The Guru is Right and Wrong, Part 3: Intelligence

Okay, last thought on this topic.

Specifically, I wanted to address a certain sentence in the original blog.
He writes "Consumers aren't stupid (we're dumb sometimes, but not stupid.)"

Here's the thing: Yes they are. Quite often consumers are very very stupid.

As a marketer, I'm not supposed to believe this. It's taboo to consider customers anything less than demigods we owe everything to. But unless you're marketing a particularly complex, advanced, or high-end product or service, your audience members are probably pretty average overall.

To paraphrase George Carlin "Just think of how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of them are dumber than that.""

Maybe "stupid" is the wrong word. Ignorant? Naive? Overly-trusting? Overwhelmed? Forgetful? Regardless of what it is (and I'm sure "it" varies from individual to individual and from situation to situation), the important thing is that we need to be realistic about consumers.

There are countless examples of how stupid (or whatever word fits) people are. Entire Web sites are devoted to the concept (try a search for "stupid people" or similar). The Darwin Awards illustrate the most extreme (and entertaining) examples. Just look at which TV shows are popular, which politicians keep winning, the lyrics of top songs, or the comments beneath virtually any YouTube video.

I'm not saying we need to treat our customers like idiots. But we should be prepared for a few things:
1. The need for hand holding.
2. Confusion and misinterpretation of what we say.
3. Gullibility or a tendency to believe whatever was said most convincingly (rather than most intelligently).
4. Sheep-like behaviour.
and so on.

Maybe I'll write something more about each of these later.

The Guru is Right and Wrong, Part 2: Quantifying the Qualitative

In a previous post I mentioned that I saw a few points of note in a recent blog entry by Seth Godin. Part 1 mentioned how I agree with his take on brands approaching the "green" movement too simplistically.

I disagree with his thinking about a potential solution, though.

Seth's idea:
"Here's what's missing: a number. When you buy a fridge, there's a big yellow sticker with a number about relative energy consumption. Now, we could argue all day long about how to figure out the right number (should the number on the fridge include data about the amount of energy needed to make the fridge in the first place?) but an imperfect number sure seems better than no number at all."

The trouble is... the imperfect number would be too imperfect. It wouldn't be a valuable guideline for anyone except those who are blindly environmental and simply following it as a fad. And the whole idea is to treat this brand attribute as something more than a fad.

I recently worked for a very environmentally-conscious company and we faced a situation that demonstrates the complexity of environmental decisions. We wanted to sell a branded re-usable shopping bag.

On the surface you could say "Great. Each reusable bag takes the same energy and material to make as 40 disposable bags. And each one will last about 80 times longer than a disposable. Therefore, it's roughly twice as 'green' as disposable bags."
But, it's far more complex than this. Among the other factors influencing the greenness of a particular bag:
- where is it made? How far does it have to travel to get to the stores where it's sold?
- who makes it? Is it from a sweatshop in Asia? (Apparently, many of the shopping bags sold actually suffer from this problem)
- what's it made of and with what processes? Even if the materials are recycled or organic, there can be issues with sustainability, hazardous byproducts, etc. (Certain materials need special inks in order to screenprint effectively, for example)
- were animals or machines used to make or transport it?
- how biodegradable is it after the bag has outlived its usefulness?
and so on.

And these are just the obvious questions.

So how do you quantify a qualitative brand attribute like "greenness"?

I guess breaking down "the number" into a set of numbers or a little chart would be a good start. "This product scores 12 for distance traveled, a 95 for who made it, and a 34 for materials used."

At least this would help someone make a decision based on what matters to them (I might think sweatshops are okay, but don't want to see animals harmed...).

But it's still trying to put specific numbers to qualitative measurements -- the measurements are just more specific.

I'm not a big fan of certain Olympic sports for the same reason. I can tell who the better runner is because of the speed they completed their race. But who's the better gymnast? As we've seen over and over again, anything that relies on the opinion of judges is far less firm.

With big brand issues like environmentalism, I wonder if it's even possible to:
a.) Remove the judges from the equation
or
b.) Find good enough judges that most people are willing and able to trust.

Branding the Sky

Here's something kind of cool: Flogos are "clouds" made of miniature soap bubbles and helium than can be shaped into the form of a logo or other shape.

In the right setting, these could be a nice little marketing tactic. They launch from a special bubble-blowing machine every few seconds, so they could create a good "trail" effect, leading interested people to the marketer's location. They can add some nice atmosphere and decoration to a special event or place (Disney plans to launch some at one of their parks). They might even be a really good fit to associate with certain brands in general (a mattress company that compares itself to sleeping on a cloud, perhaps?).

But, this isn't a blog about good ideas.

I can imagine these being misused -- something to add to the "nice idea, but... how does it help us?" pile, along with most of the other gimmicks available to marketers.

It's a dumb idea to just pump these out and hope that they help with "awareness" because they stand out from similar tactics like balloons or a banner pulled by a plane. Is anybody really going to buy an extra pair of Nike shoes (or think more positively of them) just because they saw a foam "swoosh" flying through the air?

I'd love to see the company behind Flogos be very particular about which brands, and in which settings and circumstances, they sell to. If they turn into yet another way to put a logo someplace new, they'll end up being completely ignorable and of very limited value to marketers.

The Guru is Right and Wrong, Part 1: The Green Backlash

I don't often completely disagree with Seth Godin. But, I often find myself only partially agreeing with him.

Here's Part 1 of an example from his recent blog post entitled "The coming backlash over green marketing".

I agree with his main point: Too many brands are rushing to make themselves appear "green" and, in Seth's words "...devolving into short-term, often selfish come-ons. That's not going to last and it's not going to scale."

I disagree with two other points that he makes, though, and will write about them in future posts.

But back to the green stuff.

An interesting thing about the current environmental movement is that its value as a marketing or branding direction will die off long before people stop caring about pollution, climate change, extinction, deforestation, and other related issues.

A good comparison is the concept of "healthy".
Consumers never really stop caring about the healthiness of the products they use. But two things are ever-changing:
1. The degree of caring. Interest and attention in well-being trend up and down all the time. We seem to switch back and forth between "I deserve a treat, never mind the ramifications" and "I need to take care of myself or else" -- most of the time, sitting somewhere in the middle ("Sure this treat is naughty, but it's not the worst thing I could get, and besides, I did something healthy earlier..."). These peaks and valleys occur on both a micro (daily or weekly) and macro (yearly or decadely*) scale.
2. The particular shiny thing. We seem incapable of caring about a big concept. We need a specific cause, product, issue, or concern to capture our attention. For awhile "oat bran" was absolutely necessary in everything we consumed. Recently, the looming danger of lead-laced, Chinese-made products was going to wipe out all life in the galaxy. Other times it was powerline radiation, jogging, sunburns, low carb, high carb, salt in our diets, shark attacks, too much fluoride in our water, not enough fluoride in our water...

I think "consumer environmentalism" is going to follow a similar pattern based on this combination of interest and shiny-thing-du-jour.

It's hardly a new concern, but is currently at an interesting peak: total attention is perhaps at the highest it's ever been, and several shiny things are getting our attention concurrently.

Marketers are taking a very simplistic approach, either:
a.) Making vague "green" statements that aren't any more substantial than claiming to be "healthy". While not untrue, they don't mean much when everybody else is doing it too.
or
b.) Focusing entirely on a handful of specific, short-term, shiny things.

Using the environment as a marketing tool or discussion point isn't going to go away.
But most of it is going to become background noise.

Later, I'll finish babbling about the other two parts of the post: How do you quantify the qualitative (and the subjective)? And what really is the intelligence of consumers?




*Decadely is not a word, but should be.

You Didn't Have To Do That

I'm really impressed by the development company that I recently bought an investment property from, Mosaic Homes.

First of all, they did a good job. The quality of construction is great, the development is well designed, most of the project was completed on schedule...

And they also seem to understand the concept of customer service. They see the value in building trust and a good reputation.

For example, they've been extremely accommodating with any requests for repairs or adjustments to the property since purchasing it -- all those little things that are technically covered by the warranty, but that they could probably make excuses about and try to get out of fixing.

They've also been very good at proactively keeping in touch. During construction and after, it wasn't unusual to receive little thank you cards and updates ("Don't worry about all the flooding concerns in the news lately. Here's some info from our surveyors..."). Two weeks ago, the strata held their first AGM and not only did several representatives from Mosaic participate, but they also treated the owners to a few snacks and beverages afterwards.

All of these are nice touches and, really, they're things that every company should be doing for its valued customers. But in this case I'm particularly impressed because there's not much direct, financial benefit to doing so. Very few of the property owners will be buying another place anytime soon. There's really not much chance of gaining repeat business, and therefore little need for "retention" or "loyalty" efforts.

But... they get it. They recognize that the handful of us who will be buying again will probably seriously consider other developments by the same company. They recognize that it's important to build a general consensus that "Mosaic is a good company to work with" in the marketplace and within their own industry. They know that people talk. They know that bad vibes can be as dangerous to a company as an actual, tangible mistake can be.

So, if this company has figured it out, why do so many others - especially those that actually have a direct, financial incentive to build long-term customer relationships - fail to do so?

Okay, I'm sure they make a fairly good profit on each property the sell. So it's not a big deal, financially, for them to take these extra steps. But since when has "we can't afford that" been the only obstacle to doing the right thing?

My guess is that most companies just can't be bothered. Too many are run by accountants and analysts who can't get their minds past the potential (or lack thereof) for immediate, obvious, direct returns. They see "customer service" as a necessary expense to put out fires, not as an opportunity to invest in gaining new business or extending a customer relationship.

It's All About "U"

A basic concept of localization is to use the language of your audience.
I guess some brands (especially those from the US) forget this point when marketing to others who speak the same language.

I just received an e-mail newsletter from Disney, featuring a dining offer at their Florida resorts. It's clearly an office targeted at Canadians (like me), and makes a few obvious references to this point such as being clear that the price is in US dollars and that the Disney Canada privacy policy applies to the newsletter's database.

This is good. You wouldn't expect a major marketer like Disney to screw up those types of things.

What I really like, though, is the less-obvious fact that the copy was written with Canadians in mind: the subject line was "A Walt Disney World offer you'll savour."

Sure, it's a tiny detail. But using the Canadian spelling of "savour" is a nice touch.

Not every brand bothers to make these little adjustments or to write something new for different audiences. For example, we recently received a brochure for a local pizza place in the mail. It's a franchisee in a large chain (Dominoes, I think) that I'm sure just orders brochures from the head office that are simply shells customized with the franchisee's address, phone number, map, etc. It's a food provider, so of course they use words like "flavor" throughout the brochure. Unfortunately, here the word "flavour" would be more appropriate.

Would it really be that difficult for the company to provide "Canadian versions" of their marketing materials? Do the franchisees have any input into the contents and copywriting of those marketing materials? I would assume that the company has a Canadian head office - why didn't they "translate" these materials?

I wonder if it's an oversight, laziness, or a lack of caring.

How big does a difference between target audiences need to be before it's worthwhile to address those differences?

Is That All There Is To It?

Talk about a misleading headline:

P&G Lets Consumers Act as Media Planners


I was expecting something really interesting in which Procter & Gamble were somehow giving control of their media choices to consumers.

Nope. They're just soliciting consumer opinion on some specific ad placements. And not even as a proactive exercise - it's just in response to certain "consumer groups" whining about some of the TV shows P&G chooses to advertise on.

If that's all it takes to "let consumers act as ", I guess every company that's conducted a survey or had a consumer help line is doing this.

And this article is in AdAge, a respected industry publication.