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.

Tell Me Who Your Partners Are...

A familiar adage states, "tell me who your friends are, and I'll tell you who you are."

People infer much about us - about our beliefs and values - by observing those with whom we associate ourselves. That's because we, as human beings, tend to be drawn to others of similar character to ourselves. And we also tend to adopt some of the characteristics of those with whom we spend the most time.

Likewise, we make inferences about an organization based on its "friends" (aka partners), just as we make inferences about an individual based on his or her friends. When Company A partners with Company B - whether as a supplier, distributor, vendor, sponsor, or other ally - we assume that Company A also supports the purpose, actions, and reputation of Company B.

Thus, just as our parents warned us to choose our friends carefully, organizations need to choose their partners carefully.

Great Wolf Resorts, Inc. makes a big deal of its corporate partners, listing them all on its website and featuring them prominently at each of its twelve indoor waterpark resort hotels. (A recent article from MediaPost's Marketing Daily describes the face time that these partners receive at each Great Wolf Lodge.)

According to its website, Great Wolf Resorts aims to "capture the atmosphere of the Northwoods" in an indoor, "weatherproof, year-round destination" where "families [can] re-connect." Each Lodge is designed to recreate - indoors - the fun of the outdoors, and the company is committed to environmental stewardship; each location is Green Seal Certified (Silver), and its Project Green Wolf works to reduce the company's carbon "pawprint" and to educate young guests in green practices.

So, if an organization's partners shape consumers' perceptions of the organization's values, what kinds of partners might make sense for a company like Great Wolf, whose brand celebrates nature, families, and outdoor fun?

• Vendors of outdoor equipment - camping gear, bikes, personal watercraft, fishing gear, and other equipment for wilderness fun would align well with Great Wolf's outdoorsy theme


• Vendors of recycled products - t-shirts made from recycled plastic, tote bags made from recycled fabric, paper made from recycled elephant poo...the possibilities are nearly endless for gear that reflects environmental responsibility (although I would draw the line at recycled food)


• Vendors of healthy snacks - natural and organic foods, trail mixes, fresh fruits and raw veggies, dried fruits, nuts - all of these and other healthy snacks complement the active lifestyles of outdoor-lovers

Some of Great Wolf's current partners mesh well with the values exhibited by the company. Others seem to be partners of convenience or opportunity - fine partners, no doubt, but with little obvious connection to the outdoorsy, active, environmentally-friendly atmosphere of Great Wolf.

If your organization is serious about presenting a unified set of values and personality to your customers, consider how your partners do (or do not) reflect those values. Choose partners whose brands harmonize well with your mission.

Tell me who your partners are, and I'll tell you who you are.

iPad Apps and Adding Value

My alma mater (which is also the university where I work) just released an iPad application for its student newspaper, the Optimist.

Of course, the folks at my university (myself included) are excited about this product, and about the chance to explore what publications can do on a tablet device like the iPad. But a few voices (including those of my friend and critic @chrylis, and MediaPost writer Steve Smith), pulled me from my personal revelry long enough to ask an important question: Why choose to make a native iPad app when one could make a mobile-optimized website instead?

In his critique of the iPad and its apps, Steve notes several apps (particularly, apps of publications) that provide more limited content compared to their online counterparts and fail to make up for that limitation through seamless navigation or personalization. @chrylis questions the utility of an app that runs only on one device, as opposed to a mobile website that would run on many.

They're right.

No new product (including mobile applications) is worth buying (or selling) if it doesn't add some value above the products that are already available.

If a new product does the same thing as something else on the market without doing it better, or more easily, or more conveniently, or less expensively, or with greater access, or with more satisfaction, then it has missed its mark as a new product that meets consumers' needs.

If an iPad app looks like its online counterpart, but with less content, more restricted navigation, less ubiquity, and no additional not-available-via-web features, then the web version will prove more useful to both iPad-users and non-iPad-users.

Steve Smith recommends two ways of differentiating iPad apps from their web versions: personalization and navigation. I would add a third: communication.

Personalization would enable an iPad user to configure an app based on their personal preferences. Maybe this means pulling in information specifically relevant to the user's interests. Maybe it means adjusting viewer settings to fit the user's lifestyle. Maybe it means reconfiguring navigation so that the viewer's favorite features are the easiest ones to access.

Navigation on the iPad should work intuitively, should flow gracefully, and should access data simply. Maybe this means simplifying the menu to just a few categories. Maybe it means reducing visual clutter. Maybe it means letting users customize the menu to their own preferences. Maybe it means expanding or hiding extra content with just a touch. Maybe it means taking advantage of two axes for scrolling "deep" into a topic versus "wide" across topics. Maybe it means a visually-logical arrangement of information, instead of only lists.

Communication should enable iPad users to easily share comments, connect apps with social media, and integrate information from various sources. Maybe this means allowing activity on an app to update a user's status on their social networks (as desired). Maybe it means that comments made in an iPad app would show up on web versions as well. Maybe it means that users can collect articles from various apps into a centralized database, so that users can bookmark pieces of information, cross-link them, and add their own notes.

As Steve Smith pointed out with current examples of successful iPad apps, the personalization and navigation pieces are already being achieved by several app makers. I suspect that the communication piece will require additional development and exploration, perhaps even in the capabilities of the iPad SDK. Regardless, these value-adds must be part of an iPad app if the app is to be more useful than a mobile-optimized website.

With your own products, whether mobile or not, are you adding value for your customers? Or can their needs be met just as well (or better) with another item on the market?

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?

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:

1. Rewarded his followers with [a chance at] free tickets to a sold-out show.


2. 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!")


3. 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.


4. 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.


5. Kept his Twitter feed fresh with new and intriguing content, thereby encouraging his followers to keep following.


6. 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?

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.