Imagination Gap

I recently read a couple of classic sci-fi stories: Robert A. Heinlein's Have Spacesuit - Will Travel, and Poul Anderson's Tales of the Flying Mountains.

It was interesting to read "futuristic" novels that were written decades ago. The technical knowledge of both authors is clear, as are their amazing imaginations. Imagine trying to write a realistic account of something that nobody has any practical experience with.

However, one of the things I found most interesting was the gaps. Not in the technical knowledge (it's hardly surprising that some of the authors' guesses about technology would be proven incorrect over time). Actually, it's the gaps in their imaginations that struck me most.

For example, in Have Spacesuit, which is set in a "near future" scenario, Heinlein described computer-controlled spacecraft, yet his protagonist uses a slide rule to do some quick calculations. He imagines (and describes in detail) an alien civilization communicating across enormous distances, yet assumes that humans in the late 20th or early 21st Century would still get most of their information through broadcast TV (and that a colour TV set would be a luxury).

Why would an intelligent, informed, and creative person overlook things like "portable calculation devices" or "something better than TV"? The answer, of course, is "why wouldn't they overlook these?".
When you make a basic assumption like "Computers take up lots of room" or "TV delivers both audio and moving video which is all we need for communication", it's easy to simply move along.

Thinking about it, it's actually easier to visualize big, amazing changes than it is to imagine the little (equally amazing) details.

What's the lesson? Take nothing for granted. Don't assume that even the most basic truths will always be true. Don't think that what exists currently is all that anyone will ever want or need. Little changes can make at least as much impact as the big ones.

Sure, this is all pretty obvious, but we (everybody) constantly overlook all sorts of details in our plans and aspirations. Our imaginations automatically skip over certain "self-evident" truths on their way to figuring out bigger, presumably better, things.

Lowered Expectations

Does it ever strike anyone else just how little we expect from brands, as consumers?

Apple can sell gazillions of computers simply because their key advantage is "They just work".

Read through online product, restaurant, or vacation reviews, and you'll frequently see things like "The service was a bit slow and it took three tries before they gave me the right item, but everyone was friendly and helpful. Three out of four stars."

In an age when competitors, niche alternatives, and other options are so readily available and easily found, it's amazing that we put up with anything that's less than ideal.

Perhaps this is proof of the power of brands -- other benefits (real or perceived) make up for these shortcomings.
Or, maybe we're just more lazy than we care to admit, and can't be bothered to look for those alternatives.

A Quick Brand Review: Trader Joe's

I recently took a short road trip across the border with some friends and family to (in part) check out Trader Joe's, the specialty grocery chain. I'd never been before, but I've heard good things and one of my friends in particular (you know who you are) has said more than once that she wants to marry Trader Joe...

So, here's my "marketer's perspective" on my first experience with this brand.


Pros:
- They're differentiated. Most supermarkets are 99% identical to one-another. This one at least tries to be something unique.

- The brand isn't heavy-handed, and it's positive rather than negative. It's subtle. Despite the "tropical trader" theme, the place isn't filled with silly plastic palm trees and stuffed monkeys. And the merchandising message seems to be "This is a good choice because..." rather than "If you don't shop here, you're less of a person and should be ashamed of yourself" (which is the message I get from a couple of certain enviro- and health-focused food chains).

- The whole place and its people have a friendly, approachable tone. It works for them. It's not overdone and it seems genuine. It's simply a happy place. No cheesy Muzak playing, no old fluorescent lights buzzing away, no faded signs and drab tile like the office at the beginning of Joe vs. The Volcano. There's always a risk that "friendly" can seem unprofessional, but this shop doesn't overstep the boundary.

- It's consistent. Signage, staff, the flyer, Web site... most (but not all -- see below) elements are nicely aligned.


Cons (or Areas For Improvement):

- The brand isn't entirely firm or clear. Are they environmental? Are they selling "special" products? Are they a value or discount chain? There are elements of all of these, but they aren't universal. Most of their products are pretty standard grocery store items... Some products are actually quite pricey... There's lots of unnecessary packaging....

- The theme isn't always extended to its full capability. For example, where are the special imports or limited availability items that "Joe" has found? Why is the store exterior so boring?

- Maybe I'm too much of marketing guy rather than a typical consumer, but... it feels a bit like they're trying to pull one over on me. For example, they only sell "exclusive products", which really just means "We only sell generic store brands". Similarly, the environmental initiatives seem half-hearted (like big paper bags that are touted as reusable, but fall apart so quickly that you can really only use them once).


Conclusions:

- They're obviously doing something right
- They could take the brand further
- They could spend a bit of time and effort filling in some gaps (like the examples above)
- There's room for more clarity in the brand message(s), and a bit firmer definition of where they stand
- Like any brand, they have a risk of outgrowing their image, but are in a unique position to potentially use this to their advantage... I picture images of "Joe" captaining a big old freighter full of goodies from the most mysterious reaches of the world...

Downsell Me

Another one of those little things that can make the difference between a brand (or salesperson) I want to deal with and one I don't:

I love it when an employee (or even an ad or other communications) openly tells me what I don't need from them.

Last summer, we replaced the gutters on our house. We have a leaf-spewing willow in the yard and were concerned that it would clog the new downspouts. We gave the gutter guy the perfect opportunity to tell us "Oh yeah, you need a special custom-made gutter, plus a special screen to go over it, and some blockage-clearing doors, and..." Instead, he basically said "Most of that stuff is unnecessary in most cases. There's no reason to sell you any more than a basic screen installed on the worst parts of the roof." His honesty got him the sale. And we've made it through a pretty heavy Fall, Winter, and Spring without any problems whatsoever, so it looks like he was right.

I think this is a sign of an essential difference between the "sales" and "marketing" mindsets. "Sales" can be very short-term focused -- "How much can I sell to this customer right now". "Marketing" tends to be longer-term and bigger-picture "What will help get the customer to gladly say 'Yes' to the sale AND will likely get them to refer me to their friends?"

But even ignoring the long-term benefits: In the above example, another roofing company DIDN'T get my business; largely because they tried too much upselling. Although most of the extras they proposed were optional, the overall impression was still "These guys are trying to sell me everything they can, rather than what I really need".

An Untapped Market?

Is it me, or does it seem like a whole new level of "victim opportunists" has emerged lately?

I'm referring to people who have something bad happen to them, and then immediately seek out as much attention as possible.

Take this girl for example.
Girl doesn't wear underwear to school one day.
Photo is taken for the yearbook.
Photo shows more than it should.
Girl is embarrassed.
Mother demands that the school recall the yearbooks.
Mother and daughter go on TV to argue their point.

Whether or not the girl (or her mother) has a valid argument against the school, is going to the media really the best option?

From the article, it doesn't sound like it's an obvious image ("maybe it's a shadow"). Seems to me that years ago the girl would have simply lied about the lack of underwear, told everybody that it must be a shadow, act very angry that the photo is so misleading, and move on. At worst, she might be hassled by a few people and rumours would swirl around, and maybe she would be compelled to change schools.

There are many other examples like this lately.

Like the small village in the UK that raised a fuss about appearing in Google Earth because they were worried that criminals would see how nice their homes are.
Or the celebrities who consistently do stupid things in public, then demand their privacy while giving interviews on some gossip show or another (where the interviewer happily tells viewers a complete summary of the stupid things that were done).

It's more than just wanting attention and sympathy -- it's actually a case of the victim-initiated repercussions being far worse than the initial victimization.

Anyways, maybe there's an opportunity here for marketers.
http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif
The well-known "Whopper Sacrifice" Burger King Facebook promotion related to this strange desire to be a victim and to tell people about it.

It would be interesting to explore this idea of helping customers fulfill a deep desire to be the lovable loser.

Freebies

I'm a sucker for free stuff.

I remember, as a kid, going with my parents to shop for a backyard hot tub. The place they bought from was a tiny little operation, but was great. The thing I remember most about it was getting freebies. Even after he made the sale, the owner showered us with goodies. Free extra filters, free chemicals, other free accessories, and even some free rubber duckies. All in all, it was probably worth a tiny fraction of his profit margin on the tub, but it certainly had an impact (not just on me, but my parents were very happy with the service and perceived value, too).

Unfortunately, the shop closed many years ago, but if it hadn't I would certainly be recommending it even today to anyone looking for spa equipment.

Much more recently, I had my dog at a local dog park. On he way out, we were stopped by a person handing out leaflets -- coupons for a couple of free dog biscuits at Three Dog Bakery, which had just opened a location nearby.

(Could you imagine any better targeting of your target audience?)

Anyways, the shop was on the way home, so we stopped there to check it out and get the freebies.

Once inside, the brand experience was great, with an extremely friendly employee and a nice little store to explore. We collected our free treats, and the shopkeeper also included a few other goodies to take home to sample. And gave our dog a bunch of bits and pieces of treats to try right there in the store.

And it worked -- on our way out, we bought several things that we might otherwise have not bothered with. But even more importantly, I was thoroughly impressed with the product quality, attitude, selection, and other aspects of the store and will definitely be returning (and recommending them).

One final note about this experience:
As we were leaving, a couple of little kids came into the store. They were participating in some sort of treasure hunt or "Amazing Race" activity. Apparently, their task at this store was to buy a dog biscuit for $1 and feed it to a dog. Ours was the only one there, so he lucked out yet again. What a great way to end this visit: seeing that the store is participating in a local event or organization, witnessing the store employee being absolutely great with the kids (making sure they asked before approaching a dog, etc.), AND getting another free goody.

A Higher Bar

People seem pretty good at figuring out solutions if challenged.

Here's one example of something I'd like to see:

At an airport, create a committee of, say, seven or eight people from various organizations and groups -- airline personnel, ground crew, security people, customs people, etc. Connect them to a strong network of people with technical knowledge in assorted areas (technology, law, anatomy, architecture, whatever).

Give them a simple question:
What do we need to do to make it possible for travelers to be on the runway within half an hour of arrival at the airport, without feeling rushed, for any routine flight?

Immediately, the naysayers will pipe up with "But security screening takes a while if we want to do it thoroughly!" or "At peak times there are just too many people in the airport!" or "You can only board so many people at a time!" or "We can't force everyone to arrive on time" or a million other excuses.

But imagine if this committee:
a.) Didn't have any people like this in its membership
and
b.) Believed from the outset that there must be some way to achieve the goal

Maybe it means changing the rules.
Maybe it means changing consumer expectations.
Maybe it means changing employee responsibilities.
Maybe a small fortune would have to be spent on re-designing the airport.

I bet there's a solution, though. And even if it's just a hypothetical one (for now), isn't that better than simply accepting things they way they are? Isn't it likely that some portions of the solution could be realistically implemented in the short term?

So many processes, businesses, places, brands, and organizations are broken that it would be really nice to see some of them push like this.