Dec 10, 2013 | Branding, Marketing, Sales
Recognising better is really hard when all offerings in the market appear similar. It follows then that you also must be different.
This brings in another challenge, being different is not enough, you also have to deliver. Being different just offers the opportunity to be seen, and perhaps to deliver, that you would not have had otherwise.
Take Seth Godins Purple Cow example. If you had rushed out and bought a purple cow thinking purple milk would be cool, then all you got was the same white milk that you could get from any old cow, then you would be disappointed. The “purple” did not deliver on the promise of the purple cow to be different, It got noticed, chosen once, but did not deliver.
Classic case, Red Bull is a beverage, a crappy tasting, caffeinated, cocktail of chemicals, and Co2, selling at a premium. Yet look at their website, they do not sell the product, there is almost nothing about the product on it, the site is all about the brand ,the excitement, the story, updated in close to real time, and tailored to your location. It is a storytelling masterpiece, one that almost all marketers would be well advised to understand.
Storytelling is more than a core skill of marketing, it is the critical ingredient, without which, your marketing will be hollow. To be sustainably successful, however, you need to live the story, do it, not just tell it. Steve Goldners post on the best facebook page ever eloquently makes the case.
Dec 9, 2013 | Branding, Marketing, Social Media
Mass marketing used to be about blasting messages to an ill defined supposed user base, “women 18-30” because that is about the best we could do.
With the advent of social media, we have been led to understand that the analytics behind the scene enable extremely accurate targeting of messages, just be wary, as the recipient now has the ability to trash your message, and turn it back on you.
Why is it then that brands, some big, sophisticated ones, are using social media, specifically Twitter, as a mass medium, sending huge numbers of messages.
I was browsing marketing charts when up popped this research noting that some top brands are tweeting 30 times a week.
Do the wallies driving this really think the consumers who find themselves on a brand twitter-list want to hear from them that much? Are they considering the negative reaction that much crap can bring? At the very least, it is a good reason to dump your brand of choice for one that does not annoy you as much on social media.
When was the last time you had areal conversation with a brand??
Why would you want to receive tweets from them beyond the occasional piece of genuine news, or value offer??
How much is too much?.
Dec 5, 2013 | Change, Customers, Marketing, Sales
Some marketing activity is aimed at creating demand, alerting people to a value proposition. Other so called marketing activity is aimed at delivering an offer, an important but very different activity to demand creation.
Consider the difference between most ads on TV, and the yellow pages. The former generally sets out to tell you why you should buy something, whereas the yellow pages is a list of places where you can go to get delivery.
Which leads me to all the all the banner ads on the web, those persistent, annoying and endlessly crappy pop-ups that appear. I have just upgraded from windows XP to Windows 7 as I replaced my laptop, not wanting the leap to windows 8, just a step too far, and have not yet figured out how to avoid the apparent thousands of pop ups plaguing my screen. None are likely to get my attention beyond wanting to strangle the silly bastard who is paying somebody to disrupt me in the belief that I will react positively to the disruption.
The old laws of supply and demand still work. The supply of space into which to place a banner ad on the web is infinite, so any price is too much, and it does not work, like an ad in the yellow pages does not work to create demand, just where to get it once you have decided to buy something.
Dec 4, 2013 | Branding, Change, Marketing, retail, Sales, Small business
The produce branding model used by the agricultural so called marketing programs run by industry bodies all fail the basic test of being consumer centric. Generally they are retailer centric, using grower levies to fund discounts, and sometimes display space, never brand building. ”
“Australian tomatoes” is not a brand, it is simply a description.
Besides, the major retailers are exercising their control of the supply chain by not allowing proprietary brand building marketing anywhere near their stores.
The major retailers hold varying shares of produce categories. I suggest that hard vegetables like potatoes and carrots are in line with their overall share of around 75%, but their share of sensitive, seasonal fruit is probably more like 40%, with everything else falling somewhere in between. Where they fall depends on the “commodity” status of the produce, and consumers view of the trade-off between convenience and freshness, taste, and the more subjective things like customer service and product provenance.
Sydney Harvest is determinedly consumer centric. It is an evolving business model that creates a collaboration between the best growers in the Sydney Basin ands specialist produce retailers in Sydney to deliver field fresh, best quality, provenance assured produce to discriminating consumers, turning the usual supply chain into a demand chain.
Currently in pilot, the initiative is setting out to determine if there is a market in the niche, as there is certainly a niche in the market for such a collaboration.
Dec 2, 2013 | Change, Governance
So, the Treasurer has blocked the acquisition of Graincorp by Archer Daniels Midland. However, the acquisition of Warrnambool Cheese and Butter by Canadian group Saputo is OK.
Go figure!
These two businesses are amongst the last significant, strategically important agribusiness assets left in Australian hands, they are subject to the same rules, same laws, yet the political outcome is different.
Why?
Irrespective of your position on the rights and wrongs of these two proposed transactions the fact that there is a different outcome from the political deliberations must be of concern. I have not heard any logical arguments that lead to a conclusion that the outcomes should be different, and can only assume it comes from political expediency, hypocrisy and hubris rather than a dispassionate application of he laws meant to govern us.
The other reason I am pissed off with this decision is that I lost a $50 bet. I was certain that after the approval of the Saputo takeover of WCB in October, that the precedent provided would be sufficient for the Treasurer to ignore the silly blathering of Warren Truss, and acerbic tongue and threats of Barnaby Joyce, and be consistent.
Not so it seems.
There are reasonable, logical and economically and socially defensible arguments on both sides of the question, and inevitably not everyone would have been happy with a consistent decision, but those observing the behaviour of the government will scratching their heads at the inconsistency.
I do however look forward to the smug, self-congratulatory remarks of Mr Truss who I expect will sound like George Pell on Rohypnol, I need to lose some weight, and this may help.
