration... well, you get the idea.

People like simple answers. I guess it makes even the most ignorant or uninformed person feel proud of themselves. By latching on to part of the actual answer, they can feel content in knowing that they've figured it out.

In marketing, it's much the same. Marketers constantly have to feed a simplified, singular idea to the masses. "Our product does X." "You need Y to fix your life." "The best thing about our service is how much it Z"...

I suspect that to an "outsider" this is no less ridiculous than making a single (yet completely changeable) issue the reason for an entire country's ills.

A Quick One

2008-10-05T02:36:00.000-07:00

I haven't posted in a while (that will change soon), but here's just a couple of quick little thoughts.

A friend recently sent me a link to a contest presented by GasPedal.com (a viral and word-of-mouth marketing resource), where entrants have a chance to win a copy of Guy Kawasaki's new book. Very simply, you get a chance to win for each friend you e-mail about the contest.

Two things came to my mind as I filled out my entry form:

1. I love how they phrase their contest rules/disclaimer. Obviously, there are plenty of ways that someone could mess around, trying to get a gazillion entries. Instead of worrying about a long legalese statement, they simply say:

"Enter as many times as you want, but if you try to somehow rig the system or spam anyone, we'll delete your entries and tell everyone what a loser you are."

I wish more sites (and brands in general) were like this.

2. I'm curious to see if I see much advertising for this book on sites like Facebook or LinkedIn. I've included "Guy Kawaski" as an interest or favourite author, book, etc. or various profiles I've created. Seems like a perfect place to target me. Pretty easy to set up, too.

Any established brand, but especially a personality like Guy with a loyal fan base, should be taking advantage of the great ability marketers now have to target prospects based on interests (and brands) that they've explicitly expressed an interest in. No fancy behavioural targeting algorithms or anything else like that -- just look around for the people who already like you...

The Most Important Part

2008-09-02T06:02:00.000-07:00

We all know that "marketing" is actually the collective name for a vast assortment of tasks and activities -- advertising, sales, customer care, distribution, and so on. But, it seems like the most important aspect of this collective is one that most people don't even think belongs under the marketing umbrella.

I've mentioned this area before, but recent personal experiences have reminded me of it.

I think the key to marketing and branding is: human resources.

Obviously having good people in your customer service department and other customer-facing roles is vital. But it goes a lot further than this.

Here's an example:
I was recently visiting Paris and trying to enjoy the city. The obvious "customer service" side of things is apparently not-so-obvious to the French. Unfortunately, the majority of employees simply did not even bother to pretend that they were happy to see me, let alone serve me. (There were exceptions of course -- most staff at my hotel were quite good, for example).

But, this was hardly a surprise. To be honest, even before the trip I assumed that I would get the stereotypical, almost cliche, French attitude to "service" and didn't get my hopes up.

Who really let me down were the behind the scenes people.
The people who would call themselves "logistics" or "operations" or "administration" or anything except "marketing".

Why, for example, would a person in the transit system's planning department create a ticket structure that requires a new ticket to be used for each journey but not account for the fact that some "journeys" require leaving a station (or section of a station) and re-entering another (and therefore need a new ticket)?

Why does the operator of a paid toilet facility have an employee who's sole purpose is to take a 50 cent coin and give a token (worth 50 cents) back for the customer to use in a turnstile?

Similarly, when there's a line stretching around the block at the entrance to a museum, why use a valuable employee to - instead of selling tickets and alleviating some of the lineup - glance at each customer's ticket as they enter? (A ticket that was sold to the customer 10 seconds earlier by another employee just a few feet away. )

Who would schedule room service in a hotel to start at 9am -- long before check-out time and before many people are even out of their rooms?

Back to the transit system: Why shut down the EXITS from a station when it's closed, but leave the ENTRANCES open?

I bet that NONE of the people responsible for setting up or maintaining the above systems, processes, procedures, etc. would ever describing themselves as working in a marketing, branding, or customer service department.

Maybe we shouldn't even have marketing departments. Instead, change the CEO into a CMO and make it clear to all staff that they are actually reporting to this head of marketing. Continue doing the same job, but perhaps change mindsets so that everyone is thinking "My job is to profitably do XYZ for customers and clients".

The Last Minuters and Other Exceptionals

2008-08-25T06:22:00.000-07:00

Traveling by plane and going to a show (concert, film, or whatever) have some strong similarities.

-You're supposed to show up at a certain time.
- You go through some sort of production where you're searched or a piece of paper is scanned, ripped, marked, etc.
- You either have an assigned seat or there's a mad rush to find a good one.
- You sit or stand for an extended length of time, pretty much staring forward the whole time.

And so on.

Both types of experience are often ruined by a certain group of people. I'm not referring to the staff (though there are plenty of horror stories about them), nor the majority of the other patrons. I'm talking about the handful of exceptional people. And not "exceptional" in a good way.

These are the folks who show up at the last second and have to be rushed through the lineup so that they don't miss their flight.
Or the couple of guys who decide to start jumping up and down and whistling during a concert (while everybody else is still seated).
Or the family that wanders into a general admission show five minutes before the curtain rises and shove their way into the empty area in front of the front row, only to get upset when people try explaining that they can't sit there.
Or the person who thinks that it's perfectly acceptable to have "carry on" luggage that's so big and heavy that they can't actually CARRY it ON without a great deal of struggle and assistance. (Rule of thumb: if you need little wheels on your carry on, it's probably too big).

I won't even try to understand what goes on in their tiny little brains. Maybe they're selfish, maybe they're just oblivious, or maybe they're complete idiots.

Regardless, the actions of the Exceptionals hurt the experience of everyone else. And therefore harm the brand. Brands need to recognize this and push back (nothing gives me greater pleasure than to see a security guard, gate attendant, or other employee explain the rules to someone and send them away).

(Can you tel that I've been traveling a lot lately?)

Doing the Math

2008-07-29T11:41:00.000-07:00

Following up on my last post:

I was just on a flight (Alaska Airlines - usually a really good company), where they wanted to charge us $10 for a portable entertainment device thingee. It sits on your lap and plays movies, TV shows, music, etc.

Looking around, it appeared that maybe one in 10 (if that) people actually paid for one.

So, let's do the math:
Assuming 1 in 10 buy, a plane with, say, 200 passengers = 20 buyers.
At $10 each, that's $200 revenue.

Compare this to the "old way" of just having a few screens drop down from the ceiling.
If the airline simply added $1 to every ticket on the flight, revenue would also = $200.

Cost-wise, both options have their own pros and cons.
As far as actual "product", I'm sure the personal players are better in many ways, since they allow users to pick and choose their entertainment.

But, all these other things being equal, what's the brand impact?

Personally, I feel that the airline is being cheap with the "personal player approach". It just serves to remind me of all the other things that used to be included in the price of a flight that are no longer available (at least not for "free"). I'd much rather pay an extra buck for my ticket and put up with a mediocre movie or two. Or, ideally, still keep a handful of the personal players for those passengers who want them -- treat it like an extra, not a substitute.

I'm a cheapskate, so I appreciate airlines reducing costs by cutting services. That's especially good for short, low-price, regional or commuter flights. But when we're talking about a several-hundred-dollar, multi-hour flight, how many passengers would care about (or even notice) a price difference of less than, say, $10 on their ticket?

A Quick Question

2008-07-26T19:50:00.000-07:00

Has nickel and dime-ing customers every worked? Ever? For anyone?

If anybody has an example of this business model or direction working for a brand, let me know.

Airlines and banks are the worst offenders, but there are plenty of other industries that have started to do this.

"We won't raise the price of our core product or service (much), but we'll add a 'fuel surcharge' or a 'convenience fee' or a 'service charge'..."

I'd really like to know if this has worked in the real world, or if the airlines, banks, etc. are fooling themselves thinking that this direction will help save their failing businesses.

Digital Is Unlimited

2008-07-21T16:48:00.000-07:00

There's virtually no extra cost or effort involved in making something "bigger" in a virtual medium.

Yet for some reason, some brands act like they're paying by the word.

I've been planning a trip for the last couple of months and in the search for places to stay I'll often come across online listings like "Great accommodations near town. Low prices. Includes kitchen."
That's it.
Why not write something descriptive? I'll even excuse poor writing if it means I'm getting lots of content.

Same goes for Web sites. It's incredible how many sites have almost no useful information in them. It almost seems like the company has purposely held back. Why not share everything that you'd like people to know? Put it on a sub-sub-sub-sub page if you don't want it to distract users. But at least make it available.

This isn't just an "online" concern, now that almost any medium could incorporate digital aspects.

Here's an idea: Payment machines at parking lots usually have a tiny little LCD screen and about three or four buttons. How often do customers have a question about operating hours or emergency contacts, or some obscure question? Pretty often, I'd venture. So most lots have rules and regulations posted on signs scattered throughout the area. Why not turn the machine into a payment AND information centre? How difficult could it be to add a simplified "FAQ" to the machine, and let people scroll through information about common issue? The display doesn't have to be pretty.

Another example along the same lines: Why are security system panels so brief and vague? You know the ones -- a small scrolling LCD window that says something like "Dr 4 Zone 3 warning". Is there really any reason why this couldn't say "Obstruction detected in south side of warehouse, near kitchen door" ?

Information is great, and having it available will (usually) immensely help improve the customer's experience.

Lower Price Alternatives

2008-07-18T10:36:00.001-07:00

Depending on the airline you use, it's now becoming cheaper to ship your bags ahead of time rather than checking them onto your flight.

This chart breaks down several options, including two ends of the airline spectrum, a couple of couriers, regular mail, and a couple of specialty operations.

Assuming that the trend continues, here are my two cents:

1. Fedex, UPS, and other courier companies would be very smart to open branches inside airport terminals. Both Fedex and UPS own chains of business service retail outlets (Kinkos and what used to be Mailboxes Etc.), so they certainly already understand the model of a small storefront location. Bonus: they could offer airport customers other services like Internet access, printing, and so on -- something severely lacking in most airports.

2. Comparing the two airlines on the chart... Southwest's fees are low and they're doing relatively alright. Delta's fees are high and they're constantly in financial trouble. Coincidence, or is this just an illustration of how screwed up the big "legacy" airlines are? Hmmm, I wonder.

Oblivious

2008-07-17T20:40:00.000-07:00

My wife finally closed a mostly-inactive bank account last weekend.
She would've liked to have kept it (for a number of reasons) but was finding it hard to justify paying fees each month for something that she used for paying a single recurring bill (and even that was recently changed to a different bank).

Anyway, it struck me while we were there just how out of touch with reality the institution was. They seemed entirely oblivious to:
- what their competitors are offering
- the fact that consumers have a choice
and
- what's standard in other industries (and therefore coming to be expected by customers)

They seemed to have no knowledge of (or even interest in) the fact that other financial institutions had zero-fee options.

We were there mid-afternoon on a Saturday, and they were already closing up for the weekend. Meanwhile, the stripmall they're located in was still packed with people going to various other businesses. Not to mention that at least two of their major competitors are quite aggressively promoting their extended operating hours.

Adding insult to injury, peppered throughout the branch were signs announcing their new fee structure, in which the majority of the most-common transactions were increasing in cost.

And then there's the brand impression of the actual closing of the account:
First, they didn't seem too concerned to be losing a customer. Made no effort to try to find a solution that might keep us happy.

Second, the actual process involved a security check (to make sure they give the balance remaining in the account to the right person) in which they had to request a signature card from my wife's "regular" branch (that she hasn't actually been to in years). This signature was from 1980-something. Really useful. And of course the account is in her maiden name, so her current ID wasn't sufficient. After much waiting around, they eventually decided to just give her a bank draft in her maiden name, without actually requiring any valid ID. So much for security.
They somehow simultaneously managed to make the process both:
a.) Pointless
and
b.) Time consuming
One of these is acceptable, but both is bordering on an airport security level of ridiculousness.

I really wonder if this institution will continue to exist for many more decades if they don't change. How many people out there are actually satisfied with the extremely-limited bankers' hours, being forced to go in-branch for things that could be done by phone or Internet, paying fees for (literally) nothing, etc. etc. etc.?

How To Tell That An Ad Was Written Elsewhere

2008-07-16T16:54:00.000-07:00

I just heard a radio spot for a credit card that earns airline mileage points.
It's a discussion between two people. Pretty standard: one talks about all the miles she's earning just by making regular purchases.

Here's the great part: she's excited by the prospect of earning enough miles to fly to Seattle.

From Vancouver.
A three hour drive.
A trip that can actually take longer by plane due to check-in requirements, waiting for luggage, the fact that both cities' airports are located somewhat outside of the city centre, and other factors.
A trip that few people would really get excited about taking. (Nothing against Seattle, but people in Vancouver hardly think of it as an exotic destination)
A trip that nobody in Vancouver would actually spend mileage program points on.

I get the funny feeling that this ad resulted from the following conversation:

Toronto Ad Agency Account Manager: "We need a Vancouver version of the radio spot."

Toronto Ad Agency Creative Type: "The usual?"

TAAAM: "Yup. Two people talking. Excited to earn miles. Flying to a fun destination. Blah blah blah"

TAACT: "Okay. What destinations are within the lowest reward level for Vancouver flights?"

TAAAM: "Ummm. Vegas... Portland... LA... Seattle..."

TAACT: "Vegas and LA are a little overdone. I don't know anything about Portland. Seattle sounds nice."

TAAAM: "Beautiful. Go for it."

More Than Art

2008-07-11T16:16:00.001-07:00

I just re-read my last post and think I should elaborate or clarify one point.

When I mentioned the need for a campaign's intangible "atmosphere", I'm referring to a lot more than art direction or the literal look-and-feel. And when I say "pervade", I'm not simply talking about lots of impressions or a heavy ad frequency.

Pervasiveness throughout every possible aspect of the marketer's contact with the target audience is key.

Everything in, say, a horror movie conveys "scary" (except when it's dramatically more noticeable or necessary to lighten things up): the music is deep and spooky, the lighting is a little bit shadowy, things don't always appear in perfect focus, the costumes have a certain roughness to them, there are lots of subtle sound effects, and on and on...

Same with a light-hearted romantic comedy: the music is light and usually uses a familiar hum-able tune or two, everything is well-lit, the main characters are dressed immaculately and have perfect hair and clothes...

I should get the same feeling from a marketing effort. I might not even consciously notice most of the little details that are creating this "feeling", and maybe that's a sign of success.

Making A Movie

2008-07-11T15:45:00.000-07:00

The topic of "direct response" vs. "branding" advertising came up during some meetings yesterday. The consensus is pretty obvious that some combination is necessary for virtually any campaign. I like the analogy of filmaking:

You've got the straightforward, memorable, quotable, easy-to-tell-others-about aspects like the script, locations, and the big special effects sequences.

But equally important is the intangible stuff -- the score, the camera angles, focus techniques, editing style...

Sure, you could do without the latter, but it will probably be pretty boring story (even if the actual dialog is amazingly written). This part (the atmosphere, for lack of a better term) is what makes a film stand out with fans and critics. But in the business world, its marketing equivalent tends to be overlooked or under-appreciated.

Branding and the overall "feel" of a campaign need to somehow pervade everything you do. It's almost impossible to attach an ROI to this type of thinking, though, and even harder to be quantify the impact it has on the success of the more tangible components.

Something Airlines Actually Get Right

2008-07-08T23:39:00.000-07:00

Airlines have a bad reputation for customer service. Very few have a strong, respected brand when it comes to treating us like anything but cattle or anonymous seat-fillers. However... generally, if there's a serious problem with a flight (delays being the most common, of course) they'll actually try to compensate the affected passengers.

Here's the important thing: they don't just compensate you with "Here's your money back; you can have this flight for free" or something similar. They will often go an extra step and offer an additional flight (usually anywhere in the region), a free upgrade to Executive class, or something else that's above and beyond what you "lost".

Restaurants sometimes do this as well. Your entree was screwed up? Have the entree for free, and we'll give you a free dessert, too.

Sadly, though, most businesses (most industries, actually) don't take this approach. Even companies well-known for taking care of customers will stop at "making it right". No-hassle return policies, for example, or replacing a broken item with a brand new one.

I'd like to see more brands go that extra step. They should recognize that it's not just about the broken product, or the delayed flight this time, or whatever. Beyond the negative brand perception caused by a problem, there's generally a literal, tangible extra "cost" to the consumer.

Thanks for replacing that broken DVD player with No Questions Asked, but:
a.) Why did it break in the first place? I'm not so sure about buying from you again... What happens if the replacement breaks, too? Am I going to look like the bad guy?...
and
b.) I had to unhook the broken unit from my home theatre, package it up, hop in my car, drive to the store, explain the situation, get the new product, and re-install it.

(The above's just an example. This exact situation hasn't actually happened to me, but you could substitute a hundred other things in place of "DVD player")

Once in a while, I'd like to see a customer service clerk actually say "Sorry about the broken DVD player. Here's a new one. Want us to test it out before you take it home? We'd be happy to attach a bunch of the cables for you as well to save you time when you get home. And here's a $15 gift card. Go ahead and pick out a DVD of your choice (or anything else, for that matter) while we're doing that..."

Now THAT would impress me. I'd have no hesitation about buying from that store again. My impression of the product manufacturer would also improve. It would simply be nice to see that the full impact of the problem is recognized and appreciated.