« September 2006 | Main | November 2006 »

October 30, 2006

Advertisers, Take A Bow For Good Behavior.

I read Forbes publisher Rich Karlgaard's blog posting on the betting line for party change in Washington in the upcoming election. This is not a political blog...it's a marketing blog. But, I am compelled to note that we apparently are all OK with our politicians acting like slimeballs while requiring advertisers to quell their bare-knuckled tendencies.

In advertising, we don't permit blatent attack ads, especially those that stand on tenuous claims, innuendo or outright fiction. We recognize that ads that never even mention our name, only disparage a competitor, are likely to raise suspicion. We hold ourselves to moderately "ethical" standards, but perhaps more critically, we presume that lies (once exposed) are bad for business in the court of public opinion. Yet in politics, we permit the type of race-baiting, rumor-mongering, media-manipulating stuff that is happening in Tennesee, Virgina, and New Jersey, just to name a few. What do I mean "permit?" Well, as voters, we are apparently happy to let it happen since we allow the crap to influence our votes (or so the research says.)

Both sides in this election are reprehensible, as the prospect of a change in power in Washington seems to be bringing out the very worst in everyone. Prosaic ads like the Bloomberg spot for Chris Shays in which he talks only about the candidate's record seem almost childish against the wizardry and creativity of the Harold Ford attack ad from a couple of weeks ago.

Personally, I hope that "slime backlash" ends up surprising lots of candidates who thought it was OK to act like a childish boor and results in a raising of the collective IQ in Washington by at least a couple of points...maybe even getting us over 90.

Oh, and my wager on the Karlgaard question is Republican Senate, Democratic House and the lamest of lame-duck administration's as Dubya wanders around Washington looking for friends anywhere.

Posted by jcioban at 12:18 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 24, 2006

The Technology of Marketing For The Marketing of Technology

For technology marketers or for anyone interested in a great perspective on marketing complex products, check out Geek Marketing 101 on Make Marketing History, ferreted out by Guy Kawasaki. While everything in the post is great advice, I was particularly caught by three points that every marketer needs to remember whether you are selling suntan lotion or semiconductors:
- Marketing Is A Conversation
- Marketing Demystifies
- Technical Support Is Marketing

As marketing continues to get more complicated in the age of fragmenting media and consumer-created content, marketers need to remember that both consumers and business buyers are more anxious than ever to be talked "with" and not "at." The entire concept of dialogue marketing is built around creating continuous give and take between a buyer and seller through a complete user lifecycle.

Next, with so many choices, even lifestyle buys like purchasing clothing from TopShop, require more explanation. Once straightforward benefits like "trendy clothing at bargain prices" could be easily applied to myriad retail options. That means marketing often layers on more messaging, making things less clear...not more. Marketings job is to create differentiation that real people can understand. So Gillette, explain again why I need a razor with 6 blades, battery power and a price tag that will permanently impact my retirement fund???

Finally, let me translate the Technical Support point in a way more adaptable to consumer markets — your total user experience will dictate long-term brand loyalty. In technology marketing, technical support can destroy a hard-earned market cap...just ask Dell. In consumer spaces, ask GM what poor product quality and spotty local service can do to undermine a brand's reputation and consumer confidence. As I have said before, "you buy your first Lexus because of advertising, you buy the next because of your ownership experience."

Enjoy and learn from the full posting...no matter what you are marketing. And thanks again to Guy for uncovering this gem.

Posted by jcioban at 6:49 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Enemy At The Gates

In the Septermber/October 2006 issue of Office Dealer, a publication dedicated to sales in the office products industry, there is an article titled "Permission Marketing." (Unfortunately, it was not available at the time this posting was written...) In the article, the author profiles some dealers who rant and rave about manufacturers executing "permission marketing programs" (read...e-mail marketing).

It is a sad article, for two reasons.

One, it shows that even the biggest of the big (in this case HP) can strugggle executing direct marketing programs that don't alienate their independent distribution partners. In the case of e-mail, where exotic merge technologies make it straightforward to create programs that can drive the HP brand while still providing support for the channel, this really doesn't need to happen. But, there is a blend of hubris and business necessity at work. You cannot blame manufacturers who try to enhance brand loyalty at the expense of channel building. Thus, the hubris of simply ignoring the channel. The business necessity? That comes from the need to keep growing the company at all costs. Of course, therein lies the conundrum — how can you ask for channel loyalty while simultaneously undermining the channel's apparent value. Channel distrust remains a major hurdle in many industries.

At the same time, it is sad to see any dealer publically railing on this topic. Dealers need to spend less energy complaining about direct communications touches and more time figuring our how to build their value proposition or enhance their own communications programs. Getting e-mails delivered and read is increasingly complex. As a result, the organizations closest to the customer (those with facetime to back up their electronic touches) remain in the best position to be successful. Mr. Dealer, your customer intimacy is the key to defending your turf. Don't wait for HP or anyone else to erode your value...build it up so that HP's e-mails become irrelevant. I know that is easier said than done, but to be blunt --- there is no alternative.

Posted by jcioban at 12:22 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 20, 2006

The Best Sales Tactic You May Never Have Heard Of.

I saw an interesting link to a Marketing Sherpa study on Lead Scoring by Brian Carroll on his B2B Lead Generation Blog. I found the study of interest as much for the fact that it existed at all as for its content which was somewhat "self-evident." But...the speakers in the panel should still be considered thought-leaders for standing up and talking about lead scoring given the overwhelming majority of companies using primitive lead generation strategies and tactics.

Lead scoring, and related maturation or nurturing programs, are still rarely employed in B2B selling. In a nutshell, lead scoring brings an analytical approach to assessing the quality of a lead -- applying point values to items such as lead source, customer interaction level, nature of request, lead age, etc. It acknowledges the well-known fact that "all leads are not created equal." It takes on the issue that poor quality leads sent to a sales team are likely to reduce the sales team's confidence in marketing's ability to create any leads of value. As Brian notes in his blog, "...inquiries are not leads. A lead isn't a lead until it's been qualified." (This is why I so vehemently object to companies like SalesGenie who tout "unlimited access to sales leads." Says who??? They used to be called "prospecting lists" before some marketing genius at InfoUSA got hold of them.....)

Why don't more companies tackle the scoring challenge? For one reason, application vendors and service providers continue to make the concept more "complex" than it often needs to be. Scoring strategies can, and should, reflect the realities of a company's budget, sales sophistication, staffing and follow-up plans. While perfection should always be the goal, creating a situation where no system is implemented because the client could not afford or staff against perfection is ludicrous. Next, client's often tune-out before they give the concept a chance because the program "sounds complicated." I have been in more than one meeting with a marketing executive who quickly says, "nice idea, but I don't have the bandwidth for that right now..." even before the presentation was finished.

Effective scoring, and by extension, effective nurturing programs can be complex, but they don't need to be built all at once. Finding an iterative, ROI-driven approach can make the concept both intellectually manageable and budget-friendly.

Posted by jcioban at 6:51 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 19, 2006

Value In The Channel. Have It or Die.

I was driving to the office this AM when I heard an ad for Progressive Direct. Shortly thereafter I heard an ad for Aetna. In frighteningly different ways, both made me think that insurance brokers were hurtling toward extinction faster than they realize.

Progressive Direct provides quotes online that do not always show them as the lowest cost option. They expose themselves and all the major carriers to the same scrutiny. Gutsy move, giving the customer that much information. Their ad explained their approach in very simple, plain English. Aetna's tack was a little different. It touted them as a font of information on healthy living and well-being. But in a way not unlike Progessive, it also spoke clearly to the customer.

Brokers often get angry at insurance companies seeking to "go direct." I say "get with the program." Many brokers conduct business the old-fashioned way -- assuming some schmoozing will keep the business. They need to recognize that just passing along information from carriers without adding unique value of their own is recipe for disaster (something I have written about before with regard to the auto industry). They can be easily disintermediated (remember that word???). A great broker guides, communicates and informs. They help me proactively avoid problems. They take the time to filter the maze of confusing data and provide objective input from which I can make an informed decision for my home, family or business. In short, a great broker works to create an objective buffer between themselves and the carriers desperate to sell some policies.

Which is why Progressive is so interesting. By presenting "neutral" data, they create their own "objectivity buffer." It may not be as good as a human broker, but think of it as a first-generation effort. All told, it adds up to one of the more unique approaches to crumbling the value of the channel.

By the way, I don't really fault the individual brokers -- in fact, I think many brokerage companies are managed by some of the most antiquated thinkers in the business community. Raised on a high-commission diet that allowed labor-intensive, personal touch approaches to business, they eschew the use of "depersonalizing" technology that could help them improve their ability to create and distribute value. I know many hard-working individuals slaving away in insurance brokerage businesses who are being suffocated by the lack of innvoative thinking and real-world support efforts.

It's no wonder that the gecko can get away with mocking the middleman.

Posted by jcioban at 7:00 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 11, 2006

May I Help You? Thoughts On Customer Service.

Great post on customer service on Seth Godin's blog, titled "To [or] For". He describes an experience in the White Plains airport that is very easy to relate to.

[His post is particularly resonant with those of us from the Westchester County (NY) area old enough to remember the old Westchester Airport...an oversize house alongside a tarmac...not really what you might refer to as a "terminal." The new terminal may be bigger and better looking, but one might question whether it is any more comfortable (especially during peak travel times.)]

This is a great topic for manufacturers and dealers. Customer service, as I wrote about recently, is one of the keys to Dell's woes today, and remains woeful in a remarkable number of high profile companies. Ted Leavitt taught us all years ago...the sole purpose of a business is to acquire and retain customers. Whether you are reading this with an enterprise perspective or a dealer/broker viewpoint, you need to ask yourself if you spend enough energy focused on delivering something "for" someone and not "to" (or even worse..."at") someone.

To paraphrase George Santayana, "If we fail to learn from our mistakes (and those of others), then we are destined to repeat them."

Posted by jcioban at 7:27 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 10, 2006

Too Much Of A Good Thing?

Great article on CNN.com titled "Can Internet Communications Sustain Us?" The author talks about balancing one's online life with a healthy mix of direct interpersonal communications. As the Internet continues to expand its reach into more and more areas of our lives, the points discussed are very intriguing..

A couple of interesting facts:
-- A study by the Pew Internet & American Life Project found that Internet users tend to have a larger network of close personal contacts -- a median of 37 compared with 30 for people who are not regular Internet users. That fact is rather logical give the Internet's ability to expand one's "reach" or "universe."
-- The growing awareness of the 20+ year old Gen Yers of the risks inherent in some of the social networking behaviors being engaged in. It may seem obvious to those of us in the over-40 crowd, but having risque pictures of oneself on the Internet can come back to haunt you later in life. Duh...

For me, the interest stems from interoffice behavior we see as increasingly common...people conducting complex discussions or managing customer interactions exclusively through e-mail or IM. More than once I have cautioned people that the tone of an e-mail is interpreted by the reader...often differently than the writer intended.

We see similar desire to "automate" communications with channel partners or sales teams. While electronic interactions are acceptable for many routine touches, there remains no substitute for a period face-to-face meeting, phone conversation or even live Web meeting. Despite all the Internet is helping us achieve, we are still human. Again, it may seem obvious but creating the right balance of offline, online and "frontline" interactions is more important than ever, as online tools make it easier and easier to "communicate" without having to actually talk to someone. (As a technogeek, I think I just committed heresy.)

Finally, I will be addressing this in a future post...3D virtual worlds like Second Life, with their increasingly human avatars, challenge us to transfer increasingly human character into our online relationships. If you are not familiar with Second Life, take a look. And more to follow from here.

Posted by jcioban at 3:22 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 9, 2006

What's The Value Of Consumer-Created Content?

With Google's bid to purchase YouTube, it appears the answer is $1.6 Billion.

Why of is this of interest to a blog which focuses more on channel marketing? Because the concept of customer-created content cuts across all business segments. By its own description, YouTube is consumer media company, but with so many people using it, it is changing the mindset of an entire generation of consumers and business people. Even in the near-term, its halo-effect needs to be accounted for in virtually any industry since any company can end up parodied on the site.

Yes, Google has financial reasons for this decision that are unrelated to content -- they need to diversify their revenue mix and even with its business model unproven, who can look away from 100 million+ downloads a day. But the decision further validates the concept of consumer-created content and will embolden consumers and business buyers already wresting the mantle of control away from shaken marketers.

This fad may pass, but its legacy will live on.

Posted by jcioban at 8:03 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The Big Guys Are Getting It. What About The Rest?

Colleague Louise Stix tipped me to a great article in today's New York Times Advertising column by Stuart Elliot. Titled "Letting Consumers Control Marketing: Priceless" (link may require you to register with NYT before viewing), Elliot describes comments by industry leaders like A.G. Lafley from Proctor & Gamble, Stephen Quinn of Wal-Mart and Lawrence Flanagan at MasterCard Worldwide. Each, in their own words, described how advertisers need to abandon their top-down pushes of messaging and adopt a strategy of bottom-up, grass-roots marketing. Innovation and risk-taking collide in one of the take-away lines in the article, a quote from Mr. Lafley, "Most of the experiments don't work, but we have to be out there, trying." Now that's priceless. Some brands like Burger King, relegated to a positioning strategy that forces them to play on the edge, are always toying with crazy ideas like Diddy TV.

But others like MasterCard have shown some real courage in allowing their brand to be parodied (sometimes in graphic ways!) in between the praise...without resorting to litigation.

One thing is becoming clearer with each day, new media has shown itself to, at times, be more effective at evoking the real feelings of a marketplace than structured, expensive market research.

As the evidence mounts that some industry leaders get the concept of letting customers help drive marketing and product innovation, what can we do to spread the word to more companies? I continue to see manufacturers ignore the facts and attempt to run "business as usual" campaigns and marketing programs. And, the problem is even worse in many B2B sectors where companies continue to spin traditional product-centric tales, instead of letting customers describe real problems in need of real solutions.

I figure the least I can do is continue to beat the drums. ;-)

Posted by jcioban at 1:33 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 6, 2006

Co-op Woes: Leaving Money On The Table

I read a terrific article on Ziff-Davis' eWeek Channel Insider Website, titled "Leaving Money On The Table." As I have seen repeatedly at Cierant, companies deploy marketing support services for their resellers then presume that the resellers, dealers, brokers, etc. will instantly adopt the tools and market to all their contacts.

For many reasons, this is rarely the case. First, the materials supplied are often completely inappropriate. Manufacturers love to talk about their products, forgetting that the resellers want to talk about themselves. A word to the wise in designing materials for use by channel partners -- their logo is more important than yours if you want them to use the pieces. However, quality or relevance aside, the company deploying the campaigns or online tools often forgets that what their resellers really need is "marketing expertise" -- i.e. market research, effective strategies, how they should market and what works best. Then, adding insult to injury, in a remarkable number of cases, we have seen clients deploy tools then fail to adequately fund the merchandising of the implementation! (Just because you mail or e-mail information to channel partners, don't presume they see or read everything you send. Typical resellers only absorb a small fraction of the information most manufacturers send out!)

In perhaps one of the more pointed statements in the article, the author quotes Stephen DiFranco, corporate vice president of consumer sales and markets at Advanced Micro Devices, who notes: "Vendors have to have a sales force in place to sell MDF, which means telling partners about programs, teaching them how to use the money and reporting back to them their successes."

Channel partners remain a vital component in the distribution mix. But getting them to perform at a high level is not a "hands-off" process. Especially in markets where partners have a choice of solutions to select from, marketing can be a powerful tool in building loyalty in the channel. But remember that the first part of good marketing is strategy. Sure they will say "we know what we're doing" and "I don't need your help" but let results dictate whether that is true! Ensuring that your partners know all the tools available to them, monitoring adoption, and helping them understand usage of self-service tools can make all the difference.

Posted by jcioban at 6:10 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack