Fizz from ConsumerPop

Smart Marketers: Shut Up and Listen

From "Socialized Media" by Tim Manners at Fast Company.  Manners gives excellent examples of what's not working and what might.  I think two key points he makes are valuable to any marketer - 1. listen and 2. add value.  You cannot go wrong by doing those two things.  I encourage you to read the whole article.

As one respondent put it: "If you sell (unless you are a very cool web app), you lose. Don't sell. As a marketer: network. Help people. Advise. Create value and add to the conversation."

Nobody has really figured out how to do that yet. But it's worth considering the possibility that smart marketers won't even attempt to be part of the conversation, much less interrupt it. It could be that the real marketing potential of online social networks is listening, not talking.

The point is, if we're not helping people live better lives, we are not helping ourselves. If all we are doing is interrupting people who don't have time for interruptions, we can't expect their attention. If all we are doing is annoying people who have zero tolerance for annoyance, we can't earn their trust.

If all we are doing is pelting people with endlessly irrelevant messages, we can't claim their loyalty. And if we can't claim their loyalty, we don't have a prayer of a positive return-on-investment.

We can run whatever media-mix model we like, but all we're likely to achieve is a marginal improvement on what is otherwise an unmistakable downward spiral of failure.

Learning the Language of Your Consumers

Are you speaking your consumer's language?  Are you looking through their eyes?

A client recently thanked me for clearly articulating how to explain to customers how the client's services would meet the customers needs.  I thought to myself that it was easy for me to do because as a former insider I can speak the customers language fluently. 

I am always shocked by the number of marketers who advertise and who sell products to consumers unlike them who brag about their lack of familiarity with the language of the consumers to whom they advertise. "I don't know any ads because I don't watch television" they boast.  Or they sell grocery products and never set foot in a grocery store unless the sales team sets up a special field trip for them.

It is imperative that as a marketer you make an effort to listen to and understand and learn to speak the language of the people whose needs you are supposedly meeting.

Sometimes there is a huge disconnect between the people who make a product and the people who use it.

If what this New York Times article points out is true for you and/or your company and you can't learn the language then hire a translator. It will be money very well spent.

Just Because It's Legal Doesn't Mean It's Smart Business Strategy

The United States Supreme Court recently handed down a ruling overturning a longstanding antitrust rule.  Manufacturers now might in some cases be allowed to agree to set and enforce minimum retail prices.  In such cases it would then be more difficult for consumers to shop for a better price because unless a retailer had insufficient competition in a market so they could mark up above the MSP and the presence of competition would lead only to all channels selling the product at the same required minimum price.  The court ruling doesn't allow this kind of agreement in all cases but no longer bans it in practice.  Antitrust suits can still be heard but are to be decided on a case-by-case basis.

The case that led to this ruling was of a manufacturer who wanted only to sell through specialty boutiques that would provide high levels of customer service and not focus on selling the product through discounting.

The underlying case now goes back to a lower court for a decision as to whether or not the manufacturer's marketing strategy is legal.

Should it be ruled legal it is one that I think manufacturers would be foolish to pursue (although one that can be achieved more or less in practice on many products today).  If you want only retailers who provide exceptional customer service to sell your products to consumers then only sell your product to customers (the retailers) who meet your standards for customer service.  Once you sell it to them at the price you can command then it should be the retailers strategy for the market it serves and the competition it faces to dictate the pricing strategy it employs and margin it makes on the product.  Another option would be to only retail and sell your product to consumers directly.  However, manufacturing and retailing are very different business and few companies would be wise to try to do both to the exclusion of all other sales channels.

Another world in which the legal option isn't always the smart option in the long run.  Banking and credit cards, for example.  David Lazarus in his column at the San Francisco Chronicle points out that when it comes to bank fees, banks often profit from deliberately confusing their customers.  Cell phone service providers and credit card issuers benefit from similar tricky language as well.  Companies in these spaces can get away with such practices because they are either following the letter of the law or taking advantage of the absence of regulation.  Such behavior invites consumer backlash and efforts to increase regulation regarding disclosures.

Although such fees gained from customer confusion might be profitable and attractive to Wall Street in the short run, imagine the goodwill and profitability a company could gain in the long run were it to actually operate by serving consumer needs rather than preying upon them.  USA Today offered an opinion piece last year summing it up this way:

What's seems far more unfair — in fact downright sleazy — is imposing onerous rates and fees on consumers and failing to tell them about it in plain language.

In banking, credit unions provide an alternative.  I've been banking with a credit union for nearly a decade, sticking with them even though I live on the other side of the country now because the provide great customer service and make no effort to fool me into paying exorbitant fees.  I imagine I will be their customer for decades to come and they will continue to profit from my business.

Among the major banks, credit card issuers and all cell phone service providers in the United States there are few if any alternatives.  For protection then consumers will have to rely on the government to help rather than giving their business to companies who develop smart, alternative consumer-friendly strategies.

When developing your marketing strategy think about whether you choices are smart or just what you can get away with. 

Lessons Learned from BlogHer Business

Two clear themes emerged from from the BlogHer Business Conference:  First, figuring out if and how to implement social media is confusing for many companies.  Second, the fundamentals still apply.

I was struck by the number of representatives of financial services companies who approached Staci Schiller from Wells Fargo in the lab after the presentation of her case study hoping to learn more about Wells Fargo's pioneering approach to incorporating social media into their marketing mix.  I'm sure each of the other lab sessions had a similar experience with representatives of other types and sizes of businesses seeking the same thing.

With blogging alone, if your company has decided to pursue a blog, who do you have write it?  The CEO?  Company employees?  Freelance bloggers?  We heard examples of each of the above at the conference.  Not to mention figuring out if you should set up shop in Second Life, set up a Twitter feed or how to create a social media press release.

Before trying to figure out the implementation, it is imperative to figure out the goal, strategy and plan.  What is the business goal your company is trying to achieve (increasing household penetration, increasing purchase occasions among existing households, etc...)?  What is your strategy for achieving your goal(s) (a mix of TV, print, PR events, hosting online forums, blogging, ...)?  Once you've determined the elements of your strategy, what is your plan to implement it (find bloggers in house, determining how blogging fits in to job responsibilities, hiring outside bloggers, how to find them, off the shelf technology solutions or custom built, in-house technology expertise or outside consultants)?  That's the point when the question of who will blog comes in.  Figuring out whether or not there's someone in-house to blog should not drive your decision to blog.

Lena West has a great post-conference guest post at Yvonne DiVita's blog, Lipsticking, where she points out that there's always a lot of interest in the "return" of ROI and less in the "investment."  Again, the fundamentals apply.  Social media isn't a magical new marketing bullet, rather there are just new tools.

To that point, Susan Getgood points out that the tools are not the story, the benefits of the tools are not the story (the return Lena speaks of) but rather the content of the story is still king.  A tricked out social media press release doesn't create any magic if all it does is create some links and SEO to a story that's not worth telling.

So for companies looking for the "how" to implement social media, first look at the "why" and then proceed to the "how" and then you'll reap the "return" on your "investment" in planning.  And if it's confusing to figure out if and how social media fits into your strategy and plan and whether or not social media tools will help you accomplish your goals (probably yes if you are willing to make the investment in using them wisely and well) then there are lots of smart folks out there than can help guide you.  Christopher Carfi of Cerado, for example, offers a set of slides to get you started that outlines the elements of a business blog.

Serving Consumers to Alleviate Poverty

The current issue of Fast Company magazine, their "6th Annual Fast 50" offers what they call a "report from the future: 50 profit-driven solutions for what ails the planet."  In an article in this issue, Bill Breen interviews C.K. Prahalad about his book The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid: Eradicating Poverty Through Profits.  Prahalad's thesis explored in the interview is the notion that by serving the consumer needs of the poor, rather than assuming that there is no market and therefore ignoring the poor, is both good for profits and good for working to eliminate poverty. 

FC: How does thinking of the poor as consumers help alleviate poverty?

Prahalad: Because consumption can and does increase income. Consider health care. If you are legally blind with cataracts, you can't work and neither can the family member who cares for you. But if you get access to inexpensive cataract surgery, now you can see and both of you can work. Have you consumed eye surgery or increased the family's earning power? You've done both. It's two sides to the same coin.

What I most connected with in Prahalad's work is the notion that consumption is not inherently evil and that we are not somehow smarter or better when we ignore the poor as non-consumers.  Also, using market driven solutions to addressing poverty often focuses on giving poor access to selling their goods and services.  Less focus is put on meeting the consumer needs of the poor and that is something I particularly appreciate about Prahalad's work.  I hope that more businesses can see that the idea of win-win approaches to consumers having their needs met and companies making profits is not just limited to the realm of "do-gooder" social entrepreneurs and that it is a smart model for businesses of all shapes and sizes.

Full disclosure:  I received an MBA from Michigan's Ross School of Business where C.K. Prahalad is a professor.  I took a strategy class taught by Professor Prahalad and it was the course that most resonated with me so I am admittedly somewhat biased towards his point of view.

Not Just the Youth Market - Giving Consumers What They Want is Branding

The New York Times reports that AT&T is planning to "de-brand" Cingular.  AT&T claims that their research shows, somewhat paradoxically, that young people both care more about service than brand name but want their services to share a singular brand name.

“What consumer and business customers want is a single provider of services for the way they live and work today,” Ms. Clark said, “and if it’s one company, they want it under one name.”

As for the opinions of some brand-identity consultants that the Cingular brand appeals to youth more than the venerable AT&T name, Ms. Clark said: “The youth market is incredibly fickle when it comes to branding. If you give them what they want, the brand is secondary. It’s incumbent upon us to keep delivering what Cingular offered its customers.”

Regardless of age all consumers want brands to give them what they want and that's what will invest a brand name with meaning, not the collecting of brand names under one corporate umbrella. Consumers will ultimately buy the "AT&T" wireless brand name as long as AT&T gives them what they want, which will be interesting to see if they can manage to do what no wireless company, old AT&T included, has yet to achieve. Also, it requires that every service carrying the AT&T brand name deliver on their promises. If my AT&T local phone service or satellite dish disappoints then wireless service from AT&T will certainly drop to the bottom of my consideration list.

Powered by Qumana

Business Blogging Case: Right Idea, Wrong Execution

I am a Contributing Editor at BlogHer, currently writing about Personal Finance.  In this capacity I follow scores of blogs on the topic.  One standout and very popular blog is Boston Gal's Open Wallet.

The author of this blog posted for about a year under the Nom de Blog "Jane Dough"  until she was quoted in a New York Times article.  After the article appeared she received a cease and desist order for trademark infringement and changed her Blog Name to "Boston Gal."  In the stream of supportive comments to her post announcing her name change and the reason prompting it, Boston Gal's readers noted the changes they would have to make to their blogs to fix the many links they had made to her previous name and they also figured out who the company was that served the cease and desist order and expressed their displeasure with the company's tactics.

This week brought some good news, though - Boston Gal is Jane Dough again, sort of.  The company who owns the trademark contacted her and invited her to blog for their site using the Jane Dough name.  Sounds like a win-win, right?  Not so fast.

To Build Your Brand Try Listening

In all the discussion on blogs about the concept of markets as conversations, there is a great deal of focus on the speaking part of the conversation and far less consideration of listening.  In order to truly be in conversation with your consumers, at some point you have to shut up and listen.  I'm excited that I'm seeing more posts and articles that recognize the role listening to and understanding consumers plays in successful marketing and branding.

Currently the most e-mailed New York Times article is titled: What Do Women Want? Just Ask.  Far too often, even when marketers try to consider what consumers want and how they think, marketers guess or rely only on insights offered by those consumers who take the initiative to offer their opinion, by pundits and tea leaf readers or by interpreting past consumer behavior.  Worst of all is when marketers base their insight into consumer opinion based on focus groups or other research which is designed to give marketers the opinions that will validate their plans.  The idea expressed in this article that listening to consumers and incorporating their feedback is a new concept and approach to marketing and branding is sad.  And that this article is so popular possibly because it is such a revolutionary idea to many is equally sad.  This is why focus groups and market research get a bad rap when it's often a Jessica Rabbit-like situation - research isn't bad, it's just designed that way.

Why I Might Buy A Saturn

Because GM let me give it another chance.  GM didn't know that I've been forming a rant about why I am mad at them for screwing up Saturn.  Why, other than my first Saturn, (I've had two) my experiences with GM cars have been pretty universally sucky and my experience with other car makers cars have not.

My first car was a 1969 Pontiac Firebird.  Quite the sexy little muscle car.  It went really fast and I looked cute driving it and boys wanted to race me.  Problem was it kept falling apart.  It was a great car for someone who liked to mess around with engines and do their own repairs.  Me - I would go for months without being able to drive because the darn thing kept breaking. 

The first car I bought on my own was a Geo (Chevy) Spectrum.  What an awful, awful car.  And the dealer experience was the worst kind of double-crossing, lie to you, take advantage of the young single woman experience I've ever had.

I learned about Saturns when I wrote a paper on the company for a labor-management relations class I took in college.  I fell in love with the idea and the execution - taking the best bits from car makers around the world, getting out of the hidebound Detroit mentality both in practice and in geography, empowering the workers to stop the line when they thought necessary and, best of all, no haggle pricing.  My first Saturn was amazing.  The quality was fantastic, it held its value for resale and we early-adopter Saturn owners did the knowing-nod thing whenever we passed on the road.  I always called it my hip suburban soccer mom car even though I was a decidedly urban singleton.  The styling was just so quirky-ugly that it's cool looking that it stood out while the car retained its roominess and functionality.

But then the styling didn't change.  And the quality declined.  And they stopped building them on the special Saturn line and became just another GM car.  The L-series drove nice enough when I considered buying a third Saturn but it got solid black circles in Consumer Reports.  Kiss of death.

When GM announced the new direction with the Sky and Aura focusing on performance and insisting that the only thing consumers cared about from Saturn was the no haggle pricing I swore I would never buy another Saturn (the only GM car I would consider).  GM, especially with the Pontiac brand, is doing a great job of launching sexy cars.  But it is not enough.  And claiming that consumers don't know about and don't care about the other stuff is evidence of doing a poor job of listening to and understanding consumers and insulting them to boot.

I drove a G6 coupe a few weeks ago.  Sexy as hell.  The layout and placement of controls is unintuitive and frustrating, though.  It took me and one of the car rental employees five minutes to figure out how to open the trunk.  The speed sensitive volume control is cool in concept but annoying in practice.  I could go on and on.

The Saturn Sky is a tarted-up, rebadged Pontiac Solstice.  And to me, an early adopter Saturn fan, so not what the brand is about.

But GM gave me a chance to change my mind and give them another chance.  I want my next car to be a small SUV hybrid.  I have been considering the Ford Escape/Mercury Mariner.  The Toyota Highlander is a bit big and the Lexus was priced too high and engineered for performance rather than fuel savings.  I've also thought about the non-hybrid Honda Element and Toyota Rav-4.  If I keep waiting, though, there will probably be hybrid versions of those soon enough.  And, yes I know, biodiesel but not until you don't have to make your own fuel and your car won't stink of old french fries or pot stickers.

Saturn was at BlogHer, though.  With cars to drive, including the Vue Hybrid.  Saturn didn't wait until I wised up to their revamped strategy and decided to forgive and forget.  They came to me.  I didn't have to brave the gauntlet of going to a car dealership and "what will it take to get you into a car today, honey?" (because no haggle does not mean no pressure).  I got to drive a Vue in a pressure-free way that allowed me to be open minded and admit that it was a sweet ride - nicer than the Escape Hybrid, in fact.  And the no-haggle pricing means that I won't have the experience I did at a Ford dealership where they insisted that they had to charge $5,000 over full MSRP.  I told them to give me a call when they would take just MSRP.  I haven't heard back in almost a year, now.

Even if I hadn't been to BlogHer or had a chance to drive, the reports from the bloggers I read would have swayed me to reconsider.  Smart Saturn, smart.

PS: Even though there was a lot of love for the Sky because it's sexy and apparently fun to drive, I still question that strategy.  The car is not practical and I still think Saturn is considered a practical brand.  The car makes sense for Pontiac, though, so why not focus the brands instead of stubbornly sticking to a strategy that does not work of rebadging cars so that every brand under the corporate umbrella is the same and has no identity?

Tags: BlogHer, BlogHer06, GM, Saturn, Sky, Vue, Hybrid

Powered by Qumana

Going Organic, Part 2

Note:  The goal of this series is to take a look at how to recognize a niche that is ready to go mainstream and how to make the transition and reap the benefits.  It's not just organic food - so think about what niches exist in your business world that you can take mainstream and the series will stimulate some ideas.

At The Hip and Zen Pen Elisa Camahort has an interesting post on Supply and Demand for Greener Products.  In the comments, Mary Ann writes that "green products should appear in mainstream stores and in the "regular" aisles of the grocery store, not just the health food stores or the health food section of the grocery store."  On the other hand, Elisa wonders "who they do that for...current "green" shoppers may like the "special" placement of their choice."

As I pointed out in the first "Going Organic" post, current "organic" shoppers are a tiny minority of the total grocery shopping population.  There is certainly an opportunity to market to dedicated organic or green shoppers.  Their radar is tuned to products that match their values and they tend to be incredibly brand loyal.  But, if you make changes to your product in order to attract the mid-level market, you stand a chance of losing the loyal core because your products may no longer align with their values.  So you must be willing to take that risk for the potential reward. Also, core shoppers tend to look for "their" products in "their" stores so it can be important to stay focused on maintaining leadership in health food stores or in the natural aisle of conventional grocery stores and foregoing trying to make headway in the broader markets of mainstream stores.

Becoming a leader in a niche and remaining in niche channels can lead to growing and maintaining a successful business.  Fast Company had a great article called The Man Who Said No to Wal-Mart (and just to show you how the analogy works - it's about lawn mowers) that illustrates this strategy beautifully - "Were we prepared to go large? ... No."  However, if you want to move from the core and reach the mid-level you need to be where the mid-level consumers shop.  For organic food this means the conventional grocery store, in the conventional aisle.  There are consumers who are not committed to living a completely "green" lifestyle but who are interested in buying more green and organic products and incorporating them into their lives.  However, if to do so consumers have to shop in two stores or shop twice in one grocery store it's not very likely that they will discover your products.  If you are in the aisle, on the shelf where they are already shopping you greatly increase the odds that mid-level consumers will find you, check you out and consider adding you to their cart.

This means of course that you must be prepared to compete with the conventional products already there.  But there are consumers that are out there adopting more and more green and organic products and are looking for options.  If your product is the right one, being in the right place might just get a whole new crop of consumers to take you home.