May 19, 2014 | Branding, Communication, Marketing, Small business
Imagehaven, Innovation by design
On several occasions last week I found myself frustrated that I could not find a piece of information I needed on a website, I knew it had to be there somewhere, it is just that someone had effectively if inadvertently hidden it. GGGRRRRR
Over the years I have asked many people, individually and in audiences, what for them constitutes the perfect website.
There have been many answers, but there are always three that recur almost every time:
- Simple, clear, and quick to navigate.
- The information needed is on the site.
- We know what to do next.
How easy is that?, yet how often do we find ourselves searching a site, getting frustrated before we move onto the next likely one in the search list.
Usually it appears that the confusion and clutter comes from a few common sources. Designers try and put all the information up front, rather than creating a hierarchy of information that reflects the way people search, they let their “designer” genes run riot with the result that there is simply too much “design”, or that the original design has been added to over time like a house that goes through a series of renovations and extensions and ends up just being a collection of rooms.
It is really just a question of thought being put into the design. The combination of white space, written information, graphics, and calls to action (CTA). There are many “rules” of design around, this article by Zoe Sadokierski from UTS offers some of the perspective of history, that can be usefully applied to website design, but a bit of common sense goes a long way.
Next time you set out to design a site, consider these three simple rules, or you could just call the gurus at Imagehaven.
May 16, 2014 | Branding, Communication, Marketing, Social Media
Building brands has always been the core of successful marketing efforts, and by comparison to what it is now, it used to be simple. Do a bit of market research, make stuff, generate distribution, throw money at advertising, generate volume, make more stuff, advertise more….. a virtuous circle that if you had the deep pockets, was hard to stuff up. This no longer works.
Marketing and branding have become socialised. Consumer electronics is a category among many that has created new categories of products that are heavily influenced by reviews, and comment curation by users, which pushes the boundaries very quickly. Nokia was killed by missing the social phenomena of the smartphone. They had the mobile phone market by the shorts, had every opportunity to see the emerging technology, but failed to harness it along with the social cachet.
The other side of socialised branding, it can be a killer.
This trend is evident everywhere you look in consumer markets. I would contend that brand-building is no longer possible without social being a major factor in the mix. It is also true to observe, as Bob Hoffman continues to point out in his wonderful blog, that very few, if any, brands come to prominence without advertising, despite what the social media promoters would have you believe.
Building your marketing strategies with the reality of socialised marketing and branding being a major factor in the mix is just plain dumb.
May 14, 2014 | Branding, Management, Sales
expertflyfishingand camping.com
Creating a lead is a whole world of work and pain for many business people, followed by another, converting the lead into a transaction.
Too often I see the process followed as an aggressive “close at all costs” mentality. That approach rarely ever worked well for anything beyond one off transactions, and is even less effective now that digital communication has revolutionised the way we create, conduct and nurture relationships.
People like to buy from those they like and trust, basic human nature.
It follows therefore, that to make sales, you need to demonstrate that you are both likable and trustworthy, as well as being in a position to address the customers need and deliver value at least as well as alternatives.
Following is a three stage process:
- Humanise you marketing, you are selling to people, not “organisations”, people!
- Track relationships. Have a metric, and visual device that articulates the existing relationships with people, such as the one following.
3. Explicitly set out to build relationships, recognising that sales will follow, rather than the other way around. Having a visual representation of the state of a relationship, and an objective of moving up the pyramid, by understanding and acting on the drivers of a relationship will deliver mutual benefit, and a return on effort.
Each relationship, whatever its status, is an individual thing. It will have a range of parameters that will direct its development. How we met, what we look like, how we conduct ourselves, the mutual stories we have, how authentic we are, how consistent as are in the engagement and interaction, and the degree to which we are proactive, and generous in that engagement, and so on.
Managing the inputs to those parameters is a foundation of marketing success that was not possible just 20 years ago because we did not have the tools, but now we have, so there is no excuse.
May 11, 2014 | Branding, Change, Marketing, Social Media
Scott Galloway. L2 Thinktank.
Mitch Joel may have flogged his Twist Image agency to WPP, but hopefully he keeps on writing his blog and alerting us to terrific stuff like this presentation Winners and Losers in the Digital age, by Scott Galloway.
Read the post, watch the presentation, have a squizz at Galloways L2 site, and apply it to your business and situation.
Apr 24, 2014 | Branding, Category, Customers, Marketing, retail
Businesses spend many millions trying to understand the way consumers consider the choices confronting them in a supermarket. With up to 30,000 items on shelf, and some categories having hundreds of choices, it is a key consideration.
A mix of psychology, data science, habitual behaviour, discretionary spending dollars available, and individual preferences all play a role.
A complicated mix.
However, there is a way to at least clarify part of the mix.
Consumers use decision trees, usually without thinking about them when they are in a supermarket making their purchases.
Some purchases are automatic, a habitual choice, others are made after a considered set of choices on a range of factors important to the individual are made, and there are, obviously, many shades of this continuum that apply to a highly personal process.
Imagine a consumer approaching the dairy case looking for fruited yoghurt. Some may just buy their usual brand, flavour and size irrespective of everything else. Others will make a series of choices that will vary for every person, and may look something like the decision tree below.
It will differ for each individual, some will choose the brand first, others the flavour, or the size and price, and a whole range of variations on these factors, but based on the total sales, supermarkets will range products, and give them shelf positions and space based on sales, gross margins, delivered margins, and various promotional strategies. They also use a decision tree.
Retailers and suppliers spend huge amounts of effort, and resources. on this category management exercise, trying to read the consumers mind, and anticipate their reactions to various combinations that are available to them.
It is a data intensive exercise, well suited to the “big data” techniques that are evolving around us. Combining checkout data with store loyalty cards is now becoming commonplace, what is emerging currently is the integration of mobile and social media data into the mix.
As you walk into the store to buy something, there has already been lots of effort gone into reading your mind, and there will be lots of effort and money expended in store in an effort to manage your purchase decisions.
Apr 23, 2014 | Branding, Marketing, Strategy
My early days of marketing were as a minor part of the team that created Meadow Lea, the brand that completely changed then dominated the margarine markets for the following 25 years. I was really just a young gopher, but the lessons that came with those successes, and the trials in between, were scorched onto my brain.
10 years later I joined a major dairy company as marketing manager, and the first thing on my list was to do to ourselves in the milk business what Meadow Lea had done to the butter market.
Shock, horror, Sacrilege!!.
It was even illegal.
Pulling the dairy fat out of milk and replacing it with vegetable fat had been enshrined as illegal in legislation, which was not about to change because some marketing bloke thought it was stupid, and could see a commercial opportunity.
Even the technical staff of the business thought I had gone stark mad, or at least drunk too much at lunch with the agency (it was the eighties after all) and refused point blank to do any development.
It took eight years, but eventually Farmers Best was launched, and whilst not becoming anything like the Meadow Lea blockbuster I had envisaged, certainly prevented anyone else having a go.
My point, not all the good ideas come from the domain you inhabit, from your people, or even your branch of technology.
Looking outside for ideas, technology, and innovation in all its forms, is not just sensible, but in these days of homogeneity and rapid dispersion of ideas and techniques, it is essential.
And the law? well, it was quietly changed as it had became obvious that consumers did not give a fig what sort of fat it was, they wanted the benefit of lower cholesterol and resulting longer life.
