The classic "marketing mix" is often referred to as "The 4 P's" - Product, Price, Place, and Promotion. Folks in the pizza business seem to focus most heavily on Product (new toppings! new crusts! new sauces! dessert pizza! breadsticks! cinnamon sticks! should we add pastas? salads? pizza buffets?), Price (large pizzas for $5! 2 mediums and a 2-liter soda for $10.99! free cinnamon sticks when you order a two-topping pizza!), and Promotion (telling customers about all these great products and prices). There seem to be few options for changing up the Place (or Distribution) - it's eat-in, carry-out, or delivery. Not too exciting.
Until now.
Domino's Pizza apparently got bored with the standard Place options for serving delicious pizza. Providing pizza for carry-out or home delivery was simply not enough. They decided to think outside the box - or outside the building, in this case. Why deliver only to homes and offices and physical edifices? Why not deliver pizza outdoors?
And so, Domino's Pizza and Indie Amsterdam have teamed up to deliver pizza wherever hunger may strike - even in the Great Outdoors.
Domino's "Delivery Points" - white front doors, complete with doorbells - can now be found at parks and beaches in Amsterdam. Get hungry after surfing, or playing Frisbee, or rollerblading? Call the number on the door, and Domino's will deliver your pizza to your local delivery point for a pizza picnic.
Domino's calls the new campaign, "Man Hungry. Ding Dong Pizza." The effort seems to be largely guerrilla-style (there's a giant door in the middle of a park. duh.), but they are also showing some television commercials to introduce the concept.
I definitely did not see this one coming. But I like it. I can think of some great sites for Domino's Delivery Points right here in the U.S., too.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Sunday, August 30, 2009
New Ways to Say "Open Me"
The envelope was addressed to my friend, and not to me, so I did not open it. But this particular piece of mail did set me to thinking, as I stared at it there on his kitchen counter while I filled my water glass.
It looked like a piece of junk mail. It came in a standard white, bulk-mailed #10 envelope with a window for the mailing address. The return address was that of some insurance company I did not recognize. What I noticed was the note on the front of the envelope that read, "Be sure to remove your contract before discarding." The whole sentence was printed in a handwriting-style typeface, and the words "remove your contract" were in red ink.
A clever tactic, I think. "Be sure to remove your contract before discarding." Had I been the addressee, those seven extra words on the front would have persuaded me to open the envelope. Why?
(1) If it were a useless piece of junk mail, that note might have indicated that the sender included some personal information of mine in the enclosed, customized "contract," whatever that was. I should remove that sensitive information to avoid identity theft (or some other invasion of privacy that might occur if someone decided to rifle through my trash).
Had I been thinking critically, I would have realized that I need not open the envelope and remove the enclosed document; I could (and should) shred the entire piece of unopened mail to protect my information. But if I were sorting my mail as I usually do, distractedly and probably while multi-tasking, the statement on the front would have persuaded me to open the envelope before my logic kicked in. The power of persuasion, you know.
(2) If the mail were a legitimate message from a company with which I do business, the note on the envelope would have indicated that the piece included a truly important document which I needed to save. Thus the note would have helped to distinguish this piece of mail from the junk mail I received.
If you wish to use this practice in your company's mailing efforts, heed a word of caution regarding method (1). Do not enclose sensitive information about the addressee for the mere purpose of writing an envelope note that would cause the recipient to open the mail and see your advertisement. However, if you have a customized sample product which might actually appeal to the recipient, a note such as this could be a polite way to help them protect their information (and take a look at your mailing, too).
If your company needs to send important personal documents to a customer, and you want to be sure that the addressee does not mistake your mail for junk mail, printing a simple note like this one on the envelope could be a helpful signal to your recipient.
It looked like a piece of junk mail. It came in a standard white, bulk-mailed #10 envelope with a window for the mailing address. The return address was that of some insurance company I did not recognize. What I noticed was the note on the front of the envelope that read, "Be sure to remove your contract before discarding." The whole sentence was printed in a handwriting-style typeface, and the words "remove your contract" were in red ink.
A clever tactic, I think. "Be sure to remove your contract before discarding." Had I been the addressee, those seven extra words on the front would have persuaded me to open the envelope. Why?
(1) If it were a useless piece of junk mail, that note might have indicated that the sender included some personal information of mine in the enclosed, customized "contract," whatever that was. I should remove that sensitive information to avoid identity theft (or some other invasion of privacy that might occur if someone decided to rifle through my trash).
Had I been thinking critically, I would have realized that I need not open the envelope and remove the enclosed document; I could (and should) shred the entire piece of unopened mail to protect my information. But if I were sorting my mail as I usually do, distractedly and probably while multi-tasking, the statement on the front would have persuaded me to open the envelope before my logic kicked in. The power of persuasion, you know.
(2) If the mail were a legitimate message from a company with which I do business, the note on the envelope would have indicated that the piece included a truly important document which I needed to save. Thus the note would have helped to distinguish this piece of mail from the junk mail I received.
If you wish to use this practice in your company's mailing efforts, heed a word of caution regarding method (1). Do not enclose sensitive information about the addressee for the mere purpose of writing an envelope note that would cause the recipient to open the mail and see your advertisement. However, if you have a customized sample product which might actually appeal to the recipient, a note such as this could be a polite way to help them protect their information (and take a look at your mailing, too).
If your company needs to send important personal documents to a customer, and you want to be sure that the addressee does not mistake your mail for junk mail, printing a simple note like this one on the envelope could be a helpful signal to your recipient.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Survival of the Journalists
As a follow-up to my blog post of 27 July, refuting the concept of a "Balkanization of the Web," I must share this excerpt from Jeff Jarvis' BuzzMachine blog from yesterday:
"It is clear that if journalists want to be supported – let alone have impact and influence and find their days worthwhile – they need more people to spend more time with news. I believe they should be doing the opposite of what is being suggested in many quarters: clamping down controls to try to fight aggregators and search engines, threatening to build pay walls, consolidating content into destinations they’d have to work harder to get people to visit.
"Right now, news organizations should be trying to reach more people and engage with them more deeply. They should seek hyperdistribution.
"Since when did it become OK for media people to shrink their audiences? Since they gave up on the ad model, that’s when. But I am not ready to surrender to the idea that advertising, which has supported mass media since its creation, is over. Yes, ad rates are lower; welcome to competition. That’s all the more reason why publishers must attract larger audiences publics – make it up on volume – as well as more targeted and valuable communities."
(Read Jeff's entire post, by the way. He has some outstanding ideas!)
I completely agree with Jeff. If suppliers of premium content (aka newspapers and journals) want to survive, they have to become universal within their online target markets. Newspapers cannot charge online subscription fees, nor can they "Balkanize" by withholding their news from search engines who refuse to cut them deals. Newspapers cannot afford those tactics - they don't have the market share. (Nielsen Online data shows that newspaper sites currently capture less than 1% of time spent online.)
Essentially, newspapers are starting from scratch. They are not re-inventing their reporting methods, no. But they are releasing a new product within an entirely new marketplace. They do not have the luxury of already dominating online news. They must fight to build their readership - and fight through excellent reporting (through all sorts of media) and exceptional customer value. It is time for news sources to unleash an ideavirus.
"It is clear that if journalists want to be supported – let alone have impact and influence and find their days worthwhile – they need more people to spend more time with news. I believe they should be doing the opposite of what is being suggested in many quarters: clamping down controls to try to fight aggregators and search engines, threatening to build pay walls, consolidating content into destinations they’d have to work harder to get people to visit.
"Right now, news organizations should be trying to reach more people and engage with them more deeply. They should seek hyperdistribution.
"Since when did it become OK for media people to shrink their audiences? Since they gave up on the ad model, that’s when. But I am not ready to surrender to the idea that advertising, which has supported mass media since its creation, is over. Yes, ad rates are lower; welcome to competition. That’s all the more reason why publishers must attract larger audiences publics – make it up on volume – as well as more targeted and valuable communities."
(Read Jeff's entire post, by the way. He has some outstanding ideas!)
I completely agree with Jeff. If suppliers of premium content (aka newspapers and journals) want to survive, they have to become universal within their online target markets. Newspapers cannot charge online subscription fees, nor can they "Balkanize" by withholding their news from search engines who refuse to cut them deals. Newspapers cannot afford those tactics - they don't have the market share. (Nielsen Online data shows that newspaper sites currently capture less than 1% of time spent online.)
Essentially, newspapers are starting from scratch. They are not re-inventing their reporting methods, no. But they are releasing a new product within an entirely new marketplace. They do not have the luxury of already dominating online news. They must fight to build their readership - and fight through excellent reporting (through all sorts of media) and exceptional customer value. It is time for news sources to unleash an ideavirus.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Lessons from a [Virtual] Zippo Lighter
Yesterday I enjoyed another great article from one of my favorite marketing bloggers, Steve Smith. This time, Steve wrote about the phenomenon of Zippo lighters at concerts, and the life cycle of the Virtual Zippo Lighter app for the iPhone.
Watch this video to see the Virtual Zippo Lighter app in action (my favorite part is the flicking it open and closed!):
The Virtual Zippo Lighter app has been downloaded more than five million times since its release a year ago, making it the 13th most popular iPhone app, according to ComScore.
The beauty of the app lies in two things: its simplicity, and its connection to a cultural classic.
Simplicity: The Virtual Zippo Lighter has one single purpose - to look like and act like a virtual Zippo lighter. That's it. Nothing else. The Virtual Zippo Lighter flicks open like a Zippo lighter, lights like a Zippo lighter, and its flame moves and flickers with movement like the flame of a Zippo lighter. It's the beloved concert toy, without the fire hazard or lighter fluid smell.
Connection to a Cultural Classic: Had that first brilliant concert-goer never had the inspired idea to hold his Zippo lighter aloft and sway back and forth to a rock-and-roll hit, the Virtual Zippo Lighter would be pointless. A fire-starter that doesn't start fires? Please. But because this cultural phenomenon did happen with the ubiquitous pocket-sized object of the 20th century, Zippo was able to recreate this "Zippo Encore Moment" with the 21st century's own ubiquitous pocket-sized object: the smartphone.
Simplicity and connection to a cultural classic (and the ultra-low cost: the app is free!) created a fan-base 5-million-strong for the Virtual Zippo Lighter app. And now, Zippo and its mobile marketing partner Moderati are planning ways to re-launch the app into the growth phase of its life cycle.
Simplicity built the application's popularity; the next generation of the Virtual Zippo Lighter will inhabit the opposite end of the iPhone app spectrum: a full-media package, allowing users to customize their lighters and, possibly, to find music and information on the concerts that are happening near them. Brilliant, right? Add value to customers and allow them to find venues in which use of their app is logical and "cool".
As Steve Smith points out, it is difficult for a smartphone application to survive in the space between ultra-simplicity and ultra-complexity. Zippo and Moderati will be avoiding that "no-man's-land" and occupying both extremes. Customers will be able to choose either the free original app, or the 99-cent customizable, concert-finding version.
Zippo and Moderati used simplicity to attract fans, and will use complexity to build deeper relationships with those fans. Good move. Can we do the same?
Watch this video to see the Virtual Zippo Lighter app in action (my favorite part is the flicking it open and closed!):
The Virtual Zippo Lighter app has been downloaded more than five million times since its release a year ago, making it the 13th most popular iPhone app, according to ComScore.
The beauty of the app lies in two things: its simplicity, and its connection to a cultural classic.
Simplicity: The Virtual Zippo Lighter has one single purpose - to look like and act like a virtual Zippo lighter. That's it. Nothing else. The Virtual Zippo Lighter flicks open like a Zippo lighter, lights like a Zippo lighter, and its flame moves and flickers with movement like the flame of a Zippo lighter. It's the beloved concert toy, without the fire hazard or lighter fluid smell.
Connection to a Cultural Classic: Had that first brilliant concert-goer never had the inspired idea to hold his Zippo lighter aloft and sway back and forth to a rock-and-roll hit, the Virtual Zippo Lighter would be pointless. A fire-starter that doesn't start fires? Please. But because this cultural phenomenon did happen with the ubiquitous pocket-sized object of the 20th century, Zippo was able to recreate this "Zippo Encore Moment" with the 21st century's own ubiquitous pocket-sized object: the smartphone.
Simplicity and connection to a cultural classic (and the ultra-low cost: the app is free!) created a fan-base 5-million-strong for the Virtual Zippo Lighter app. And now, Zippo and its mobile marketing partner Moderati are planning ways to re-launch the app into the growth phase of its life cycle.
Simplicity built the application's popularity; the next generation of the Virtual Zippo Lighter will inhabit the opposite end of the iPhone app spectrum: a full-media package, allowing users to customize their lighters and, possibly, to find music and information on the concerts that are happening near them. Brilliant, right? Add value to customers and allow them to find venues in which use of their app is logical and "cool".
As Steve Smith points out, it is difficult for a smartphone application to survive in the space between ultra-simplicity and ultra-complexity. Zippo and Moderati will be avoiding that "no-man's-land" and occupying both extremes. Customers will be able to choose either the free original app, or the 99-cent customizable, concert-finding version.
Zippo and Moderati used simplicity to attract fans, and will use complexity to build deeper relationships with those fans. Good move. Can we do the same?
Monday, August 24, 2009
Transparency Done Properly
Had you passed through Terminal 5 of London's Heathrow Airport any time last week, you might have happened upon author Alain de Botton, who was occupying a desk there as the airport's first Writer-In-Residence.
BAA, owner of Heathrow Airport, hired de Botton to spend one week in Terminal 5, observing the passengers and staff of Britain's largest airport. de Botton, the Swiss-British author and philosopher whose How Proust Can Change Your Life brought him acclaim in the U.S. as well as in his home across the pond, will collect his observations into his next book, A Week at the Airport: A Heathrow Diary, to be released in late September. BAA reportedly gave de Botton full physical access to all areas of the airport, as well as full literary access to cover any topic about the airport, down to any cockroaches that he may have seen.
According to Creativity-Online, 10,000 free copies of the book will be given to random Heathrow passengers; the book will also be available for sale at major retailers.
While de Botton says that this book will be more journalist-style than philosopher-style, it is still a bold marketing move for BAA to allow him full creative reign in his disclosure of the workings of the airport, as Heathrow COO Mike Brown points out.
Well done, Heathrow.
If an organization means to promote and publicize itself through an open outsider's perspective, the only way to do so is to allow the outsider to reveal everything - good, bad, and ugly. Transparency can't be done halfway; it can't show only the good, while hiding the unpleasant. Such translucency simply doesn't fly.
If your organization wants to venture into the realm of customer reviews, customer-created-content, customer blogs, etc., it must resign itself to allowing full "creative reign" to those customers. Sure, you might set and enforce some ground rules (no profanity, no obscenity, etc.), but you absolutely cannot restrict content simply because it casts your organization in a bad light. Such censorship will inevitably be found out, and will only sabotage (possibly forever) the much-needed trust of your customers and the public.
Again, I extend my congratulations to BAA for getting it right. I hope that their transparency efforts will result in better air travel and more air travel at Heathrow.
BAA, owner of Heathrow Airport, hired de Botton to spend one week in Terminal 5, observing the passengers and staff of Britain's largest airport. de Botton, the Swiss-British author and philosopher whose How Proust Can Change Your Life brought him acclaim in the U.S. as well as in his home across the pond, will collect his observations into his next book, A Week at the Airport: A Heathrow Diary, to be released in late September. BAA reportedly gave de Botton full physical access to all areas of the airport, as well as full literary access to cover any topic about the airport, down to any cockroaches that he may have seen.
According to Creativity-Online, 10,000 free copies of the book will be given to random Heathrow passengers; the book will also be available for sale at major retailers.
While de Botton says that this book will be more journalist-style than philosopher-style, it is still a bold marketing move for BAA to allow him full creative reign in his disclosure of the workings of the airport, as Heathrow COO Mike Brown points out.
Well done, Heathrow.
If an organization means to promote and publicize itself through an open outsider's perspective, the only way to do so is to allow the outsider to reveal everything - good, bad, and ugly. Transparency can't be done halfway; it can't show only the good, while hiding the unpleasant. Such translucency simply doesn't fly.
If your organization wants to venture into the realm of customer reviews, customer-created-content, customer blogs, etc., it must resign itself to allowing full "creative reign" to those customers. Sure, you might set and enforce some ground rules (no profanity, no obscenity, etc.), but you absolutely cannot restrict content simply because it casts your organization in a bad light. Such censorship will inevitably be found out, and will only sabotage (possibly forever) the much-needed trust of your customers and the public.
Again, I extend my congratulations to BAA for getting it right. I hope that their transparency efforts will result in better air travel and more air travel at Heathrow.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Brilliant Use of Twitter by Phil Wickham
Today I saw a great use of Twitter, exhibited by musician Phil Wickham (@philwickham). He tweeted this around 1:30pm:
"I just found out that the Houston show is sold out tonite, but I'll put two tickets under the name Forest Gump by 6:30. 1st come 1st serve!"
How brilliant! I love it! In less than 140 characters, Phil has done the following:
How can you reward and gain followers (and customers) through your Twitter account? More basically, how can you add value to people through your Twitter account? Do your Tweets actually provide something worthwhile (i.e. inside information, humanization, interesting tidbits, wisdom, humor, the occasional giveaway), or are you wasting time and bytes?
"I just found out that the Houston show is sold out tonite, but I'll put two tickets under the name Forest Gump by 6:30. 1st come 1st serve!"
How brilliant! I love it! In less than 140 characters, Phil has done the following:
- Rewarded his followers with [a chance at] free tickets to a sold-out show.
- Endeared those followers to himself ("Aw, how nice! Phil saw that the show was sold out, and put two more tickets out there for free to anyone who wants them!")
- Gotten more followers to come to the venue for a shot at the free tickets. Even if a follower isn't the first to show up as Forrest Gump, maybe she will find people outside the gates who are willing to sell their tickets. Or maybe she will buy merchandise as a consolation prize.
- Convinced a few more followers to attend the concert when they otherwise would not have come; now they will come because they might be able to get an invaluable item (tickets to a sold-out Phil Wickham concert) for free.
- Kept his Twitter feed fresh with new and intriguing content, thereby encouraging his followers to keep following.
- Possibly attracted new followers thanks to current followers who tell their friends, "You won't believe what Phil Wickham just tweeted today!"
How can you reward and gain followers (and customers) through your Twitter account? More basically, how can you add value to people through your Twitter account? Do your Tweets actually provide something worthwhile (i.e. inside information, humanization, interesting tidbits, wisdom, humor, the occasional giveaway), or are you wasting time and bytes?
Your Employees are Your Ambassadors: PUMA
Yesterday MediaPost published an article entitled "Puma Employees Become Ambassadors," describing Puma's new campaign called "Puma Employees Only." This marketing effort showcases the distinct personalities of 14 Puma employees through a series of YouTube videos, a Facebook Fan Page (with over 1 million fans, thank you very much), and future in-store and out-of-store events. These employees share fun info like their favorite things, pet peeves, and best places to visit in their respective cities.
I love the idea of Puma employees being ambassadors for their brand. I love their use of online video, social media, and in-store/out-of-store events to make Puma more personal - to give a face to the brand. To let the customer "get to know" the real people who work for Puma, and to think "This person's cool; he reminds me of me. He likes Puma; maybe I'll like Puma, too."
But MediaPost got it wrong. These Puma employees didn't become ambassadors for their brand when they were featured in this campaign. Employees are always ambassadors for their brands, whether they star in online videos and Facebook Fan Pages or not. Whether they intend to be ambassadors or not. Whether they show pride in their brands or not.
If your employees don't show pride in your brand, if they talk about coming to work as if they dread it, if they complain about their coworkers or bosses or management or customers or work-hours, they are representing to the world that your brand is dreary, thoughtless, inconsiderate. As ambassadors, they are influencing people against your brand.
If this is true for a significant number of your employees, it is time to look at your corporate culture. Is your company a place where people are respected? where their jobs are appreciated? where their skills are recognized? where ideas are rewarded? where departments work together? where coworkers encourage and help each other? where individuals can get excited about the work they are doing, the products they are delivering, and the difference they are making in the world?
If not, start making it so. It begins with you.
I love the idea of Puma employees being ambassadors for their brand. I love their use of online video, social media, and in-store/out-of-store events to make Puma more personal - to give a face to the brand. To let the customer "get to know" the real people who work for Puma, and to think "This person's cool; he reminds me of me. He likes Puma; maybe I'll like Puma, too."
But MediaPost got it wrong. These Puma employees didn't become ambassadors for their brand when they were featured in this campaign. Employees are always ambassadors for their brands, whether they star in online videos and Facebook Fan Pages or not. Whether they intend to be ambassadors or not. Whether they show pride in their brands or not.
If your employees don't show pride in your brand, if they talk about coming to work as if they dread it, if they complain about their coworkers or bosses or management or customers or work-hours, they are representing to the world that your brand is dreary, thoughtless, inconsiderate. As ambassadors, they are influencing people against your brand.
If this is true for a significant number of your employees, it is time to look at your corporate culture. Is your company a place where people are respected? where their jobs are appreciated? where their skills are recognized? where ideas are rewarded? where departments work together? where coworkers encourage and help each other? where individuals can get excited about the work they are doing, the products they are delivering, and the difference they are making in the world?
If not, start making it so. It begins with you.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Vending Machines of the Not-So-Distant Future
The next generation of vending machines may soon be coming to fast-food restaurants, food courts, and cafeterias near us.
America's old favorite Coca-Cola and newcomer MooBella are both doing beta testing this summer for their respective high-tech vending machines. Coke's Freestyle is a touch-screen dispenser of soda (what else?) that allows customers to select from 104 flavors of Coca-Cola waters, juices, sodas, and sports drinks. The machine uses PurePour Technology to mix the drinks from concentrate within the same space as a typical six- or eight-valve soda fountain. The Freestyle also uses Impinj’s RFID technology to collect data on flavors selected, which helps both supply chain management (by telling HQ when refills are needed), and market research (by telling HQ which flavors are popular - or not). RFIDNews has details on exactly how the RFID works in the Freestyle machines.
Soda-drinkers can't exactly create their own combinations with this machine (which was designed to collect data on which Coke varieties are most popular), but 104 flavors provides a lot of options. For the full list of flavors, see the Coca-Cola Freestyle Facebook Fan Page.
"Cooler" still, MooBella (an eight-year-old company from Massachusetts) has developed an automated vending machine for...ice cream! And these machines are not mere purveyors of pre-packaged sundries. On the contrary, each MooBella Ice Creamery custom-mixes 100% natural dairy ice cream with one of 12 ice cream flavors and one of three mix-ins to create made-to-order hand-dipped-style ice cream - in just 45 seconds! MooBella flash-freezes the ice cream (rather than slow-churning it), which enables the quick service. The machines also feature a touch-screen interface, a behind-the-scenes Linux operating system, and wireless technology that relays inventory and sales data to headquarters via satellite.
With these new vending machines, it seems that both Coca-Cola and MooBella are doing an excellent job of using new technology to provide great products, great service, and great info on customer preferences. Are they using new technology just as successfully in their marketing communications for these products? Let's see:
On a scale of 1 to 10, I give Coca-Cola a 4. They have a Facebook Fan Page with lots of great information on flavors and locations, plus they seem to respond quickly and aptly to fans' wall comments. However, their Fan Page has only 1,067 fans as of 11:36pm Central, 18 August 2009 - a rather small number for the "world's largest beverage company," don't you think? Coca-Cola Freestyle is also on Twitter (@ccfreestyle) as of 7 August 2009, but only has two tweets, 30 followers, and no profile pic as of 18 August. Any blogs or mobile apps for the Freestyle? I haven't found any yet. Video? A few on YouTube - from customers, not the company.
On the same 1 to 10 scale, MooBella gets a 2. They also have a Facebook Fan Page, with frequent and interesting wall posts (more interesting than those on the Freestyle Fan Page, actually). Sadly, the MooBella Fan Page has only 43 followers (ouch!). As for Twitter, there is a "moobella" account(@moobella), but it might or might not be the same company. It's hard to tell when @moobella hasn't tweeted anything yet. Blogs? Mobile apps? Not that I can see. Video? A YouTube search only uncovered two - both more than five minutes long; neither from customers.
Ah, well. Perhaps Coca-Cola Freestyle and MooBella will jump more fully into social media and mobile marketing after they release their respective products to the public. For now, I suppose we must wait for beta testing to end. (The Freestyle is undergoing beta testing in Southern California; Moobella in Boston.)
America's old favorite Coca-Cola and newcomer MooBella are both doing beta testing this summer for their respective high-tech vending machines. Coke's Freestyle is a touch-screen dispenser of soda (what else?) that allows customers to select from 104 flavors of Coca-Cola waters, juices, sodas, and sports drinks. The machine uses PurePour Technology to mix the drinks from concentrate within the same space as a typical six- or eight-valve soda fountain. The Freestyle also uses Impinj’s RFID technology to collect data on flavors selected, which helps both supply chain management (by telling HQ when refills are needed), and market research (by telling HQ which flavors are popular - or not). RFIDNews has details on exactly how the RFID works in the Freestyle machines.
Soda-drinkers can't exactly create their own combinations with this machine (which was designed to collect data on which Coke varieties are most popular), but 104 flavors provides a lot of options. For the full list of flavors, see the Coca-Cola Freestyle Facebook Fan Page.
"Cooler" still, MooBella (an eight-year-old company from Massachusetts) has developed an automated vending machine for...ice cream! And these machines are not mere purveyors of pre-packaged sundries. On the contrary, each MooBella Ice Creamery custom-mixes 100% natural dairy ice cream with one of 12 ice cream flavors and one of three mix-ins to create made-to-order hand-dipped-style ice cream - in just 45 seconds! MooBella flash-freezes the ice cream (rather than slow-churning it), which enables the quick service. The machines also feature a touch-screen interface, a behind-the-scenes Linux operating system, and wireless technology that relays inventory and sales data to headquarters via satellite.
With these new vending machines, it seems that both Coca-Cola and MooBella are doing an excellent job of using new technology to provide great products, great service, and great info on customer preferences. Are they using new technology just as successfully in their marketing communications for these products? Let's see:
On a scale of 1 to 10, I give Coca-Cola a 4. They have a Facebook Fan Page with lots of great information on flavors and locations, plus they seem to respond quickly and aptly to fans' wall comments. However, their Fan Page has only 1,067 fans as of 11:36pm Central, 18 August 2009 - a rather small number for the "world's largest beverage company," don't you think? Coca-Cola Freestyle is also on Twitter (@ccfreestyle) as of 7 August 2009, but only has two tweets, 30 followers, and no profile pic as of 18 August. Any blogs or mobile apps for the Freestyle? I haven't found any yet. Video? A few on YouTube - from customers, not the company.
On the same 1 to 10 scale, MooBella gets a 2. They also have a Facebook Fan Page, with frequent and interesting wall posts (more interesting than those on the Freestyle Fan Page, actually). Sadly, the MooBella Fan Page has only 43 followers (ouch!). As for Twitter, there is a "moobella" account(@moobella), but it might or might not be the same company. It's hard to tell when @moobella hasn't tweeted anything yet. Blogs? Mobile apps? Not that I can see. Video? A YouTube search only uncovered two - both more than five minutes long; neither from customers.
Ah, well. Perhaps Coca-Cola Freestyle and MooBella will jump more fully into social media and mobile marketing after they release their respective products to the public. For now, I suppose we must wait for beta testing to end. (The Freestyle is undergoing beta testing in Southern California; Moobella in Boston.)
Monday, August 17, 2009
Between a Rock and a Hard Place: P&G
It seems that Procter & Gamble, Walmart, Geico, and others are facing a bit of a dilemma regarding their television commercial placement. According to a recent AdAge article, these companies have been the target of boycotts Left and Right in connection with advertisements during Fox News Channel's Glenn Beck show.
Apparently Beck's "flamin' conservatism" has prompted some liberal activists - including Donny Deutsch of CNBC's The Big Idea - to boycott the companies who advertise during the show. In response, Walmart, Geico, and Men's Wearhouse have specifically pulled their commercials from that time slot. Other targets of the boycott, including P&G, SC Johnson, and Progressive Insurance, protest that they never intended for their spots to run during Beck's show in the first place.
And now the companies who pulled their commercials from Beck's show (whether or not they originally meant for their ads to run during that time) are facing another boycott: this time, from Beck's supporters who resent the pulling of the ads.
What's an advertiser to do? Especially an advertiser whose general primetime ads just happened to fall during Beck's show?
A few options come to mind:
1) Advertisers could choose to run or pull the ads based on who their customers are, and what those customers' political convictions are. If a company serves customers from all parts of the political spectrum, it could base the decision on the Customer Lifetime Value at risk from liberal boycotters versus conservative boycotters.
2) Advertisers could choose to run or pull the ads based on the companies' own political convictions. After all, you can't always waver based on the whims of your customers. Sometimes you have to stand on your own values, don't you?
3) Advertisers could maintain the status quo, leave the spots as originally purchased, and continue to buy ads during broad time slots, leaving the particular show times up to the luck of the draw. These companies are never going to please everyone, the boycotts have to blow over sometime, and, as someone once said, "there's no such thing as bad publicity."
Stay tuned for what happens next....
Apparently Beck's "flamin' conservatism" has prompted some liberal activists - including Donny Deutsch of CNBC's The Big Idea - to boycott the companies who advertise during the show. In response, Walmart, Geico, and Men's Wearhouse have specifically pulled their commercials from that time slot. Other targets of the boycott, including P&G, SC Johnson, and Progressive Insurance, protest that they never intended for their spots to run during Beck's show in the first place.
And now the companies who pulled their commercials from Beck's show (whether or not they originally meant for their ads to run during that time) are facing another boycott: this time, from Beck's supporters who resent the pulling of the ads.
What's an advertiser to do? Especially an advertiser whose general primetime ads just happened to fall during Beck's show?
A few options come to mind:
1) Advertisers could choose to run or pull the ads based on who their customers are, and what those customers' political convictions are. If a company serves customers from all parts of the political spectrum, it could base the decision on the Customer Lifetime Value at risk from liberal boycotters versus conservative boycotters.
2) Advertisers could choose to run or pull the ads based on the companies' own political convictions. After all, you can't always waver based on the whims of your customers. Sometimes you have to stand on your own values, don't you?
3) Advertisers could maintain the status quo, leave the spots as originally purchased, and continue to buy ads during broad time slots, leaving the particular show times up to the luck of the draw. These companies are never going to please everyone, the boycotts have to blow over sometime, and, as someone once said, "there's no such thing as bad publicity."
Stay tuned for what happens next....
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Paying for Effectiveness Instead
Roughly three weeks ago, Advertising Age's MediaWorks published an article about potential changes in the way that ad space is valued, bought, and sold. Apparently ESPN and CNN are exploring ways to measure the amount of "buzz" that is generated from television commercials on their channels. Soon, advertisers may be able to pay for advertisements based on how many viewers talk about the ads, not on the number of impressions.
Great idea! (assuming that ESPN and CNN can get it to work.) Payment always ought to be tied as closely to performance as possible. So why not tie valuation of ad time to the effectiveness of that time slot in connecting with consumers?
The possible results from an advertisement (or advertising campaign) fall on a spectrum of effectiveness that looks something like this:
An advertisement is slightly effective if it leads to brand recognition (consumers can remember having seen the brand when they are presented with the brand name or logo) or brand awareness (consumers can remember the brand when asked to name ads they've seen recently, or to name brands in a particular product category). But an ad is really effective if it generates word-of-mouth, if it gets people excited and talking about the brand with their friends; or, even better, if it starts a veritable ideavirus - one than spreads like wildfire from person to person simply because it is excellent, remarkable, and worth spreading.
Traditionally, advertising is valued based on CPM, or cost per thousand impressions. The number of impressions is the number of people who might potentially have seen the ad (assuming that they were paying attention, and hadn't muted the tv, gotten up to use the bathroom, or engaged in a side conversation while the commercial played). Thus, media "impressions" is quite a nebulous term - it gives no real indication of the effectiveness of the ad:
Setting prices for advertising space and time based on the number of people talking about the brand, rather than the number of "impressions," places value on the real results of the ad: its effectiveness.
I do hope that ESPN, CNN, and other media outlets will be able to find an accurate way to measure the amount of talking that an ad generates. Switching to a new pricing scale based on effectiveness will be a huge improvement to tv advertising, one that will benefit the media, advertisers, and viewers alike.
Great idea! (assuming that ESPN and CNN can get it to work.) Payment always ought to be tied as closely to performance as possible. So why not tie valuation of ad time to the effectiveness of that time slot in connecting with consumers?
The possible results from an advertisement (or advertising campaign) fall on a spectrum of effectiveness that looks something like this:
An advertisement is slightly effective if it leads to brand recognition (consumers can remember having seen the brand when they are presented with the brand name or logo) or brand awareness (consumers can remember the brand when asked to name ads they've seen recently, or to name brands in a particular product category). But an ad is really effective if it generates word-of-mouth, if it gets people excited and talking about the brand with their friends; or, even better, if it starts a veritable ideavirus - one than spreads like wildfire from person to person simply because it is excellent, remarkable, and worth spreading.
Traditionally, advertising is valued based on CPM, or cost per thousand impressions. The number of impressions is the number of people who might potentially have seen the ad (assuming that they were paying attention, and hadn't muted the tv, gotten up to use the bathroom, or engaged in a side conversation while the commercial played). Thus, media "impressions" is quite a nebulous term - it gives no real indication of the effectiveness of the ad:
Setting prices for advertising space and time based on the number of people talking about the brand, rather than the number of "impressions," places value on the real results of the ad: its effectiveness.
I do hope that ESPN, CNN, and other media outlets will be able to find an accurate way to measure the amount of talking that an ad generates. Switching to a new pricing scale based on effectiveness will be a huge improvement to tv advertising, one that will benefit the media, advertisers, and viewers alike.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
This Billboard Saves Lives.
Here's a novel idea: help people in crisis and build goodwill for your brand by providing free supplies during emergencies before rescue teams even have a chance to respond.
That's what Indian telecommunications company Aircel did during this year's monsoon season in Mumbai.
Photo by Aircel. See the full slideshow of events at www.aircel.com/Mumbai_sails_through_aircel/
Aircel attached an inflated life raft to a billboard near the Milan subway in Mumbai; the billboard read, "In case of emergency, cut rope." Citizens of Mumbai followed the billboard's instructions when a monsoon flooded the streets on July 15, 2009. With the Milan subway nearly impassable, a group of Mumbaians cut the rope and used the Aircel boat to row themselves to safety.
According to CMD Global, Aircel now plans to expand the billboard campaign to Delhi and Calcutta also.
This corporate social responsibility effort actually helped people in the crucial moments of a crisis - while the rains were still falling, the floods were still rising, and people needed immediate help. Perhaps U.S. companies could follow Aircel's lead - lashing life rafts to billboards along the Gulf Coast during hurricane season; snowshoes and shovels in the Northeast during the winter; fire blankets and hoses in California during the summer.
Can we pre-plan ways to help each other during crises, instead of relying on our government to rescue us?
Some of my more cynical friends might accuse such corporate social responsibility efforts of being mere ploys to attract more customers. And perhaps they are - for some. And certainly, good works ought to be done with pure motives. But I, for one, would much rather give my purchasing dollars to companies who are doing good for society, than to companies who aren't.
Marketers, keep seeking more ways to genuinely help people. Consumers, vote with your dollars - support companies who are champions for good in the world.
That's what Indian telecommunications company Aircel did during this year's monsoon season in Mumbai.
Photo by Aircel. See the full slideshow of events at www.aircel.com/Mumbai_sails_through_aircel/
Aircel attached an inflated life raft to a billboard near the Milan subway in Mumbai; the billboard read, "In case of emergency, cut rope." Citizens of Mumbai followed the billboard's instructions when a monsoon flooded the streets on July 15, 2009. With the Milan subway nearly impassable, a group of Mumbaians cut the rope and used the Aircel boat to row themselves to safety.
According to CMD Global, Aircel now plans to expand the billboard campaign to Delhi and Calcutta also.
This corporate social responsibility effort actually helped people in the crucial moments of a crisis - while the rains were still falling, the floods were still rising, and people needed immediate help. Perhaps U.S. companies could follow Aircel's lead - lashing life rafts to billboards along the Gulf Coast during hurricane season; snowshoes and shovels in the Northeast during the winter; fire blankets and hoses in California during the summer.
Can we pre-plan ways to help each other during crises, instead of relying on our government to rescue us?
Some of my more cynical friends might accuse such corporate social responsibility efforts of being mere ploys to attract more customers. And perhaps they are - for some. And certainly, good works ought to be done with pure motives. But I, for one, would much rather give my purchasing dollars to companies who are doing good for society, than to companies who aren't.
Marketers, keep seeking more ways to genuinely help people. Consumers, vote with your dollars - support companies who are champions for good in the world.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
The Tools Need Someone to Use Them
Pablo Picasso once said, "Computers are useless. They can only give you answers."
Granted, Picasso (who died in 1973) made this statement at a time when most computers were sophisticated calculators or analog machines used by corporations, universities, research labs, and military intelligence. This was before personal computers, before Apple, before graphical user interface, before 99.99% of humans knew what the "Internet" was, before MS-DOS, before the World Wide Web, before the dot-com bubble, before Web 2.0, before Adobe Photoshop and digital video and social media and Google and online news channels and - gasp! - blogs.
But even despite Picasso's assumed ignorance of the world of functionality that computers would one day offer, he makes a worthy point. Computers are tools. The Internet is a tool. Social media is a tool. Tools are useless until they are put into the hands of somebody who will use them.
Computers (software, networks, Internet, and other technology included) can provide you with information. Worthwhile information - about news, sports, politics, events, entertainment, products, services, advice, companies, customers, supply and demand, what customers want, how people live. They can connect you to people. Create channels of communication. Give you eyes, ears, and a voice to the rest of the world.
But computers can't make decisions for you. The entire Adobe Creative Suite can't create brilliantly designed marketing materials for you. The Internet and email and blogs can't build your brand for you. Social media can't generate followers for you.
You are the human. You are the one who has been designed to create. You are the one who generates ideas. You are the one who builds relationships. You are the one with the responsibility to add value to the world.
So use your tools. They are no good without you, the driver and creator and inventor and communicator and painter.
Granted, Picasso (who died in 1973) made this statement at a time when most computers were sophisticated calculators or analog machines used by corporations, universities, research labs, and military intelligence. This was before personal computers, before Apple, before graphical user interface, before 99.99% of humans knew what the "Internet" was, before MS-DOS, before the World Wide Web, before the dot-com bubble, before Web 2.0, before Adobe Photoshop and digital video and social media and Google and online news channels and - gasp! - blogs.
But even despite Picasso's assumed ignorance of the world of functionality that computers would one day offer, he makes a worthy point. Computers are tools. The Internet is a tool. Social media is a tool. Tools are useless until they are put into the hands of somebody who will use them.
Computers (software, networks, Internet, and other technology included) can provide you with information. Worthwhile information - about news, sports, politics, events, entertainment, products, services, advice, companies, customers, supply and demand, what customers want, how people live. They can connect you to people. Create channels of communication. Give you eyes, ears, and a voice to the rest of the world.
But computers can't make decisions for you. The entire Adobe Creative Suite can't create brilliantly designed marketing materials for you. The Internet and email and blogs can't build your brand for you. Social media can't generate followers for you.
You are the human. You are the one who has been designed to create. You are the one who generates ideas. You are the one who builds relationships. You are the one with the responsibility to add value to the world.
So use your tools. They are no good without you, the driver and creator and inventor and communicator and painter.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Why no eBooks?
The New York Times, among other journals and blogs, recently published a comparison of the new Barnes & Noble eBook store and Amazon's Kindle eBook store. The review noted pros and cons on both sides: Barnes & Noble's eBooks are compatible with the iPhone, Blackberry, Mac, and PC, but it has no Kindle-like digital reader yet; Barnes & Noble has 700,000 eBooks, compared to Amazon's 300,000; but 500,000 of Barnes & Noble's eBooks are free out-of-copyright books from Google, which can be read on the Kindle anyway; most of Amazon's eBooks are less expensive than the same eBooks from Barnes & Noble; and so on.
I won't get into a discussion of Barnes & Noble vs. Amazon's Kindle in this blog; you can find enough commentary on that by doing a Google search. The New York Times video commentary by David Pogue is available here; to read a written version of Pogue's review, click here.
One observation made by Pogue in his review aroused my curiosity, though. He noted that many popular books are missing from the eBook stores of both Amazon and Barnes & Noble. Among the non-existent eBooks named by Pogue are Joseph Heller's Catch-22, Anthony Burgess'A Clockwork Orange, the Harry Potter series, and any works by John Grisham.
These books and others are unavailable because their authors and/or publishers choose not to release them electronically.
Why would some authors and publishers choose not to release eBook versions of their work?
Do they believe that eBooks are less profitable than print versions? I don't understand that reasoning. An eBook does not carry the variable costs associated with the paper, ink, and set-up of a printed publication; also, given the varying prices of the currently available eBooks, it would seem that authors and publishers could set eBook prices to generate quite a handsome profit.
Do they believe that eBooks will cheapen the value of good, old-fashioned paper books? That makes no sense. While eBooks may be convenient for travel, I personally enjoy the comfort of the smell and feel of a paper book in my hand. I would think that many other readers do, too. Even if they didn't, authors should present their work in the format that best suits their readers. If readers prefer electronic over paper versions, then give them eBooks.
Do they believe that their works are so popular that they don't need to sell electronic versions? I don't see the logic in that attitude either. Purveyors of ideas become successful when their ideas spread, not when they are limited. The marketplace of ideas is an economy of abundance, not an economy of scarcity. Thus, books (that is, the actual words and ideas, not the paper or bits upon which they are written) become more valuable as they become more plentiful, not as they become more scarce.
I am at a loss for other possible explanations for the refusal to release electronic versions of printed books. I do hope that these authors and publishers will listen to their readers and provide these eBooks soon.
I won't get into a discussion of Barnes & Noble vs. Amazon's Kindle in this blog; you can find enough commentary on that by doing a Google search. The New York Times video commentary by David Pogue is available here; to read a written version of Pogue's review, click here.
One observation made by Pogue in his review aroused my curiosity, though. He noted that many popular books are missing from the eBook stores of both Amazon and Barnes & Noble. Among the non-existent eBooks named by Pogue are Joseph Heller's Catch-22, Anthony Burgess'A Clockwork Orange, the Harry Potter series, and any works by John Grisham.
These books and others are unavailable because their authors and/or publishers choose not to release them electronically.
Why would some authors and publishers choose not to release eBook versions of their work?
Do they believe that eBooks are less profitable than print versions? I don't understand that reasoning. An eBook does not carry the variable costs associated with the paper, ink, and set-up of a printed publication; also, given the varying prices of the currently available eBooks, it would seem that authors and publishers could set eBook prices to generate quite a handsome profit.
Do they believe that eBooks will cheapen the value of good, old-fashioned paper books? That makes no sense. While eBooks may be convenient for travel, I personally enjoy the comfort of the smell and feel of a paper book in my hand. I would think that many other readers do, too. Even if they didn't, authors should present their work in the format that best suits their readers. If readers prefer electronic over paper versions, then give them eBooks.
Do they believe that their works are so popular that they don't need to sell electronic versions? I don't see the logic in that attitude either. Purveyors of ideas become successful when their ideas spread, not when they are limited. The marketplace of ideas is an economy of abundance, not an economy of scarcity. Thus, books (that is, the actual words and ideas, not the paper or bits upon which they are written) become more valuable as they become more plentiful, not as they become more scarce.
I am at a loss for other possible explanations for the refusal to release electronic versions of printed books. I do hope that these authors and publishers will listen to their readers and provide these eBooks soon.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Your Neighbor vs. The World
Sometimes we're so busy saving the world that we forget to help the guy next door.
This fact was brought to my mind on Saturday as I tried to do some research for this blog. I intended to gather information so that I could write my final post for last week. (I try to post every weekday; last week I had missed Friday, and needed to catch up.) And so, on two separate occasions on Saturday, I took my laptop to a quiet, studious place in order to write my belated post and start thinking about some posts for this week.
On both occasions, as I headed to my quiet spot, I encountered friends who needed my assistance - one with moving into her new apartment; one with talking through a difficult situation. This posed an interesting dilemma: do I act responsibly and complete my over-due research so that I may be faithful to my readers? or do I help my friends with their needs?
I chose to help my friends. A few years ago, I would not have done so. I hope that my readers will forgive me.
It's the old Good Samaritan story. We aspire to act like the Samaritan, who stopped to help a stranger in need. But how often are we more like the priest and the Levite who went before the Samaritan? Both of these men were so busy serving in the temple that they could not find time to serve a person who was truly in need.
Do we do this in our companies? Do we donate a large percentage of our profits to charity, but refuse to support fundraisers for the local Boy Scout troop or football boosters? Do we send volunteers to help dig wells in Africa, but forget to give time to help clean up the community park? Do we brag about how our products improve the lives of our customers, but treat our own employees with lack of respect and appreciation?
Continue to change the world. But start in your own backyard.
This fact was brought to my mind on Saturday as I tried to do some research for this blog. I intended to gather information so that I could write my final post for last week. (I try to post every weekday; last week I had missed Friday, and needed to catch up.) And so, on two separate occasions on Saturday, I took my laptop to a quiet, studious place in order to write my belated post and start thinking about some posts for this week.
On both occasions, as I headed to my quiet spot, I encountered friends who needed my assistance - one with moving into her new apartment; one with talking through a difficult situation. This posed an interesting dilemma: do I act responsibly and complete my over-due research so that I may be faithful to my readers? or do I help my friends with their needs?
I chose to help my friends. A few years ago, I would not have done so. I hope that my readers will forgive me.
It's the old Good Samaritan story. We aspire to act like the Samaritan, who stopped to help a stranger in need. But how often are we more like the priest and the Levite who went before the Samaritan? Both of these men were so busy serving in the temple that they could not find time to serve a person who was truly in need.
Do we do this in our companies? Do we donate a large percentage of our profits to charity, but refuse to support fundraisers for the local Boy Scout troop or football boosters? Do we send volunteers to help dig wells in Africa, but forget to give time to help clean up the community park? Do we brag about how our products improve the lives of our customers, but treat our own employees with lack of respect and appreciation?
Continue to change the world. But start in your own backyard.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Can Art on a Billboard Still Be Called Art?
Palisades Car Insurance is making an apparent effort to beautify the highways of New Jersey, its home state. How? Not through the Adopt-A-Highway program. Not by planting trees and shrubs. No, Palisades is making its contribution to society by displaying art - fine art - on billboards.
The campaign, which began on July 13, is called "Drive With a Smile," from the company known as "The Nice New Jersey Car Insurance Company." According to a recent New York Post article, the goal of the campaign is three-fold: 1) to give drivers something pleasant to view while stuck in traffic; 2) to showcase the work of local New Jersey artists; and 3) to promote the scenic locations of New Jersey. The first two billboards are already on display (see photos below); the art for the remaining billboards will be selected by online vote from New Jersey scenes submitted by local artists. Art submissions, viewing, and voting takes place at drivewithasmile.palisades.com
The question on the table is this: can art on a billboard still be considered art? If a billboard displays a painting, can it still be seen as an eyesore? Or does the painting succeed in beautifying the signage?
I think that Palisades' campaign sounds like a great thing - it sounds like a community service, turning the highway into an art gallery. Beautifying the road. Benefiting society. But, based on the photos above, it seems that Palisades only made a half-hearted effort at their corporate social responsibility.
With the Palisades logo and "Got a Nice Piece?" tagline taking up so much space, it seems that drivers would hardly be able to get a good look at the art. The view seems comparable to looking at a thumbnail of a photo online, without having the luxury of opening the full-size version. Or, if the highway were an art gallery, visitors would be examining an 8" x 10" painting from across the entire length of the room.
I agree with mep's comments on the subject from a discussion on ArtBistro.com: "if you are going to put a landscape painting on a billboard then make the whole 'canvas' just that." Palisades ought to relax their ego and remove the logo and tagline. Let the art fill the entire billboard. Let the billboard truly be art, and truly bring joy to drivers. They ought to build the Palisades brand through the free publicity Palisades would get (both through news channels and through viral marketing), not with a logo that crowds out the art and ruins the effort.
If Palisades simply cannot bear to post a billboard without the Palisades logo, they could place the logo in a corner of the full-sized art. Or, better yet, simply print the website URL, drivewithasmile.palisades.com, along the bottom of the art.
Palisades is almost-but-not-quite there on corporate social responsibility and viral marketing. Hopefully they will change the layout before they post the remaining billboards.
The campaign, which began on July 13, is called "Drive With a Smile," from the company known as "The Nice New Jersey Car Insurance Company." According to a recent New York Post article, the goal of the campaign is three-fold: 1) to give drivers something pleasant to view while stuck in traffic; 2) to showcase the work of local New Jersey artists; and 3) to promote the scenic locations of New Jersey. The first two billboards are already on display (see photos below); the art for the remaining billboards will be selected by online vote from New Jersey scenes submitted by local artists. Art submissions, viewing, and voting takes place at drivewithasmile.palisades.com
The question on the table is this: can art on a billboard still be considered art? If a billboard displays a painting, can it still be seen as an eyesore? Or does the painting succeed in beautifying the signage?
I think that Palisades' campaign sounds like a great thing - it sounds like a community service, turning the highway into an art gallery. Beautifying the road. Benefiting society. But, based on the photos above, it seems that Palisades only made a half-hearted effort at their corporate social responsibility.
With the Palisades logo and "Got a Nice Piece?" tagline taking up so much space, it seems that drivers would hardly be able to get a good look at the art. The view seems comparable to looking at a thumbnail of a photo online, without having the luxury of opening the full-size version. Or, if the highway were an art gallery, visitors would be examining an 8" x 10" painting from across the entire length of the room.
I agree with mep's comments on the subject from a discussion on ArtBistro.com: "if you are going to put a landscape painting on a billboard then make the whole 'canvas' just that." Palisades ought to relax their ego and remove the logo and tagline. Let the art fill the entire billboard. Let the billboard truly be art, and truly bring joy to drivers. They ought to build the Palisades brand through the free publicity Palisades would get (both through news channels and through viral marketing), not with a logo that crowds out the art and ruins the effort.
If Palisades simply cannot bear to post a billboard without the Palisades logo, they could place the logo in a corner of the full-sized art. Or, better yet, simply print the website URL, drivewithasmile.palisades.com, along the bottom of the art.
Palisades is almost-but-not-quite there on corporate social responsibility and viral marketing. Hopefully they will change the layout before they post the remaining billboards.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Good customer service, courtesy of USPS
Today I stopped at my downtown post office to check the mail in my P.O. box. I entered my combination (correctly - I made sure of that), but the door would not open. Drat. This happened to me last time, too. Now I would have to ask for help at the window.
And so, woefully, I took my place in line. I dreaded the interminably long wait, the imminent skepticism of the postal worker (who would surely think that I simply entered the wrong combination), and the inconvenient solution to my problem (would they be able to fix the mechanism? would I have to switch to another box and change my address?).
To my surprise, my dread was unfounded. (Except for the long wait - but even that wasn't too bad. I still had time left on the parking meter when I emerged.) When my turn came, I explained the situation to the postal worker, Sheryl. She listened (without any annoyed looks), asked me some questions (How long have you had this problem? Has your box ever opened properly? What is the box number?), slipped to the back to check my box, returned promptly, delivered my mail to me, reported her findings (the mechanism is missing a screw), and told me the solution (it should be a quick fix; I just have to find the right screw; it should be fixed by this afternoon). Then she told me what to do if I encountered this problem again (next time you come in, if it still isn't working, don't bother standing in line. Just slip up to the counter and talk to me.)
I left the post office feeling pleased and delighted with the U.S. Postal Service.
This is what Sheryl did to give me a great customer service experience:
- She listened.
- She did not treat me as if I were ignorant or mistaken.
- She did not scowl, frown, or grimace (although I didn't quite get a smile from her either).
- She asked me for the information she needed to solve my problem.
- She dealt with the problem quickly.
- She investigated the problem herself, and returned with an answer (and my mail).
- She communicated to me the source of the problem, and its solution.
- She made me feel as if I had preferential treatment ("skip line if this happens again")
- She made me feel as if I had an inside connection through her ("I'll fix it"; "come talk to me next time")
Do you handle your customer's problems with this kind of courtesy, connection, and efficiency? You probably do, but we all need reminders from time to time.
Accept this reminder, courtesy of Sheryl. And don't forget to smile!
And so, woefully, I took my place in line. I dreaded the interminably long wait, the imminent skepticism of the postal worker (who would surely think that I simply entered the wrong combination), and the inconvenient solution to my problem (would they be able to fix the mechanism? would I have to switch to another box and change my address?).
To my surprise, my dread was unfounded. (Except for the long wait - but even that wasn't too bad. I still had time left on the parking meter when I emerged.) When my turn came, I explained the situation to the postal worker, Sheryl. She listened (without any annoyed looks), asked me some questions (How long have you had this problem? Has your box ever opened properly? What is the box number?), slipped to the back to check my box, returned promptly, delivered my mail to me, reported her findings (the mechanism is missing a screw), and told me the solution (it should be a quick fix; I just have to find the right screw; it should be fixed by this afternoon). Then she told me what to do if I encountered this problem again (next time you come in, if it still isn't working, don't bother standing in line. Just slip up to the counter and talk to me.)
I left the post office feeling pleased and delighted with the U.S. Postal Service.
This is what Sheryl did to give me a great customer service experience:
- She listened.
- She did not treat me as if I were ignorant or mistaken.
- She did not scowl, frown, or grimace (although I didn't quite get a smile from her either).
- She asked me for the information she needed to solve my problem.
- She dealt with the problem quickly.
- She investigated the problem herself, and returned with an answer (and my mail).
- She communicated to me the source of the problem, and its solution.
- She made me feel as if I had preferential treatment ("skip line if this happens again")
- She made me feel as if I had an inside connection through her ("I'll fix it"; "come talk to me next time")
Do you handle your customer's problems with this kind of courtesy, connection, and efficiency? You probably do, but we all need reminders from time to time.
Accept this reminder, courtesy of Sheryl. And don't forget to smile!
Monday, August 3, 2009
DQ: One simple sign, one brilliant marketing tactic
When I see great marketing, I must give credit where credit is due. Today, I give credit to, of all places, my local Dairy Queen.
This haven of frozen-treat goodness has a long way to go on the customer experience side of things. While Dairy Queen serves good food (or at least good soft serve), I am often hesitant to visit my local DQ. The store, despite a recent facelift, always seems a little dingy to me. And ordering hot food there sets the buyer up for an unreasonably long wait. (I only made that mistake twice.)
Oh, but do I love DQ's Blizzards.
And this particular local Dairy Queen uses one simple tool to continually remind me of my love for their heavenly blend of soft serve and toppings: a sign. A simple marquee in front of their building.
The marquee only ever announces one thing: the Blizzard of the Month. I have to pass by it every day on my way to and from town. The marquee reminds me of my craving.
You see, this Blizzard of the Month is an ingenious thing. It's really nothing special; each month's flavor is really available all the time. And the Blizzard of the Month costs exactly the same price as every other flavor that month. But the mere fact that I read, say, "Caramel Brownie Sundae" as the Blizzard of the Month on that little marquee, stirs something in my mind. "Mmm. That sounds good. I want to try that," I think to myself. And I begin to think of ways that I can rationalize buying myself a Blizzard.
The crazy thing is that if "Caramel Brownie Sundae" were not featured on that marquee, I wouldn't even consider it if I walked into a Dairy Queen of my own volition to buy a Blizzard. Instead I would go with one of my two favorites: Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough or Strawberry Cheesequake. But because "Caramel Brownie Sundae" is the Blizzard of the Month, I want to try it.
Coffee shops do the same thing - they will feature a "Raspberry White Chocolate Mocha" or a "Pumpkin Spice Latte" as a special seasonal drink. But really, a person can order those drinks any time of the year, and at no difference in price. Yet seeing that flavor as a featured pick stirs something in our psyche, and we want to try it.
Can you use this to help your business? Can your company feature a different product every month? week? day? You don't even necessarily have to create any special variations or discounts or promotions. Just draw attention to something of value that you already offer. Maybe a little sign is all you need.
This haven of frozen-treat goodness has a long way to go on the customer experience side of things. While Dairy Queen serves good food (or at least good soft serve), I am often hesitant to visit my local DQ. The store, despite a recent facelift, always seems a little dingy to me. And ordering hot food there sets the buyer up for an unreasonably long wait. (I only made that mistake twice.)
Oh, but do I love DQ's Blizzards.
And this particular local Dairy Queen uses one simple tool to continually remind me of my love for their heavenly blend of soft serve and toppings: a sign. A simple marquee in front of their building.
The marquee only ever announces one thing: the Blizzard of the Month. I have to pass by it every day on my way to and from town. The marquee reminds me of my craving.
You see, this Blizzard of the Month is an ingenious thing. It's really nothing special; each month's flavor is really available all the time. And the Blizzard of the Month costs exactly the same price as every other flavor that month. But the mere fact that I read, say, "Caramel Brownie Sundae" as the Blizzard of the Month on that little marquee, stirs something in my mind. "Mmm. That sounds good. I want to try that," I think to myself. And I begin to think of ways that I can rationalize buying myself a Blizzard.
The crazy thing is that if "Caramel Brownie Sundae" were not featured on that marquee, I wouldn't even consider it if I walked into a Dairy Queen of my own volition to buy a Blizzard. Instead I would go with one of my two favorites: Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough or Strawberry Cheesequake. But because "Caramel Brownie Sundae" is the Blizzard of the Month, I want to try it.
Coffee shops do the same thing - they will feature a "Raspberry White Chocolate Mocha" or a "Pumpkin Spice Latte" as a special seasonal drink. But really, a person can order those drinks any time of the year, and at no difference in price. Yet seeing that flavor as a featured pick stirs something in our psyche, and we want to try it.
Can you use this to help your business? Can your company feature a different product every month? week? day? You don't even necessarily have to create any special variations or discounts or promotions. Just draw attention to something of value that you already offer. Maybe a little sign is all you need.
Lame Excuses for Being Boring - #4
To continue this series, which started in June, here is excuse #4:
"If we become more innovative, we'll become too advanced and too expensive for our strategic partners."
I have two responses to this lame excuse:
1) Who do you want to be your strategic partners? Are your current partners doing things to improve quality of life and to make the world a better place? Are they continually raising the bar? (And no, I am not referring to their cellular service.)
Or are your partners just maintaining the status quo?
If the former, your partners are innovating. And you will serve them best if you innovate, too.
If the latter, do you really want to be doing business with them?
2) Innovation does not necessarily equate to increases in price. If low cost is important to your brand, to your partners, and to customers, then be innovative at providing the greatest value while cutting unnecessary costs.
"If we become more innovative, we'll become too advanced and too expensive for our strategic partners."
I have two responses to this lame excuse:
1) Who do you want to be your strategic partners? Are your current partners doing things to improve quality of life and to make the world a better place? Are they continually raising the bar? (And no, I am not referring to their cellular service.)
Or are your partners just maintaining the status quo?
If the former, your partners are innovating. And you will serve them best if you innovate, too.
If the latter, do you really want to be doing business with them?
2) Innovation does not necessarily equate to increases in price. If low cost is important to your brand, to your partners, and to customers, then be innovative at providing the greatest value while cutting unnecessary costs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
