It's Too Late

I planted something in the garden.
I'm carbon neutral!
Everybody look at me!
Aren't I awesome?

At this point, every organization that strives to be carbon neutral should just do it. Don't announce it to the world. Don't make a big deal about it. If you believe it's the right thing to do, just go ahead and make it happen. Sure, mention the fact if it comes up in conversation, make a note about it on your Web site, and so on. But it's not headline news.

If you're doing it just because you want to brag about it, think twice. For one thing, you'll probably screw up if you do something for the wrong reasons. Second, it's pretty obvious that you're not sincere (or, at best, that you're just a follower). And third, maybe your effort would best be spent on something equally important but far more brag-worthy.

Google is a good example -- they've recently partnered in various initiatives to help develop solar thermal energy. This is newsworthy. Honestly, if they were to tell me that they're now carbon neutral my first thought would be "So? Why wouldn't you be?". But the fact that they're proactively doing something unique is extremely interesting, exciting, and (what it really comes down to) makes me think more positively of them.

IAB Canada, on the other hand, doesn't seem to get it. Here's a quote from their latest event announcement:

"Since 2004, there have been over 80 carbon neutral events in Canada; unfortunately, none of them seems to have originated from within the Interactive marketing or advertising sectors... Today, IAB Canada along with the sponsors of our new MIXX Canada Conference Series are stepping up to the plate, and vowing to finally make good on one of the so-called "promises" of the digital age, and harness this technology to deliver less waste and less impact on the environment."

Great. Theyre doing the right thing. I applaud them for this, but it's still secondary to the actual content and value of the event. I don't need an 8 paragraph announcement with 7 paragraphs talking about how they're (finally) being environmentally responsible. If anything, they're reminding me how behind the times they have been until now.

It's like thinking that saying "Good news! Our products are now mostly non-toxic!" is a good announcement....

Missing Opportunities By Being Old Fashioned

I'm working on an online media project for a client right now. We're trying to target the travel trade (travel agents, that sort of thing), so I'll be using several trade magazines' Web sites.

It's been a bit disappointing. There are some very good media properties out there and they're operated by very professional people. But...
They treat their Web sites and e-mail newsletters as if they're merely extensions of a printed publication or (gasp) an old-fashioned "fax alert" service.
They sell ad space based on a time period (weekly, monthly...) rather than CPM or CPC.
They don't offer much in the way of IP-based targeting.
Their creative specs are quite limiting.
And don't even think about "Web 2.0" opportunities like providing social networking tools for their site visitors.

From what I've seen in other industries, their trade publications aren't much better.

There's a huge opportunity for someone to start up a new trade-centric media company providing quality online content for industry professionals, and acting like a proper online media property -- taking full advantage of what the Web can do. That is, unless some of these publishers get their acts together. The incentive is pretty simple: these folks are missing out on a lot of potential revenue. For one thing, they might be able to charge more for the ad space they already sell. But beyond this, there are plenty of B2B providers out there who aren't even considering online advertising in their plans (yet) -- probably in part because the options are so limited.

Fire Your Customers

I love seeing stories like this one: Royal Caribbean bans complaining couple for life.

I've been on both the business and consumer side of situations where a brand fails to meet expectations, and I'm glad to see Royal Caribbean stand up for themselves.

Essentially, a couple complained incessantly about their experiences with the cruise line (yet continued to use the same company over and over again). The company offered compensation but apparently that wasn't enough for these people. So... the company (quite politely) has told them to walk the plank.

People like these complainers ruin brand experiences for everyone. They aren't far removed from the people who like to take businesses to court over every little thing.

From the brand's perspective:
The complainers cost money to fight or compensate, of course, but their behaviour also forces industries to increasingly institute policies to cover their butts (such as these examples), and generally lead to a lowering of expectations -- "We can't guarantee that people won't be disturbed at night, so we better not mention that we offer a quiet environment"... "We might run out of something at the buffet, so let's not say anything about how big it is"...

From the (other) consumers' perspective:
The complainers lead to higher prices, of course, and they inevitably harm the impact of real complaints. This particular article mentions just one legitimate problem (a clogged toilet - and who knows if they didn't clog it themselves). Over the course of six cruises they complained about five, though. So imagine if you're another passenger on those five cruises and you have a real problem. The staff have just had to deal with whatever non-issue these people are whining about. No matter how professional the staff are, will they really be at their most attentive and caring when dealing with you?

With some customers you can just tell that they're looking to get something for nothing. It doesn't matter if they're scammers or they have an unrealistic sense of entitlement - the result is the same.

One example from a previous job sticks in my mind. A customer (using the term loosely - our records showed that she had likely never bought from us), called our customer care department requesting a particular free sample product. They had a few issues with this, tried to appease, but had to bring this case to my attention for help.
Here's the situation:
1. The special offer associated with this free sample had been advertised several months earlier. Although the offer didn't have a stated expiration date, the publication it was advertised in did expire.
2. We no longer had any of these particular samples.
3. The ad in question had two offers: "Free sample with any purchase" and "Free shipping with a minimum purchase". This customer didn't qualify for either of these, but wanted both.

So, we tried to explain this to her. Didn't work. She was convinced that we were trying to pull a fast one.
We tried to satisfy her by extending the expiration date and giving her a different freebie of similar value with her next purchase. Didn't work. She didn't feel any need to make a purchase to get something.
As a last-ditch effort, we offered her a gift card with a value far more than the original freebie and more than enough to cover a small purchase (including shipping, if she didn't want to go to a store). She didn't refuse this one, but she still complained to Advertising Standards.

Long story short, Ad Standards contacted us, I explained the situation, they felt no need to take the concern any further. I don't think we ever heard from this woman again.

I think we reacted appropriately, but in retrospect it would have been nice to simply say "Sorry we couldn't satisfy... 'bye". The time, effort, and expense that went into trying to appease this person could have been much better spent satisfying a "good" customer.

Sprint famously fired a large group of customers a few months ago based on how much they had called customer service. Again, they were nice about it and even gave the customers a free month of service to finish off.

I'd love to see more of this. If every brand cleaned house and refused to do business with the least-profitable, most unfairly-complaining, most frequently confused or angry, etc. customers, I'd bet that the brand experience would improve dramatically for many of the remaining clients.

I'm a huge fan of legitimately complaining about a bad brand experience. That's a major point of this blog, after all. I think it's great that consumers are gaining more and more power, largely due to the capabilities of the Internet. But the Royal Caribbean example shows how this power can be abused.

Another "Which is Better?"

In the long run, given the choice, is it better that front-line staff to be:
a.) A bit incompetent, but friendly and well-meaning.
or
b.) Very efficient and knowledgeable at their jobs, but brusque and cantankerous (or even just inattentive)

?

Don't Even Bother

I can only shake my head when I see the many examples of "marketing" that seem not just useless, but counter-productive.

How many times have you past a rickety old pickup truck with a business name and phone number stenciled (badly) on the side?

Or received a flyer in your mailbox that's filled with mistakes, bad design, or is simply not appealing?

Or passed a business (convenience stores are bad for this) with posters and other POS materials literally covering every bare surface?

What a waste of effort. How many leads does the pickup driver ever get from people who see his truck? Even if he's exposed to thousands of people every day, I really doubt that many:
a.) Make a note of his name and number
b.) Don't mind the fact that his trunk is a junker, that his sign is badly made...
and actually make a phone call.

Maybe I'm an exception, but my first thought as a consumer would be "This guy isn't a professional. Even if I'm looking for the cheapest option available, who knows if he's going to rip me off or something." It's not fair to judge like this, but it's reality.

For something like this, the best option is obviously to make a small investment in better materials, vehicle repairs, or similar. But if this isn't possible, maybe Mr. Pickup shouldn't even bother promoting the fact that this his company vehicle. Who knows what other marketing tactics he could do (or afford), but this one's clearly not for him.

This should be pretty obvious, but it seems like the majority of small businesses make these mistakes.

Cost isn't the real issue. There are plenty of really good ways to promote a brand that are absolutely free (or cheap). If you can't make the leap from "free but good" to "pricey but better", don't try to go halfway (ending up at something like "cheap but... cheap").

I think a lot of business people (using the term loosely) are under the mistaken impression that their prospective customers don't care about image.

Win a House Win a Car!

I wonder which works better for contests:

Offering a small number of really big prizes
or
Offering a large number of smaller prizes.

Both have their pros and cons, of course. But I'm curious if one type has a strong tendency to perform better (as a marketing tactic) than the other.

Do consumers find big prizes more exciting and therefore more remarkable and worth paying attention to? Or do they immediately think "I don't have much chance of winning that. Why should I bother even thinking about it?" ?

Show Them The Back Door

I was in downtown Vancouver last week and walked past the Vancouver Art Gallery. It's a nice old (by Vancouver standards) building famously used in many movies and TV shows and is very popular with tourists.

Because it's an old building that has been re-purposed over the years, the main entrance to the gallery is actually not on the original "front" side. It's not ugly, but this definitely isn't the most attractive and architecturally interesting part of the building. Nevertheless, a group of tourists were taking photos of this side.

It got me thinking: if they like the looks of this section, imagine what they'll do when they get around to the original front side with its wide staircase, tall columns, big doors, fountain, and so on.

In a way, it almost makes sense to purposely lead unknowing tourists to the "back door" first. The concept of "saving the best for last" hardly needs explanation.

A lot of businesses focus primarily (or even solely) on making a grand first impression. They make their front door as impressive as possible to try to draw you in and to "wow" you immediately.

But when you're done, they don't think to impress you with anything more than a cheery thank you. Other than leading you through a gift shop, there aren't many venues (retail, entertainment, or otherwise) that put an enormous effort into making the final impression memorable and exciting.

An obvious example is movie theatres. The same mega-multiplex that spends millions on props and fancy lighting and signs and so on seem to be in a huge rush to just get rid of you as soon as the film ends. Many even make you exit through a different door than the front lobby.

And this doesn't just apply to the real world. Most Web sites try to "wow" you with beautiful home page imagery, a (shudder) Flash intro screen, or similar techniques. This makes sense, since a user needs to be immediately impressed or they're likely to wander off with a simple click of their mouse.

But how many sites put the same effort into impressing you at the end of your visit? Why not do something pretty or interesting or exciting or just plain nice after an online sales transaction? Some sort of reward for going that far. On too many sites, it's unlikely you'll even get a cheery thank you.

Funnily enough, right after I wrote this post initially, I did some online banking. And when I was done, I was shown the following on the final page.


Going back to the literal back door example...

I also started thinking about an experience my parents related to me about a back door they saw on a recent trip. They were in Hong Kong and took a tour of the harbour. One of their first sights was the back of a very famous floating restaurant.

From the front, this restaurant is very striking, especially at night. It's tall, colourful, and definitely has the "wow factor". But the back is another story. It's dreary, dirty, and not at all attractive. For any business this is bad, but for a place where people are literally consuming your product it's terrible.
By showing an okay-but-nothing-spectacular back door, at least a business is illustrating that they're all show and no substance (even if this isn't entirely true, since the back door becomes an extension of the show).

I'd like to see more businesses:
a.) Make the back door (whatever that may mean to them) more remarkable
and
b.) Start with something good, but lead up to the front door (whatever their most impressive feature is).