Taking a Hiatus

Human relationships are founded upon mutually understood - and usually unwritten - social contracts. That is, the trust required for healthy relationships is maintained through the understanding and fulfillment of certain expectations.

A friendship, for example, rests on a social contract that includes respecting one another, standing up for one another, listening to one another, being there for one another, investing time in one another, etc. An employer-employee relationship rests on a social contract in which the employee follows the instructions of the employer, the employee shows respect to the employer, the employee pursues the goals set for him by the employer, the employer pays the employee the agreed-upon wage, the employer provides a healthy working environment for the employee, etc.

These social contracts may vary depending on the culture in which they exist; however, social contracts do exist for every type of relationship, and when a social contract is broken, the relationship deteriorates.

The social contract between an organization and the community stipulates that the organization will provide some benefit or meet some need in the community; that the products or services of the organization will maintain a consistent quality; that the organization will steward its share of the community's resources; etc. The social contract among users of social media includes meaningful interactions, consistency of communication, timely responses, etc.

As a blogger, I operate within social contracts described in my last two examples. My blog is a product offered to readers; the social contract mandates that my blog posts benefit my readers and offer consistent quality, if I am to maintain healthy relationships with my readers. As part of social media, my blog is expected to be consistent in its frequency and responsiveness to readers.

My blog posts have gradually been declining in frequency and consistency. I suspect that some readers may have found them to be declining in quality also. For all of this I do apologize.

As I allocate my resources of time - much like an organization allocates its resources - I am finding it difficult to devote the kind of time it takes to produce well-written, thoughtful, frequent blog posts without detracting from my performance of other obligations. Since I cannot commit the time to fulfill the social contracts implicit in a good blog, I am hereby going to take a hiatus from Haley's Marketing Blog.

This will be my last blog post for some time. I expect - and hope - to return to steady authorship of Haley's Marketing Blog at some point in the future. Until that time, I will not waste my readers' time as they wait for a new post, only to be disappointed.

Be sure that I will continue expressing marketing ideas on Twitter (@HaleyDD), and when the time comes for me to revive Haley's Marketing Blog, Twitter will be the main channel by which I announce the blog's renewal.

For now, I must bid my readers adieu. I look forward to chatting more later.

Blessings to all! Happy marketing!

Thanks for reading,
Haley

To care or not to care?

Last Sunday, mechanical failures caused a four-hour delay for my first flight on the way back from vacation. This delay, not surprisingly, caused me to miss my connecting flight - and all of the remaining flights that day.

When I arrived at my connecting gate thirty-five minutes after the last flight had left, the American Airlines gate agent heard my story and quite promptly provided me with a $15 food voucher, a free hotel stay, and a boarding pass for the first flight out the next morning. Standard operating procedure for flights missed due to the fault of the airline. Have a nice day.

Now, I'm very appreciative that American Airlines has a policy like this. I'm thankful that I can book another flight with no hassle, and that the airline covers my meal and hotel bills incurred from an unexpected overnight stay. I'm thankful that I don't have to fight the airline on this; I'm thankful that they provide these services automatically when the airline is at fault in travel delays.

However, this is not the first time that I've been in this situation and received this response from American Airlines. And this time, the response seemed almost too automatic. The gate agent simply followed procedure; she didn't apologize on behalf of the airline for the inconvenience. It was as if the airline was making things right, but only because that was their system, not because they actually cared about my thwarted travel plans.

Contrast this with the way Disney handles one particular customer inconvenience:

When a family arrives at Walt Disney World with a car full of overjoyed, rambunctious kids, and manages to find the closest available parking space (which still seems miles away from the front gate), and unloads all the kids, packs the littlest one in a stroller, grabs the backpacks and cameras, and begins to dash off toward that land of magic, there is an odd chance that they might lock their keys in the car.

This circumstance, in contrast to my missed American Airlines flight, is completely the fault of the customer. In their excitement, they locked the keys in the car, at no fault of Disney. It's not Disney's problem.

However, when this happens, all a customer has to do is contact Disney customer service. The sympathetic customer service person assures the customer that Disney can help. Within five minutes, Disney's on-site locksmith crew arrives at the customer's vehicle, uses their tools to open the door without any damage, and retrieves the keys for the customer. The customer reaches into his pocket to pull out some cash to pay the locksmith's charges, but the Disney locksmith stops him and says this:

"No charge, sir. I'm sorry the keys got locked in the car. You and your family have a magical day."

I'm sorry the keys got locked in the car. Even when this inconvenience was completely the fault of the customer's absentmindedness, Disney sympathizes. Disney apologizes. Disney solves their problem. And Disney encourages the customer to continue on with a wonderful day at the Mouse House.

Now, this is a standard procedure for Disney, just like the food-hotel-flight-reimbursement is a standard procedure for American Airlines. But when Disney employees follow their procedure, they do it with an attitude of caring for the customer's predicament and wanting to do everything they can to redeem the customer's experience with their brand. When the American Airlines employee followed her procedure, she completed the right actions, but the caring attitude was missing.

And that attitude is what makes the difference.

At your organization, do employees have an attitude of caring, or just following procedure?

Good communication covers over a multitude of sins

We see that communication is critical to any human relationship - that between a husband and wife, between parent and child, between employer and employee, between teacher and student, between roommates, between friends. And between company and customer.

A countdown timer announcing "time until next ride" can help reduce impatience among customers waiting in line for a ride at an amusement park.

A response email acknowledging receipt of a complaint and assuring a quick resolution can help a customer feel that his issue has been heard and is being addressed.

An easily-found set of guidelines for what constitutes an acceptable submission can help customers to contribute better customer-created content to a social media campaign.

A periodic phone call to check on a client can help her to feel that she is cared for and that her vendor is eager to meet her needs.

A notice that a service provider has not received payment from a customer can help to uncover the oversight and elicit payment before service is discontinued.

A voluntary recall of a defective product and an immediate, free replacement can help to prevent customer injury and mitigate ill-will toward a brand.

Good, timely communication is such a simple thing, requiring little of your time, effort, and money. Regular communication - even a quick "how are you doing? what can we do to serve you?" helps to maintain a strong customer relationship. An immediate and courteous response to a frustrated customer helps to restore the customer's sense that the company really does care and really is working to make things right. These forms of communication are quick, painless, and inexpensive (or free).

Lack of communication causes the tenuous, tense, or broken customer relationships that lead to expensive fixes - customer service wars, legal battles, reparation to soothe an irate customer, or a lifetime of value lost when a customer leaves.

What damages might have been reduced, whose reputation strengthened, or which customers retained through simple, clear, timely, reliable communication from your company?

Caring about customers - at home

Yesterday I used my brand-new Kitchenaid electric hand mixer for the first time (baking banana bread - yum!). Inside the instruction manual (yes, I admit that I actually flipped through the instruction manual), Kitchenaid had printed a dozen recipes that involved the use of my mixer - some cream cheese spreads, whipped toppings, coffee cakes, and other desserts.

Now, it's not uncommon for purveyors of foodstuffs to print recipes on the outside of their food packages, for obvious reason: a consumer is more like to purchase a food item if they have a delicious-sounding recipe for which that item is an ingredient.

But why would Kitchenaid bother to print useful recipes in the instruction manual inside the box of a kitchen appliance? In a location where the recipes would only be discovered after the consumer purchased the appliance and took it home?

Could it be that Kitchenaid wants consumers to have a good experience actually using their product? That the company wants their product to be useful to the consumer, not just a wasted expense that sits in a cupboard? That they care about the Kitchenaid brand experience - not only before the purchase, but after?

Sometimes we marketers get so focused on acquiring new customers that we forget to take care of the customers we already have. We spend our time making a product look useful enough for customers to buy, and forget to make it useful enough to use. We work to improve the in-store or online experience, and forget to improve the at-home experience.

As marketers, we ought to spend 80% of our time improving our product - making it more useful and more enjoyable for the customer - and 20% of our time improving the way we communicate about that great product. Sometimes we get this backwards.

It looks like Kitchenaid is getting it right.

Who Gets the Final Say?

It happens every so often that a marketer disagrees with his client or CEO on how something should be done - how a product should be designed, how a loyalty program should be structured, how a website should be organized. In most cases, the opinion of one party or the other can be swayed into consensus. But sometimes, the difference of opinion cannot be overcome by any amount of persuasion. When such a disagreement occurs, how should the marketer proceed?

A proper respect for authority (or a desire to keep one's job) would say that the marketer should submit to his employer's opinion. After all, the marketer works for the client or CEO; he doesn't work for himself. He ought to follow the instructions of the person who pays his salary.

But what if that client or CEO is wrong? What if the employer's plan will completely ruin the company's reputation and sabotage all of their efforts? What if the marketer is absolutely sure that the employer's idea is a bad idea?

Who should have the final say?

The customer.

The employer's customer should have the final say. After all, both the marketer and his employer do what they do in order to serve the final customer. The customer is the one whose opinion matters. The customer is the one who will be using the product, or loyalty program, or website. The customer is the one who will decide whether it is a good product, a rewarding loyalty program, or a helpful website. The customer is the one who will choose whether or not her experience with the company merits continued support of that company.

So, marketer, find out what the customer's opinion is. Find out what she has to say about your product, loyalty program, or website. Find out what she's looking for, what she needs, what she likes. Research. Ask your customers. Gather data. Discover what your customers actually prefer, not what you or your employer think they prefer.

Let your employer see the customer data. And resign yourselves to act on whatever the data says. Design your product, structure your loyalty program, and organize your website based on what you learned from your customers.

Let the customer have the final say-so in your decision-making.

(Of course, though, if your employer refuses to do what the customer's say, you should ultimately follow your employer's instructions. Then let the results speak for themselves - one way or the other.)

Things Worth Doing

As marketers (and as human beings in general), our lives should be about making others' lives better. Meeting needs. Bringing joy to lives. Helping others to succeed. Making the world a brighter place.

We weren't created to be takers, but to be givers.

When I see creations like this one, I think that someone is doing a good job of brightening the world:



Yes, it's a two-and-a-half-minute commercial for Toyota. But it's also a rap song about some suburbanites and their minivan. The folks at Toyota and director Jody Hill spent time and money (a lot of it, I'd imagine) on creating something that would be fun to watch. That would make people laugh. That people would enjoy watching. And these Toyota folks probably had fun in the process.

In the first seven weeks since the video was posted on YouTube, it has received over 3.8 million views. And I can understand why. People need (and want, and enjoy watching) things that make them laugh. That make the day a little brighter.

Marketers, if you're going to do something, then do something worth doing.

• Start initiatives that help people to succeed.


• Create content that makes lives happier.


• Sell products that help people to breathe easier.


• Give service that brings a smile to peoples' faces.

If what you're doing is not making the world a better place, then why are you doing it?

Business on Purpose

Why do you make the business decisions you do?

Because it's what you've always done?
Because it's what everybody has always done?
Because it's easiest? cheapest? fastest?

Or do you make decisions because they are the right thing for you and your customers?

Companies get into trouble (or, just as bad, become stagnant and unremarkable) when they aren't intentional about the things they do. When they make choices based on what seems normal, rather than on what is best for their particular customer base and brand promise. When they choose the easiest marketing channels, product features, package design, or shipping strategies, rather than choosing those that fit best. When they don't stop to think about why they do what they do.

It may turn out that what you've always done, or what is easiest/cheapest/fastest is not the right decision at all. It might be that there is a better solution. A solution that provides a better experience for your customers. A solution that more closely aligns with what customers need. A solution that better enables your organization to do what it was meant to do.

Or it might be that the decision to do the comfortable/easy/cheap/fast thing is exactly the right thing to do. It might be that those strategies provide the convenience, affordability, quick service, quality, standardization, customization, status, or other value that your customers want.

But come to that conclusion because you were intentional about it. Because you took time to consider what the right thing is. Not because you were on autopilot.

Designer Turned Marketer?

MediaPost's Marketing Daily last week published an interview with Dodge president and CEO Ralph Gilles. Gilles took the driver's seat (pun intended - sorry) at Dodge last October, after 16 years rising through the ranks of Chrysler's design team.

Yes, the design team. Not the marketing team.

It doesn't seem that shifting gears (yes, another pun) from product design to marketing is a typical career move for most. And yet the articles and quotes that I've found online seem to indicate that Gilles has a good head for business. So this got me to pondering: what - aside from his MBA from Michigan State - can lead a design guy like Gilles to have potential for success in marketing, or vice versa?

His biggest advantage, I think, is that years of design work breeds a passion for excellence in product quality. Designers** have an intrinsic love for great design - in the case of product designers, this love encompasses aesthetics, certainly, but also engineering, performance, and product features. More marketers would do well to absorb some of their designers' passion for an outstanding product. When marketers become so focused on marketing communications, distribution channels, pricing tactics, and strategic partnerships that they forget about the product, they run into problems. A drive to continually turn out an excellent product (and services) must be the foundation for good marketing.

Conversely, a marketer-turned-designer would bring another key ethos to his design team: a commitment to customer-centricity. Marketers** constantly think about how they can serve customers. What does the customer need and want? What delights the customer? What frustrates the customer? Marketers create products and plan strategy with the customer in mind. More designers would do well to adopt their marketers' dedication to the customer perspective. When they think about the customer's needs first, designers build products to fit the customer's preferences, not just the tastes of the designer.

So yes, moves from designer to marketer or marketer to designer can provide some distinct insight for each of these realms of the business. We would do well to operate with both worlds in mind.

**Note: I almost said "Good designers" and "Good marketers," but I felt that that would be inaccurate. When I refer to a "designer," I mean someone who designs because design was born in them; a "marketer" is someone who does marketing because marketing was born in them. A person doesn't become a designer because she does design work; a designer does design work because a designer is who she is. She loves design; she is good at design; design is her passion; she couldn't imagine doing anything else. Likewise, a person doesn't become a marketer because she does marketing; a marketer does marketing because a marketer is who she is. These people are the true designers and true marketers, and their design work and their marketing is good, and is naturally done from these mindsets I described. I would assert that "bad designers" or "bad marketers" are bad at what they do because they aren't really meant to be designers or marketers at all. Thus, the word "good" is unnecessary to distinguish the designers and marketers to whom I refer in this blog, because true designers and true marketers are good at what they do, and naturally operate from the mindsets I describe.

The Art of Thoughtfulness

Most of the time, most people treat others only according to what is expected.

We are polite, but we're not caring. We're not rude, but we're not kind, either. We say "please" and "thank you" (maybe), but we don't show people how much we truly appreciate them.

And that's fine. We're not being rude, after all. No one expects anything more of us.

But in a world where avoiding rudeness is all that is required, a little thoughtfulness goes a long way.

• The college professor who remembers the name and one interesting fact about every student he meets - so that when they meet again, he can say, "Hello, Elizabeth! How's your little brother's baseball season going?" - is thoughtful.


• The woman who makes sure there are gluten-free foods available at her party when she invites her friend who has a gluten allergy, is thoughtful.


• The man who brings back a well-chosen souvenir from his Hawaiian vacation for his coworker who has always dreamed of going to Hawaii but has never been, is thoughtful.


• The girl who knows that her friend doesn't really care for birthday cake, and bakes her a birthday pie instead, is thoughtful.

Such acts of thoughtfulness are not required, or even expected. But they are very meaningful to the recipients.

Thoughtfulness requires a bit of extra work, and a bit of extra thinking. In particular, thoughtfulness requires that we think about the other person - what they like and dislike and need, rather than what is socially normal. It requires that we take time to listen, and to learn the people around us, and to look for ways to make their days brighter. It requires intentionality.

What would happen if marketers took the time to be thoughtful?

If we thought about what our customers need (or what we would need if we were in their shoes)? If we took time to listen to our customers and to find out their likes and dislikes? If we learned their wants, both on a collective level and on an individual level?

• Would we provide umbrella-drying racks inside our doors for rainy days?


• Would we provide hand lotion, in addition to soap, in our public restrooms, for the dry, chapped winter hands?


• Would we remember that Customer Tom's favorite band is Journey, and send him two tickets for a Journey concert near him to thank him for being a valued customer?


• Would we take note that Customer Julie tends to purchase a lot of Product X from us, and send her a coupon for a free unit of Product X on her birthday? (And a coupon for Product Y to Customer Bill, and a coupon for Product Z to Customer Myra?)

Again, these acts of thoughtfulness are not required. They are not even expected. And they require extra work, extra listening, extra thinking.

But who says that we should only do the expected? And who says that a little extra thoughtfulness isn't good for us?

Creating for Your Audience

Ad Age published a white paper this week called "Shiny New Things", exploring the influence of those customers known as the "early adopters".

The term "early adopters" was introduced in 1962 as the valued second category in Everett Rogers' diffusion of innovations theory. The theory asserts that all consumers can be grouped into one of five categories - innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards, consecutively - according to their willingness and quickness to adopt new ideas and products.


Rogers' diffusion of innovations curve. From the Wikimedia Commons.
For a good, brief online explanation of these five categories, I recommend ProvenModels.com/570.

Of these five categories, the early adopters are the consumers whom many marketers seek to impress when they release new products (hence the motivation behind Ad Age's white paper). Early adopters are revered as the consumers who can "make or break" a product's success. They are the ones who will tell the rest of the world whether the product is worth buying or not. They tell the world this by their words (increasingly so, in the days of social media), but also by their actions (are they seen actually wearing and using the new product or brand?). And they are the ones to whom the rest of the world listens.

(Of course, very few brands or products would do well to target the early adopters exclusively. As Seth Godin is quoted as saying in the Ad Age white paper [and in his blog], "if you want to stick around for a while, you need to make the difficult sales to the middle of the market or have a ready supply of new stuff ready to entertain the never-satisfied early adopters.")

The Ad Age white paper expanded on Rogers' theory by sharing findings from a study done for Serena Software that dissected the diffusion of innovations curve beyond its original five categories. The Serena Software study broke the "early adopters" segment into five micro-segments of its own by characteristic (rather than by adoption rate):

• Alphas - "These are the tech elite, immersed in technology. Alphas see technology as having a significant, positive impact on their lives and ability to communicate. At work, they are delegators, developing solutions to hand off."


• Accidental - "Not as comfortable with technology as Alphas, Accidentals still have a deep understanding of how technology can improve their lives. With a less direct approach at work, they consider technology a tool to solve problems, but not the key to everything."


• Practical - "Using all the technology that most other types are excited about, but they are less enthusiastic about the devices. They typically report to the Alphas and Accidentals at work, but are focused on implementation."


• Balanced - "Although similar to Accidentals, they do not place technology or work at the center of their lives. Approaching their jobs as a means to fund other things they enjoy, this group leads more relaxed lives than other types, and are hesitant to adopt emerging technology until they see how it relates to their personal lives. The most likely to be students and the least likely to be workaholics."


• Lite - "The most resistant to adopting new technologies before they are mainstream, they are less likely to take risks, actively solve problems or create efficiency. At work, they may adopt a new process once it is proven effective in another department. The most risk averse segment in relationship to technology, their work life, and at home."

These five micro-segments intrigue me. I want to discover how I can reach these customers - that is, how I can design products that fit their needs (rather than trying to convince them to buy a product that they really don't need - a much more difficult and much less honorable sell).

If I were to create a product with these five groups in mind, here are the steps (and priorities) that I would take:

1. Build for the Accidental. These are the consumers who see technology as tools, not as toys. Accidentals expect new technology to solve a problem. They will be my most valuable critics - the ones who tell me whether a new product is actually worth the materials from which it is made. They will tell me if a product actually meets a need in consumers' lives. If my product is going to be worthwhile, it needs to work for the Accidentals.


2. Support for the Practical. The Practicals are the ones who implement the technology, and are responsible for making sure that it works for their (or their organization's) needs. They use all the new technology, but they rarely get excited about it - they have to work around all the bugs, and make the solutions work for their supervisors or clients. Having technical support - especially, letting them tell me where all of the quirks and faulty solutions are, and then working my hardest to correct those things - will be key for these folks. The Practicals will be the ones who tell me how to make my product function the best.


3. Design for the Alphas. The Alphas get excited about technology, and are most likely to agree that technology has a positive impact on the world. If a new product has some new, better feature, and if some group of fanboys say that the product will be the next great thing, the Alphas will eagerly adopt the product, expecting great solutions. For this group, products should have good functionality, but also good form. Sleek design and intuitive user interface, added to great features, indicate quality to Alphas. If I care about design, I should design products that Alphas would be proud to carry.


4. Connect for the Balanced. These guys care about life, relationships, and well-being outside of work. They will adopt new technology if it improves the quality of their personal lives and social interactions. If my new product is a time pit or an end in itself, the Balanced won't accept it. My product should help them to simplify their lives, or connect with friends, or save time for the important things. If my product can possibly benefit people in a personal or social context, I should look to the Balanced to see how I can make it happen.

If I can create a product that meets these consumers' demands in terms of functionality, support, design, and connectedness, then I can sleep at night feeling that I've created a product worth buying. If my product satisfies the needs of these four micro-segments, and if the rest of my marketing mix can deliver my product to the world, then my product has a chance of being adopted by the other groups from Rogers' bell curve.

We're on the Same Team

Sometimes an organization can become fragmented. Not by a corporate restructuring or a division into geographic territories or the divestment of some strategic business units. Sometimes an organization becomes fragmented by the mindsets of its employees.

Perhaps you've seen it happen. Perhaps you've been a part of it. Members of different departments (or even of different functions within the same department) begin to see themselves as being on opposing teams. Life within the organization becomes a clash of "the marketing team" versus "the finance team" versus "the technology team" versus "the R&D team" versus "the legal team."

Naturally, these departmental "teams" must have completely opposite goals and completely opposite points of view. Working with anybody from another "team" will inevitably be a hassle and a struggle. A necessary evil.

Members of the "marketing team" enter a meeting with members of the "legal team," dreading the roadblocks that these legal guys will put in the way of the marketers' terrific ideas. Members of the "finance team" walk into a meeting with the "R&D team," ready for a fight over how many budget dollars are reasonable to spend on mere "research." The meeting room is no longer a meeting room, but a battleground. A boxing match.

We forget that everyone within the organization is on the same team.

Hard as it may be to accept, or even to comprehend, our jobs were not created for the success of the marketing team, or the success of the finance team, or the success of the technology team, or the success of the R&D team, or the success of the legal team. Our jobs were created for the success of the organization. We happen to be placed within these departments according to our strengths and to the needs of the entire organization.

We are all working together for the success of the organization. (And, by the way, the organization is successful when it sustainably serves its customers best.)

If we enter a meeting with the realization that everyone in that meeting is on the same team - the "team" of the organization - how does that change the way we approach the meeting? The meeting no longer becomes a contest to see whose opinion can win out, or who can convince "the other side" to give her what she needs, or who can persuade whom to cooperate with his idea. It becomes a discovery of how WE can work together to best serve the organization and our customers.

In that process, we consider what "that department" needs from "this department" in order to do "that department's" job best, and what "this department" needs from "that department" in order to do "this department's" job best. How can each of us do his job best and serve the others in order to achieve the goals of the organization together?

And when we set our sights on achieving the goals of the organization together, the goals of our own respective departments should fall naturally into place.

New Year's Resolutions for the Marketer

With New Year's Day comes the tradition of new year's resolutions.

Lose weight; exercise more; eat right; save money; spend less; read more; be more patient with my loved ones; be more considerate; invest more time in people; be less sarcastic; pray more. We set so many goals for ourselves as individuals, as family members, as friends, as human beings.

Do we set similar resolutions for ourselves as workers and business owners and public servants? I should think that we would seek to improve ourselves professionally as much as we do personally.

For myself in 2010, I resolve to adhere to the following principles as a marketer:

1. I will intentionally and humbly listen to my customers' opinions, complaints, and ideas.
2. I will continually refine my actions in order to offer better service to my customers.
3. I will do everything feasible to resolve my customers' grievances, meet their needs, and exceed their expectations.
4. I will look at my product from the perspective of the customer, not only from the perspective of the company.
5. I will view each new technology as another potential tool for serving my customers, not as a new gadget that will help us look snazzy.
   
6. I will approach all of my communications as dialogue, not monologue.
7. I will consider it my purpose to benefit society, not simply to make more money for myself.
8. I will cultivate a spirit of innovation and entrepreneurship in those working with me.
9. I will appreciate and respect the work of others in my organization.
10. I will seek to build better relationships with other departments in my organization.
    

Happy 2010!

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!

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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?