Client/agency relationships

I read in the WSJ a couple days ago that agency/client relationships are becoming harder to sustain… not surprising as marketers are under increasing pressure to drive results. In the good old days, clients were happy with increases on brand awareness and preference metrics. But given that the average tenure of CMOs at top-branded companies is only 23 months, there’s an intense pressure to demonstrate results – fast – and often at the expense of the brand and its customers. 

Many times, a new CMO sends the current advertising agency into an unproductive frenzy when they, upon joining a new company, immediately question their predecessor’s strategy. If the agency isn’t immediately fired (which often happens), an incredible amount of time is spent on the re-education of the new CMO — oftentimes as much as three months. Also, because advertising campaigns are tangible, new CMOs have a tendency to quickly look to the creative for a change in direction. Clearly, these knee-jerk course corrections, designed to demonstrate that the CMO is making an impact, are not only expensive propositions, but, more importantly, force the consumer to accept yet another brand positioning.

Ad agencies have to shift their thinking from pure creative to advertising that moves products. If agencies don’t have senior staff that can speak C-level lingo and understand how to tie creative execution to business results, we’ll see more and more of agency/client relationships go sour. On the other hand, clients often fallaciously think that advertising is (or could be) a magic bullet. They no longer have the patience to stick with a campaign (or an agency) for the long haul. And lastly, most aren’t empowered to make the kind of customer-experience decisions that would actually move the revenue needle. So they lump all these expectations onto their agencies and expect them to work a short-term miracle. Clients and agencies both can take steps towards improving their partnerships to be more win-win.

Trying to be cool

I've noticed an interesting pattern in marketing articles lately: big brands trying to be cool.

1. HP's trying to be cool with a viral video and new ad campaign. From the New York Times:

(The FingerSkilz video) was revealed to be a “viral’’ advertisement from  Hewlett-Packard, the leading edge of a new global campaign that aims to imbue H.P.’s machines with some of the coolness more commonly associated with Apple.

H.P. executives say the new campaign, which includes television and print advertising in addition to a variety of edgier approaches, is aimed at shaking up perceptions of the company as slightly stodgy, an image that has been reinforced by conservative corporate brand campaigns with themes like “everything is possible.’’

Hmm, so HP wants to be cool like Apple? Ok. First, let's compare company names: HP: blah. Apple: cool. How about web site and advertising? HP: blah. Apple: cool.  Now here's a quick test. Which laptop below is cool?

Yep, you're very good. And what brand is the black computer below? Wrong, it's a Dell. Just kidding... it's an HP. But you probably couldn't tell at a glance, could you?

2. Walmart's trying to be cool by copying MySpace. Slashdot quotes AdAge:

"It's a quasi-social-networking site for teens designed to allow them to 'express their individuality,' yet it screens all content, tells parents their kids have joined and forbids users to e-mail one another. Oh, and it calls users 'hubsters' -- a twist on hipsters that proves just how painfully uncool it is to try to be cool."

I can't comment on this better than BL Ochman: "Watching big ad agencies (and corporations) trying to master new media is a lot like watching people who are having mid-life crises trying to look hip, cool and young by adopting the toys, tools, and language of youth. It's rather pathetic."

3. McDonald's tried to buy cool. From BBC News:

McDonald's, the world's biggest fast food chain, is desperate to keep in with the youth market and saw hip hop as the key to a piece of the action. Last year, they offered to pay artists to rap about Big Macs. The deal was cash per airplay for any song featuring a Big Macs. Not surprisingly, the idea never flew, as not a single band would take up the offer from McDonald's.

DJ Semtex, hip-hop DJ for the BBC's 1Xtra radio station, says artists don't want to be seen to be bought. "The way that they came up the scene was like 'yeah, we're going to get into this culture and we're going to exploit and make some money and you're going to buy our food'."

Ouch. Come on, McDonald's... this is so not the way to be cool.

So what makes a brand cool? Stephen Cheliotis, chairman of CoolBrands, said: 

"When we ask about what makes a cool brand, the kind of things we get back is authenticity, originality, uniqueness," he said. "These are things that people are trying to strive for. They don't want to be seen as having the same type of brands as everyone else. They're looking for brands that have that cool edge."

Authenticity, originality and uniqueness. If your brand doesn't inherently have these traits, please... don't attempt to be cool. You'll look like you're having a mid-life crisis, and you will be laughed at. You can play the "cool dad" who's still a grown-up and acts accordingly, but don't try to be 18 again. If it's important to connect with the younger audience, don't do it with your existing brand... this is the time for a new one that's created from the ground up to appeal to a different mindset.

Sucking up

Guy Kawasaki thinks that sucking up to bloggers is a great idea. Om Malik and Michael Arrington disagree.

I say, "bring it on." But only if you follow Guy's rule #1: have a great product to sell.

I was recently sent a pair of shoes from Royal Elastics (actually, I was invited to pick a pair from their web site -- even better). The first pair was a bit too tight, so I received the next size up. Perfect. Here are my new shoes:

No ties, great for airport travel. And they're quite stylish for tennis shoes.  I'll be wearing them a lot. And the best thing is, I wasn't asked to blog about the shoes; they were a no-expectation gift. 

So this is the next evolution of BzzAgent, but infinitely more risky for companies. Blogging is all about authenticity. If a blogger doesn't like what you send them, watch out. The nice ones will simply say nothing on their web site. Others will be publicly honest. But if you've got a good product, you'll get oodles of free publicity.

Part of me doesn't like getting put on the spot. But another part of me loves the fact that companies are willing to put their reputations at stake by sending products to people who speak their mind to thousands -- if not millions -- of people.

I will say, though, I hate getting press releases. I received two from the same company that were just plain bad, and I really wanted to make a public example out of them. Lucky for them, my computer crashed and I lost the emails.  If you're going to send me a press release, send it directly to my email address with a brief , intelligent comment on why I should care about this topic. It should demonstrate that the PR person has read my blog and has a pretty good idea whether or not I'd find it interesting. Sadly, few actually do this, and they all end up in my spam folder.

Bloggers, what do you like to receive? What do you hate to receive?

In defense of buzzwords

Adrian Savage track-backed to my last post on Processes to People. He remarks in his commentary:

Great stuff. But one thing is still missing. We need a return to plain, honest, human language; to be rid forever of management-speak and buzzcrud.

Take these terms Jennifer uses in her article: customer focus and customer-centricity. See? It's there even in an article asking for real customer connections, not a personalized direct mail piece. Cockroaches have nothing on management-speak when it comes to fouling anything they touch.

it's a mistake to call the people who use your product or your service "customers." Still worse to describe a business as "customer-centered," and think you're saying anything useful about it.

Customer, as a word, is meaningless to a business. It merely designates people as those who buy from you, never mind what or why.

Ok... I'm all for plain, honest language... but can someone give  me a better option than  'customer'?  Adrian says that we should call people who buy cooking products "chefs"... but I'm no chef. Yes, buyers of books are usually 'readers' but often they're just buying gifts for someone else. Yes, people who buy fishing equipment are usually fishermen (or fisherwomen).

But if you're writing about all people who buy stuff in general, what are you going to call them? Buyers? That's cold. And am I supposed to say: "companies should focus their attention on the desires of the people who buy products and services from them."? Or just say "customer-centric?"

Buzzwords exist for a reason. They are phrases that communicate meaning. Buzzwords are short-hand for an idea.

My favorite of Adrian's comments is when he busts me for saying "societal depersonalization."

No warm-blooded, caring, thinking human being uses words like these. They're only fit for cold, alien creatures like PR hacks, shifty lawyers and management consultants.

Wow. Thanks, Adrian. You're right, I'm a cold-hearted, uncaring, thoughtless woman. Oh, and let's not forget shifty, cold and alien. Thanks so much for bringing that to my attention. Since I clearly don't know what I'm talking about, perhaps Adrian can enlighten us all with a good substitute for the word 'customer.' I can't wait for this new unused word to filter its way into business schools, business books, business magazines, executive team meetings and all business blogs everywhere.

I suppose I"m being a bit catty.  But just as I clearly hit one of Adrian's hot buttons, he hit one of mine: don't criticize unless you've got something better to offer. And a laundry list of "chefs, readers, fishermen" etc. is not an option.

Now, in Adrian's defense, I believe he's onto something. But the problem is not the buzzwords themselves... it is the intent behind the words. If a business person is using "customer" as a substitute for "the great unwashed masses who pay our salaries"... then yes, Adrian has a point. But words are simply words. If we substitute "customer" for "Our Great Patrons" but the intent behind the phrase is still the same, then we haven't solved anything. The issue is not the words we use; it's the top-down, centralized management mentality that presumes that the business knows everything and the 'customer' knows nothing. And this is why many businesses are having a tough time adapting to the social technology & grassroots revolution.

So what's the verdict, dear reader? I think perhaps some lively discussion can be had on this topic.

Giveaways

I was recently interviewed for publication on the subject of giveaways... it was an interesting discussion so I thought I'd reproduce my responses here...

There are 3 basic giveaway strategies that I can see: short-term promotion, long-term product and industry shake-up.

Short-term promotion giveaways are what Ben and Jackie call "bite-size chunks." That's where you give away samples of a "for-sale" product in order to generate buzz, trial and referral. In a nutshell, it's sampling. So Tivo gives free recorders... Krispy Kreme gives out donuts... Typepad gives free 30-day trials... and consultants who blog (like me) give away free intellectual property. Obviously this strategy is only effective when the product or service is worth talking about, and if the promotion is executed well. Poor execution is a sure-fire way to hurt your brand.

The long-term product strategy is to make one product in your portfolio entirely free and make up your revenue elsewhere. This strategy is often quite useful in subscription or commodity industries like phone service (Skype). Give away what people take for granted and can get anywhere (and inexpensive for you to provide); find out what they value and charge for it. The strategy works because, hey, who doesn't want free stuff? And second, a customer who has more than one service from a company is much less likely to switch to a competitor. In the case of search engines like Google (giving away free storage) and Yahoo! (giving away free email and web sites), their primary revenue model is based on advertising. They get more from advertisers if they can offer more eyeballs; free stuff attracts eyeballs. Software companies use this strategy often; Adobe gives away the PDF Reader but charges for other features. Sun gives away Java. The list goes on.

The last form of giveaways is the industry shake-up. Look for an acceptable, ingrained industry revenue source that you can eliminate. A good example is NetFlix, which changed the movie-rental business by eliminating late fees. The 'giveaway' in this case is more of a benefit than a product; NetFlix is giving away time.

What can your business give away that will generate trial, buzz and purchases? What industry-accepted charges can you eliminate and turn into a competitive difference?

Ice cream in March?

Yahoo!'s 10th birthday is today. To celebrate, they're giving away... a scoop of ice cream, courtesy of Baskin Robbins (link will only work today). I don't know about the rest of the country, but right now in Dallas it's 45 degrees.

Was this a promotion cooked up by Baskin Robbins to boost sales during a slow month? Does anyone else think this is weird?

What the...?

Thanks to Rich @ Hello World for the link to Que Sera Sera's post, Selling It. Cracked me up.  Having done my time in the agency world, I can so imagine this:

“So I have this idea, and stay with me here, because it might seem a little out there at first, but so did the eBike campaign at first, right? Anyway, it’s like this pterodactyl, with tiny old-fashioned cash register keys representing each of the 50 states spread all across his glorious wingspan. And he helps you find lower interest rates! Or refinance your mortgage; whatever; we can deal with that in the copy...

Maybe there’s some blood or shredded muscles in his beak? Were pterodactyls meat-eaters? When the intern gets back from lunch, let’s get her to google that. No? Too gory? God, you fucking account managers are always afraid of the big ideas, Dave!..."

Go read the whole thing; pretty funny.

 

Itemized Economy

Good article in this month's Fast Company: The Urge to Unbundle.

Welcome to the Itemized Economy, where everything has its price. In more and more industries, customers are demanding (and getting) the opportunity to buy exactly what they want and nothing more. For this, thank the Internet, which has made us all better shoppers. And thank the Wal-Mart phenomenon: These days, we're all cheapskates in search of a spend-less strategy.

No suprise that I'm a big fan of this approach; I wrote a couple posts about it here and here back in October. But like everything else, the decision to unbundle depends on your audience. As the article points out,

Inexperienced customers may appreciate the convenience of a package, says University of Mississippi economics professor William Shughart. But knowledgeable purchasers, he says, "will reject bundles that are not the right mix from their point of view. And they will search for other sellers who allow them the option of picking and choosing."

It's likely that you've got a mix of experienced and inexperienced customers in your base. Unfortunately, most companies push bundles (for increased 'stickiness') for lower prices than their a la carte items. This approach can alienate your more knowledgeable customers who feel price-punished for wanting to get the right mix of services for their needs. If they can get the individual parts elsewhere for less, they will.

Linux "switch" ad

Thanks to Good Morning Silicon Valley for this link to a groovy Linux ad: "Linux gives us the power we need to crush those who oppose us ...I'm Steve, and I'm a super-villain." Funny stuff.

 

Marc and Tom

I get the occasional generic press release from well-meaning PR folks thinking that I'm a media outlet. And normally I just hit the "this is spam" button. But the one I received today was exceptionally creative. Check out the web site and view the PSA. Pretty funny. I can't imagine these guys being out of work for long.

Out of Work Advertising Creatives Launch Their Own

Public Service Announcement Pleading For Work

New York, NY, December 17, 2004

—Copywriter

Marc Guttesman and creative/art director Tom Millar teamed up with director Joe Leih to launch www.marcandtom.com, a website featuring a tongue in cheek public service announcement that showcases their skills as well as their need for employment.

The clever PSA features actors portraying Guttesman and Millar trying to succeed in a series of non-advertising jobs but failing miserably because their advertising skills are too ingrained. In one scene, Millar, as an elementary school teacher, criticizes a 5-year-old student’s drawing and marks it up with a red sharpie. In another, Guttesman, as a court stenographer, rewrites a prostitute’s testimony to give it more punch. The spot ends with a voice over asking the viewer to please hire them because they can’t do anything else...

The scoop on e-mail marketing

Reveries recently surveyed over 500 marketers to learn the good, the bad and the ugly about permission-based email campaigns... for the article, click here. For survey results, click here. The article is pretty informative, discussing 11 limitations of email marketing: blocking, blacklisting, creative limitations, image/link/HTML stripping, email reader compatibility, rich media integration, abuse management, bounced mail, best-guess reporting, delivery delays, and anti-spam compliance.

I'm looking forward to the day when RSS has gotten enough traction to be used as a viable alternative to permission-based email.

Stayin' Alive...

Good post by Nick Wreden on how marketing departments must evolve to stay relevant within organizations.

The Conference Board found that the top four chief executive challenges for 2004 were top-line growth (52%), corporate agility (42%), customer loyalty and retention (41%), and innovation (31%). By contrast, Booz Allen Hamilton found that marketing executives were focused on branding guidelines (83%), counseling divisions (52%), best-practice sharing (52%), and developing capabilities (47%). No wonder the ANA concluded: "Marketing is disconnected from the CEO agenda."...

The ANA study concludes that "a surprisingly high percentage of correspondents believe [marketing's] most important contributions lie in zones not typically associated with marketing, such as driving innovation and encouraging cross-functional collaboration."...

If marketing wants to reverse its current dive into irrelevance, it needs to once again be seen as the "voice of the customer." Ultimately, that will require less advertising and PR, and more customer communication and collaboration.

Following up my last post on Brand = Connections, I  view marketing's function as "connection enablers" within the brand ecosystem, which is very much in line with what Nick writes. Unfortunately, they've been more focused on the components of their small system territory: branding guidelines, etc. More on that later... 

contagious magazine

Contagious Magazine is a new publication for marketers that focuses on "new, non-invasive marketing techniques... including product and retail design, online innovation, branded content, strategic alliances and experiential marketing."

Check out Reveries for a full article on the subject.

New definition of marketing

So the American Marketing Association finally updated their definition of marketing to put a stronger emphasis on customer relationships. You can read more about the change on the Peppers and Rogers web site:

The previous AMA definition of marketing, active since 1985, was: "Marketing is the process of planning and executing conception, pricing, promotion and distribution of goods, ideas and services to create exchanges that satisfy individual and organizational goals."

The new definition of marketing, unveiled at the AMA's Summer Educator's Conference in August is: "Marketing is an organizational function and a set of processes for creating, communicating and delivering value to customers and for managing customer relationships in ways that benefit the organization and its stakeholders."

The article quotes several experts who say that that the definition is a reflection of what's already being done; I disagree. Yes, companies are more customer-centric. Yes, marketing departments are already playing critical roles in building customer relationships. But I think the key phrase here is, "marketing is an organizational function." I don't know many companies that have truly integrated marketing as a mindset throughout the entire organization. This definition sets the marketing executive in a more pivotal role in a company; he/she is no longer simply responsible for a department, but for "delivering value and customer relationships." It's up to marketing to work with other departments to ensure that -- from promise through delivery -- the customer experience is consistent and positive. So while the AMA is a bit late to the party, it offers up a definition that holds a lot of room to grow.

What do you think about the new definition? Does it go too far, or not far enough? What does the future hold for marketing?   

 

How B2B buyers search

I really enjoy the articles and case studies on MarketingSherpa.com. I give them my vote for the most useful marketing resource on the web. Their latest report is called How B2B Buyers Use Search; you'll get a survey recap plus a free PDF download of a study done in conjunction with Enquiro Search Solutions. Pretty interesting stuff.

Although Google only has a 36% share of the total online search usership according to comScore data from earlier this year, 82.9% of surveyed business users said Google was their search engine of choice.

54.6% of respondents said they used search 30-90 days prior to authorizing or making a particular business expenditure. This means search is your first line of defense near the start-mid-level of the sales cycle.

 Once again search users have confirmed that 69.6% of the links they click on are ORGANIC and not the paid ads. (This percent rises to 76.7% if they are Google users.)

This last stat is great reason for starting a blog, since Google's page rankings are based on inbound links. (And if you're new to the blogosphere, blogs are built on links; they're network hubs.) I'm always astonished at my page rankings for the strangest Google searches; today I noticed that I'm the 5th listing under "Google company" out of 8.6 million results. Here's a great way to see the total number of links to your web site or blog: MarketLeap's Link Popularity Check.

It's not the advertising

To preface this post, I must say that I have a lot of respect for Nick Wreden. His book Fusion Branding is a terrific overview of building strong brands that are NOT dependent on traditional marketing. We share the belief that brands are built by organizations, operational excellence and customer experience, not by advertising. It's the first branding book I've read that goes into detail on supply chains, technology and pricing. I absolutely recommend it.

All that to say, I'm surprised by Nick's blog comments on Apple Computer's 1984 TV spot as "the worst ad ever made." He says...

First, it set Apple on the downhill path that made it an also-ran in the computer market for so many years. At the time the ad ran, the computer market was a dog-eat-dog battle between Microsoft, Apple and CP/M. Corporate America saw the ad, thought hey, Apple doesn't like us, and began to standardize on Microsoft....

Second, it was a one-time ad.... Single ads are a waste of money; only advertising campaigns can be effective.

Finally, it spawned this myth that the goal of advertising was to "break through the clutter" by pushing the envelope... A better goal for advertising -- generate measureable profitability.

Wait a minute... these comments are written by the same man who says that brands are built by operations, not by advertising? There's no way that this ad "set Apple on a downhill trend." It's not about the advertising.

For the real story on Apple's downfall, read Fast Company's cover story from January on Steve Jobs and innovation. There are a laundry list of executive decisions that drove Apple into niche-player status, including a closed operating environment and an obsession with controlling the entire process of innovation. "Fewer developers mean fewer new products to run on Apple machines. That means fewer options for end users, which influences purchasing decisions, and therefore sales and profits." Corporate America didn't standardize on Wintel because of an ad.

The purpose of the 1984 spot was to create awareness. It accomplished that goal admirably, and spawned legions of Mac lovers. It probably generated more ROI than any other ad run. It's not the advertisement's fault that the company made decisions that stunted its growth. Let's not put so much weight on advertising to make or break a company. No advertising, or even bad advertising, is not going to damage a company that's doing all the right things in terms of operations and customer experience. Based on the Fusion Branding book, I think Nick would agree...

B2B advertainment

Check out Covad's VoIP: The Movie. The plot's a bit forced, but it's certainly an engaging and entertaining way to get the word out. This is the first time I've seen advertainment for a B2B offering, and I applaud Covad for thinking outside the traditional B2B box.

Experience Sells

From yesterday's Reveries, a great article on how interaction and experience via gaming sells products:

The game, called "Jeep 4x4: Trail of Life," was free, and it was designed to give users a sense of the difference between a Rubicon Jeep and a regular Jeep by replicating "the vehicle's axle ratios and horsepower torque."

...All told, some "250,000 consumers ... downloaded it and handed over their names and e-mail addresses." The carmaker estimates "that about 500 of the first 1,500 people who purchased the Jeep Rubicon had piloted a virtual Jeep prior to walking into the dealership." Now, they don't know for sure that the games directly triggered the sales, but it sure looked that way. "It takes about 40 hours of playing to complete some popular adventure games," and since "ads are built into the games, consumers can't dodge them." The games also have the ability to demonstrate the product.

A game involving Sony Ericsson, for example, not only requires players to use a one of its cellphones, but also to capture an image using its T637 camera phone. The Army, meanwhile is using a virtual boot camp to attract new recruits.

Some "42 million U.S. households own a videogame console, according to DFC Intelligence. And, in perhaps the surest sign of advergaming's looming legitimacy, videogame publisher Activision, www.activision.com, is collaborating with Nielsen Entertainment "to build a system that will provide information about videogames akin to TV ratings."

All things to a few people

Thanks to Seth Godin for the link to this great story: "Media attention brings a bevy of baldies to Lodi restaurant." It's a great example of how tight focus on a small audience can lead to big success (as I previously discussed here.)

Dozens of bald men and one bald woman came to Gary's Uptown Restaurant and Bar on Wednesday evening on the strength of worldwide media attention that has put Lodi on every bald person's radar... Most people came in because they heard on TV, radio and in newspapers about the food discount offered to balding and bald men on Wednesdays.

"We were totally, totally blown away and absolutely shocked that it went international," said Gary Arnold, the restaurant owner who started the deal to boost sluggish sales on Wednesday nights.

Baldies from Sacramento, Tracy and Modesto have made the pilgrimage to Gary's, and Arnold expects Bay Area folk to show up soon, since he just did an interview broadcast there.

Arnold said a razor company has called him a couple times to talk about sponsoring a new head-shaving razor.

He recently did a call-in show for a radio station in Australia, when it was 3:40 p.m. here and the next day there. "People were calling in and asking, 'What if I have a comb-over?' They had fun, cute questions, and talking to people on the other side of the world was great," he said. A Google search for Gary's Uptown Restaurant and Bar turned up close to 300 results from the Web, ranging from TV news stations to blogs and promotions and marketing sites.

Stuff worth talking about

Check out the interview with Seth Godin at Global PR Week 1.0 where he comments on the integration of blogging, branding and PR. Here's a snip that resonated with me:

PR MACHINE: McDonald’s vp of marketing, Larry Light, introduced a new marketing strategy which entails using many stories rather than employing one message to reach everyone. He called this new strategy “Brand Journalism.” How do you think this will affect McDonald’s public relations outreach and media management...will the company tell different stories to different media outlets if it wants?

SETH GODIN: I think the vision is just fine, IF McDonald's also changes the product. Spin isn't going to be enough. The challenge is going to be to make stuff worth talking about, and then giving the PR people the freedom to follow through.

PR MACHINE: ...If you say that the brand journalism conversation is going to happen with or "without you” don’t you think PR folks should attempt to manage it [the conversation] by continually staying involved with it (by interacting with it and perhaps attempting to proactively direct it)?

SETH GODIN: I think (but what do I know) that PR pros can add a huge amount of value by focusing on P, not R. By working with the company as the voice of the public, helping them understand how to make stuff worth talking about. Moving upstream ever closer to the core of the factory.

The last statement referred to PR pros, but it's applicable to marketers, sales, brand strategists, agencies... anyone working to promote a brand. Too often, companies without a remarkable core turn to PR, marketing and sales to drive the brand; but this is a band-aid approach that enables the execs to avoid the real issues. It's like the fad diets that promise weight loss without exercising. Sure, you might lose weight initially, but it's neither healthy nor sustainable. There are no quick fixes in life... not in health, and not in business.

There's often a hestitation on the part of sales and marketing to push back and say, "Sorry, but you guys need to create something remarkable before we can promote it." And for good reason. Because according to the standards of the day, this kind of push-back implies a lack of ability. Executives have been trained to think, "If you were really good, you could sell anything to anyone." Good promoters can sell ice to an eskimo... Right? So out of pride and ego, sales and marketing and PR take up the challenge... resulting in spin jobs and overpromises.

I admire the professional marketer, salesperson or account supervisor who is willing to stand up and say, "Sorry, but I can't promote this right now... but let's learn from customers how we can best improve this product and make it worth talking about."

Evangelism 101

Jackie Huba and Ben McConnell at Church of the Customer have created a great little e-book called Testify! How Remarkable Organizations are Creating Customer Evangelists. It's a compilation of 18 case studies from organizations that have mastered the art of word-of-mouth marketing. Check it out!

Corporate blogging case study

For those of you who don't receive the MarketingSherpa e-newsletter (and if you're at all interested in marketing, you should!), check out their newest article/case study:

Software Company President Blog Proves a Publicity & Search Optimization Bonanza

Article is only free until June 26.

Escaping the Price Wars

I've worked with many clients who trapped themselves into price wars, eventually driving their product/service down into the death realm of perceived commodity. IMO, the keys to maintaining healthy margins are to 1) have a product or service that delivers real value to customers, 2) knowing how to clearly communicate that value, and 3) believing in the value yourself to resist pressure to drop prices.

Along these lines, I found the following Q&A on the Strategic Pricing Group's web site that I thought made a terrific point:

Question: How can we deal with a company that allows users of our product to select us based on the value we bring to them, but then expects us to negotiate a price with a purchasing department that treats us like we are supplying a commodity?

Answer:
The answer is, in principle, quite simple and similar to the question above about dealing with "reverse auctions": un-bundle the elements of value. When you tell the purchasing agent that you are willing to meet or come closer to the competitive price but only by taking away the things that differentiate your offering, the purchasing agent is forced to reintroduce the users to evaluate the tradeoffs. If you can't unbundle, then you have to be prepared to walk away. Do not do so without, however, reinforcing your value to and desire to work with the users. It is their job to fight the battle with purchasing. It is your job to empower them with a compelling value story for buying your product.

Cool Honda commercial

Via Graham Glass:

Check out this incredible Honda commercial. Apparently, everything is for real and there are no computer graphics. It took 606 takes to get right, three months to complete, and cost $6 million.

That had to be an excruciating photo shoot. You know the agency people were getting a bit worried by take #600 and the client's saying, "Are you sure I didn't just waste $6 million on a cool but non-executable idea?"

Transparency's Silver Lining

Via Ari Paparo and Frosty Mug:

Should corporate blogs allow trackbacks? You might say no when you read the laundry list of negative trackbacks on Movable Type's post about licensing terms for their Developer Edition. This is transparency at its finest: how many companies are willing to be open enough to allow feedback from customers that the entire world can see?

In my opinion, transparency is a great thing, but it takes a lot of courage. Companies need to remember that negative word of mouth is going to happen anyway. It reminds me of individuals who don't take constructive criticism well, so people end up talking about them behind their backs. Mature people -- and companies -- are open to hearing the good, the bad and the ugly so they have the opportunity to learn and grow.

Transparency tools like trackbacks & comments allow companies to engage in a dialog. I'd expect to see some follow-up posts from Movable Type along the lines of, "Hey, we heard you; thanks for the feedback. And here's what we're going to do about it." Even if they don't plan to change their pricing, they at least have the opportunity to address customer concerns. If I had the choice, I'd rather work with an open company like Movable Type than a company who doesn't want to hear what I have to say.

Advertising overkill

From Fool.com:

Procter & Gamble (NYSE: PG) has come up with an innovative process to place images and text on the surface of Pringles potato chips -- or should that be crisps (I always forget). So now a person can spy one message or other before she downs the next victim from the canister.

According to the release, first up will be a promotion involving one of Hasbro's (NYSE: HAS) popular board games, "Trivial Pursuit Junior." Questions from that brand will be featured on the crisps, along with the answers, of course. (Actually, P&G should consider placing the questions in one canister of crisps and the answers in another canister to double sales -- as well as the anger level of consumers, I suppose). The launch of this initiative is scheduled for summertime.

It won't stop there, obviously. This will only be the tip of the iceberg. All kinds of advertisements could be placed on the product.

This drives me crazy. I can't go anywhere or do anything without having an advertisement stuffed in my face. Literally.

All things to all people

Trying to be all things to all people is one of the biggest stumbling blocks to attracting and keeping customers. Choosing a target market is tough. It means eliminating entire groups of people from your messages. But without focus, you risk a bland, diluted message that means nothing to anyone.

When I don't have market stats to work with, I rely on the good ol' 80/20 rule. 80% of your potential target market probably won't buy from you -- unless you've got an unlimited budget to actually be all things to all people. Since that's not usually the case, let's figure out the 20% who are most likely to buy. This might be a demographic like freelance workers. Or it might be a state of mind, like Apple computer fanatics. This should be a group that actually needs or wants what you have to offer... and since your competitors are probably trying to be all things to all people as well, this small group doesn't feel particularly cared for.

One of the top players in the building automation software sector picked a small vertical market -- healthcare -- and created a completely customized offering for this vertical. Now any hospital in any country in the world either has this company's software or has this company on its bid list. They own this market because they had the guts to pick a small group, understand its needs, and develop a terrific answer to their problems.

Let's say your business could appeal to anyone purchasing products online. Great. Just don't throw a bunch of marketing spaghetti on the wall to see what sticks. Pick a small but promising group that's manageable. Get to know them. Develop programs for them. The more personal you get, the more they'll love you. Even if you're starting out with a narrow audience -- say small business owners -- there's room to get even more targeted. Start with a small test program with a subset of your prospective customer base and see what works. Chances are, it will turn into a self-funded program that will allow to move on to the next sub-group. And the next. And the next. It's like eating an elephant one bite at a time.

Smart Buzz-Building

I just received the following email from SkyHigh Airlines, a funny viral-marketing airline parody created by Alaska Airlines. I can only assume that they got my email from my blog post featuring their site. I'm also assuming that they got some decent traffic from various blog posts like mine, and they're hoping to keep the buzz going. And here I am, doing exactly what they want: featuring this email in my blog. I have to give them credit: they're figuring out how to leverage the blogosphere to create and maintain buzz.

From The Desk Of Howard Barium Chairman and CEO, SkyHigh Airlines

May 1, 2004

Hello valued passenger or creditor!

I come to you with great news: SkyHigh is doing something!

Like many of you, I was surprised by recent reports of the alarming disparity in SkyHigh airlines seat pricing, one seat sometimes costing a thousand dollars more than the seat next to it.

Once I recovered from a wave of profit-induced dizziness, I was shocked. I immediately pledged to look into it after my golf game.

What I found was a computer system so slow and antiquated I had to give up on even getting my e-mail. I worked on it for hours until a clever young man pointed out I was typing things into the office microwave.

After that was cleared up, I realized that our fares are not random enough. Our consumers are in real danger of getting the same fare!

It was clear. SkyHigh needed to develop a proprietary random fare generator. One that is beyond reproach for randomness and corrupting human bias. One that gives us the ability to look consumers in the eye and say, “We have no idea how this happened.”

The solution? Trent, the pricing chicken.

Unlike Alaska Airlines and their Common Sense Fare initiative, Trent has very little initiative and does it pretty much for the feed. And common sense? Ever try talking to a chicken? On the other hand, I bet no one at Alaska can work a 10-key with their face.

While we are on the subject, Alaska is flaunting simplicity? Have you looked under the hood of your car, lately? Complexity is the future. It’s sad really. It’s like the confused Neanderthal throwing rocks at the moon to make the sun come back. Poor things. I wish them best of luck.

No, you don’t have to thank us. Our fares are random because random is only fair.

See this wonder of white meat we call Trent at www.skyhighlines.com.

Okay.

Good stuff.

Howard

More on bite-sized chunks

Rob at BusinessPundit comments:

If anyone who reads this blog works for Fortune or Business2.0, I have a complaint. Both of those magazines are great reads, but you are hurting your business by limiting online access so dramatically. If you would make a handful of articles available each month for free, many business bloggers would link to them, you would get more traffic and a result more subscribers. Fortune used to have a lot of free stuff, but it seems now that everything is subscriber only after the first page. I am a subscriber, but I can't share some of your best articles with the rest of the blogosphere. Fast Company has the right idea. Make just a taste of the magazine available initially, then when the new issue comes out make most of the previous issue accessible by anyone. Media people in general seem afraid to give something away, which prevents you from gaining the following that you really deserve.

I imagine that Jackie or Ben at Church of the Customer would say that these mags aren't following the evangelism tenet of Bite-Size Chunks: find something to give away in order to spread the word and get greater return. One of their blog posts on this topic dealt with bite-sized chunks at retail. John at BrandAutopsy commented:

Years ago as a marketing manager for Starbucks, we learned for every five beverage samples we would sample to customers, it would stimulate a purchase. That’s a 20% conversion rate.

I wonder what the conversion rate would be for magazines? If one subscriber resulted from every 5 blog links to a magazine article, that would be a pretty good return. I guess they'll never know...

Advertising Overload

Thanks to The Bold Approach for the Yankelovich research on advertising and marketing. Nothing surprising, but it's nice to have stats:

• 60% of consumers have a much more negative opinion of marketing and advertising now than a few years ago
• 61% feel the amount of marketing and advertising is out of control
• 65% feel constantly bombarded with too much marketing and advertising
• 53% of consumers polled said that spam had turned them off to all forms of marketing and advertising
• 36% of consumers polled said that the shopping experience is less enjoyable because of pressure to buy
• 53% said that for the most part, marketing and advertising does not help them shop better.
• 59% feel that most marketing and advertising has very little relevance to them
• 64% are concerned about practices and motives of marketers and advertisers
• 61% feel that marketers and advertisers don't treat consumers with respect
• 65% think there should be more limits and regulations on marketing and advertising
• 69% are interested in products and services that would help them skip or block marketing
• 33% would be willing to have a slightly lower standard of living to live in a society without marketing and advertising

Just more reinforcement that the mass-market model doesn't work anymore. Advertisers continue to rely on outdated tactics, but the market has changed. Consumers don't want to be 'talked at' anymore; they want to be part of the process. I like Rob's thought on open-source business and I think it's a good description for the future of marketing, where "open-source marketing" is a collaborative process between all stakeholders (customers, employees, marketing, operations, execs, shareholders, etc.), and not a static end-product like a web site or TV spot. It's a fluid and dynamic process in which control is relinquished and transparency reigns. To do this, companies must be supremely confident in the value they're offering... although I read a statistic somewhere that indicated that a majority of CEOs don't believe they're offering good value to their customers. Sad but probably true. It seems that the pendulum must start swinging back towards quality, relationships and trust from its current position at the peak of quantity, control and manipulation.

For more on the love/hate relationship between consumers and advertising, read this New York Times story that recaps the findings.

Viral Chickens

Thanks to David at BrandingBlog for the heads-up on Burger King's Subservient Chicken. This is really funny; go check it out. No wonder it got a million hits in the first 24 hours with no promotion. David asks:

Does this chicken advance the essence of Burger King's brand? Do you feel better or worse about BK because of this? My gut reaction is that this is a good thing for BK. Somehow I feel that I owe them something for the entertainment provided by the chicken. Is the chicken a "Free Prize Inside?"

My answer is yes to both questions. It's an entertaining and engaging way to reinforce their long-standing tag line, Have It Your Way. And it's a heck of a lot less expensive than a traditional TV campaign. We'll be seeing a lot more 'sponsored viral entertainment' (like the SkyHigh Airlines site we discussed a couple days ago) and a decrease in pushy propoganda.

You can read more at BusinessWeek Online: Faux Webcam Becomes Real Branding Success.

Viral Campaigns

There's been some discussion on my last post about SkyHigh Airlines concerning its marketing effectiveness. Coincidentally, I got this email from MarketingProfs in my inbox yesterday titled "Self-Propelling Viral Campaigns" that sheds some light on the subject.

Passed via peer to peer, "word of mouse" messages can help endorse a brand among like-minded consumers, thus spreading its influence. Because they're passed between individuals at a low distribution level (Bob sends a message to a handful of his mates, who in turn pass it to a handful of their mates), they can bypass spam filters with relative ease...

The success of a self-propelling, viral marketing campaign depends on creative execution and the quality of the initial seeding. To optimize message spread, content must be entertaining and engaging. The online audience will pass on advertainment, not ads. Content that's funny, topical, or sexy has best viral currency as it reflects well on the message sender, not the message originator.

SkyHigh Airline's site is certainly entertaining and engaging. We're blogging about it, so it's definitely viral. The only problem I see is that I had no idea it was sponsored by Alaska Airlines (thanks, Tom, for the tip). So I suppose a final checkpoint for a successful viral campaign is, "people actually know who sponsored it." It also helps if people understand that it's a joke.

The Curse of Plentitude

Today's Washington Post offers an interesting article on new product introductions:

Can you name a single new product that was launched last year? I'm talking about packaged food and consumer goods that you'd find in a supermarket, a drugstore or a big discounter such as Target. How about Glad Press 'n Seal, which is kind of like plastic wrap minus its most annoying attributes? Or how about Hershey's Swoops chocolate slices? The Intuition razor? Clorox's Bleach Pen?

If even one of those rings a bell, you're doing pretty well. There are only 33,677 others you don't know about.

What I've been wondering is why so many new products are being introduced these days in the first place. Manufacturers brought out 53 percent more last year than they did 10 years ago, when just 21,986 items were unveiled...

Boston communications firm Schneider & Associates has found a growing number of consumers are unable to recall anything new to the market. "Fifty percent of the consumers we polled on the Internet could not name a single new product that was launched last year," said President Joan Schneider, who is writing a book called "New Product Launch: 10 Proven Strategies." "Advertisers spent $249 billion in 2003 launching new products. That's pretty disappointing."

It's especially sad since consumer awareness dropped from the previous year, even though advertisers spent more. In 2002, Schneider's survey found, just 33 percent of consumers couldn't name a single product after advertisers had spent $233 billion promoting them...

Which gets back to what motivates manufacturers to spin out so many new ideas and line extensions. There is the defensive aspect of product rollouts, of course, but there's also the opportunistic side of the business, which at the moment is contributing to the plethora of low-carb food items landing on supermarket shelves.

It's also about growth, because new flavors and sizes and variations on existing brands are relatively quick ways to gain market share... Publicly traded manufacturers are also eager to show shareholders how much they're innovating, pushing them to identify niche markets that can be targeted. Now there's practically a product for every niche, but every time a new niche is identified, everyone else jumps on it too.

I don't know if it's possible to ever go back to 21,000 annual product introductions, or if that would even make a difference. But the frenzy we're in now isn't working: In an all-out effort to make products more exciting, manufacturers and marketers have only made consumers more indifferent.

Reminds me of a couple recent posts on plentitude: Stop the Madness (mine) and When is Enough about Enough Enough? (Chris Lawer). The frenzy is definitely not working.

So what's the solution? How can consumer goods companies continue to push forward without creating more consumer apathy? Not having worked on any CPG accounts, I defer to those of you who may be more experienced in this area. Comments welcome!

Focus, Focus, Focus

Great post from Darcy Burner at Microsoft on marketing software.

Suppose you engineer a pointy metal thing with a handle at one end and tines at the other. It's the finest stainless steel, it's beautifully engineered, it's got great balance, you're very proud of it, you use it for everything, and you're ready to ship it. Since you've built it, they will come! Right?

Okay, so how do you get people excited about it?
It's a multi-purpose tool. You can use it for all kinds of things! It can untangle hair. It can be used as a weapon of self-defense. It can pry things open. It can be used as a musical instrument if you bang it on things! You can use it to pick up food without getting your hands dirty. It will help you draw a series of roughly parallel lines by providing a guide. It's even a fashion accessory!

Are you ready to buy it yet? Yet this is the way most software marketing is done....

Instead, we need to be clear and simple in building the mental product. We cannot tell the story of every possible use of a fork. We cannot talk about all of the cool features of the fork (“See how the stainless steel gleams in the light!“) in the absence of their direct applicability to something people might do with the fork. And we can't change our minds with every communication about what story we're going to tell about how a customer should imagine using the fork.

There is a lot more I could say about basic positioning and messaging, but that's it in a nutshell. The hardest thing, quite frankly, is having to choose.

Having worked with a lot of technology companies (software and telecom), I completely agree. A software designer in Europe recently emailed me about how to market his product. A quick glance at his website revealed a laundry list of the many things you could do with the software. But I never got a quick answer to my question, "what is it and why do I care?"

Focus.

If I buy your software (product, service, whatever) instead of the alternative (pick one primary alternative, not several), I'll get what benefit and why. Answer that question -- without using the words 'and' or 'or' -- and you're on your way to creating a focused positioning platform that paints a clear, unambiguous picture in customers' minds. And once they can visualize using your product in a way that's meaningful to them, you're that much closer to winning their business.

More on the Manifesto

I was going to write a continuation of my last post on The Guru Red Manifesto, but John Moore at OurHouse so eloquently stated what I was thinking that I'll just direct you to his post. Here's a snip:

I think there is always going to be some kind of tension between customers and other stakeholders though I balk at the idea that the relationship is built on that tension; I'd say that good marketing resolves these conflicts in ways that work for all parties... The confrontation word suggests a Mexican stand off, a game in which one side can only win by the other losing. That's not the ideal of conflict resolution which aims for win:wins. By focussing on the money, the RedGurus may well be giving a good pragmatic steer against idealism and fantasy on the part of entrepreneurs; but they may also be missing how people actually create real value in relationships.

And then I went back to the Guru Red Manifesto for more. Here's what I found:

Do not sell. Campaign. Reconcile current competency with current opportunity. Maneuver your forces. Exploit center of gravity. Calibrate time, space and energy. Combine segregated sales and marketing functions into an integrated campaigning function. Replace soft selling metrics like satisfaction, delight, recall and impressions with hard campaigning metrics like objectives, revenue and margin. Build revenue engines and not sales organizations. Focus on speeding up cycle time. Develop and amplify competitive instincts. Utilize logos, ads, commercials, trade shows, etc., as ammunition and weaponry, not as artistic expressions or award opportunities.

As with the previous post, there are parts I agree with and others I don't. Absolutely, everything should work synergistically (overused word, but effective) in an integrated campaign. I'd add that it's not only sales and marketing that must work together, but product development and customer service as well. And yes, marketing materials should be used as ammunition, not as award opportunities.

But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Let's keep 'soft' metrics like satisfaction and delight. In a recent satisfaction study for a telecom client, we found that 'very satisfied' customers were 60% likely to refer a friend, compared to only 28% of 'somewhat satisfied' customers. Here's another stat: 'somewhat' and 'very' satisfied customers were 2 1/2 times more likely to purchase additional products than neutral or unsatisfied customers. No real surprise here: customer satisfaction directly leads to additional revenue. Delight your customers and they'll stay with you, spend more money with you, and bring you new customers. Creating a free sales force within your customer base might be tougher -- but infinitely cheaper and more effective in the long run -- than putting all your efforts into paid distribution channels. Think of customer delight as yet another component of your 'revenue engine'.

Neuromarketing Not So Hot

Zack Lynch of Corante's Brain Waves talks about neuromarketing last week (old news, I know, but I'm now getting caught up on my blog reading):

Either corporate America doesn't believe the hype surrounding neuromarketing or their marketing departments don't understand what "neuromarketing" means. My bet it is more the latter than the former. Regardless of the reason, the lack of interest in neuromarketing caused the first neuromarketing conference to be cancelled this week...

If you really think about it, how many marketing or advertising executives do you know that have a background in neuroscience. As I've said before, as brain imaging advances, neuromarketing will become a significant growth sector in years to come as the trillion-per-year advertising and marketing industries leverage brain scanning technology to better understand how and why people react to different market campaigns.

I'm going to disagree with Zack and with Rob at BusinessPundit: I wouldn't have signed up for the conference because I think neuromarketing can be both pointless and dangerous.

Rob refers to the "Pepsi Challenge" given in an MRI scanner, and the results were no surprise: people liked the taste of Pepsi but bought Coke. Since the MRI scan didn't tell us anything we didn't already know, is it really worth the money? I'm not seeing the value here. We can look at revenue and market share data to tell us what consumers are purchasing. Chances are, listening to your customers will tip you off as to why they're purchasing one brand versus another.

Yes, it's interesting to see physiological responses to campaigns. Yes, it's probably more reliable than focus groups. But I think we're missing the boat here. First, campaign testing isn't that necessary if you've done your homework, understood your customers' needs, and crafted a great strategy on the front end. Second, this is reinforcing the fallacy that advertising is what sells product. If I'm Southwest Airlines or Krispy Kreme or Apple, why do I need neuromarketing to tell me that a TV spot A is more interesting than TV spot B when I have customer evangelists who are actively promoting my business for me? I'm not saying that advertising isn't important; there are plenty of case studies to demonstrate that advertising helps to build brands (especially in packaged goods). However, tactics like neuromarketing serve to reinforce the impression that 'if we can just get our ad campaign right, all our sales woes will be resolved'... as if advertising can somehow compensate for a lack of differentiation, perceived value, or customer experience. Advertising is not a cure-all. A great neuromarketing-validated campaign does not a strong brand make.

Quote of the day

From an email discussion with John Moore (US) of BrandAutopsy... John remarks:

"Marketing can only help brands that are worthy of being built."

Amen.

Your Focus Group

Discovered this great little tool called Your Focus Group that will allow you to test web sites, collateral and advertising via the web. It's only $500 for a year, which is a great deal, especially if you will end up testing multiple executions. If you're on the client side, ask your agency to buy it; this is a lot cheaper than the traditional ways that they'll recommend testing. (I'm assuming that it works well, BTW, but I haven't actually tried it. I'll let you know when I do.)

Analogies

I'm a big fan of analogies; I enjoy making the connection between two seemingly unrelated concepts. My mother calls me the Analogy Queen because I can come up with reasonably good ones on the spur of the moment. Unfortunately they never come when I sit down to think of an analogy; only in conversation. And I never seem to remember them.

Which is why I'm enjoying the marketing analogies that I'm reading this week. First is a great little book by Tom Asacker called Sandbox Wisdom, which is a parable of a disillusioned CEO who learns from a little girl and her grandfather (through some great analogies) how to get back to the basics. More to come on this one.

The other fun analogy is Street Corner Selling, an ongoing commentary at BrandAutopsy on how business is like drug dealing. Pretty funny stuff, but right on the money.
Lesson 1: Street Corner Selling
Lesson 2: The 10 Minute Rule
Lesson 3: Procurement (copping one's supply)

Ok, so we've got kids, sandboxes and drugs. Not a good combo.

Time for me to attempt to remember all the random parallels I've drawn over the years and join in on this analogy party... stay tuned!

Organizational DNA

The Strategy+Business' Resilience Report looks at organizational DNA and identifies the causes of failure or success:

“Execution” has become the new watchword in board rooms around the globe, as CEOs and directors watch sound strategies fail at the hands of organizations that cannot or will not effectively implement them. The ability to execute is not something you can recruit or mandate. It is inherent—embedded in the management processes, relationships, measurements, and beliefs that constitute an organization’s DNA. Like the DNA of living organisms, the DNA of living organizations consists of four building blocks, which combine and recombine to express distinct identities, or personalities. These organizational building blocks—decision rights, information, motivators, and structure—largely determine how a firm looks and behaves, internally and externally. Unlike humans and other organisms, however, organizations have the ability to change their DNA by adjusting and adapting these building blocks.

Booz Allen Hamilton has developed a short, online self-assessment tool called the Org DNA Profiler™ that assesses an organization’s relative strength in each of these four areas based on individual employees’ responses to 19 questions. Survey responses are fed through proprietary software to generate one of seven prototypical organizational profiles. In December 2003, more than 4,000 profiles were completed online at www.orgdna.com.

The Org DNA Profiler tool is still live, so hop on and see how your company fares.

By answering a few short questions on your organization’s structure, decision making, motivators, and information processes, you can learn whether your organization is resilient or passive-aggressive, overmanaged or just-in-time, military or outgrown.

Whatever the result, this assessment will help you better understand your organization, and put you on a path to improved performance.

An extra whiff of realism

From NewScientist:

A scent-generating device being tested by the UK internet service provider Telewest Broadband could soon allow internet users to transmit aromas of their choice across the internet... The British company suggests that the system could be used to enhance a holiday web site by generating the scent of sun tan lotion and the ocean or liven up a grocery site with fresh bread and fruit smells.

"Our sense of smell is directly connected to our emotions," says Kate Fox, social anthropologist and co-director of the Social Issues Research Centre in Oxford. "Smells trigger very powerful and deep-seated emotional responses, and this additional element to the internet will enhance users’ online experience by adding that crucial third dimension."

Just one more item for the brand/corporate identity manual; one more item in the brand manager's tool kit. Crazy stuff.

Do not advertise to me

From the Center for Media Research, a summary of recent Forrester report on the advertising backlash:

Chris Charron of Forrester Research reports that an advertising backlash is upon us. Sixty million US households have signed up for the Do Not Call Registry. Fifty-four of online households have spam blockers; 20% have ad blockers. Personal video recorder households skip 59% of ads. Multitasking, especially among younger consumers, is sapping consumer attention away from advertising. For marketers, Charron says, the solution to the backlash comes as permission-based marketing and household targeted ads. Delivering relevant ads that are delivered based on consumer profiles is every marketer's dream.

There are glimmers of hope, he continues.

Twenty million households already have addressable digital cable boxes, which means that no new devices or interfaces are needed.
Direct marketers are ready and willing to pay hefty premiums -- up to $550 CPM rates -- for the privilege of targeting selected households.
54% of marketers say they would accept aggregating delivery confirmation data -- rather than demand household-level metrics -- which alleviates potential privacy concerns.

Buyer-centric no more

With his recent comment to my Semantics post, Damon B. resurrected the customer-centric versus buyer-centric debate:

CC, while it does have its short comings, is far superior to being BC. Buyer centricity leaves out some very important customers - most importantly the internal customers. Sure, a CC company can start looking at customers as acquisitions or transactions, but that's a result of the company failing to properly implement the policy. Claiming CC is not correct is like claiming fishing line is inferior b/c it broke when there was too much weight on the line. It's not the fishing lines fault, it was just poorly used.

If a company can not fully grasp how to be CC it will also fail at being BC.

Excellent point, and one we've been exploring in the running "Role of Marketing" dialogue. My most recent definition of marketing's role is to "catalyze communication and relationships between stakeholders." And, of course, that can best happen in a stakeholder-centric organization.

As Damon pointed out, buyer-centricity leaves out the internal customer. But customer-centricity comes with its own problems:
- Is commonly interpreted as the end-user or buyer
- Leaves out other stakeholders such as distribution channels, partners, key influencers, investors and the community in which the company operates.

On the other hand, a stakeholder-centric company is keenly aware of every group that is influenced by its policies and decisions. I'd like to revisit John Moore's definition of marketing as "resolving the conflicting needs and interests of stakeholders" and apply it instead as the definition of the stakeholder-centric organization (SCO). Executives of an SCO must make a comprehensive list of stakeholders along with their respective needs and interests, identify areas of conflict, and actively seek solutions that will resolve those conflicts. This is a great idea-generating exercise for innovative products, services, policies, operational enhancements, etc. that could reside at the intersection of those conflicting interests.

A stakeholder-centric marketer, then, would be involved in identifying core needs of stakeholders (specifically buyers and distribution channels), participating in stakeholder issue-resolution exercises with the executive team, and catalyzing relationships of the various stakeholders according to the resulting objectives, strategies and tactics that emerge from those issue-resolution exercises.

I like where these running blog dialogues are ending up. I'm officially changing my Buyer-Centric category title to Stakeholder-Centric. If anyone has additional thoughts on the subject, fire away!