Jul 1, 2010 | Customers, Marketing, Social Media
As a group, you may not like something. A style of music, a literary style, a type of product, a group of people, but when you see one of the group individually, and find you like it, or them, the rest of the genre becomes less confronting.
It is the same with brands, the closer you get to a part of the brand, the easier it is to find things about the whole that you like, and you can more easily justify involvement, and scoff at your previous dislike. Cognitive dissonance at work.
By definition you only get closer to a brand if it is delivering something to you, so it is a bit of a circular process, but the lesson for markets is that to build a brand, you need to get close.
The tools of “getting close” have changed, they used to be largely one way communication mechanisms, but now we have the power and tools of the web, so get close, engage, embrace, and succeed.
Jun 27, 2010 | Branding, Customers, Marketing, Small business
“Cheap” implies less of everything that is important, not built to last, minimal attention to the detail, and certainly little customer service. However, “Frugal” implies a discipline that ensures that waste is eliminated, unnecessary features eliminated, but the basic performance is not compromised.
Cheap is never the outcome of good marketing, but Frugal is a very potent positioning in most markets, and is often ignored in the search for wider customer appeal.
Next time, ask yourself, if it is cheap, in which case, don’t buy or produce it, or frugal, in which case it may be a good deal.
Jun 22, 2010 | Branding, Communication, Customers, Marketing
How often we confuse the reasons our customers buy products, how easy it is to get carried away with the technology, the newness, the features of the product, and never consider the real, usually unstated drivers of consumption.
Great marketing is always about the benefits a product brings to the consumer, and whilst the features play a role in delivering the benefits, consumers do not really care about features, they want what the product delivers for them.
Defining the benefits is marketing, translating them into images and words consumers can relate to is advertising, and is only a tiny slice of marketing, at the end of the process.
Poor products, no matter how well advertised, do not succeed, great products with poor marketing that fails to identify the benefits of consumption, usually fail, but even poorly advertised products with clear and distinctive benefits usually find their way, because consumers are generally smart enough to make the connection. It is this last distinction that may appear at first glance to be semantic, that is often the biggest hurdle. This great clip from Mad Men says it all.
Jun 20, 2010 | Marketing, Social Media, Strategy
As the web makes the marginal cost of anything that can be delivered electronically too close to zero to measure, the world of marketing changes. Convincing the boss that the capacity of the rack of servers he has just shelled out for should be given away is often a challenge, but the reality is that the world is chasing itself down to free, and many businesses need to figure out how to make money in different ways. The solution still escapes most in the music industry (although Radiohead have done OK) but it is early days, or is it?
The original “free” product was the safety razor blade, given away by King Gillette in a whole array of ways, but a blade is not much good without the razor, and an industry was born, so this dilemma is not new, just different, and far more pervasive.
Jun 10, 2010 | Customers, Management, Marketing
Most marketers equate success to more; more ads, more locations, more customers, more Sku’s, more appearances in the press, and so on.
However, the quest for “more” leaves a lot on the table, as it disregards the value of what you have.
Would you rather have an extra customer that delivers an extra $10,000, or an extra 10,000 from an existing customer?
In most circumstances, it will be the latter, because there are no acquisition costs, a deepened relationship with an exisiting customer that creates barriers to exit for them, and a more predictable operational and logistic chain that inevitably costs less than one set up, even if it is entirely routine, to service a new customer.
Share of wallet is a powerful driver of performance, as it implies that as you get more of a customers wallet, you become more engaged with their key processes, and become core to their efforts to add value in turn to their customers.
Being excellent with a few is usually a better approach than being average with a lot.
Jun 9, 2010 | Communication, Marketing, Personal Rant
A while ago, I sat through two consecutive presentations on related topics, the first was energising, interesting, and memorable, the second was cold, dirty, dishwater.
Thinking about the manner of the presentations, rather than the value of the words, led to the conclusion that the difference was more than the capacity of the presenters to sell a story, which was markedly different, it was also about the manner the story was presented.
The first used a visual backdrop as a tool to highlight key points, and make them memorable by creating some emotion, and the visuals were very sparse, terriffic. The second used the built in capacity of Powerpoint to drive the agenda of the presentation, demonstrate the speakers mastery of the program, and provide speaker notes to the audience, dishwater.
The reason a presentation is given, whether it be to a few colleagues in an office communicating a routine matter, or thousands in a auditorium presenting a world changing idea or view, is the same. It exists to get a sale, to create buy-in to an idea, gain agreement, and approval. Whatever the driver, a presentation seeks to communicate and engage. No chance of doing that by boring people to death.
Seth Godin, one of the best salesmen of an idea around came up with a rant against Powerpoint some years ago, his arguments were thumped into me by the juxtaposition of these two presentations.
