When analyzing marketing catastrophes of all different kinds, for companies competing in wildly different industries, some fairly consistent underlying reasons for the failures begin to emerge. And surprisingly, the notion that marketing fails because the marketers in charge were morons is not one of the five. Though there are head-scratchingly bad decisions behind most campaign failures, more insidious reasons are the true propellant behind the epic failures we see in each day's newspaper (if there were still any being published, that is. But that's a marketing failure for another day).
Number Five: The Wrong Market. Sometimes the pressure to eke out just a bit more revenue from an existing but tapped out market drives marketing leaders to try to extend the product line just a bit further or to bring a marginally better solution to the game. All too often, the wrong market is the one in which we currently compete and draw the bulk of our revenue and profits. But in moving forward, a successful and winning leader will know when to make the jump.
Number Four: Bad Timing. Sometimes, however, a marketer's timing is off. Maybe by a little, maybe by a lot. But jumping into a new market too soon can mean years of frustrated "market building" activity while other technologies and approaches take their turns at being the "right solution at the right time". Jump too late and you'll face a nigh impenetrably entrenched set of competitors with too little firepower to shift the playing field.
Number Three: The Wrong Strategy. I often say that there is usually more than one way to get to the goal. However, not every path leads there. Some lead straight into the buzz saw. The number of ways in which a strategy might go wrong are legion. Wrong distribution channel for your product? You're dead. Run ads on billboards when a strong internet route is better? Toast. Doesn't necessarily mean the marketer in charge is a moron, but make enough egregious choices and it'll be tough to dodge the nickname.
Number Two: Disconnect Between Promise and Delivery. Imagine you've spec'd the perfect product for your customer's needs. You've built a demand generation strategy second to none. You've got leads pouring in from around the globe. You're a certifiable genius. But then the factory in China burns down. The contract coders from Russia stop returning your emails. Or perhaps operations disregarded your demand forecast because her bonus gets paid on a metric that has nothing to do with satisfying your customers. In any case, this scenario can lead to the very worst outcome for a company - jilted customers. Those whose passions were stirred and then left bitterly unfulfilled.
Number One: Serving the Wrong Master. This one, more than the others, will be likeliest to cause people on the outside to consider the folks at the wheel a bunch of morons. But chances are that the marketers were simply working to please someone other than the actual customer. Perhaps the CEO had a creative idea he loved and wanted to see executed or the senior management council thought they knew better.
The common element among these failures is a loss of focus and mastery of the customer's condition and needs. The ability to translate this knowledge into effecive action is quite common, but the knowledge itself, now that is an all-too-rare commodity. So while marketing groups quibble over effective SEO strategies and approaches to pricing, too few marketing pros are spending quality time with their customers. And that is why they will fail.
Monday, December 28, 2009
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Today's WORD is Injunction
Today we learned that a US court has issued an injunction preventing Microsoft from selling uber-popular Office stalwart WORD after mid-January because the product violates patents held by others. Yikes! I would suspect that large sums of money will change hands prior to that date if MS can't get another ruling from another court overturning the injunction (perhaps they should appeal to the Brazilian Supreme Court). One way or another, I doubt that WORD is in any real, lasting jeopardy.
But the case does illustrate a problem that many marketers face from time to time. What do you do when your company management either breaks the law or does something unethical as part of its business practices? Just apologize, say oops and promise it won't happen again? But in Microsoft's case, it happens a lot. How can the MS marketers overcome this self-inflicted, never ending assault on the company rep?
Microsoft's current ad campaign depicting customers as saying they invented the new Windows doesn't really square with reality, assuming that their customers aren't unethical or anticompetitive or patent poachers. We are not Them. How closely do prospective customers want to align themselves with a supplier that's always in trouble? (Aside: Hey Microsoft, do you mean to tell us that in spite of a gajillion developers on your payroll WE have to come up with all the ideas? Maybe you need to pay us instead of the other way around?).
Microsoft is not a company led by marketers, clearly. The Sherman tank that is Steve Ballmer has never seemed overly interested in such vagueries as marketing. But if he were, he might take a bit more care with the company's very fragile rep and stop making it quite so hard for marketers to do their jobs. Then again, these are the guys who thought the Jerry Seinfeld commercials were a riot. Ugh. How did these guys come to dominate the world again?
But the case does illustrate a problem that many marketers face from time to time. What do you do when your company management either breaks the law or does something unethical as part of its business practices? Just apologize, say oops and promise it won't happen again? But in Microsoft's case, it happens a lot. How can the MS marketers overcome this self-inflicted, never ending assault on the company rep?
Microsoft's current ad campaign depicting customers as saying they invented the new Windows doesn't really square with reality, assuming that their customers aren't unethical or anticompetitive or patent poachers. We are not Them. How closely do prospective customers want to align themselves with a supplier that's always in trouble? (Aside: Hey Microsoft, do you mean to tell us that in spite of a gajillion developers on your payroll WE have to come up with all the ideas? Maybe you need to pay us instead of the other way around?).
Microsoft is not a company led by marketers, clearly. The Sherman tank that is Steve Ballmer has never seemed overly interested in such vagueries as marketing. But if he were, he might take a bit more care with the company's very fragile rep and stop making it quite so hard for marketers to do their jobs. Then again, these are the guys who thought the Jerry Seinfeld commercials were a riot. Ugh. How did these guys come to dominate the world again?
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Lord of the Pitchmen - Or When Your Brand's Face Goes South On You
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
The Art of Introduction
I just received a new Apple laptop the other day and was again stunned with how well done Apple's packaging is done. Every element of the packaging is functional, elegant, and exceptionally effective. Even the cardboard corners of the box the machine came in. Just cool, from start to finish. Never mind the product inside, I like to unwrap the stuff because of the feelings the process evokes.
Introductions are important moments. Those first seconds where we find ourselves face to face with a new product, person, or whatever. We form important, lasting impressions that inform and color our reactions to this new element in our lives forevermore. Yet how often does anyone really give proper weight to this event? Most folks are concerned with cost and moving past formalities so they can "get to the good stuff". Why spend five dollars on packaging when you can do the same functional job for $4.50? Penny-wise, pound foolish. When spend another two pennies on a heater switch in a Chevy just to make the tactile interaction more pleasing?
Why? Because that stuff matters. Even Wal-Mart, kings of cheap where poor service is a badge of honor, has begun to come around, recently saying that they're going to spend more time and attention on service and on the way their stores look. Cheap prices can only sustain a consumer for so long. Less expensive is fine, especially in this economy. But there remain opportunities for real, lasting competitive advantage from implementing a more Apple-ish approach to product/service design, by the realization that the "product" includes everything that comes before and after the actual "thing", and by differentiating on dimensions other than price.
Introductions are important moments. Those first seconds where we find ourselves face to face with a new product, person, or whatever. We form important, lasting impressions that inform and color our reactions to this new element in our lives forevermore. Yet how often does anyone really give proper weight to this event? Most folks are concerned with cost and moving past formalities so they can "get to the good stuff". Why spend five dollars on packaging when you can do the same functional job for $4.50? Penny-wise, pound foolish. When spend another two pennies on a heater switch in a Chevy just to make the tactile interaction more pleasing?
Why? Because that stuff matters. Even Wal-Mart, kings of cheap where poor service is a badge of honor, has begun to come around, recently saying that they're going to spend more time and attention on service and on the way their stores look. Cheap prices can only sustain a consumer for so long. Less expensive is fine, especially in this economy. But there remain opportunities for real, lasting competitive advantage from implementing a more Apple-ish approach to product/service design, by the realization that the "product" includes everything that comes before and after the actual "thing", and by differentiating on dimensions other than price.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
The King is dead! Long live the King!
Okay, calm down, nobody is dead. But my blog has undergone a metamorphosis, changing from High Velocity Marketing to Kinetic Spark Marketing. The reason for the change is two-fold. First, as I re-energize my consulting practice after an ill-advised return to a corporate position, I wanted to convey the energy and enthusiasm that I've regained from this change. Many of my clients are small start up scale businesses and it is becoming clear that many people are following the entrepreneur's path because they've been laid off (no euphemisms here, like "downsized" or "rightsized". puh-lease) or because they have little faith in the myth of stability within the typical corporation and have taken their fate into their own hands (bravo!). So for me, business is looking up.
The other reason for the change is that over the course of operating under the V~Squared (V2) brand I found that many people didn't get what it was supposed to mean (velocity squared...making things happen fast. Oh, never mind.) So like any good marketer, I embraced the lesson and made a change.
Of course, I also think that "Kinetic Spark" just sounds good, too. And as our mission changes slightly, now offering a full array of marketing services, in effect becoming our client's marketing department located someplace else, it was time to recast the brand. But like any good marketer, I'll keep an eye on the new brand's performance and see how it goes.
Our new site, www.kineticspark.com, should be up by the new year! Check us out when you get a sec.
The other reason for the change is that over the course of operating under the V~Squared (V2) brand I found that many people didn't get what it was supposed to mean (velocity squared...making things happen fast. Oh, never mind.) So like any good marketer, I embraced the lesson and made a change.
Of course, I also think that "Kinetic Spark" just sounds good, too. And as our mission changes slightly, now offering a full array of marketing services, in effect becoming our client's marketing department located someplace else, it was time to recast the brand. But like any good marketer, I'll keep an eye on the new brand's performance and see how it goes.
Our new site, www.kineticspark.com, should be up by the new year! Check us out when you get a sec.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
I'll Show You Mine If You Show Me Yours
I was in on a rather odd meeting the other day. A client of mine was meeting with a social networking team to add this important element to his opening, prelaunch marketing mix. The client wanted to have the team put a specific plan together with likely activities, goals/outcomes, and cost so that he could manage the effort and measure success. A fair and intelligent request, or so I thought. After my client articulated his needs, a very strange thing happened. The service provider wouldn't agree to provide any specifics.
"Surely he simply doesn't understand my client's needs," I thought. So I jumped in to try and add some clarity. No dice. Instead, we heard how difficult it is to measure this stuff, and coming with a set of expectations was counterproductive. That this work was organic and lots of things would get tried along the way. "Ah!" I said. "What might some of those 'things' be?"
"Could be anything," he said.
"Instead," he suggested, "why don't you tell me what you want, and then I'll do that. Usually my clients bring me something they've seen that they like and then we make it happen," he said, confusing me further. After all, these guys are the team that specializes in social media.
"You know, ultimately you'll just have to trust us to do this." Uh-huh. And I've got this bridge in Brooklyn I'm trying to get rid of, you know, for tax reasons. I wasn't about to stop.
"So what's an example of something that a client has seen and brought to you for implementation?", I asked, employing my best Perry Mason logic. I was going to pin him down yet. I could tell by the look in his eye that he had run out of room to maneuver. "Okay, maybe something like giving a book away to one of the people who've "friended" your company on Facebook." Eureka!
Turns out that the whole "avoidance" dance was driven by two things. First, my client had not fully expressed how he was going to pay the service provider for his insight and implementation. How they'd managed to have a half-dozen meetings prior to this one without that question resolved, I don't know. But I blame the service provider - always get that stuff clear at the beginning. Always!
The second reason, I hypothesize, was that the service provider didn't want to let the client know what happened inside the "black box", for fear that the client would take the ideas and implement them himself. That is something I see all too commonly from consultants and advertising firms. They hold onto every scrap of knowledge and IP as if each bit was as valuable as the next. Here's my take on that: your client doesn't want to steal the idea and implement it themselves. Who has time? Sure, some will try to do it, there's always an exception. But in my experience, entrepreneurs and small business managers simply don't have the time to learn how to implement a good idea. They want to pay experts to make things happen (usually involving ringing cash registers!) not learn how to manage social media or write code for a cool Flash effect.
Secondly, by protecting even 'generic' ideas/content as if they were the crown jewels, you diminish the value of the really good stuff. You miss an opportunity to a) demonstrate your expertise to the client, b) get the client on board with your service, and c) strengthen your own personal brand. Not to mention coming off like you simply don't have any ideas or don't know what you're doing.
Sharing something of value - giving it away - is becoming an increasingly important competitive tool in today's marketing environment. Access to all kinds of knowledge for free via the web is the new norm. But like giving a man a physics textbook doesn't mean it's likely he can actually build a rocket, sharing a bit of something you know about your field doesn't mean your client will put you out of work, either. So wise up and identify the real value you bring to your customers. Protect that core and use the rest to build prospects, clients, and good will. And for goodness sake, make sure you know how you'll get paid upfront.
"Surely he simply doesn't understand my client's needs," I thought. So I jumped in to try and add some clarity. No dice. Instead, we heard how difficult it is to measure this stuff, and coming with a set of expectations was counterproductive. That this work was organic and lots of things would get tried along the way. "Ah!" I said. "What might some of those 'things' be?"
"Could be anything," he said.
"Instead," he suggested, "why don't you tell me what you want, and then I'll do that. Usually my clients bring me something they've seen that they like and then we make it happen," he said, confusing me further. After all, these guys are the team that specializes in social media.
"You know, ultimately you'll just have to trust us to do this." Uh-huh. And I've got this bridge in Brooklyn I'm trying to get rid of, you know, for tax reasons. I wasn't about to stop.
"So what's an example of something that a client has seen and brought to you for implementation?", I asked, employing my best Perry Mason logic. I was going to pin him down yet. I could tell by the look in his eye that he had run out of room to maneuver. "Okay, maybe something like giving a book away to one of the people who've "friended" your company on Facebook." Eureka!
Turns out that the whole "avoidance" dance was driven by two things. First, my client had not fully expressed how he was going to pay the service provider for his insight and implementation. How they'd managed to have a half-dozen meetings prior to this one without that question resolved, I don't know. But I blame the service provider - always get that stuff clear at the beginning. Always!
The second reason, I hypothesize, was that the service provider didn't want to let the client know what happened inside the "black box", for fear that the client would take the ideas and implement them himself. That is something I see all too commonly from consultants and advertising firms. They hold onto every scrap of knowledge and IP as if each bit was as valuable as the next. Here's my take on that: your client doesn't want to steal the idea and implement it themselves. Who has time? Sure, some will try to do it, there's always an exception. But in my experience, entrepreneurs and small business managers simply don't have the time to learn how to implement a good idea. They want to pay experts to make things happen (usually involving ringing cash registers!) not learn how to manage social media or write code for a cool Flash effect.
Secondly, by protecting even 'generic' ideas/content as if they were the crown jewels, you diminish the value of the really good stuff. You miss an opportunity to a) demonstrate your expertise to the client, b) get the client on board with your service, and c) strengthen your own personal brand. Not to mention coming off like you simply don't have any ideas or don't know what you're doing.
Sharing something of value - giving it away - is becoming an increasingly important competitive tool in today's marketing environment. Access to all kinds of knowledge for free via the web is the new norm. But like giving a man a physics textbook doesn't mean it's likely he can actually build a rocket, sharing a bit of something you know about your field doesn't mean your client will put you out of work, either. So wise up and identify the real value you bring to your customers. Protect that core and use the rest to build prospects, clients, and good will. And for goodness sake, make sure you know how you'll get paid upfront.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Brands in the Crosshairs: Pontiac
The loss of Pontiac, the iconic brand from General Motors is a terrible thing for the thousands of employees who'll see their paychecks disappear along with the stylized arrowhead logo. But from a brand perspective, it's the best possible move for GM - a company that long ago lost the capacity to effectively design/build/market so many different brands.
Alfred Sloan's brilliant strategy, to combine different brands under one roof, maximize synergies while meeting the needs for every conceivable market niche or category, has run its course. Pontiac for the sporty car enthusiast, Chevrolet for the working folks, Buick for those moving up, Cadillac for the truly upscale (and lately Saturn for those who'd rather own a Toyota). This brand management model helped the company to own over 50% market share - once.
But the drive for "synergy" led the company to use a very limited number of platforms and simply rebadge car models, add leather seats and call a Chevy a Buick or a Pontiac, or, gasp, a Cadillac. Simple-minded customers that we are, we eventually saw through the deception. We can't be fooled forever (Really, did some executive actually think that this strategy would be a good thing? That brands with whole different philosophical foundations could share models with no real differentiation. Really?)
The loss of Pontiac provides GM with a couple of opportunities. First, of course, it helps the company remain in business. Second, it can balance production to actual demand, and with fewer models, the company will be able to differentiate the remaining lineup better. Other benefits include reduction in the dealer force and saving millions on marketing the brand.
The lesson for the rest of us is simple. Don't phone it in. That's right, General Motors has absolutely been phoning it in for nearly forty years. If you're going to support a brand/product, then do it right from the ground up. Build your product to meet the needs of specific customers. Don't think that simple modifications to existing products shipped with a flashy new package will give you a pass into a new market segment. At best that thinking can get you into the game, but you'd better come with game changing products PDQ or you'll find yourself Pontiacked before you know what hit you. Are you listening Saturn?
Amazing how the largest company in America managed to completely fumble their advantage. If you've managed to develop a defensible competitive advantage, study it, understand it, defend it, then evolve it. But don't take it for granted.
Alfred Sloan's brilliant strategy, to combine different brands under one roof, maximize synergies while meeting the needs for every conceivable market niche or category, has run its course. Pontiac for the sporty car enthusiast, Chevrolet for the working folks, Buick for those moving up, Cadillac for the truly upscale (and lately Saturn for those who'd rather own a Toyota). This brand management model helped the company to own over 50% market share - once.
But the drive for "synergy" led the company to use a very limited number of platforms and simply rebadge car models, add leather seats and call a Chevy a Buick or a Pontiac, or, gasp, a Cadillac. Simple-minded customers that we are, we eventually saw through the deception. We can't be fooled forever (Really, did some executive actually think that this strategy would be a good thing? That brands with whole different philosophical foundations could share models with no real differentiation. Really?)
The loss of Pontiac provides GM with a couple of opportunities. First, of course, it helps the company remain in business. Second, it can balance production to actual demand, and with fewer models, the company will be able to differentiate the remaining lineup better. Other benefits include reduction in the dealer force and saving millions on marketing the brand.
The lesson for the rest of us is simple. Don't phone it in. That's right, General Motors has absolutely been phoning it in for nearly forty years. If you're going to support a brand/product, then do it right from the ground up. Build your product to meet the needs of specific customers. Don't think that simple modifications to existing products shipped with a flashy new package will give you a pass into a new market segment. At best that thinking can get you into the game, but you'd better come with game changing products PDQ or you'll find yourself Pontiacked before you know what hit you. Are you listening Saturn?
Amazing how the largest company in America managed to completely fumble their advantage. If you've managed to develop a defensible competitive advantage, study it, understand it, defend it, then evolve it. But don't take it for granted.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Are You Clinging to an Outdated Distribution Strategy?
For many years I have been following the development of various distribution models. The advent of the internet has, over the last ten years, really made a significant dent in the business of distribution companies. The ease of reaching large numbers of customers, combined with a variety of automated systems for order generation and fulfillment, has undermined the industry in some startling ways. Manufacturers of products ranging from hard hats to snack foods and automobiles, always hesitant to give away margin, are looking very hard at how they are currently getting their products into the hands of customers.
And then many aren't. I'm baffled by those industries that continue to pour money into the old models with no revision. A good example is the bicycle business. Manufacturers, by and large, remain convinced that the model of 1990 is still the way to get product to customers today. Their commitment to independent bicycle dealers is commendable, but in light of new approaches to lean manufacturing, mass customization, and logistics, can it really make sense to require dealers to buy tons of inventory, in multiple sizes, months and months before the season?
Here are three signs you may be clinging to an outdated distribution strategy like our friends in the bike business:
1. Do you get rapid feedback on your products from user customers? Middlemen are touted as conduits of customer likes and dislikes. That is a part of their value to you as a manufacturer. Do your channel partners provide you with weekly summaries of customer information? If not, you may be a clinger.
2. Does your salesforce abide by the notion of "stacking deep and wide"? Moving output from your factory into the warehouses of your channel partners doesn't get the product into your customer's hands. Any step along the way where product sits and waits adds cost. Don't agree? How many calls do you take from distributors wanting to return stale merchandise? Damaged goods? Or to make room for fresher seasonal goods? If you think that you are exerting positive pressure on distributors to focus on your stuff when you've managed to fill their racks with record levels of your merchandise you are harming your own long-term ability to work productively with that distributor.
3. You are not seeing market share gains, in spite of your very hard work. Distributors act as buffers between you and the market. They absorb some of the pain when things are bad, but they also dampen your ability to reach out and directly impact your customers. The best promotions are just ideas unless your distributor executes with energy and intensity. The problem is that you can't control that - you might impact it by offering spiffs or incentives, but that's yet more money out of your pocket. If you're frustrated by your market impact, you may be a clinger!
Great distribution channel partners can be worth their weight in gold. But if you continue to use the channel in the same ways you did ten years ago you are losing money, market share, and time. Think of the connections between you and your customers as links in a value chain. Take the time to understand how the system as a whole can make money and reformat your programs to allow that to happen. Use technology to speed information up and own the chain, and engage your channel partners in an ongoing dialog about how to increase total system profits. We'll talk more about how to do that in our next post.
And then many aren't. I'm baffled by those industries that continue to pour money into the old models with no revision. A good example is the bicycle business. Manufacturers, by and large, remain convinced that the model of 1990 is still the way to get product to customers today. Their commitment to independent bicycle dealers is commendable, but in light of new approaches to lean manufacturing, mass customization, and logistics, can it really make sense to require dealers to buy tons of inventory, in multiple sizes, months and months before the season?
Here are three signs you may be clinging to an outdated distribution strategy like our friends in the bike business:
1. Do you get rapid feedback on your products from user customers? Middlemen are touted as conduits of customer likes and dislikes. That is a part of their value to you as a manufacturer. Do your channel partners provide you with weekly summaries of customer information? If not, you may be a clinger.
2. Does your salesforce abide by the notion of "stacking deep and wide"? Moving output from your factory into the warehouses of your channel partners doesn't get the product into your customer's hands. Any step along the way where product sits and waits adds cost. Don't agree? How many calls do you take from distributors wanting to return stale merchandise? Damaged goods? Or to make room for fresher seasonal goods? If you think that you are exerting positive pressure on distributors to focus on your stuff when you've managed to fill their racks with record levels of your merchandise you are harming your own long-term ability to work productively with that distributor.
3. You are not seeing market share gains, in spite of your very hard work. Distributors act as buffers between you and the market. They absorb some of the pain when things are bad, but they also dampen your ability to reach out and directly impact your customers. The best promotions are just ideas unless your distributor executes with energy and intensity. The problem is that you can't control that - you might impact it by offering spiffs or incentives, but that's yet more money out of your pocket. If you're frustrated by your market impact, you may be a clinger!
Great distribution channel partners can be worth their weight in gold. But if you continue to use the channel in the same ways you did ten years ago you are losing money, market share, and time. Think of the connections between you and your customers as links in a value chain. Take the time to understand how the system as a whole can make money and reformat your programs to allow that to happen. Use technology to speed information up and own the chain, and engage your channel partners in an ongoing dialog about how to increase total system profits. We'll talk more about how to do that in our next post.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Television and the Art of Panicking
Whenever we try new tools for getting our message out to the world, there will be a period of uncertainty where we're not sure if we're wasting dollars. For the past 36 hours my team has been running a test in the Fresno DMA for 30 second television ads. Our goal is to demonstrate the value of mass media in bringing sufficiently large numbers to our site so that we can sell our product.
During the next few hours is when clients, bosses, and we are most likely to panic. Maybe we should alter the run schedule? Change the website landing page? Make some other substantive alteration of the site to encourage customers to spend freely?? My advice is for you to take a deep breath and go do something else for the rest of the day.
Television is indeed a powerful medium. We can reach hundreds of thousands of people every day. The expectations that come with that, though, are dangerous. Seeing isn't deciding. Seeing once isn't learning. It takes time for potential customers to become comfortable with the purchase of new products - especially if they are unfamiliar with your brand or product category. Give your customer permission to take a few days to figure things out in their mind.
Conveying your message effectively is a game of repetition. Generally, we're not selling water to lost travelers in the desert. If your price point is more than $20 or so, you're prospect might just need to do some thinking to get comfortable with the purchase decision.
While my example is TV and it is by far the most expensive media choice in absolute terms, the idea of a little patience is applicable to all the new tools you may be trying - and even some old tools. If you've done a good job in identifying your prospects, you've generated good creative, and are deploying it wisely, then sit back, relax, and keep your eyes open. You might not make a change on day two, but by day four, it might make sense to adjust around the edges.
During the next few hours is when clients, bosses, and we are most likely to panic. Maybe we should alter the run schedule? Change the website landing page? Make some other substantive alteration of the site to encourage customers to spend freely?? My advice is for you to take a deep breath and go do something else for the rest of the day.
Television is indeed a powerful medium. We can reach hundreds of thousands of people every day. The expectations that come with that, though, are dangerous. Seeing isn't deciding. Seeing once isn't learning. It takes time for potential customers to become comfortable with the purchase of new products - especially if they are unfamiliar with your brand or product category. Give your customer permission to take a few days to figure things out in their mind.
Conveying your message effectively is a game of repetition. Generally, we're not selling water to lost travelers in the desert. If your price point is more than $20 or so, you're prospect might just need to do some thinking to get comfortable with the purchase decision.
While my example is TV and it is by far the most expensive media choice in absolute terms, the idea of a little patience is applicable to all the new tools you may be trying - and even some old tools. If you've done a good job in identifying your prospects, you've generated good creative, and are deploying it wisely, then sit back, relax, and keep your eyes open. You might not make a change on day two, but by day four, it might make sense to adjust around the edges.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Advertising Creep
I've recently added Adsense to my blog page. That's it, over there to the left. It is indicative of the larger trend to plaster advertising everywhere it can be shoehorned in. The idea is to create revenue from otherwise unused pixels. As a marketer, I have to say that it's a great idea - in theory. All kinds of questions arise with these models. If you're a marketer, consider these thoughts before you put yourself on either side of the served ad equation.
First, is the inclusion of advertising congruent with the purpose of the site? Including advertising may prove to be a distraction from the page itself. Or, because these ads are so ubiquitous...
Second, will the ads get noticed? People are quite good at filtering out extraneous information. Yet another 200 pixel square ad may very well fall into people's filtration system, receding into the background like whitenoise.
Third, you may have precious little control over the type of product/service offered on your site. Do you want your identity to be linked to erectile dysfunction pharmaceuticals?
Lastly, there's quite a debate about whether or not these text ads are effective. Sure, they get lots of clicks, but do those clicks really translate into conversions? Could the budget dollars you're using for serving ads across a content network be put to more effective use? Can you develop direct contact lists where you can spend a bit more time laying out your product's case?
On the whole, serving text ads across networks is a fine idea - but one that requires that you actively manage your budgets and the creative pretty aggressively to maintain efficacy. Otherwise, you'll end up serving lots of ads to places where there's little hope of snagging a customer. And even if you're paying via cpc models, the time and energy spent managing these campaigns could likely be spent elsewhere with a better return.
First, is the inclusion of advertising congruent with the purpose of the site? Including advertising may prove to be a distraction from the page itself. Or, because these ads are so ubiquitous...
Second, will the ads get noticed? People are quite good at filtering out extraneous information. Yet another 200 pixel square ad may very well fall into people's filtration system, receding into the background like whitenoise.
Third, you may have precious little control over the type of product/service offered on your site. Do you want your identity to be linked to erectile dysfunction pharmaceuticals?
Lastly, there's quite a debate about whether or not these text ads are effective. Sure, they get lots of clicks, but do those clicks really translate into conversions? Could the budget dollars you're using for serving ads across a content network be put to more effective use? Can you develop direct contact lists where you can spend a bit more time laying out your product's case?
On the whole, serving text ads across networks is a fine idea - but one that requires that you actively manage your budgets and the creative pretty aggressively to maintain efficacy. Otherwise, you'll end up serving lots of ads to places where there's little hope of snagging a customer. And even if you're paying via cpc models, the time and energy spent managing these campaigns could likely be spent elsewhere with a better return.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
The First Rule of Marketing
As with doctors, the first rule of marketing is to do no harm. It is tough enough to fight off competitive threats, environmental changes, and all the other enemies at the gate. There's no good reason to make things more difficult for yourself by making gigantic, entirely avoidable blunders. You might wonder if I have some particular blunder in mind. As a matter of fact, I do.
You may have heard about Wells Fargo and their planned junket to Las Vegas. If not, here's a portion of an AP story:
"WASHINGTON - Wells Fargo & Co. abruptly canceled Tuesday a pricey Las Vegas casino junket for employees after a torrent of criticism that it was misusing $25 billion in taxpayer bailout money.
The company initially defended the trip after The Associated Press reported it had booked 12 nights beginning Friday... by saying:
"Recognition events are still part of our culture," spokeswoman Melissa Murray said Tuesday afternoon. "It's really important that our team members are still valued and recognized.""
The branding implications are clear. Wells Fargo is saying, clearly, that "Our customers exist to serve us. We are paramount." The brand for this once venerable, long-standing banking titan is now as tarnished and as utterly valueless as any other. They had an opportunity, especially in light of AIG's epic blunder (doing essentially the exact same thing and receiving withering criticism as a result), to take the initiative, cancel all events, reign in executive pay and bonuses, and say to the American people, "We stand with you. It's an awful mess out there, but we'll get through it together." But no, that would have inconvenienced a whole generation of corporate executives that have come to believe that they actually deserve the perks, the bonuses, the unbelievable salaries.
I really was taken aback by their comment, echoed by Wall Street firms aplenty, that
"Recognition events are still part of our culture," spokeswoman Melissa Murray said Tuesday afternoon. "It's really important that our team members are still valued and recognized."
Recognition? What on earth might the senior management be recognized for? Nobel Prize winning new levels of ineptitude? Mismanagement so severe that they had to ask Uncle Sam for $25 BILLION? The recognition event that needed to happen was to have the board meet and 1) fire the senior management team and 2) resign for failure to oversee the juggernaut before the predictable train wreck.
So back to marketing. Your brand is your most precious asset. Everything you do impacts on your brand. Everything. Big things, and small things. Our collective perception of your brand is developed one person at a time. It's as simple as that. Once you cross a certain line, your brand, so carefully nurtured, becomes an albatross around your neck. Don't Wells Fargo your own brand.
You may have heard about Wells Fargo and their planned junket to Las Vegas. If not, here's a portion of an AP story:
"WASHINGTON - Wells Fargo & Co. abruptly canceled Tuesday a pricey Las Vegas casino junket for employees after a torrent of criticism that it was misusing $25 billion in taxpayer bailout money.
The company initially defended the trip after The Associated Press reported it had booked 12 nights beginning Friday... by saying:
"Recognition events are still part of our culture," spokeswoman Melissa Murray said Tuesday afternoon. "It's really important that our team members are still valued and recognized.""
The branding implications are clear. Wells Fargo is saying, clearly, that "Our customers exist to serve us. We are paramount." The brand for this once venerable, long-standing banking titan is now as tarnished and as utterly valueless as any other. They had an opportunity, especially in light of AIG's epic blunder (doing essentially the exact same thing and receiving withering criticism as a result), to take the initiative, cancel all events, reign in executive pay and bonuses, and say to the American people, "We stand with you. It's an awful mess out there, but we'll get through it together." But no, that would have inconvenienced a whole generation of corporate executives that have come to believe that they actually deserve the perks, the bonuses, the unbelievable salaries.
I really was taken aback by their comment, echoed by Wall Street firms aplenty, that
"Recognition events are still part of our culture," spokeswoman Melissa Murray said Tuesday afternoon. "It's really important that our team members are still valued and recognized."
Recognition? What on earth might the senior management be recognized for? Nobel Prize winning new levels of ineptitude? Mismanagement so severe that they had to ask Uncle Sam for $25 BILLION? The recognition event that needed to happen was to have the board meet and 1) fire the senior management team and 2) resign for failure to oversee the juggernaut before the predictable train wreck.
So back to marketing. Your brand is your most precious asset. Everything you do impacts on your brand. Everything. Big things, and small things. Our collective perception of your brand is developed one person at a time. It's as simple as that. Once you cross a certain line, your brand, so carefully nurtured, becomes an albatross around your neck. Don't Wells Fargo your own brand.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Economics + Behavioral Psychology + Sociology Equals What?
As if touched by God, a few economists have come to a stunning conclusion. People don't always act completely rationally. Yeah, I know. Really amazing. Yet the field of economics has always had at its heart the assumption that people act in their own best economic interest. As an economics student, I or one of my classmates would sometimes ask about cases where a person might be motivated to make a choice not in their own economic self interest. The answer was that, summing up my professor's long winded response, since we can't model that, we don't worry about it. Now we are confronted with the results of economic policy that ignored the behavioral elements and focused solely on the "rational man". And this isn't just a phenomenon of the last eight years. It's always been this way.
So the Nobel Prize and kudos galore are going to economists that are working on integrating the fields of Economics, Behavioral Psychology, and Sociology in the hopes of creating tools and models that better reflect the real world and will lead to more stable economic outcomes.
Okay, so the point of all this in a blog about marketing. Well, isn't the combination of economics, behavioral psych, and sociology basically marketing? The economists have found their field hollow at the core and they've come a'poaching in our territory! Which is actually good news because, frankly, our tools are pretty inadequate to the task. Especially in an era when marketing must now be as accountable as any other part of the organization. The tools that marketers do have, for the most part, are horribly complex, expensive, and generally tough to use.
Marketers are collecting terabytes of customer data each day, but generally fail to explore the meaning of the data to any great depth. But here's an opportunity to leverage emerging thinking from the field of economics to craft tools that better meet our needs, helping us to model behavior in such a way as to finally be able to quantify the underlying drivers of behavior so we can begin to reliably communicate with prospects and customers in a meaningful and impactful way.
So here's the advice, rarely ever heard before by marketers. "Pay attention to the economists." Sounds funny just saying it.
So the Nobel Prize and kudos galore are going to economists that are working on integrating the fields of Economics, Behavioral Psychology, and Sociology in the hopes of creating tools and models that better reflect the real world and will lead to more stable economic outcomes.
Okay, so the point of all this in a blog about marketing. Well, isn't the combination of economics, behavioral psych, and sociology basically marketing? The economists have found their field hollow at the core and they've come a'poaching in our territory! Which is actually good news because, frankly, our tools are pretty inadequate to the task. Especially in an era when marketing must now be as accountable as any other part of the organization. The tools that marketers do have, for the most part, are horribly complex, expensive, and generally tough to use.
Marketers are collecting terabytes of customer data each day, but generally fail to explore the meaning of the data to any great depth. But here's an opportunity to leverage emerging thinking from the field of economics to craft tools that better meet our needs, helping us to model behavior in such a way as to finally be able to quantify the underlying drivers of behavior so we can begin to reliably communicate with prospects and customers in a meaningful and impactful way.
So here's the advice, rarely ever heard before by marketers. "Pay attention to the economists." Sounds funny just saying it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
