How Many Workers Does It Take To...?

While my dad and I were out running yesterday morning, we passed by a group of Comcast workers who appeared to be working on the telephone lines. The entourage included seven Comcast trucks and vans, two Comcast men on ladders, and eleven other Comcast men standing in a group on the ground, observing the two men on the ladders.

[insert joke here: how many Comcast guys does it take to...?]

Now, I like to give folks the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps the eleven Comcast men on the ground were in training, and therefore were observing the two on the ladders for training purposes.

If, however, this was not a training exercise, then thirteen men seems like quite a large number for whatever repair work was occurring. Assuming that two ladders were required, with one man on each ladder, one man stabilizing each ladder, and one man to direct everything, five workers could be understandable. (My dad insists that three would have sufficed.)

But thirteen? Things were beginning to look like a Verizon commercial.

The lesson here? Don't send thirteen people to do a five-person job. Unless you expect that doubling or tripling the number of workers will result in work that is twice or three times better.

And if your organization is doing something that seems wasteful, even though it isn't, then communicate. Tell your customers (and potential customers) what is really happening, so that they may continue to see you as a company that is a good steward of its resources. If you are sending ten workers-in-training to observe a three-person job, send with them a sign that says, "Workers in Training." Or "Learning How to Serve You Better." Or something.

Be a good steward of your resources. And communicate with the public - especially when your actions could be misinterpreted.

Be wise. Happy New Year!

A Few Favorites, and Merry Christmas

I write this post from Terminal C of the Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport, as I await the magical metal bird that will carry me home for the holidays. Tonight I will not be sharing any profound marketing wisdom with you, other than this:

Whatever holiday you celebrate, take some time this December to spend it with people who care for you. Shut down your laptop, disable the wireless connection on your iPhone, Blackberry, Palm, or what-have-you, and devote time to really matters: the people in our lives. You can't be a good marketer without first being a healthy person.

That said, below is a brief selection of some of my personal favorite (read: funniest) marketing efforts that I've seen in the past month. Evaluate their effectiveness on your own.

Enjoy! And merry Christmas!

Volkswagen New Polo - Rumour commercial

Last year's viral video from JCPenney, "Beware of the Doghouse"

And the recent sequel, "Return to the Doghouse"

Last but not least, take a moment to call the Nestle Crunch hotline at 1-800-295-0051. After the prompt asks you to press 1 for English or 2 for Spanish, wait 10 seconds. What you hear next is worth it! (Friendly commenters, please don't spoil the surprise!)

Give a Little, Get a Lot: Free Shipping Day

Yesterday, Thursday, December 17, 2009, was the second annual Free Shipping Day online. 742 online retailers offered free shipping all day yesterday for all purchases made online. Plus, as mentioned in a story about the event on CBS' The Early Show, UPS guaranteed a Christmas Eve delivery for all packages that were shipped yesterday.

Events like Free Shipping Day are a win for everyone. Customers save money and still get to purchase those last-minute Christmas presents just in time for a Christmas Eve delivery. Merchants see a boost in their online sales, which, according to FreeShippingDay.com, drop significantly after December 12 each year. And UPS gets a huge influx of shipments, and the opportunity to provide a delightful experience for hundreds of thousands of potential new customers.

Free Shipping Day is just one more example of how a little goes a long way. By covering their customers' shipping expenses, the online merchants relieve customers of that small extra financial burden, and attract those customers to shop at their establishments. And of course, when 742 retailers (not just one) participate in the same offer, the word spreads faster, leading to awareness among more consumers, and thus more customers for each merchant.

What can your organization do to give a little to your customers? And how can you partner with other organizations to spread the reach and give a bit more Christmas cheer to all?

Marketing Lessons from Christmas Cookies

In my family, December is the time to bake Christmas cookies. Snickerdoodles, peanut butter cookies, chocolate no-bake cookies, peanut blossoms (aka Hershey's Kiss cookies), chocolate chip cookies, kolaches, sand tarts, Christmas tree-shaped almond cookies, sugar cookies, and raisin-filled cookies were all standard holiday fare at my parents' house and my grandparents' house when I was growing up.

When I moved off to college, I started extracting my favorite childhood recipes from the memories and cookbooks of my mom and grandma. In that process, I was amazed to learn how many of those delicious recipes were not ancient family secrets or mysteries unveiled in a gourmet cookbook. Instead, the instructions for many of those wonderful treats came from the packages of the ingredients.

The recipe for peanut blossoms came from the back of a bag of Hershey's Kisses. The recipe for Chex Mix was printed on the side panel of a box of Chex breakfast cereal. The recipe for chocolate fudge was found on a jar of Kraft marshmallow creme. The recipe for pumpkin pie was revealed on the wrapper of a can of Libby's pumpkin pie filling.

I think I shall be forever grateful to the makers of these food items for sharing the recipes that have become family traditions.

And really, it is a fabulous idea - brightening your customers' celebrations by telling them of wonderful ways to use your product. Consumers will not buy a product (or at least they will not continue to buy a product) that they will not use. Sharing a delicious recipe - for free, since consumers could plausibly glean the recipe from the outside of the package while in the store, without ever purchasing the product - provides valuable information to consumers, and gives them a reason to keep purchasing the product.

Food items are not the only products for which manufacturers and retailers share helpful hints. Arm & Hammer shares myriad uses for baking soda (i.e. cleaning, air freshening) on its signature orange boxes of the product. The Home Depot and Lowe's both share Do-It-Yourself tips on their websites.

How can your organization share with people - for free! - ways in which they can use your product?

AT&T Takes a Step in the Right Direction

In case you hadn't noticed, AT&T has been receiving some flak recently for its less-than-market-leader 3G coverage. Verizon Wireless has been particularly scathing of its iPhone-carrying competitor with its "There's a Map for That" and "Island of Misfit Toys" commercials. AT&T, of course, has put up a defense with its "Postcard" and "Side-by-Side" commercials.

And now, AT&T has put forth a "make-good" effort, in the form of a free iPhone app.

Yesterday, AT&T introduced its new Mark the Spot app into the iPhone App Store. The app enables users to submit a notification to AT&T whenever and wherever they experience dropped calls, failed calls, no coverage, data failure, or poor voice quality. The app can pull the iPhone's GPS information to tell AT&T where the failure happened; alternately, users can manually select a location on the map to indicate where the coverage failure occurred. With the notification, users can also submit additional comments, as well as tell AT&T whether the problem occurs only once, seldom, often, or always.

FAQs within the app reveal what AT&T plans to do with the feedback it receives:

"AT&T will utilize this feedback to optimize and enhance the network. Problems will be clustered to highlight areas for investigation. However, multiple submissions at the same time for the same issue by the same user do not receive higher weighting."

Other commentators seem skeptical about whether AT&T will actually use the feedback submitted via the app to begin patching its coverage gaps. Assuming, though, that AT&T has the resources and infrastructure in place, the company would be unwise to not improve its 3G coverage based upon this information. Not only would such improvements benefit its customers, its reputation, and its sales, but AT&T's Mark the Spot app sets expectations that the carrier will take customers' feedback seriously and work to fix the problems.

Congratulations, AT&T, for taking a step to improve your customer service and effectively repair your reputation. Don't let us down now by doing nothing with the valuable feedback you receive through your new app.

Revising Your Holiday Gift-Giving Strategy

Last week, MediaPost's Marketing Daily published an article entitled, "Report: Gift Cards Are The New Fruitcake." That is to say, gift cards are the new "classic" Christmas present that nobody wants to receive.

According to research firm TowerGroup, store gift card spending is expected to decrease 7% for 2009; an October Consumer Reports survey revealed that only 15% of consumers actually want gift cards.

The MediaPost article and a video by Consumer Reports offer some hypotheses for the reasons behind the gift card's fall from favor:

1. Consumers want to spend money on more practical items (i.e. food and gasoline), not on the non-necessities sold by the typical gift card retailer.


2. Consumers are slow to spend their gift cards. According to Consumer Reports, 25% of consumers who received a gift card in 2008 have not yet spent the gift card.


3. 65% of consumers spend more than the face value of the gift card they receive, meaning that in order to use their own gift, they must spend money.


4. Retailers are maintaining smaller inventories this year; thus, by the time a consumer visits the store to spend a gift card (i.e. after the holidays), the items they might have wanted may likely be sold out already.

Adding to the "fruitcakey-ness" of gift cards this Christmas season is the loudness with which retailers have been peddling their gift cards. It seems that a person can no longer turn on the television or set foot in a store without a bombardment of advertisements touting gift cards as the "one-size-fits-all gift" or the "gift that won't be returned" or the "gift that people really want."

But if folks want to give something better than fruitcake to their loved ones this Christmas, they might be advised to avoid the gift cards and resort to the good, old-fashioned holiday gift strategy:

Giving actual, physical objects as Christmas presents.

When a person gives a physical item - be it a toy, a sweater, cologne, or a toaster oven - it shows that he took the time to consider the recipient's likes and dislikes; he spent time browsing the store aisles or catalog pages (or actually making a gift, like everyone did in the olden days); he spent time choosing a thoughtful and meaningful gift.

Instead of trying to persuade consumers to buy gift cards for their loved ones this year, marketers ought to help consumers pick out considerate and desirable gifts.

Social media seems like one natural venue for this. Help consumers use their friends' profile information (with permission, of course) to determine likes, dislikes, and wants. Design quizzes that enable users to report on their likes and interests, and then output suggested gift items. Enable users to create "Christmas wish lists" to post to their profiles. Create "secret societies" of friends that can share ideas for what to give to a certain someone.

In-store displays could also give helpful hints to gift-givers. What if stores showed lists of this year's top-selling items for different interest categories: "for the musician," "for the gamer," "for the animal lover," "for the skater," "for the outsdoorsman," "for the fashionista," "for the bookworm," etc.?

This Christmas, consumers may be returning to the notion of giving thoughtful gifts because they care, instead of giving "spend-as-you-like" gifts because a gift is expected. And if consumers are thinking more about the gifts they give, marketers should be thinking more about how to help those gift-givers give meaningful gifts.

Selling Products? or Experiences?

Are you in the business of selling a product, or selling an experience?

Let's take cupcakes as an example. A company could see themselves as a seller of cupcakes. They could choose which flavor(s) to sell - vanilla, chocolate, or a combination of flavors and icings and decorations. They could choose a price for their cupcakes. They could choose their delivery method - in a storefront, to grocery stores, or as an online retailer? As individual cupcakes, or packaged together? Then they could choose to promote their brand: "we sell cupcakes."

Or, a company could approach their cupcake business like Cupdates does.

Cupdates is "a cupcake delivery and catering business, serving the Hampton Roads [Virginia] area," according to the Cupdates Facebook fan page. But they aren't in the business of selling cupcakes. They are in the business of selling cupdates - "sweet and memorable experience[s] that [are] created when two or more people gather together to share in the delight of eating a beautiful and delicious gourmet cupcake." (again, from their Facebook fan page and their website.)

What is the difference?

Most cupcake purveyors think that they are selling cupcakes to customers who want cupcakes.

But most customers don't want to eat cupcakes just any old time, and most customers don't want to eat cupcakes alone.

They want cupcakes as a treat - as part of a joyous occasion. Cupcakes are most delightful when they are shared with friends and family in celebration of a birthday, or holiday, or party, or event.

And so, Cupdates doesn't sell cupcakes. They sell something more compelling and valuable for customers - they sell the experience of enjoying, with friends, the delightful creativity and wonderful deliciousness of a gourmet cupcake.

It is as the saying goes, "a person doesn't want a drill; he wants a hole."

When a company shifts perspective from selling drills to selling holes - or from selling cupcakes to selling sweet experiences - it becomes more able to solve the customer's real need, and enjoys more flexibility in the way it meets that need. The company also takes on another level of responsibility. When you sell experiences, you are no longer responsible for just the product. You are responsible for the delivery, the customer service, the life of product. You are answerable for the solution to the customer's problem, not just for a product you provide.

What might have happened to American railroad companies if they had seen themselves as in the business of transporting people, rather than the business of running trains?

What will happen to Cupdates as they see themselves as selling "sweet and memorable experiences," rather than selling cupcakes?

And what would happen to your organization if you begin to see yourselves as providing experiences, rather than providing products?

A Corporate Thanksgiving?

During last week's Thanksgiving holiday, people around the U.S. gathered together to eat turkey, watch football, and, presumably, to give thanks for the blessings they have received.

We share in this ritual of thanking God as individuals, as families, as friends. The first American settlers (with their American Indian friends) thanked God together as a community who had survived a hard voyage, harsh winter, cruel sicknesses, and new growing season.

Shouldn't our corporations offer thanks in a similar fashion, as a community that has received numerous blessings in good economies and in bad?

Below is my list of thanks-giving to God, on behalf of my organization:

Thank you for air to breathe.

Thank you for the capacity to learn, the capacity to think, the capacity to remember, the capacity to communicate, the capacity to grow things, the capacity to build things, and the capacity to work.

Thank you for the natural resources – earth, trees, water, sun, food, wind, stone, minerals, electricity – and the laws of physics which enable us to live and survive.

Thank you for beauty and strength and goodness and truth and trust.

Thank you for people. Thank you for relationships. Thank you for enabling us people to work together as a team, to learn from each other, to support one another, and to grow together.

Thank you for people who care – who care about their work, who care about the people around them, who care about their families, who care about customers, who care about being good stewards of the things they have been given, who care about making the world a better place.

Thank you for wisdom to make good decisions.

Thank you for leaders who care about their followers, who empower and strengthen their followers, and who lead by example.

Thank you for followers who follow responsibly, who work wholeheartedly, and who support their leaders and one another.

Thank you for families and for generations – for children, for youths, for young adults, for singles, for spouses, for parents, for grandparents, for elders, for those who have gone before us, and for those who are yet to come.

Thank you for ideas.

Thank you for the free market system, and the ability to trade, and the ability to connect to people in other locations and other nations, and the ability to compensate people for the work they do.

Thank you for nations that value and enable freedoms – among them, freedom to speak, freedom to practice religion, freedom to be educated, freedom to work and trade and be paid, freedom to start and run and own businesses, freedom to choose where to live, freedom to care for one’s family.

Thank you for governments that protect freedom and justice and truth and right-doing.

Thank you for the ability to create and the ability to make the world a better place.

Amen.

0% OFF and marketing tactics

One store in my town has a marquee with shall we say, an "unusual" promotional message.

The sign reads:

"0% OFF ALL HOME DECOR

WE HAVE MODA FABRIC"

Now, one might think that the "0% OFF" is a mistake. Surely it was meant to say "20% OFF" or "40% OFF" or "70% OFF", and a digit simply fell off the sign.

But when a person - like my friend Dwayne, who told me about the sign - drives by that sign every day for over a month, and the message has not changed, and the store is still in business, one begins to wonder what other reasons might lie behind the "0% OFF".

POSSIBLE REASON #1: The store is using "0% OFF" as a quirky surprise that will catch attention, pique curiosity, and attract customers. "After all," thinks the passerby, "no store in their right mind would offer '0% OFF' as a legitimate promotion. I wonder what they're doing in there. Maybe I'll stop in and see."

POSSIBLE REASON #2: The store is using "0% OFF" as a one-size-fits-all promotion. Customers realize that "0% OFF" must be a mistake, but that there must be some sort of sale going on inside the store. The store doesn't have to change the marquee to "20%" or "40%" or "70%" based on the discount of the day; the same message can remain on the board and still achieve the same effect.

POSSIBLE REASON #3: The store is using "0% OFF" to make a statement. The store is saying that their prices are so reasonable, that they don't need to offer discounts. Customers don't need a discounted price, because this store's prices are already the lowest in town. This store's regular prices are as low as their competitor's sale prices.

POSSIBLE REASON #4: A digit really did fall off the sign a month ago, and the store owner hasn't noticed, and the store manager hasn't noticed, and the employees haven't noticed, and no customers have said anything. Or someone did notice, but they ran out of extra numbers for the sign, and keep forgetting to order more. Or someone did notice, but they haven't taken the time to change the message yet - in over a month.

Whatever the reason for this particular marquee message, the goal of outdoor messaging is to draw customers to the store. Logical dissonance (i.e. "that's strange" or "I didn't expect that"), price discounts, and "everyday low prices" can all be used to raise customers' attention. Of course, all three tactics should be used strategically, and should be crafted with the customer in mind.

"What will the customer think?" and "How will the customer perceive or understand this?" should be two primary questions when crafting one's marketing messages - or any other marketing tactics, for that matter.

Your marketing message should be clear to the customer. If the customer thinks that your message was a mistake (i.e. a digit fell off your sign), he is going to keep driving right by.

Virtual Dressing Room, Starring You, Live!

The downside to the convenience of online shopping (or catalog shopping, for that matter) has always been that the shopper cannot really see how the clothes will look until the purchase has been made and the clothes have arrived.

As of four days ago, that has changed.

RichRelevance, a company that develops e-commerce tools, and Zugara, an interactive marketing and advertising agency, have now unveiled Fashionista, a "webcam social shopping tool" that enables shoppers to "try on" the clothes they browse online.

Using augmented reality and motion capture, Fashionista enables shoppers to test how an article of clothing will look by standing in front of their computer's webcam. Shoppers can rate articles of clothing (thumbs up or thumbs down), which enables Fashionista to provide recommendations for other clothes they might like. Shoppers can take a photo of themselves "wearing" their prospective clothing purchase, and send the photo to Facebook to get feedback from friends.

Watch the video below to see Fashionista for yourself:



Fashionista is currently used at www.tobi.com.

Other online retailers have used "virtual dressing rooms" of sorts already. H&M allows shoppers to select one of eight "models" on whom to view the clothing. Other stores enable shoppers to "build" a virtual model that matches their body type, or to upload a photo of themselves for "trying on" clothes.

Fashionista lets shoppers have a more interactive virtual dressing room experience, using their own bodies, in realtime. Shoppers can see how clothing of a certain color will look against their skin, and can envision what the clothes will look like.

Unfortunately, though, it doesn't seem that Fashionista can yet recognize the contours of the shopper's body in order to simulate how an article of clothing will fit him or her. For shopper's with model-like bodies, this might not be important; however, for me personally, seeing how clothes actually "hang" on me is the determining factor in whether or not I complete a purchase.

Hopefully the next generation of virtual dressing rooms will enable the clothing image to stretch, shrink, and gather based on the shopper's body shape.

And after that? 3D virtual dressing rooms?

And after that? Hologrammatic dressing rooms?

Oh, what will the future hold for us online shoppers?

Facebook, Birthdays, and Changing Marketing

Browse through nearly any marketing journal, and you will find talk on how Facebook and Twitter have changed (and in the case of Facebook, possibly birthed) the field of social media marketing.

I won't go into that whole discussion today; enough people smarter than I have spent more than enough words on it already, so you can Google them if you want to join that conversation.

I do, however, want to point out one tiny feature of Facebook that has changed our lives in a way that many marketers may overlook:

Birthdays.

Facebook has been the source of more birthday wishes than any other single tool I can imagine.

For example, of my Facebook friends, 99% of them are people I know personally (that is, I know and have met them in the flesh). Most of those 99% are people whose birthdays I would like to celebrate out of general love and goodwill, even though I might not see them or talk to them very often throughout the rest of the year.

But I have enough trouble remembering the birthdays of my ten cousins, let alone hundreds of Facebook friends.

Thanks to Facebook, I can "remember" the birthdays of each and every one of my Facebook friends. Since Facebook even notifies me of birthdays a few days ahead of time, it gives me a chance to buy a last-minute card or gift if I happened to forget an important birthday. But for the majority of my Facebook friends - those "Tier 2" relationships whom I do not see very often, who are friends but not close friends or family, whose birthdays they would not expect me to remember - Facebook's birthday notifications enable me to post a simple "Hope you have a wonderful birthday!" on their Facebook wall.

And on my own birthday, it is a special feeling to see a wall full of birthday wishes, some from people whom I have not seen in months, from whom a birthday wish is neither required not expected.

What are Facebook's birthday notifications really doing for us?

Facebook is enabling people to tell each other that they care. That they value one another. That they respect and appreciate one another's lives. That the people in their lives are important, even if they don't see one another very often.

It is a show of simple human kindness and caring. And in the kind of relationships that most of us have with most of our Facebook friends, this show of caring does not have to be a big thing. Just that unexpected "Happy Birthday" shows a little bit of love and consideration for one another.

That single purpose - showing that people care - is the core behind social media. We want to know that people care enough to notice us. That they like our ideas enough to listen. That they value our existence enough to converse with us.

That act of caring is what social media marketers must demonstrate in order to be successful, in order to really connect. What makes social media marketing different from many other forms of marketing, is that it enables marketers to stop doing all the talking. It enables marketers to listen to what the customer has to say. It enables customers to engage in the conversation with the brand and with each other. It provides a place where the customer's opinion matters.

The successful social media marketer recognizes this, and approaches social media accordingly. She engages in dialogue (not monologue). She takes time to listen, and to find out what individual customers care about. She recognizes the thoughts and opinions of her customers, and she communicates by her words and actions that her customers matter.

If you're going to engage in social media for marketing purposes, you must care about the customers, and then show them that you care. Otherwise you're just wasting everyone's time.

Good Salesman / Bad Salesman

Sorry for the brief hiatus, everyone.

Recently I've been in the market to buy a house, and last week I ramped my search up a notch. This experience of considering a major purchase has given me an interesting look at the sales process. Being a marketer, my work does not often cover the area of "salesmanship," so I find it fascinating when I can make some observations about "sales" from the viewpoint of a consumer.

And so, based on my recent experiences in working with realtors as I shop for a large-value, long-term, high-investment purchase, and based on other shopping experiences in general, here is Haley's Good Salesman/Bad Salesman list (version 1.0):

A Bad Salesman believes that he knows exactly what the customer wants as soon as the customer makes a request.
A Good Salesman asks questions, so that he can learn and clarify the customer's tastes, preferences, needs, and circumstances.

A Bad Salesman believes that he is the expert in the sales relationship.
A Good Salesman knows that the customer is the expert on her own needs and wants, and that his sales expertise about the product is relevant only after the customer teaches him about her situation.

A Bad Salesman is mostly concerned with talking about the product.
A Good Salesman is mostly concerned with listening to the customer.

A Bad Salesman shares his own speculations when he doesn't know the answer to the customer's question.
A Good Salesman admits when he doesn't know the answer to the customer's question, and finds the answer for the customer within 12 hours.

A Bad Salesman badmouths his competitor.
A Good Salesman conducts himself with grace, openly recognizing and respecting the strengths of his competitor, or identifying the differing usage situations for his competitor's product versus his own product, or speaking about "other brands" in general terms, or not mentioning the competitor at all when he talks with the customer.

A Bad Salesman alters the customer's needs to fit his product.
A Good Salesman alters his product to fit the customer's needs.

A Bad Salesman wants the sale to be a good deal for him and his company.
A Good Salesman wants the sale to be a good deal for both his company and his customer.

A Bad Salesman is an advocate for his company.
A Good Salesman is an advocate for his customer.

A Bad Salesman's goal is to make the sale.
A Good Salesman's goal is to make sure his customer gets the best solution.

Making Advertising Work Better for the Customer

Yesterday, MediaPost's Video Insider published an article by Michael Kokernak, founder of Backchannelmedia, entitled "Scientific Advertising and Free Samples." Mr. Kokernak predicts a few of the ways in which interactive television commercials would change the way marketers approach advertising.

First, he says that television advertising will no longer be driven by audience size and demographics. Indeed, demographics are an insufficient predictor of consumer preferences. My buying habits are more affected by my psychographics - such as my lifestyle (I'm a marketer; I run; I draw; I play piano; I'm actively involved in my church), my beliefs, and my friends - than by the fact that I'm a 20-something white American female.

With traditional television advertising, especially on the major networks, it was nearly impossible to segment viewers by anything but audience size and demographics. But since interactive television would enable viewers to pause, click, and further pursue the specific ads and information in which they are interested, marketers can get to "know" the likes and dislikes of each individual viewer, and to customize their advertisements according to those psychographics.

Second, Mr. Kokernak predicts that interactive television commercials will be more "keyed" to results than traditional tv advertising is. The ultimate goal of advertising, as Mr. Kokernak points out, is to drive sales. But so many factors contribute to the consumer decision-making process, that it is difficult to pinpoint if and how a specific ad led to a particular purchase. Except in routine or spontaneous purchases, most consumers' decision to buy a specific product comes after a long period of inputs, including previous brand experience, brand awareness, brand reputation, knowledge of the product category, opinions of other users, a history of advertising, point-of-sale marketing, customer service, etc. Rarely can a sale be attributed to any one factor, such as a particular ad.

Interactive television ads could help to more accurately measure results by capturing the actions of the consumer directly after viewing the ad. Did the viewer click on the ad? Did he spend much time on the website? Did he register on the site, or subscribe to email/SMS/RSS updates? Did he search for the product online? Did he use keywords from the ad in his search? Did he actually purchase the product online immediately after seeing the ad?

By tracking these results, marketers can determine whether an ad was successful in achieving "intermediate" goals, such as increasing the viewer's awareness of the brand, or improving the brand reputation in the mind of the viewers, or drawing the viewer to the website, or creating a positive brand experience for the viewer, or leading the viewer to "become a fan" and subscribe to updates. And because of e-commerce, marketers can also see when their interactive television commercials actually did lead to an immediate sale.

I think the jury is still out on how consumers will receive the idea of television and Internet rolled into one. It could be a huge success if done well. And whether or not "interactive television," as we imagine it, becomes the norm, interactive technology in general should enable marketers to make their communication more relevant and more useful to the individual consumer.

Innovative Boost to Tourism

Need to boost tourism in your corner of the world?

Try this: Pick the most distinctive thing about your location. Hire somebody to take, essentially, a six-month vacation in that place, doing all of those fun, distinctive activities, and blogging about it for six months. Don't search for this fortunate fellow in just your local area. Instead, place classified ads in newspapers around the globe, inviting anyone to apply for the Best Job in the World. Require them to submit their applications via online video. Invite the top applicants to fly to your site for interviews. Pick the best one and set him to work.

And get $98 million (USD) of publicity for your location in the process.

That's what the tourism board of Queensland, Australia did with their "Best Job in the World" campaign this year. In January 2009, they announced their position with classified ads stating this:

The Best Job in the World

Position Vacant: Island Caretaker
Location: Islands of the Great Barrier Reef, Queensland, Australia
Salary: AUD$150,000 six-month contract
Responsibilities: Clean the pool, Feed the fish, Collect the mail, Explore and report back
Applications close: 22 February 2009 Interviews: 4 May 2009 Announcement made: 8 May 2009
Work begins: 1 July 2009

Anyone can apply.
www.islandreefjob.com


The website received over 34,000 applicants. 15 finalists spent four days together on Hamilton Island in the Great Barrier Reef, taking tests in snorkeling, swimming, eating island barbecue, and blogging. The winner, Ben Southall, 34, a charity worker from Petersfield, UK, began work 2 July 2009.

Since the job began, Ben has been staying in a multi-million-dollar three-bedroom beach villa with pool, exploring the island, snorkeling the reef, posting photos, videos, and blogs, and earning AUD$150,000 (USD$134,000) in the process.

With 34,000 applicants alone (not to mention other visitors to the site and followers of Ben's blog) and estimated USD$98 million in free publicity from news media around the world, I would imagine that Tourism Queensland will be doing pretty well for quite a while.

To see a video recap of the campaign, visit http://adage.com/u/lvfdVaM.

Have We Missed the Point?

Along Interstate 20 in Texas, somewhere between Abilene and Eastland, stands a billboard that bears the Texas Tech University logo and reads, "We make Texas better."

The billboard does not mention Texas Tech's academics, or athletics, or grad school acceptance rates, or faculty. Its simple statement focuses on the bottom line: that, ostensibly, this university makes the world a better place.

Does your organization make the world a better place? Or does your organization merely fill the world with stuff? Does your organization enrich lives? Or do you act as if people's lives (customers' lives, employees' lives) exist to enrich your organization? Does your organization exist merely to make a profit? Or worse yet, does it exist merely for the sake of existing?

I would assert that if an organization does not make the world a better place, then it has no reason to exist. If an organization does not bring life, or joy, or love, or friendliness, or peace of mind, or greater wellbeing to the lives of people, then it has no reason to be.

We are all created to give something to the world. To enrich. To bless. Our organizations should do the same, or else we have deeply missed our calling.

Now, as we go about seeking to enrich the world, we had better have the excellent work, excellent products, and excellent service to make that happen. Texas Tech University had better have the stellar academics, the great athletics, the astronomical grad school acceptance rates, and the highly illustrious faculty that are critical to its mission. Texas Tech had better be instilling in its students the healthy worldview, the critical thinking, the character, the desire for excellence, and the drive to innovation that transform them into citizens who can make the world a better place. Organizations cannot approach the goal of enriching the world in the same way that the folks in this commercial approach the goal of ideation:



However, if we go about our business of making products and offering services without ensuring that we actually are making the world a better place, then we have missed the point entirely.

Giving Handles, Selling Blades

(or, How to Make Money by Giving Free Stuff)

I just bought my first iPhone last week. Since then, my continuing odyssey through the wonderful world of the iPhone App Store has inspired some musings on why free apps (and other free products) can be great money-makers for an organization. Absurd, you say? Let me explain with an example.

One application I have downloaded is RunKeeper Free, by FitnessKeeper, Inc. The app uses the iPhone's GPS and a timekeeper to record distance, duration, pace, and speed. RunKeeper Free also provides me with a Google Map of my route, plus allows me to save my run history to the app and/or to the RunKeeper website, where I can also view Calories burned, elevation, and start/end times for each activity in my history. And, of course, because of the iPhone's multitasking abilities, I can also listen to my tunes while RunKeeper tracks my workout.

FitnessKeeper, Inc. also offers a paid version of the application - the RunKeeper Pro. For $9.99, the RunKeeper Pro provides the same features as RunKeeper Free, as well as audio cues, training workouts, iTunes playlist integration, the ability to post geo-tagged photos and status updates, and integration with social networking sites. The RunKeeper Pro also runs without the small, silent, inobtrusive ads contained in the free version - ads which, incidentally, I did not even notice until their absence was highlighted in the description for RunKeeper Pro.

A download button (linked to the iPhone App Store) for the RunKeeper Pro is included on a screen within its free counterpart.

So, if FitnessKeeper, Inc. offers a robust $10 application, why do they also offer a free version? Won't the free version cannibalize the paid version? Would anyone pay $10 for the Pro version when he can get the most valuable features for $0 with the free version?

The answers to the last two questions are "probably not," and "yes," respectively.

iPhone users who would download the free version (me, for example) would probably only download an app like this if it were free. If the only version available were the paid version (or the $10 paid version anyway), such users would probably decide that the app was not worth downloading after all. They would choose another, free, app, or no runner app at all.

Some iPhone users will download the $10 RunKeeper Pro right off the bat, even though they know that a free application with most of the same features is available. These users are probably either hard-core runners (possibly), exercise-motivation-seekers, or gadget aficionados (most likely). To these users, it is worth $10 for audio cues, pre-programmed workouts, playlist integration, photo-sharing, and social networking features unavailable in the free version. Thus, offering the RunKeeper Free does not steal the business of these paying customers.

Still other iPhone users will download the RunKeeper Free, and later decide to upgrade to the $10 RunKeeper Pro. Perhaps they loved the free version so much that they were ready to try the paid version. Perhaps their curiosity got the best of them, and they just had to try out the additional features. Or perhaps they developed into such avid runners that they came to see the RunKeeper Pro as a good buy.

Whatever the reason for the upgrade, the RunKeeper Free paved the way for some prospective paying customers to become actual paying customers. The free version enabled FitnessKeeper to build trusting relationships with potential customers. And it provided opportunities for RunKeeper Free users to show off the app to their running buddies, some of whom might be the types that would purchase the paid version.

And so, one can think of the RunKeeper Free as less of a profit-less product, and more of a marketing tool for the RunKeeper Pro.

It's like the strategy of razor manufacturers. Gillette, I'm told, sends a free razor to young men on their eighteenth birthdays. Those young men like the experience of shaving with a Gillette razor, so they keep coming back to Gillette to buy replacement blades.

Also, free products (or paid ones, for that matter), like the RunKeeper Free and RunKeeper Pro can connect the organization to fans who might also pay money for other items. FitnessKeeper could have among its customers a market for more FitnessKeeper gear, like t-shirts, running shorts, sweatbands, socks, watches, etc.

What products can your organization give away for free? And not just demos or promotional products, but real, useful tools that can benefit consumers and can help you to start building a fan base? Out of that trust-relationship, those fans may become paying customers for your other product offerings. Or, even better, they may spread the word to others like them who become paying customers, too.

Exceptional Customer Service Strikes Again

The story you are about to read is true.

Some of my marketing consulting work recently required me to have some informational booklets professionally printed. I sent the booklet to the printer in two batches - in the first batch, I ordered only one copy, so that I could show it to my client for approval before running the rest of the copies. After I got my client's opinion and made a few changes, I ordered a larger batch of the booklet.

For the first batch, I used a local printing company - let's call it Company A. I had never before worked with Company A, but I had heard of them and was willing to give them a try. Company A was professional, and turned out a great-quality product to me within my four-day deadline. I felt badly that my four-day deadline was a bit short, but I was under a time crunch myself, and was relieved that Company A was able to print my project, with great quality, on time.

Sometime after this first booklet came back from the printer, a friend of mine recommended that I try another printer in town, with whom he had had excellent previous experience. He suggested that I investigate whether this second printer - Company B, let's say - could print my booklet at a lower price than Company A.

I showed my first booklet to Company B, and, sure enough, their price quote per copy was 14% lower than I had paid for the booklet from Company A. Eager to try to save money without sacrificing quality, I placed the order for the second batch of booklets with Company B.

When I placed my order with Company B, my deadline was, unfortunately, even shorter than that for Company A - three business days, rather than four. With Company A, the graphics I sent were able to be printed without any manipulation. With Company B, their designer had to fix a few things for me. Company B then had to show me a proof. I then made one more change. Company B printed another proof. I then gave the okay, and Company B printed five times as many copies as Company A.

My order from Company B was ready for pick-up the very day after I had placed the order.

Company B delivered my project three days earlier, for 14% less per copy, and with more work on the part of the vendor, than Company A.

Guess which vendor will have all of my printing business from now on?

Had the lower price been the only benefit that Company B provided to me, I would have been equally satisfied with both Company A and B. Company A gave me a great product and met my professional expectations; they were satisfactory. Company A was simply a bit more expensive on this project - no hard feelings. On my next print job, I might have gotten bids from both Company A and Company B, and simply selected the less expensive vendor once again.

However, my experience with Company B was so exceptional compared to my completely satisfactory experience with Company A, that it left me with an unequivocal loyalty to one vendor over the other.

Is your organization like Company A? Do you provide a great product? Are you professional? Do you meet your customers' expectations? Do you satisfy your customers?

If so, beware that a Company B doesn't come along and start providing, not only a great product, but an outstanding product. Not only meeting, but exceeding your customers' expectations. Not only being professional, but being servants. Not only satisfying your customers, but delighting your customers.

If your organization currently looks like Company A, I would recommend doing everything in your power to become Company B - quickly.

Volkswagen and the Theory of Fun

I feel slightly behind the times. Within the past five days, I have received links to this video series from three different people. When I did a Google search for the series, the first results page was full of blog references to the initiative. As much as I dislike following the crowd and talking about the same thing as everyone else, I must say something about this.

It is spectacular.

It is called the "Theory of Fun," and it is a new initiative by Volkswagen to persuade people to act responsibly.

The idea is that adding fun to a specific action will cause people to participate in that action - perhaps even changing their behavior over the long-term. This video shows how Volkswagen induced subway travelers in Stockholm, Sweden to take the stairs rather than the escalator, by turning the staircase into a working piano:



Climbing stairs is not the only thing that Volkwagen has made more fun. To see how Volkswagen put some fun into both recycling and throwing trash into the trash can, visit www.thefuntheory.com.

Volkswagen is also encouraging consumers to generate their own ideas for how to change behavior for the better by making things fun. People can submit their own videos from now through November 15 for the chance of winning 2,500 Euros.

Isn't it a brilliant idea? Changing behavior by making things fun? Of course, over the long-term, people should choose to do the right thing (i.e. exercise, recycle, refuse to litter) simply because it is the right thing to do. But why not use fun to start people on the path of building those good habits? It is like the scene in Mary Poppins in which Mary convinces the children to tidy up the nursery by turning it into a game. "Just a spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down," Mary would say.

So why is Volkswagen doing all this? First off, getting masses of people to start taking care of the environment is a wonderful, rewarding, and wise thing to do. A clean planet is good for everyone. Secondly, engaging in social responsibility and creating free fun for people builds goodwill toward the Volkswagen brand. And third, if people start being more environmentally conscious, perhaps they will become more interested in purchasing environmentally responsible cars.

Do you have a cause that fits with your brand, like environmental responsibility fits with VW? If not, get one. Explore the basic need being filled by your products and services. Find out what your people are passionate about. Discover the root principle behind your mission statement. And make that your cause. Your company should not just add more "stuff" to the world; your company should make the world a better place.

Once you have a cause that fits with your brand, see if you can make it fun for people to participate. Walmart could encourage kids to "save money. live better" by giving them free musical piggy banks. Schoolteachers could make studying fun by creating educational games for their students. Hospitals and restaurants could encourage people to wash their hands by installing synchronized, dancing, multi-colored lights over the sinks in the restrooms. Your human resources department could encourage employees to turn in their paperwork by singing every time someone places their papers into the inbox.

Find your cause, and make it fun for people to join in. You'll be helping society, helping your customers, and helping your brand, too.

Perspectives from Inside the Organization

To read today's post, see my guest blog post on the Abilene Startup Blog, hosted by my friend @chadhutchins.

- Haley

Go Forth on a Levi's Scavenger Hunt

Yesterday Levi Strauss & Company launched a venue for destiny-seekers to heed the brand's call to "Go Forth."

The venue is the new Levi's scavenger hunt game, Go Forth, which leads players on a search for $100,000 in buried treasure belonging to the late Grayson Ozias IV. Grayson Ozias IV (G.O. Fourth - get it?) was a friend of Nathan Strauss (nephew of Levi Strauss), and disappeared in 1896, after leaving behind a series of wax cylinders upon which are recorded clues that lead to the treasure. Levi's will release these clues over a seven-week period; players visit levis.com/goforth to read the clues, deduce the cities to which they point, and discover the treasure.

While Grayson Ozias IV may be fictitious, the $100,000 treasure is not. The first player to solve the puzzle will win $100,000, and may vote for a U.S. nonprofit to receive $100,000 as well.

With the "Go Forth" game, Levi Strauss & Company and their ad agency Wieden + Kennedy are creating a fun blend of alternate reality and social media. The site, in addition to providing the game clues, also features a comments board and the @GraysonOziasIV Twitter feed. And according to MediaPost's Marketing Daily, Levi's is also promoting the game through its Facebook fan page, Twitter, ESPN Magazine, and online ads.

Bravo for Levi's and their foray into role-playing games. They are providing a free venue for customers (and potential customers) to interact with their brand and with each other, while promoting the spirit of 19th-century American pioneering upon which the company was founded. Creating positive brand experiences and allowing people to build relationships sound like great ways to sell jeans.

Flash for All Smartphones...Except the iPhone

Users of Blackberry, Google Android, Symbian OS, Palm webOS, and Windows Mobile can expect to have full Flash player capabilities for their phones within the next few months, according to multiple sources, including Adobe.

Today at the Adobe MAX developer's conference in Los Angeles, Adobe introduced Flash Player 10.1, part of Adobe's Open Screen Project, an initiative to "provide a consistent runtime environment across mobile phones, desktops and other consumer electronic devices." Flash Player 10.1 is GPU-accelerated*, so users can view videos in HD, while [hopefully] conserving battery life and CPU** usage. Flash 10.1 will also support the capabilities of each mobile device, including multi-touch, accelerometer, gestures, and screen orientation.

Flash Player 10.1 will be available in beta for Windows Mobile and Palm webOS phones later this year; the beta version will hit Google Android and Symbian OS phones in early 2010.

One smartphone, however, is blatantly absent from this list: the Apple iPhone. Over a year ago, Apple declared that desktop Flash was too CPU-hungry, and Flash Lite too poor-quality, to be used on the iPhone. As early as June 2008, Adobe developers began work on a Flash version that would meet Apple's requirements. The latest news from Adobe was that the development of Flash for the iPhone is "in [Adobe's] court." There has been no word today on whether Flash capability for the iPhone is forthcoming.

Is this another case of Apple refusing to play nicely with other technology companies? Or is Apple waiting for a Flash Player version that will meet certain standards of quality for the iPhone? Or, as one blogger speculates, is Apple intentionally providing a respite for web users weary of tiresome Flash animations?

One report suggests that Apple might indeed be taking a step in the Flash-friendly direction. The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW) reports that Adobe Professional CS5 will enable Flash animations to be exported to iPhone/iPod Touch applications. So even though iPhone users will be unable to view Hulu and Facebook videos on the device, they will be able to use iPhone applications that feature animation.

I look forward to seeing what Apple communicates with its continuing lack of Flash capabilities for the iPhone. Will Apple announce that a version of Flash Player will soon be made available for the iPhone after all? Will they report that the decision for the iPhone to go without Flash was made with the consumer in mind? Or does Apple have something else up its sleeve?

Stay tuned.


Brief glossary:
*GPU = Graphics Processing Unit
**CPU = Central Processing Unit

Living Life Like a Butterfly

My friend Sarah and I picked a perfect day to sit outside for lunch.

Today in Abilene, Texas, the breeze was cool, the sun was shining, the sky was blue, and the monarch butterflies were passing through on their fall migration. Sarah and I just happened to eat lunch together outside today, in a spot where a couple hundred monarchs were fluttering about.

The butterflies were breathtaking to watch, of course. And, more than that, they fascinated me.

Here they were, in the midst of a few-thousand-mile flight south to Mexico for the winter. But these butterflies were not soaring by, as Canadian geese zoom past during their own annual migration. The butterflies' migration looked nothing like an American family road trip, with no stops allowed except bathroom breaks.

Instead, the monarch butterflies seemed to be taking their time. Sarah and I watched as they simply fluttered around this cluster of bushes and trees in Abilene, Texas, almost as if they lived there. Had someone been visiting Abilene today and seen these butterflies, he would have assumed that he had stepped into a permanent butterfly garden - not that these beautiful insects were just passing through.

I want to go through life like the butterflies do.

I want to live life with a destination in mind, with an innate purpose and goal which I press on to achieve. But I do not want to travel toward that destination single-mindedly, like a Canadian goose. I do not want to zoom through life, non-stop, trying to reach my goal without delay.

I want to travel toward my goal like a monarch butterfly. Moving from place to place, with the same path and purpose and focus as the Canadian goose, but enjoying the trip along the way. Slowing down enough to savor each moment, each location, each season. Taking time to get to know people and experience places as I go. Realizing that each stop along the journey might be just as important, and as meaningful, and as beautiful, as the final destination.

Are you living life like a goose, or like a butterfly?

Starbucks and Disappointed Hopes

I don't mind Starbucks. I wouldn't say that Starbucks coffee is my favorite, and I can think of other coffee houses that have great atmosphere, and sell fair trade, and are going green. But Starbucks is fine.

There is one thing that always disappoints me about Starbucks, though. It is this:

When Starbucks advertises its drinks on posters, table tents, etc., it shows steaming hot Pumpkin Spice Lattes, or cool-and-creamy Mint Chocolate Frappuccinos, served in beautiful china mugs or glass stemware, with swirls of caramel syrup or chocolate shavings or cinnamon flakes.

Have you ever been served a Starbucks espresso drink in a china mug with cinnamon flakes on top of the foamed milk? Has anyone?

My Starbucks coffee has only ever been presented to me in the mostly recycled/recyclable paper cups (or plastic, for cold drinks), and always with a lid that hides any cinnamon flakes that might have been sprinkled on my drink by an extra-thoughtful barista. No matter if I plan to stay in the Starbucks store for hours, sipping my drink and chatting with friends or reading, my coffee still comes in the to-go cup with a lid.

Why? If I intend to drink my coffee inside the store, why can't Starbucks serve my drink to me in the manner in which it is advertised? In the nice china mug, with the swirls and flakes and cinnamon dust?

I should think that it would be easy to ask customers, "for here or to go?" when they place their orders, and to serve their drinks accordingly. Using mugs and glasses for in-store orders would surely save trees and landfill space, although I admittedly do not know how much the extra dishwashing would affect water usage. And if a "for here" customer had not yet finished her drink by the time she was ready to leave the store, she could easily request a to-go cup for the remaining coffee.

Please, Starbucks, stop using your ads to raise my hopes for a delightful coffee-drinking experience, only to dash them with another paper or plastic cup when I visit your store. The idea is to "under-promise, over-deliver"; not the other way around.

"I love my city. Don't send the Olympics here."

In less than five days from this writing, the International Olympic Committee will decide which city will host the 2016 Olympics. The top contenders are Chicago, Madrid, Tokyo, and Rio de Janeiro. Officials from each city have spent months (or years?) trying to convince the world (or, at least the Committee) that their city is worthy of hosting the Games. In similar fashion, a grassroots organization of purported Chicagoans has launched a marketing effort promoting the Olympic bid...for Rio.

The group's website, www.ChicagoansForRio.com, quite attractively displays information about the Olympic Games and why Chicago should NOT be the host in 2016. The main reason why not? Finances. These Chicagoans do not want their city to go bankrupt with all of the obligatory Olympic-sized construction and infrastructure projects.

The "Chicagoans for Rio" site features an animated counter claiming to show the "2009 City Deficits to Date," plus fun facts about the debt incurred by previous host cities of the Olympics, a photo slideshow of the now-unused 21 (out of 22) Olympic venues in Athens, and a scrolling marquee of supposed site visitor comments supporting Rio de Janeiro's bid over Chicago's. Other helpful (or amusing) features of the site include links to recent crime records from Chicago; a "head-to-head" comparison of Rio vs. Chicago; and links to purchase "Chicagoans for Rio" merchandise, to email the IOC, and to support Rio's bid on the Rio 2016 website.

Last Thursday, a Chicago Fox News station broadcasted the story of "Chicagoans for Rio", but was politely asked to stop talking about it, as the report "would harm Chicago's chances" for being awarded the bid. Ironically, this shushing only garnered more attention for the movement, as Drudge Report, Twitterers, and several online journals and blogs spread the word about the cease-and-desist.

The publicity about "Chicagoans for Rio" has also drummed up some questions about the group's veracity: given that the website lists no contact information, how do we know for sure that the group members are truly from Chicago? Who's to say they are not really from, say, Rio? And where are they getting their budget deficit facts, anyway?

Nevertheless, let's assume for the moment that "Chicagoans for Rio" truly is a group of Chicagoans willing to forego the honor of hosting the Olympics in exchange for some semblance of fiscal responsibility. Assuming that they are a spontaneous grassroots organization with no budget, here is what I would recommend if they truly want to dissuade the International Olympic Committee by Friday:

1) Get people talking. The shushing of Fox News generated some buzz already; "Chicagoans for Rio" needs more. Start a blog telling the full story behind the website, behind the Fox News story, behind the shushing - everything! - and include buttons to make it easy for people to Tweet, email, embed, Digg it, and post it to Facebook. Invite people to use the Twitter hashtag #chicagoansforrio to share reasons why the Olympics should be hosted in Rio and not in Chicago. Post YouTube videos in which Chicagoans share these reasons audio-visual style.

2) Get people involved. The whole anonymous website thing might be the "safe" way for the organizers to go, but they need some legitimate method of showing how many Chicagoans support Rio for the 2016 Olympics. They could start a petition (secure, of course) on the website in which visitors submit their names and email addresses to show their support for Chicagoans for Rio. Or they could start a Facebook group (the group "2,000,000 for the olympics in chicago" currently has only 99,540 members). Or they could invite Chicagoans to tweet their "send the Olympics to Rio" messages to the IOC (@Olympics).

3) Be the anti-Chicago2016. For everything that the Chicago Olympic Committee has done to promote Chicago as the host city for the 2016 Games, the "Chicagoans for Rio" group should do the same to plead against Chicago as the 2016 host city. So maybe they cannot replicate the entire Chicago 2016 site by Friday, but they could still create some videos or write some articles to counter the COC's arguments point-for-point. They could post a nice slideshow describing why Rio, rather than Chicago, is ideal for the 2016 Olympics.

But again, these suggestions could only be worthwhile if "Chicagoans for Rio" are truly in earnest. And even if "Chicagoans for Rio" do try some of these tactics, the plan could always backfire - the International Olympic Committee might vote for Chicago 2016 just to spite them.

The Home Depot and Edutainment

Majesco Entertainment Company recently released a game for the Wii, featuring home improvement retailer The Home Depot. The game, "Our House: Party!" features 175 mini-games in which players (up to four) complete home improvement projects in order to make their homes the best in the neighborhood. These projects include tasks like construction, demolition, plumbing, wiring, landscaping, decorating, and, of course, racing through The Home Depot store to get the necessary power tools.



Majesco also released a similar version of the game - "Our House" - for Nintendo DS. In the DS version, players start as contractors who must build customer's houses in order to save up enough money to build their own home.

The first brilliant thing about these games is that they're just plain fun. (Or at least they sound fun! I haven't tested them out yet.) The second brilliant thing is that, in the midst of all that fun, Majesco and The Home Depot have combined education (learn, loosely, how to do various projects), branding (The Home Depot, of course!), and entertainment. The game provides instruction and fun in a positive brand experience for The Home Depot's potential customers.

The Home Depot creates other positive brand experiences, too, without forcing customers to pay them a dime. In addition to the caricatured "do-it-yourself" projects of the "Our House" and "Our House: Party!" games, The Home Depot shares scores of free, real-life "how to" videos on their YouTube channel. And, as I understand, anyone can visit a Home Depot store during their project workshops for hands-on instruction in home improvement.

These are the kinds of things that attract customers to a brand. Give people something useful, teach them, provide them a service - for free. In the process you will be building trust, building rapport, and building relationships with people. And then, when those people really do need a product that you sell, with whom will they prefer to spend their money? You've proven yourself trustworthy in a service that does not earn you money; now those people will be ready to trust you with a service that does.

How can your organization provide an honest-to-goodness, helpful, positive, fun brand experience for people, before they ever have to spend a dime?

Good mobile web? Someone needs to step up.

Two MediaPost publications reported last week on a Yankee Group study that assessed the overall quality of mobile websites. Yankee Group researchers evaluated 27 major mobile sites on criteria including design, usability, and ability to adapt to multiple devices and networks. The findings were disappointing: the average score was 52 out of 100 - a failing grade.

The highest scorers among the group, which included popular news, sports, and search sites, were as follows: Google search (81), Yahoo search (76), Google News (73), Yahoo News (73), MLB.com (71), Rivals.com (58), and ESPN.com (57). When translated into academic grades, the highest scorer (Google) only achieved a B-.

Given that smartphone usage continues to grow massively (Nielsen reports that smartphone adoption has increased 72% quarter-over-quarter this year, to 26 million subscribers in the second quarter of 2009), this mobile web failure is a sorry state. But it means that there exists lots of opportunity for companies to fill that space by developing mobile sites that are truly outstanding.

Imagine how much of the mobile web audience could be captured by a company that offers an A+ mobile site, at a time when the top competitor (Google) only scores a B-. Imagine the kind of fan base that company could build if its mobile site communicated essential information in a clean, simple, easy-to-read, easy-to-navigate format, optimized for any mobile device.

How can companies do this?

1) Simplify. Tell mobile users what they want to know; do not overwhelm them with information. In your writing, be succinct. In graphs and charts and design, use as few strokes as possible to accurately communicate the information. Use space wisely, without crowding. For inspiration, read up on books about clean design and simplifying your life; or browse through top design magazines and "best of the web" lists.

2) Detect. Determine whether the user is accessing your site from a desktop/laptop or from a mobile device. For users surfing on mobile phones, automatically route them to the version of your site that is optimized for mobile. You might do this by providing customers with a separate web address for your mobile site (my alma mater uses http://www.acu.edu for desktop, and http://m.acu.edu for mobile). Or, for an even better user experience, take Carl Howe's recommendation and invest in device detection on your mobile site; this will allow you to provide users with a site that is optimized for their specific mobile platform.

3) Target. Customize users' experience based upon their location. Use the GPS data from their phones to give them information relevant to their geographic area. Unless they state otherwise, treat their mobile web experience like local search. If they are looking at music, show them concerts near them. Looking at food? Show them restaurants near them. Weather? Show them local weather. Sports? Show them the local teams. And then provide easy access to information from other regions as well.

4) Research. Ask users what they want in a mobile web experience. Ask them to critique several mobile sites; ask them what they like and dislike. Ask them what their favorite mobile sites are, and why. Ask them which information on your site should be displayed on a mobile device, and which information is irrelevant. In order to provide a great customer experience, you must know what experience your customers want.

The mobile web space is wide open for companies that will optimize their sites for the mobile user experience.

Subways: Boring or Beautiful?

Last week, New York City's Metropolitan Transit Authority unveiled a project that will make subway riders' commute a bit "brighter."

That project is the newly completed art installation by the late Conceptual artist Sol Lewitt. The piece, entitled "Whirls and Twirls (MTA)", is an arrangement of brilliant porcelain tiles on the wall above the staircase at the 59th Street-Columbus Circle subway station. The piece is the first of three Lewitt works commissioned by the MTA; the other two are compass rose floor designs. (Read more about the work at www.nytimes.com.)


Photo by Ángel Franco, New York Times


The piece rather reminds me of another bit of art and culture that was added to the NYC subway recently - without the direction of the Metropolitan Transit Authority. One evening in November 2008, Improv Everywhere, a volunteer group that "causes scenes of chaos and joy in public places," opened an "art gallery" on the 23rd Street subway platform. See their video below:




Both of these initiatives took a typically dirty and dreary part of New Yorkers' daily life - riding the subway - and made it interesting and beautiful. They brought joy (or in the case of Improv Everywhere, "chaos and joy") to the public. At no cost to the public.

What can your organization do to brighten up the lives of your audience? How can you add beauty and delight and surprise and laughter to your customers' experience? What part of your product or service is taken for granted as dull or distasteful, and what can you do to change it?

And don't make your customers bear the cost of this change. Take it out of your marketing budget. The repeat business of your delighted customers and their friends will be more than enough recompense for any extra expense.

What They Don't Know Can Kill You

Over lunch earlier this week, my friend Howdy and I had an interesting conversation about the hoopla surrounding President Obama's speech to America's schoolchildren on September 8.

During an interview with student reporter Damon Weaver in August, President Obama announced that on September 8 he would be making a speech to schoolchildren across America. By August 21 the press had picked up the story, reporting also that the President's address was to be accompanied with a curriculum for teachers to use with the speech. The curriculum suggested that teachers engage students with questions like, "What is the president trying to tell me?", "What does the president want me to do?", and "What new ideas and actions is the president challenging me to think about?"; and with assignments such as "writ[ing] letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president." The actual contents of the speech were not released.

By September 1, conservative parents, educators, and activists were up in arms.

For adults already concerned by more liberal shifts in our nation's politics and education, the speech could only mean one thing: an attempt by President Obama to push his left-wing agenda on the children of America. And the accompanying curriculum - typical of any critical-thinking exercise in American schools - must, of course, be a ploy to further brainwash the children. How does the president have the right to preach to our children and dictate curriculum in our schools?

CNN, among other news channels, covered the story of conservatives' outrage. Among conservative bloggers, a flurry of blog posts arose, displaying such titles as, "Obama's next effort: a Children's Crusade?", "Beloved Leader to Begin Indoctrination of Youth", "Dilemna: [sic] What's a mom to do? Creepy President to deliver speech to all public school children!", and "September 8, 2009: National Keep Your Child at Home Day". These bloggers compared President Obama to everyone from Kim Jong Il to Adolf Hitler to Fidel Castro.

Finally, on September 7, the day before the President's speech, the White House released the text for the incendiary address.

It was perfectly harmless.

The speech was a pep talk to America's students, encouraging them to be responsible, to work hard in school, to do their homework, to respect their teachers and their parents. It was a message that we all want our children to hear. And it was to be delivered by a man who, for some children, might be the only decent role model to whom they would listen.

This incident, says my friend Howdy, is a perfect illustration of a sagacious maxim: What they don't know, can kill you.

When people distrust an organization (as they generally distrust the government), and they don't know the full story on what that organization is doing, they will make it up. And usually, what they make up is wrong, and is the worst-case scenario, and is quite damaging to the organization's reputation.

Had the White House released the text of President Obama's speech from the beginning, concerned conservatives would have had no room for alarm. No room to assume the worst. No room to let their imaginations run wild with the horrible propaganda the president might be pushing. The administration could have avoided the entire public relations mess.

Howdy asked me whether I think the same principle holds true in the private sector. I think it does. Obviously, the public does not need to know all the inner workings of a company, just as we do not need to know all of our nation's military secrets and other classified information. But when a company unveils a new initiative, or recalls a product, or releases a similar big announcement, they should be prepared for full disclosure of the situation. Especially in situations of PR crises, companies should be wary of sending cryptic messages.

Remember, people will make up what they don't know. Don't leave the public to make up the parts that are important. Give them the facts, so that they can't give you their wild speculations.

Don't leave room for people to make important stuff up. What they don't know can kill you.

Exceeding Expectations

Yesterday a friend and I visited the Watters Creek mall in Allen, Texas, for the first time. While we were there, we stopped in a store called Francesca's Collections.

Francesca's is a nice little boutique, well-decorated (as Anthropologie stores are well-decorated, but not in the same style), selling bags and jewelry and female fashion. And I liked the clothing. Trendy but classy. But given the tendency of such boutiques to be well outside my price range (I do not typically like to pay $150-$300 for a blouse that will be out of style in six months), I was fully content to simply browse without purchasing anything.

And then, Francesca's delighted me and exceeded my expectations. Out of curiosity, I checked the price tag on one of the sweaters I was flipping through. It was $38, not $138 as I had expected. I checked the price tag on a blouse - $28. Jeans? $98.

The prices were reasonable! Through the decor and product selection, Francesca's had created a beautiful customer experience of quality and luxury that bespoke an exclusive, expensive boutique. And yet their prices were in a "normal" range, not expensive designer shop range.

Delightful.

Beautiful customer experience + Prices within my budget = Store that I will eagerly patronize

Viral Marketing Failure du jour

As a general rule, I shun Facebook applications. I dislike the way they clog up your profile, and I dislike the way they require you to allow them to access all of your Facebook information (which is usually unnecessary, and is not used for reasons that benefit the end user).

But today I saw in my News Feed that a friend had taken a Facebook quiz entitled "What Does Your Day Mean?" which purported to report the implications of being born on a particular day of the week. It sounded interesting (though I would never take it seriously). I was curious. I decided to add the application and take the quiz myself, just for kicks.

As was to be expected, the application required me to allow it to access all of my Facebook information. Okay. But then, an epic viral marketing failure: before it would allow me to take the quiz, it asked me to invite my friends to add the application, too.

Forget it.

The creators of the application are making an attempt at viral marketing by asking people to tell their friends. But they are going about it all wrong. You cannot force someone to recommend your product. And you cannot expect someone to recommend your product if they have not yet tried your product. You would not expect someone to recommend a movie they have not yet seen, or recommend a clothing designer whose clothes they have not yet tried, or recommend a restaurant at which they have not yet eaten.

You must let customers experience your product first. And their experience with your product must be remarkable enough that your customers want to talk about it. They cannot help but talk about it. Talking about it benefits their friends, and builds coolness points for themselves. (Thanks, Seth Godin, for your great book on ideaviruses like this.)

If you force people to talk about a bad product, the opposite happens. They hurt their friends; they hurt their trust with their friends; and they hurt their coolness points. People do not want to do that.

I did not want to invite my friends to add the application, and, in so doing, to stamp my recommendation on a product I had not yet tested. Neither did I want to spam my friends with one of the Facebook application invitations which I so despise. (Disclaimer for my friends who have sent app invitations to me: I still love you. You are forgiven.)

Granted, this application did have a "skip" button to the "invite your friends!" plea, for those users who take time to search for the button. But the inconspicuousness of the button makes the invitation stage seem unavoidable. And if the user does skip the invitation stage, they will likely never recommend the app to their friends.

If these Facebook application creators truly want to enhance their viral marketing, they need to save the "invite your friends!" request until the user has already completed the quiz, or joined the cause, or played the game, or done whatever the app does.

Let the user experience the product first. Then give them an easy way to invite their friends. If they like the product, they will often be more than happy to tell people - especially through the click of a button on a social media site like Facebook.

'Tis Better to Have Loved and Lost?

I intended for this post to be a contemplation of the line, "'Tis better to have loved and lost, than never to have loved at all," and whether that statement holds true outside of human relationships. Specifically, I planned to question the veracity of that statement when it comes to the discontinuation of a favorite consumer item. As consumers, do we feel thankful to have enjoyed a product in the past, although we cannot buy it now? Or would it have been better never to have experienced that product, and so to be ignorant of what we now miss?

But, alas, poor scholar of English literature that I am, I had forgotten who penned that famous line. And so, of course, as a conscientious blogger, I did a Google search to discover to which poet I should attribute the quote.

The answer? Alfred, Lord Tennyson.

The line comes from Canto XXVI of Tennyson's poem, "In Memoriam A.H.H.," which Tennyson wrote as an expression of his grieving process after the death of his friend Arthur Henry Hallam. (God bless Wikipedia.) The full stanza reads:

"I hold it true, whate’er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
’Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all."

The "loved and lost," then, refers to building a friendship, and then losing the friend to death; it does not refer to the dissolution of a romantic relationship, as per the frequent misapplication of the line.

A few stanzas prior (in Canto XXIV), Tennyson shares some other reflections which caught my attention. Canto XXIV reads:

"And was the day of my delight
As pure and perfect as I say?
The very source and fount of Day
Is dash’d with wandering isles of night.

If all was good and fair we met,
This earth had been the Paradise
It never look’d to human eyes
Since our first Sun arose and set.

And is it that the haze of grief
Makes former gladness loom so great?
The lowness of the present state,
That sets the past in this relief?

Or that the past will always win
A glory from its being far;
And orb into the perfect star
We saw not, when we moved therein?"

That third stanza - "And is it that the haze of grief/Makes former gladness loom so great?/The lowness of the present state,/That sets the past in this relief?" - wonderfully captures the phenomenon of nostalgia, I think. Nostalgia comes to me, personally, when I think of Christmastime. I have these beautiful impressions of my childhood Christmases being so full of love and warmth and laughter and family and joy and all being right with the world. I love Christmas. And yet, at each annual family Christmas gathering, I never quite experience the same feelings that I hold in my memory. I can never make the real life Christmas celebration seem quite as magical as the ones I remember.

I do not believe that Christmas has changed so very much. I do not believe the love of my family has changed (although new family members have been added, and others passed on); I do not believe that my grandma's cooking has changed (in fact, I know it has not); I do not believe that Christmas in my family is anything less than it ever was. I think it is that nostalgia: that "the lowness of the present state...sets the past in this relief" - even if lowness the present is not really so very low.

Perhaps this nostalgia is the cause of consumers' deep aversion to losing something they once had. (I wrote about this in my blog post of 19 July 2009, "Responding to Loss Aversion.") When a product is available, consumers may enjoy it, but they may not always love it. Take the product away, though - as when Coca-Cola replaced the classic Coke formula with New Coke - and there is a public outcry. Granted, Coke is an American favorite; but perhaps the public appreciated Coke even more when it was gone than they did when they freely enjoyed it.

And hence the popularity of vintage clothing, and television reruns, and antique toys. But these items now never seem as grand as we remembered them to be. The memory of them seems brighter than the real thing. And when a company remakes an old favorite movie, or television show, or toy, the remake is almost always a disappointment to those who experienced the original.

I suppose, then, that my question for marketers ought not to be, "Is it better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all?" but rather, "Is it better to bring back the thing loved, or to let it remain eternally unmarred in memory?"

Merge TV and Internet? Please Don't.

Television industry veteran Michael Kokernak authored a MediaPost Video Insider article yesterday entitled, "Why Not Merge TV and Internet?" He reflects on the transition to digital cable and proliferation of TV content available on the Web, and opines that "[w]e...should probably be concentrating our efforts on how to combine the Internet and the digital television experience so consumers get content delivered through one seamless 'platform.'"

I am not exactly sure what Mr. Kokernak has in mind when he talks of "combining" Internet and TV into "one seamless 'platform,'" and, sadly, the rest of his article does not serve to clarify much. But if by "combining [the two into] one seamless 'platform,'" he means transforming the television set into a Web browser and vice versa, I don't think it is a good idea.

From a consumer's perspective, television and Internet serve two very different purposes, and it seems unwise (if not impossible) to try to literally combine them. The Internet should complement television, not replace it; just as the Internet has not replaced books and magazines, but rather has been added to a vast array of communication media. Certainly, e-books, blogs, online journals, and various wikis offer similar (if not identical) content to many books and magazines; however, the advent of these electronic versions has not meant the death of printed materials, because the usage situations are different. "There is a time for everything."

Successfully integrating media means that television content and Internet content should reflect and supplement one another. A friend of mine at TMP Directional Marketing, a local search marketing firm, once told me that every time a client launches a new billboard, for example, she adds the words and phrases from the ad as SEO keywords, so that the audience can effectively search online for more information based on the billboard they saw. The same should be true for TV content - media companies and advertisers need to make available (and easily searchable) complementary Internet content before they launch any newscast, show, or commercial on TV.

Integrating media does not mean that consumers want their televisions to act like the Internet, or vice versa. As pertains to the television industry, consumers use the Internet primarily to gather information related to something they heard or saw on TV, or to access content that they missed during its original TV broadcast. They use the Internet actively and up close. Consumers use their television sets for entertainment (or for passively absorbing information) - they want to sit back, relax, and watch a show on their big-screen HDTV half-way across the room. Consumers don't want to have both on the same physical platform. I don't want to always watch TV on my 15" computer screen; nor do I want to click around the picture on my big-screen TV in the same way I click around the Internet.

Hopefully that is not what Mr. Kokernak intended at all; hopefully I misunderstood his use of the words "combine" and "merge." Plus, he has spent his career in the television industry, and founded a company - BackChannelMedia - that allows tv-watchers to click icons on the television screen that send emails with links for additional information to the viewer. Perhaps that is closer to his vision for "combined" Internet and television. And perhaps his market research shows that this vision truly is a hit with consumers.