First a little history: Traditionally, people bought goods produced locally; often by their neighbors. So they could predict which products would be good and which would not based on personal knowledge of who was producing them.
As transportation and packaging improved throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, it became feasible to buy products made far away. In this expanded environment, people rarely knew who had produced what they were buying. Soon manufacturers began “branding” their products in order to create a trusting relationship similar to what people used to have on a local level.
For example, if you were just buying generic laundry powder by the scoop out of an unmarked barrel, there was no telling how well it would clean. But if you knew that Tide detergent was good, and your laundry powder came in a box with the now famous target logo on it…well, you get the idea.
So far, so good. But the rise of regional and national communication channels led to abuse of branding. Manufacturers quickly began advertising to communicate their products’ benefits, and it didn’t take them long to discover that with enough advertising they could create demand that owed relatively little to their products’ intrinsic quality.
Since consumers had no comparably loud “voice” to refute inaccurate or misleading advertising claims, manufacturers could pump up profits by substituting marketing dollars for product quality.
Then came the internet, which made it easy to search out the exact product that would best meet their need. Freed from the necessity for big advertising budgets, choices proliferated. And consumers quickly forged a collective voice that first matched, and then overwhelmed advertising. At this point, anyone can access an enormous body of consumer experiences that generally allows them to form a much more accurate and objective opinion regarding product quality than they get from manufacturer advertising.
My point (finally): With advertising “neutralized,” manufacturers need to return to branding basics. Honing product features and improving quality are once again the primary way to increase sales, and branding is important primarily to make sure that consumers associate those features and that quality with the correct product.
As it always has been, advertising is important to create awareness, but its unprecedented ability to drive demand has been transferred to the internationally available word-of-mouth network created by the internet. [note: this very word-of-mouth network is now your very best resource for product development…]
If you want to discuss prospering without advertising, I can help. Let’s talk!
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Are McCain and Obama good marketers?
This year's presidential campaign advertising has been exceptionally negative. News analysts reported that McCain has recently introduced 15 new negative ads, versus 14 new negative ads by Obama. I have not seen a "positive" advertisement in weeks.
Conventional marketing wisdom says that you need a "unique competitive advantage" to attract customers. Historically, marketers have interpreted this as meaning they should improve their product to rise above category commoditization. However McCain and Obama have gone in a different direction. Since they only have one "competitor," they've decided to "improve their product" by making the competition less appealing.
There are three huge "negatives" to this approach:
First, you aren't developing a positive image for your "brand." And if you don't tell customers what your benefits are (or in marketing terms, create a positive "brand image"), who will? Granted, negative ads presumably degrade the opponent's brand image. And theoretically that leaves the negative advertiser one-up. But with the opponent doing the same thing, both sides lose.
Second, this policy of unintentional mutual destruction guarantees that politicians’ “customers” will have an increasingly negative opinion of politics in general. This weakens both the Republican and Democrat parties (“the category”) and leaves them vulnerable to other alternatives (“competitive categories”).
Of those queried in a recent bipartisan survey by the Project on Campaign Conduct:
--39% believe all or most candidates lie to voters
--67% say they can trust the government in Washington only some of the time or never.
Third, defending your brand against attacks eliminates risk taking. You attempt to reduce your vulnerability by avoiding innovation, with the result that your “product” never improves. This strategy virtually guarantees that things remain the same. And as the customers of our politicians, how happy does that make you?
Conventional marketing wisdom says that you need a "unique competitive advantage" to attract customers. Historically, marketers have interpreted this as meaning they should improve their product to rise above category commoditization. However McCain and Obama have gone in a different direction. Since they only have one "competitor," they've decided to "improve their product" by making the competition less appealing.
There are three huge "negatives" to this approach:
First, you aren't developing a positive image for your "brand." And if you don't tell customers what your benefits are (or in marketing terms, create a positive "brand image"), who will? Granted, negative ads presumably degrade the opponent's brand image. And theoretically that leaves the negative advertiser one-up. But with the opponent doing the same thing, both sides lose.
Second, this policy of unintentional mutual destruction guarantees that politicians’ “customers” will have an increasingly negative opinion of politics in general. This weakens both the Republican and Democrat parties (“the category”) and leaves them vulnerable to other alternatives (“competitive categories”).
Of those queried in a recent bipartisan survey by the Project on Campaign Conduct:
--39% believe all or most candidates lie to voters
--67% say they can trust the government in Washington only some of the time or never.
Third, defending your brand against attacks eliminates risk taking. You attempt to reduce your vulnerability by avoiding innovation, with the result that your “product” never improves. This strategy virtually guarantees that things remain the same. And as the customers of our politicians, how happy does that make you?
Monday, August 18, 2008
“Who is in charge of your website?”
Actually this is a misleading question. The answer to the question above is probably “[place name here] in the Information Technology department.” That’s the person who makes requested changes and who fixes the website when it crashes.
My question should actually have been phrased “Who is in charge of your website strategy/content?” And I’m guessing that your answer at this particular point is probably “I’m not sure.”
Most websites have tended to grow somewhat organically, with Sales putting some brochure ware on line, Human Resources adding a few job postings, Customer Service reluctantly agreeing to a place for customers to submit emails, and … you get the idea. Information tends to be added once, and then forgotten, with no one given the responsibility for keeping content up-to-date and little (if any) thought given to maximizing the website’s potential or measuring how well the website is supporting the company’s goals.
Assigning the responsibility to one department isn’t a good idea. Whoever you give the website responsibility to, everyone else in the company can say “Oh, that’s XXXX’s responsibility” and forget about it. Dividing the ownership is not much better—your website is likely to become a co-located group of single-function “silos.”
The solution developed by more effective companies is a Web Steering Committee—generally 6-8 fairly senior managers under the leadership of an executive officer, meeting at least quarterly to ensure that the company gets the maximum possible utility out of this extremely important client-facing communication channel.
Typical Web Steering Committees have a mid-level Website Leader to centralize administration, plus representatives from:
Executive Level (strategy)
Sales (prospecting & direct sales)
Marketing (branding & public relations)
Customer Service (customer interfacing)
Information Technology (technical issues)
Finance (budgeting & performance analysis)
Two key ways the Web Steering Committee can help maximize the utility of the website are by prioritizing website improvement projects (by the monetized benefits they’ll produce?) and designating and monitoring performance metrics. (This is in addition to the natural benefits of raising the website’s profile and keeping its content current.)
If you’d like some outside help making your website a more useful tool, I’ll be happy to talk with you!
My question should actually have been phrased “Who is in charge of your website strategy/content?” And I’m guessing that your answer at this particular point is probably “I’m not sure.”
Most websites have tended to grow somewhat organically, with Sales putting some brochure ware on line, Human Resources adding a few job postings, Customer Service reluctantly agreeing to a place for customers to submit emails, and … you get the idea. Information tends to be added once, and then forgotten, with no one given the responsibility for keeping content up-to-date and little (if any) thought given to maximizing the website’s potential or measuring how well the website is supporting the company’s goals.
Assigning the responsibility to one department isn’t a good idea. Whoever you give the website responsibility to, everyone else in the company can say “Oh, that’s XXXX’s responsibility” and forget about it. Dividing the ownership is not much better—your website is likely to become a co-located group of single-function “silos.”
The solution developed by more effective companies is a Web Steering Committee—generally 6-8 fairly senior managers under the leadership of an executive officer, meeting at least quarterly to ensure that the company gets the maximum possible utility out of this extremely important client-facing communication channel.
Typical Web Steering Committees have a mid-level Website Leader to centralize administration, plus representatives from:
Executive Level (strategy)
Sales (prospecting & direct sales)
Marketing (branding & public relations)
Customer Service (customer interfacing)
Information Technology (technical issues)
Finance (budgeting & performance analysis)
Two key ways the Web Steering Committee can help maximize the utility of the website are by prioritizing website improvement projects (by the monetized benefits they’ll produce?) and designating and monitoring performance metrics. (This is in addition to the natural benefits of raising the website’s profile and keeping its content current.)
If you’d like some outside help making your website a more useful tool, I’ll be happy to talk with you!
Are you listening to your customers?
Got your ears on good buddy?
Many years ago, during the CB (CITIZEN BAND RADIO) craze, this was a slang way of saying “Are you listening?” As marketers, it is easy to fall into the habit of communicating to consumers rather than communicating with consumers. And that is dangerous—because without consumer feedback, your products and marketing are likely to become increasingly irrelevant, uncompetitive, and unsuccessful.
In today’s environment of rapid change, successful products and marketing need to accurately follow the shifts in this environment.
A marketer’s view of her or his products is based both on their own perceptions and on the perceptions of others. But who are those “others?” In too many cases they tend to be fellow employees, retailers, and management—NOT consumers. Unless a marketer makes a systemic effort, we may seldom come into direct contact with prospects or customers.
When was the last time you took the time to seek out direct customer feedback? Can’t remember? It’s easy to understand—there is almost always some crucial meeting, or project, or conference that takes precedence. And even if you can find the time, there is rarely enough budget to have researchers set up interviews or focus groups.
So how do we get the consumer feedback we need to stay on course? Remember, the goal is to get honest feedback from consumers (not to confirm our own personal biases). While we might not agree with what they say (it may not even be correct), their perception is your reality.
First let’s talk about some opportunities to systematically collect feedback:
--Soliciting input on your web page: Make it easy for people to leave you messages. Not just a CONTACT US tab in the menu bar, but a prominent “we want to hear from you” box on the home page. Note: If you ask for communication, you’re going to get it. Be prepared to keep the dialogue going. That means responding to consumers in a timely fashion.
--Monitoring customer service: Schedule time to monitor your customer service people’s interactions with consumers. It is usually possible to obtain tapes of telephone interactions, and copies of customer correspondence (with the corporate replies).
--Monitoring outside web conversations/postings: Search engines make it easy to find out where people are discussing your company, products, and promotions. If internet “buzz” is really important to you, there are services like Nielsen Online which will locate comments and summarize the content.
Finally, let’s talk about a couple of useful questions to ask:
--What one thing would you change about this product? Any other things you’d change?
--What one thing would you tell the company to never change?
Any other things you’d never change?
--What is the silliest thing that this company does? Anything else?
--What is the best thing that this company does? Anything else?
Many years ago, during the CB (CITIZEN BAND RADIO) craze, this was a slang way of saying “Are you listening?” As marketers, it is easy to fall into the habit of communicating to consumers rather than communicating with consumers. And that is dangerous—because without consumer feedback, your products and marketing are likely to become increasingly irrelevant, uncompetitive, and unsuccessful.
In today’s environment of rapid change, successful products and marketing need to accurately follow the shifts in this environment.
A marketer’s view of her or his products is based both on their own perceptions and on the perceptions of others. But who are those “others?” In too many cases they tend to be fellow employees, retailers, and management—NOT consumers. Unless a marketer makes a systemic effort, we may seldom come into direct contact with prospects or customers.
When was the last time you took the time to seek out direct customer feedback? Can’t remember? It’s easy to understand—there is almost always some crucial meeting, or project, or conference that takes precedence. And even if you can find the time, there is rarely enough budget to have researchers set up interviews or focus groups.
So how do we get the consumer feedback we need to stay on course? Remember, the goal is to get honest feedback from consumers (not to confirm our own personal biases). While we might not agree with what they say (it may not even be correct), their perception is your reality.
First let’s talk about some opportunities to systematically collect feedback:
--Soliciting input on your web page: Make it easy for people to leave you messages. Not just a CONTACT US tab in the menu bar, but a prominent “we want to hear from you” box on the home page. Note: If you ask for communication, you’re going to get it. Be prepared to keep the dialogue going. That means responding to consumers in a timely fashion.
--Monitoring customer service: Schedule time to monitor your customer service people’s interactions with consumers. It is usually possible to obtain tapes of telephone interactions, and copies of customer correspondence (with the corporate replies).
--Monitoring outside web conversations/postings: Search engines make it easy to find out where people are discussing your company, products, and promotions. If internet “buzz” is really important to you, there are services like Nielsen Online which will locate comments and summarize the content.
Finally, let’s talk about a couple of useful questions to ask:
--What one thing would you change about this product? Any other things you’d change?
--What one thing would you tell the company to never change?
Any other things you’d never change?
--What is the silliest thing that this company does? Anything else?
--What is the best thing that this company does? Anything else?
Once upon a time...
Everyone loves a story. Marketers should love stories more than most people. They don't necessarily. But they should. A famous 1910 baseball poem, BASEBALL'S SAD LEXICON, talks about a famous 1902 double play by three Chicago Cubs players named Tinkers, Evers, and Chance. Knowing this, would you find it easy to remember their names tomorrow? Probably not. But suppose I asked you the question "Do you think three gypsy TINKERS could EVER(S) have a CHANCE to make a double play?" Easier to remember, right? You've probably used similar mnemonics yourself.
[A mnemonic device (pronounced /nəˈmɒnɪk/) is a memory aid. Mnemonics rely on associations between easy-to-remember constructs and lists of data, based on the principle that the human mind much more easily remembers data attached to personal or otherwise meaningful information than that occurring in meaningless sequences.] A story is just another kind of mnemonic. Stories are an easy way to communicate your message to an audience, and to get them to remember it. It's hard to recall a simple list of benefits, or a quick series of video clips, and associate them with a particular product or service. [Automobile advertising is particularly prone to this mistake.]
But we are culturally hard-wired to pay attention to stories, and are more likely to remember them. So when I see a commercial that shows a little boy stealing a base in a little league game , and getting his uniform filthy from the slide, and them mom washing that uniform sparkling clean with Tide, I remember that Tide is good at getting out tough stains. BINGO! A classic example of the value of a good story is the J. Peterman phenomenon. If you've never experienced it, go here now: http://jpeterman.com/product~cat~110206~sku~WSL%201019.asp. See if the story doesn't seduce you into paying much more attention to an ordinary nightshirt than you ever would if it were prosaically listed in a less imaginative catalog. Stories can ignite the imagination, tap hidden emotions, drive home a message, and create lasting memories. Sounds like just what you want your advertising to do, right? So....tell me a story!
[A mnemonic device (pronounced /nəˈmɒnɪk/) is a memory aid. Mnemonics rely on associations between easy-to-remember constructs and lists of data, based on the principle that the human mind much more easily remembers data attached to personal or otherwise meaningful information than that occurring in meaningless sequences.] A story is just another kind of mnemonic. Stories are an easy way to communicate your message to an audience, and to get them to remember it. It's hard to recall a simple list of benefits, or a quick series of video clips, and associate them with a particular product or service. [Automobile advertising is particularly prone to this mistake.]
But we are culturally hard-wired to pay attention to stories, and are more likely to remember them. So when I see a commercial that shows a little boy stealing a base in a little league game , and getting his uniform filthy from the slide, and them mom washing that uniform sparkling clean with Tide, I remember that Tide is good at getting out tough stains. BINGO! A classic example of the value of a good story is the J. Peterman phenomenon. If you've never experienced it, go here now: http://jpeterman.com/product~cat~110206~sku~WSL%201019.asp. See if the story doesn't seduce you into paying much more attention to an ordinary nightshirt than you ever would if it were prosaically listed in a less imaginative catalog. Stories can ignite the imagination, tap hidden emotions, drive home a message, and create lasting memories. Sounds like just what you want your advertising to do, right? So....tell me a story!
Getting it all together
HOW’S YOUR GESTALT?
ge·stalt or Ge·stalt (gə-shtält', -shtôlt', -stält', -stôlt') n. plA physical, biological, psychological, or symbolic configuration or pattern of elements so unified as a whole that its properties cannot be derived from a simple summation of its parts.
Your business represents a “gestalt” to your customers. Customers don’t judge you solely based on the rosy descriptions in your advertising (although you probably wish they would). Naturally, they judge you on the value of your product or service. But they also judge you on your billing, your customer service, your distribution, and every other interaction that you have with them. All of these impressions add up to their overall evaluation of your company—it’s “gestalt.”
Your gestalt didn’t used to matter so much. Given the relatively few choices that were generally available, people were more likely to settle for a gestalt that was “OK.” But then along came the internet, and things haven’t been the same since. Now there are dozens (if not thousands) of choices just a click away.
Today every customer interaction matters—because if they’re not happy, they’ll look for “greener pastures” somewhere else. And as they leave, they may “poison the water” by posting an internet comment or evaluation for other potential customers to find.
To quote an old cartoon song, what your customers want is “Happy Happy Joy Joy.” And if you don’t give it to them with every interaction, you’ve probably lost them. There are just too many other choices available [if you don’t believe me, type in a description of your product or service in Google, and see how many links it offers; there are 2,720,000 links for “artificial flowers” for heaven’s sake!].
There’s a tendency for all of us to concentrate on our immediate area of responsibility—outside of that is “someone else’s problem.” But if all of your customer interactions aren’t first rate, then the outcome will be unhappiness for everyone at your company. Because your customers will go away, and not come back. And that means pretty soon your paychecks will do the same thing!
Someone at your company needs to be keeping an eye on how happy your customers are with every aspect of your operation. And you need to take prompt action to fix any aspect that isn’t earning rave reviews.
ge·stalt or Ge·stalt (gə-shtält', -shtôlt', -stält', -stôlt') n. plA physical, biological, psychological, or symbolic configuration or pattern of elements so unified as a whole that its properties cannot be derived from a simple summation of its parts.
Your business represents a “gestalt” to your customers. Customers don’t judge you solely based on the rosy descriptions in your advertising (although you probably wish they would). Naturally, they judge you on the value of your product or service. But they also judge you on your billing, your customer service, your distribution, and every other interaction that you have with them. All of these impressions add up to their overall evaluation of your company—it’s “gestalt.”
Your gestalt didn’t used to matter so much. Given the relatively few choices that were generally available, people were more likely to settle for a gestalt that was “OK.” But then along came the internet, and things haven’t been the same since. Now there are dozens (if not thousands) of choices just a click away.
Today every customer interaction matters—because if they’re not happy, they’ll look for “greener pastures” somewhere else. And as they leave, they may “poison the water” by posting an internet comment or evaluation for other potential customers to find.
To quote an old cartoon song, what your customers want is “Happy Happy Joy Joy.” And if you don’t give it to them with every interaction, you’ve probably lost them. There are just too many other choices available [if you don’t believe me, type in a description of your product or service in Google, and see how many links it offers; there are 2,720,000 links for “artificial flowers” for heaven’s sake!].
There’s a tendency for all of us to concentrate on our immediate area of responsibility—outside of that is “someone else’s problem.” But if all of your customer interactions aren’t first rate, then the outcome will be unhappiness for everyone at your company. Because your customers will go away, and not come back. And that means pretty soon your paychecks will do the same thing!
Someone at your company needs to be keeping an eye on how happy your customers are with every aspect of your operation. And you need to take prompt action to fix any aspect that isn’t earning rave reviews.
What price whimsy?
The Encarta English Dictionary defines ‘whimsy’ as “the quality of being slightly odd or playfully humorous, especially in an endearing way.”
You don’t see a lot of whimsy these days. And that’s a pity—because whimsy may be directly translatable to increased ROI. I’ve recently been reading a marketing classic—INFLUENCE, THE PSYCHOLOGY OF PERSUASION—in which author Dr. Robert Cialdini exhaustively documents the point that “We most prefer to say yes to the requests of someone we know and like.”
“Well I knew that!” I hear you thinking. Sure. But while I’m sure your customers know you, what are you doing to make them like you? (Note: The annual holiday card is not enough.) Think about your company’s or brand’s personality. Does it ever give your prospects and customers a reason to smile? When we’re wearing our corporate hats, most of us are dead serious. And how likeable is that?
I tried to come up with some examples of likeable brands and came up pretty dry. Which just supports my point. Sure there are companies with funny advertising—but it rarely seems to carry over to their other materials. What is there on your website (or mine—I’m guilty too!) to make you smile? How about on your billing? Your sales collateral? The recorded announcements on your automated phone system? Forget likeable—most times, these things aren’t even user-friendly!
Ben & Jerry’s probably qualify as “likeable.” Who doesn’t smile when they see a pint of “Cherry Garcia” ice cream? And Snapple was likeable before Quaker Oats “corporatized” it (Wendy is still one of my favorite spokespeople of all time). But such examples are very few and far between.
None of us want to look or sound frivolous. And “likeability” costs money—it’s easy to be serious and factual, but adding (a likeable) personality takes extra effort. And that effort cannot come at the expense of the value you offer customers—it is the whipped cream on top of the dessert, not the dessert itself.
Still, look at the benefits. Properly executed (in today’s cheerless environment), the creation of a likeable brand personality can generate buzz, attract additional prospects, increase conversion rates, and improve retention. Put like that, it sounds like it might be worth a try, doesn’t it?
You don’t see a lot of whimsy these days. And that’s a pity—because whimsy may be directly translatable to increased ROI. I’ve recently been reading a marketing classic—INFLUENCE, THE PSYCHOLOGY OF PERSUASION—in which author Dr. Robert Cialdini exhaustively documents the point that “We most prefer to say yes to the requests of someone we know and like.”
“Well I knew that!” I hear you thinking. Sure. But while I’m sure your customers know you, what are you doing to make them like you? (Note: The annual holiday card is not enough.) Think about your company’s or brand’s personality. Does it ever give your prospects and customers a reason to smile? When we’re wearing our corporate hats, most of us are dead serious. And how likeable is that?
I tried to come up with some examples of likeable brands and came up pretty dry. Which just supports my point. Sure there are companies with funny advertising—but it rarely seems to carry over to their other materials. What is there on your website (or mine—I’m guilty too!) to make you smile? How about on your billing? Your sales collateral? The recorded announcements on your automated phone system? Forget likeable—most times, these things aren’t even user-friendly!
Ben & Jerry’s probably qualify as “likeable.” Who doesn’t smile when they see a pint of “Cherry Garcia” ice cream? And Snapple was likeable before Quaker Oats “corporatized” it (Wendy is still one of my favorite spokespeople of all time). But such examples are very few and far between.
None of us want to look or sound frivolous. And “likeability” costs money—it’s easy to be serious and factual, but adding (a likeable) personality takes extra effort. And that effort cannot come at the expense of the value you offer customers—it is the whipped cream on top of the dessert, not the dessert itself.
Still, look at the benefits. Properly executed (in today’s cheerless environment), the creation of a likeable brand personality can generate buzz, attract additional prospects, increase conversion rates, and improve retention. Put like that, it sounds like it might be worth a try, doesn’t it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
