Irritation as Marketing Strategy

Can you irritate people into becoming your customers? What a concept.

But some idiot attempting to market a Canadian (?) pharmacy is working cleverly to do just that by sending remarkable quantities of spam my way. What's clever is that the person has thought up all kinds of almost plausible names that shoot right by my spam filters with the subjects always something almost requiring legitimate attention, once again shooting past my spam filters.

Now I've caught on to the game. I know what to look for. I just need to educate my spam filter.

But is this any way to get customers? Don't think so. The only relationship the spammer's built is to educate me to his stupid attempt to drum up business.

Unfortunately too many "business people" figure they can sell you if they can only get you to visit their site, apparently feeling their value proposition is so weak it won't meet that first test of attracting your attention. So they try subterfuge to get you there. Why should a prospect trust the seller if the initial approach is to lie?

One can only hope they go out of business quickly.

The Critical Mental Flip

So many companies fail to grow for two fundamental reasons: first, they are wedded to their products and second, they measure themselves against their competition.

It's natural to fall in love with your product or service. It's defines what you do. It's how you defined yourself. "My company is the leading supplier of widgets to the world." But to the rest of the world, particularly your customers, it's not what you do. They don't buy your product or service, they buy what it does for them. The product of the product or the product of the service.

And you measure yourself, naturally, against your competitors. You've been doing it since grade school. Who had the better grades; who won the football game? So, "we're growing faster, or we're larger or we have higher quality standards or we're more profitable." We all want to be the best at what we do -- better than the competition.

Here's the problem. The most important person in the entire equation hasn't been mentioned yet -- the customer. They are the ones who put up the money that buys your plant, your raw material, pays your labor and all your other costs, and if you run a cost-efficient business, some of their money becomes your profit. But it all starts out as their money. So maybe you should pay attention to what they think, what they believe.

They don't purchase your product or service because "you're the leading or the biggest or the fastest growing or the most profitable." They buy it, they pay their hard-earned money for it because they want what it can do for them. And they've judged that what they buy is the best at doing that.

They don't really care about your product. Or you. Or your company. Or how fast you're growing. Not a whit.

Maybe now they're your loyal, loyal customer. But along comes someone else with something that does what they want to do better than whatever it is that you have been offering. Then that customer becomes your ex-customer. And that someone is all too often not one of your old, familiar competitors.

You're now yesterday's news.

Why didn't you develop that new product that has just captured your customer?

It's simple -- you love your product more than you love your customer.

How do I know? It's because companies that love their customer more than their product or service, continually grow. They set the curve. They value innovation. They continually try to obsolete their own products. Their customer's values are more important.

They have made that mental flip from loving their products to loving their customers.

United breaks guitars ... and more than a few customers

A friend sent me a cool video created by Dave Carroll after he had a terrible and expensive experience with United Airlines. As he was traveling with his band, United baggage handlers threw his guitar case off the plane, ruining it. After nine months of frustrating dialogue, United finally and flatly denied responsibility and his claim. He responded by posting a music video on YouTube. You'll find it by searching for "United Breaks Guitars"on YouTube or Google "United Airlines" and you'll find it as the third listing.

Pre-internet, the general rule of thumb was that one friend telling another would eventually reach about 100 people. With friends emailing stories to friends who then forward them to more friends, this now must reach thousands, maybe tens of thousands or more. While I doubt that United really wants that kind of negative exposure, it sure won't result in a noticeable dent in their business.

But as of now, the video has been viewed over 5 million times. And this is increasing by about 30,000 more viewers per day, equivalent to 60 planeloads of a 747. This might actually hurt United.

Like so many have said so often, the internet is great for connecting marketers with their customers. More importantly, nothing connects your customers with your other customers like the internet. We are all turning into evangelists and critics. Marketers need pay attention.

United clearly doesn't understand that the most important principle of marketing -- your job is to create and nurture customer relationships -- has more impact than ever before. In United's case, 5 million and counting.

This can't be good for United's business. If they had just apologized and tried to make good for their employee's negligence they'd still have Dave for a customer. No video; no 5 million hits on a very persuasive critique of their service. I guess they've lost more than enough fares to pay for the guitar several times over.

The internet forces you to follow the most basic tenant of marketing -- it's about customer relationships not transactions -- or pay big for it. Those are your only choices. Ignoring customer complaints is no longer an option.

Companies finally start to focus on Customer Satisfaction

I guess it takes a downturn before the companies that don't like customers begin to see their error. The latest report from The American Customer Satisfaction Index is out with a few surprising findings:

Sprint has improved. The average subscriber only called customer service four times last year, down from eight. I guess this is good.

Comcast, another favorite, cut repeat calls 30% last year. Hmmmm.

US Air reduced mishandled baggage by 43% in 2008 compared to the prior year. Wonder what they'll do this year now that they charge for checking your bags? And passenger complaints fell 35% in the first quarter. That's worth celebrating. Wonder what they did.

And Southwest, with the best customer satisfaction scores in their industry cut passenger complaints 56% in the first quarter.

Wonder why United wasn't mentioned in the article.

A few knew there would always be a future

Interesting article in Ad Age yesterday titled, "Unilever, Walmart, P&G Buck the Short-Term Trend." While the premise of the column is that all three companies are focusing on the long-term, having scrapped the Wall Street tradition of quarterly investment advisories, what was more interesting were comments on their marketing activities.

If you compete against any of these three, particularly P&G, watch out. Their CTO predicted that 2010 would be their biggest year in a decade for innovation. They are out to capture your customers with new products, expensively developed when others were cutting costs.

Knowing there would be a tomorrow, a future, knowing that the best time to drive your business is when everyone else is pulling back, P&G maintained their relentless drive for growth. They saw the terrific opportunity when so many others saw the potential for disaster.

Where are you now? Where will you be when your competitor pulls "a P&G?"

Is this guy interesting or what.

David Meerman Scott delivered the keynote at BMA National Convention, addressing the group with thoughts and examples from his books, "The New Rules of Marketing and PR," and"World Wide Rave."

He has a great take on the impact of internet marketing and Web 2.0. Check out his site at www.davidmeermanscott.com or his blog at www.weblinknow.com.

He's one of the most thought-provoking speakers on this subject.

The Terminix Gaurantee

I just received my second mailing in three weeks from Terminix. For under $25 per month they guarantee to protect my home from termites. The card details all the terrible things termites might do to my home. But they guarantee they can protect me.

Terminix should ask for a similar guarantee from their list provider. Their mailing to me is not much of an endorsement of their marketing prowess. I live on the 14th floor of a high rise, made from concrete and steel. We're in a zip code where I'd be surprised if there were more than 10 structures made from wood. The buildings are either concrete high rises or steel high rises. Only a few wood buildings remain.

Not much for termites to munch on.

Apple: Doing it right pays off

Apple is absolutely one of the best marketing companies in the country. They understand their market; they design products their market will love; they promote them brilliantly, distribute them carefully and price them accordingly.

And while a good part of the rest of the world is wondering where the next sale is coming from -- Apple reported a 9% growth in revenue. Not too shabby. But, as they say, there's more.

AT&T reported a net increase of 1.2 million wireless customers driven by iPhone sales.

When you really understand the gut of your market, you can really drive growth -- even for your distribution.

Great marketing.

The end of tea leaves?

Michael Fassnacht wrote an interesting article in Ad Age today, "The Death of Consumer Segmentation," his basic premise being that the traditional segmentation methods of geo- and demographic segmentation don't work.

What a shock.

They didn't work in the past; why should they work now?

For way too long marketers have attempted to understand purchase behavior based on surveys. If most of the people who purchase our product wear blue shirts, then we should market to people wearing blue shirts.

Or the better marketers tried to make sense of the numbers, sitting quietly in their armchairs, way up in their ivory castles, far removed from the consumer asking, "Why do people in blue shirts purchase more of our product?"

And a few even smarter, asked consumers, perhaps in focus groups, "Hey, you in the blue shirt, why did you buy our product?"

But none of this resulted in more effective marketing. Lots of numbers, lots of ideas, but not much better.

A very few have an even better idea, let's really get to know our consumer, not as an abstract set of numbers and abstract ideas, but as people, real people with needs, wants, aspirations, successes and failures. Really know them.

Then we might find segments that differ. And some might be worth more than others. But by knowing them intimately we will understand why they purchase, we'll be better able to help them purchase and they will be better satisfied with their purchase.

How could you ever expect to understand this by reading tables, charts and tea leaves?

Not to hammer on the airlines too hard, but...

So, in my last post I suggested that a CRM tool for most airlines was a waste given that the tool is only as good as the craftsman. And airline personnel tend not to really care about customers. Why give these people a sophisticated tool like CRM when they have a tough time saying, "Hello?"

Today I came across Tim Parry's blog on Chief Marketer -- chiefmarketer.com -- entitled, "American Airlines Sucks, and I'm Not the Only One Who Says That." His problem started, "When the customer service luddites don't have the common courtesy to help my elderly mother and I at a kiosk ... as we're running late to catch a flight, that's a customer service issue. When the customer service guy laughs at my mother as she tries to figure the kiosk out, that's even worse. And then we're told we can't get onto our flight because we're now too late for a boarding pass, it's a big issue."

Do the senior managers at American really think they'll improve customer service by implementing a CRM system?

Not a chance. The tools aren't the problem; it's the people and their culture.


And this also points to another of my main themes -- this blog drew 17 comments this past week. One complaint inspires 17 others to air their grievences. Which can only convince the readers that American is the last airline they should consider.

The internet revolution continues to roll.

Do You Remember -- " It's the computer's fault?"

Scott McCartney's latest column, "The Middle Seat," for The Wall Street Journal brings back those heady days of blaming the computer for everything. The title of his post is, "Your Airline Wants to Get to Know You." He announces, "Airlines are getting closer to rolling out new technology that tells airport agents your ticket-buying and travel history, flags key customers to flight attendants and instructs them to offer personalized apologies, or sends you sales targeted to your vacation patterns."

Whoop. It seems the airlines have discovered -- now wait, don't get too excited -- CRM technology.

If the airlines wanted to apologize for poor service, they don't need a computer to do it. Say they lost my luggage. When I point this out to them they capture my name and address, the better to return my luggage should they ever find it. If they want to apologize, that's the time to do it. They can send me a letter and perhaps a free drink coupon or upgrade.

What the airlines haven't discovered is that the technology is totally dependent on the service person to use it. And this doesn't happen by fiat. The service people, those facing the consumer, must want to use the tool.

And right now, the only airlines where this is part of their culture are Southwest, Alaska -- used as an example in the post -- and Midwest.

Great tools are one thing; great tool users are another. And the legacy airlines don't have the necessary skills to use the CRM tool. They're not even close.

They're the last bastion of that great quote that went out of fashion everywhere else in the '70s. It's the computer's fault.

They don't need the tool. They need the skill to use it. Michelangelo's chisel in my hand would never result in "David." CRM at the legacy carriers won't result in great customer service.

Attitude

Yesterday at the BMA luncheon the speaker mentioned, "We are choosing not to participate in the recession."

And they aren't.

That's attitude.

So they continue to grow when so many are not. What do they know that the others don't?

The know that companies still need to purchase their products. They know that they have to build market share. They know that they must be better than their competitors. They know that their service must be the best. They know they can't cut back but must, in fact, be better than before.

These are the times when the market finds out what you're made of.

And they're out to prove they're made of the best.

So they continue to grow and their competitors participate in the recession.

Attitude.

Let’s Ban “Sales”

What? In times like these? We need all the sales we can get. Don’t we? Sure do. But what I’m talking about is the word, “sales.”

It’s a bad word. And I don’t mean “sales” as in marked down prices. I mean calling the top line of your income statement, “sales.” Yes, those sales. Sure you want that number as big as you can get it. But calling it sales is not only a misnomer; it often leads to problems that hinder its growth.

First, management problems.

You want more sales. So what do you do? Hire another sales person, raise goals, change bonuses, jigger with the territories, what else? How can you increase sales, particularly now? Just push harder.

Not only will those actions not increase sales, they’ll confuse and demoralize the sales force resulting in lower sales. If you increase sales from these efforts, you were mismanaging your sales force.

Second, sales force issues.

Your sales force often thinks they are responsible for sales. That is unless there aren’t any. Then marketing, pricing, engineering, or a competitor is the problem. And every sales person seems to have a solution to the problem but the sales force as a group can rarely reach consensus. And if you intimate that they might even be a small part of the problem, you’re in trouble.

Here’s the crux of the problem.

Your sales aren’t really aren’t sales. They’re purchases. And there’s a world of differences between your sales to customers and their purchases from you. This may sound simply like semantics but it’s all about who does what to whom.

Selling and sales imply you have control over the outcome. You don’t. Your customers have control, not you. They purchase. They make the decision. You can try to influence them, in fact, you should. But in the end it comes down to their decision.

Not yours.

If you continue under the illusion that you sell your product, thinking you have control, you make all the wrong decisions. You’re bound to. You don’t understand the problem. Here’s where you need to start.

Start thinking about how you can earn more purchasers. What else can you provide them? What can you change, enhance, improve? They know and they can tell you. But only when you – and the purchasers – recognize that you aren’t selling but helping them purchase.

They can help you build a better product or service.

They can help you figure out how to price it.

They can be very helpful with distribution.

And they can help you promote it with just a nudge from you.

So yearn for more purchasers making more purchases. This will take you much farther than “sales.” And your sales personnel will also realize that their job is helping the customer purchase.

(With credit to Bob Lambert, Samurai Business Group)

What is marketing Part 23,789,478,422,783,...

A respected website developer -- if you want his name, send me an email -- authored this comment in an article, "The Web is a conversation. Marketing, by contrast, is a monologue… "

He should know better. Another one confusing advertising with marketing.

Hey, folks, they're different. Advertising is part of marketing. But to equate the two is like thinking your tire is your car. It's a piece of it, an important piece at that. But it's not your car and advertising is not marketing.

Once again, marketing is about creating and nurturing customer relationships. Conversation is necessary to accomplish this. Absolutely critical.

Until business managers understand what marketing is, businesses will suffer crappy marketing.

Time to get with it. Particularly in this economy.

And now the airlines take a hit

Wall Street Journal article today -- in the online version you can catch it at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123362464275141955.html . The title is "When the Airlines Make the Rules" and discusses the arbitrary and customer-unfriendly rules of the airlines. The author, Scott McCartney, highlights some particularly nasty policies at both American and Continental. New policies, new rules. As if the old ones weren't bad enough.

How would you like your company to take hits like this. In the Wall Street Journal no less. But to add more heat to the fire, the online version allow readers to comment on the article. Relatively quickly there were 25 vitriolic reader comments. Not one in defense.

And the anecdotes in both the story and the comments, well, they make driving look like a pretty acceptable alternative.

How long can the legacy carriers continue to anger their customers? Don't their BODs ever hold managers' feet to the fire, asking, "Why aren't we more like Southwest?" (which was widely complimented in the comments.) Why would you ever want to hold the stock in these companies?

The "big" three automakers never quite maddened customers the way the airlines have. Look how far Detroit has fallen. The legacy carriers can't be too far behind.

And then they'll wonder why. Talk about failures of marketing.

Fine Chocolate Lovers Take a Hit from Hershey

Hershey announced yesterday they were closing the Scharffen Berger Berkeley plant. Those of us who had visited the plant knew it as more than a plant. It also had a terrific although too small restaurant. The people who worked at the plant obviously loved as family making special chocolate. The plant tours were delightful and full of their passion as lovers of fine chocolate. A tour and a lunch was a memorable experience that symbolized the meaning of the brand.

Now it's gone.

Hershey either didn't seem to know or else didn't seem to care about the symbolic importance of that plant to the brand. It embodied the brand; it served as a solid touchstone of what Scharffen Berger meant, much more solid, tangible, touchable, than any written brand description of promise and personality will ever convey.

Now it's gone.

Hershey purchased Scharffen Berger and Joseph Schmidt to gain entry into the rapidly growing premium segment of the chocolate market. While they are one of the largest chocolate companies in the world, entering this elite club of fine chocolate eluded them and the other large American chocolate companies. Europeans and a few specialty chocolatiers were driving the market as Americans discovered the many French, Belgium, Swiss and other European fine chocolate makers. Rather than learn how to manufacture and market to this fine niche, Hershey bought.

Back about thirty years ago a few enterprising foodies started Dove Chocolates in Chicago to offer an incredible chocolate ice cream bar. The ice cream was from rich whole cream, the chocolate rich and thick. But then they sold to Mars. And slowly it changed. Now Dove is still a good ice cream bar but it doesn't carry the cache it once had. It went from being the Ferrari of bars to just being a fast BMW. Companies that value tonnage rarely have the fine touch to stay on the leading edge of a specialty market.

And now Dove is chocolate pieces, and cookes and whatever. An expensive Hershey bar.

Hershey will never understand the challenge of being a specialty marketer. It is not in the genes of a company that large. They understand tonnage. Not specialty. Just another Mars.

The challenge of creating and nurturing the customer base for a specialty product is in a different world than marketing Hershey Kisses. Tonnage marketers fail to understand the critical importance of a touchstone such as the Berkeley plant. They think they can use their tonnage approach to market their specialty product. The customers are different; they value different things. And they expect that their loyalty will be honored with challenging new and exotic tastes.

Kisses with caramel doesn't work.

Scharffen Berger will probably continue to be a great -- at least very good -- product. But when the chocolate market continues to move to greater heights, to country of origins, to fine chocolatiers like Vosges and the many fine Europeans, Hershey will once again be left behind as they watch their specialty brand turn into just another very good chocolate.

It's not that they closed the plant. They closed the soul of the brand.

A Parable

Let's say you want acorns. Lots of acorns. What do you do -- you go out and purchase an oak tree.

Then to get lots of acorns you become skilled at making that oak tree "happy". Water, some fertilizer, plenty of sunshine, good soil. Everything an oak tree could want. And then it gives you plenty of acorns.

But you want more acorns. Lots more. And you have mastered making that first oak tree happy. You can't make it happier.

You need another oak tree. And you treat it like the first one. And it gives you many acorns.

The finest in Chocolate Milk

At the market today I noticed a new product. Always on the lookout for anything new and for anything chocolate. This was both so it really stood out.

And it stood out for another reason -- $5.49 for a 32 oz bottle.

Liquid gold. But the packaging was classy, the bottle made of glass. Great design. And it had a whole paragraph of how this was good for you because chocolate was so good for you. And then another paragraph about the milk which was from organically grass fed cows. And the milk had not been homogenized and contained something that actually helped your cholesterol.

But did I buy it -- almost. It had too much sugar.

Maybe tomorrow. At that price it's got to be grand. Doesn't it.

Funny how a high price, great packaging and a good story all add up to our impression of a premium product. While that packaging has to cut into their margin, they would never get that price with cheaper packaging. Stories come free -- with good storytellers. Although, organic milk has always carried a slightly higher price.

This is a great paradigm for the small CPG marketer. Because of the small size, distribution takes a lot of the margin. If you can create enough margin, you'll build up the funds to build a brand as a premium product. With the growth of the brand, the leverage of distribution diminishes while your margins just grow.

Sweet.

Great Moments in Marketing 103

Having passed through fatherhood some years ago, I find the E-Trade baby spitting up a reminder of days gone by.

But not good days.

I particularly remember having my then baby daughter spit up, her breakfast running down the front and back of my suit as I was leaving for work. Yeeech.

Does anyone else find this baby annoying?

Does annoying make good advertising?

And why does the Scottrade guy fly around in helicopter - other than to write it off?