Work, Jobs, and Brands
During the depression, government make-work “jobs” gave a lot of people money, but the paychecks were funded by taxes. (Another benefit to society was the grand buildings and roads that were built; my home town is still graced by a magnificent town hall built in the ’30s.) But those jobs ended.
To me, a real job is one that has staying power because it has a continuing value. In other words the fruits of that job are for sale.
Isn’t it true that wealth is created by selling or adding something to a commodity? A farmer takes things out of the ground for you, a manufacturer takes raw materials and makes something you want, and an entrepreneur takes raw data and converts it to usable information.
Does government create wealth? Only if it takes control of a source, transforms it, distributes it and sells it at a profit. That of course entails taking over or competing with the private sector.
A continuing stream of wealth depends on satisfying a continuing demand. To satisfy that, the seller must deliver a product or a service that is consistent. The product must be up-to-date and the seller must assume that competitors will try to take his business away.
That’s why brands are important. Brands are born of the social contract, based on trust and a law-abiding, mutually dependent society.
With a level playing field, who do you think would give you good, up-to-date products? A free society or a monopolistic government? Where would innovation come from? What about competence or trust?
Brands are the essence of freedom. Anyone can enter the game, then win or lose. Brands come and go (most of them). That’s called creative destruction. A brand doesn’t have a right to exist, just because it’s there. It must always earn its way.
How does a country get out of a recession? By creating wealth. That can only come from the bottom up. Someone will have a great idea---something that somehow makes somebody’s life a little better. Then the idea is made into a product or a service. If it sells, it can develop an identity, a personality, and reputation for consistency and trustworthiness. It becomes a brand, and in the process creates jobs.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Monday, December 7, 2009
Brand Compression---How Many Choices Do You Really Need?
The ongoing battle between manufacturers and retailers seems to be tilting more to the stores.
• Costco announced they will no longer carry Coca Cola in their stores.
• CVS/Caremark will get rid of most Energizer Alkaline batteries.
• Wal*Mart will add hundreds of products under their Great Value name.
What does that mean for consumers and for brands? In the down economy, not only are people downsizing their buying habits but retailers are squeezing their assortments.
While we all have favorites, most of us have a short list of acceptable brands in every category. There are (almost) none that we would die for. I asked a group ten men if there were any brands that they would absolutely positively accept no substitutes for. One said Trader Joe’s Peanut Butter. Another said Mercedes Benz. The rest said no.
I would have thought that Coke buyers would rather drink warm milk than be forced to swallow Pepsi. Maybe Costco will prove otherwise. Energizer vs. Duracell? I wouldn’t know or care. Wal*Mart butter? Probably OK. Wal*Mart cologne, no way.
Here’s what three groups might think about:
1. Retailers. I think it would wise for them to get rid of the fifth or sixth brand in many categories. There would be less stock keeping units to manage and their shelves would be simpler and easier to shop. People demand alternatives, but studies show that displays of three or four choices sell more than five or more.
The key word here is choice. I was the head of the private label program at Target Stores. If a buyer wanted to add a private label brand in his category he had to demonstrate that it would add an important dimension (usually price). Our policy was that our product had to at least as good as the leading brand, and we had an independent testing lab for verification. I can tell you that is virtually impossible to do. There was high pressure to cut a little on quality so that we could also offer a better price.
Private labels are stronger in Europe than here, and I’m not sure why. But there is a danger that a store goes too far. Remember when Sears mostly sold the Sears brands? They almost went out of business until they added manufacturers’ brands. The same happened with Radio Shack, but they are prospering with wide assortments. The Target brand accounted for less than five percent of their sales.
2. Manufacturers. They are losing clout. More than 80% of their new products or line extensions are doomed. You have to pay serious money to stores to get them to stock your brainchild. And you are out the door quickly if you can’t cut it. And as I said above, if you aren’t one of the top brands you are in jeopardy.
The secret of branding has always been to “own” some unique, important benefit. Maybe not so strong that people would die for it, but so in demand that the stores would hesitate to bury it. Maybe it identifies with the role it could play in the user’s life. Maybe it would participate with new social media.
3. Consumers. They are the winners if they are smart. They will have sharper choices and a more pleasant shopping experience. The advertising they are forced to look at will be more focused and less frivolous. They will get better deals and better products.
After the economy rights itself I would predict that these trends will continue, and that’s good. Some new problem and its solution will no doubt replace it. Stay tuned----
George Lemmond
• Costco announced they will no longer carry Coca Cola in their stores.
• CVS/Caremark will get rid of most Energizer Alkaline batteries.
• Wal*Mart will add hundreds of products under their Great Value name.
What does that mean for consumers and for brands? In the down economy, not only are people downsizing their buying habits but retailers are squeezing their assortments.
While we all have favorites, most of us have a short list of acceptable brands in every category. There are (almost) none that we would die for. I asked a group ten men if there were any brands that they would absolutely positively accept no substitutes for. One said Trader Joe’s Peanut Butter. Another said Mercedes Benz. The rest said no.
I would have thought that Coke buyers would rather drink warm milk than be forced to swallow Pepsi. Maybe Costco will prove otherwise. Energizer vs. Duracell? I wouldn’t know or care. Wal*Mart butter? Probably OK. Wal*Mart cologne, no way.
Here’s what three groups might think about:
1. Retailers. I think it would wise for them to get rid of the fifth or sixth brand in many categories. There would be less stock keeping units to manage and their shelves would be simpler and easier to shop. People demand alternatives, but studies show that displays of three or four choices sell more than five or more.
The key word here is choice. I was the head of the private label program at Target Stores. If a buyer wanted to add a private label brand in his category he had to demonstrate that it would add an important dimension (usually price). Our policy was that our product had to at least as good as the leading brand, and we had an independent testing lab for verification. I can tell you that is virtually impossible to do. There was high pressure to cut a little on quality so that we could also offer a better price.
Private labels are stronger in Europe than here, and I’m not sure why. But there is a danger that a store goes too far. Remember when Sears mostly sold the Sears brands? They almost went out of business until they added manufacturers’ brands. The same happened with Radio Shack, but they are prospering with wide assortments. The Target brand accounted for less than five percent of their sales.
2. Manufacturers. They are losing clout. More than 80% of their new products or line extensions are doomed. You have to pay serious money to stores to get them to stock your brainchild. And you are out the door quickly if you can’t cut it. And as I said above, if you aren’t one of the top brands you are in jeopardy.
The secret of branding has always been to “own” some unique, important benefit. Maybe not so strong that people would die for it, but so in demand that the stores would hesitate to bury it. Maybe it identifies with the role it could play in the user’s life. Maybe it would participate with new social media.
3. Consumers. They are the winners if they are smart. They will have sharper choices and a more pleasant shopping experience. The advertising they are forced to look at will be more focused and less frivolous. They will get better deals and better products.
After the economy rights itself I would predict that these trends will continue, and that’s good. Some new problem and its solution will no doubt replace it. Stay tuned----
George Lemmond
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Mindset Marketing
A lot of effort and study has been spent on the process of how a consumer chooses a brand.
The traditional “Four P’S of Marketing” are in order. The Product exists, The Price is set, the Promotion is out there trying to convince you to buy, and of course the Place determines where you actually fork out the cash---whether it’s a store, a catalog, or the internet.
But these all about what happens before you actually use the product. All the above have happened, and now the moment of truth is here.
What is going through your mind? What are you doing right now? What role are you playing? How’s your mood? Are you different than you were yesterday, or this morning?
Your mindset changes frequently and it has a lot to do with choices you make. In marketing that’s key. How can you tap into the experience of using the brand, so that it will be chosen the next time?
If you focus on the actual use you are practicing Mindset Marketing.
Here are the new “Four P’s”:
Persona. That‘s the role you are playing as you use the product. What are the touch points of your day, and what are you trying to do? How will the product help you to fulfill that role?
Perception. That’s the preconceived notion of a brand. It’s the de facto wide spread consensus of what the brand is all about---how it is thought of, compared to other brands in the category. It may or may not have anything to do with what’s most important to users. But it is vital to understand this to begin.
Positioning. This is the key. You should find out what benefits are being delivered, through research and watching how and when the product is being used.
Then you determine which benefit is the most important. That will become the one thing you will be known for---your positioning, the basis for your brand’s success.
Participation. Mindset Marketing identifies with a user’s persona and taps into his most basic needs with a winning positioning. It also makes possible marketers’ fondest dream---that users become fans. They might communicate with us through social media, become loyal customers, and recommend us to friends.
Mindset Marketing means walking in the user’s shoes, feeling what he feels, and making human contact at the tipping point of brand prefence.
The traditional “Four P’s” proceed from the makers’ point view---Product, Price, Place and Promotion.
But the Mindset Marketing “Four P’s” are more basic---Persona, Perception, Positioning, and Participation---come from the users. That’s a good place to start and to end.
end
The traditional “Four P’S of Marketing” are in order. The Product exists, The Price is set, the Promotion is out there trying to convince you to buy, and of course the Place determines where you actually fork out the cash---whether it’s a store, a catalog, or the internet.
But these all about what happens before you actually use the product. All the above have happened, and now the moment of truth is here.
What is going through your mind? What are you doing right now? What role are you playing? How’s your mood? Are you different than you were yesterday, or this morning?
Your mindset changes frequently and it has a lot to do with choices you make. In marketing that’s key. How can you tap into the experience of using the brand, so that it will be chosen the next time?
If you focus on the actual use you are practicing Mindset Marketing.
Here are the new “Four P’s”:
Persona. That‘s the role you are playing as you use the product. What are the touch points of your day, and what are you trying to do? How will the product help you to fulfill that role?
Perception. That’s the preconceived notion of a brand. It’s the de facto wide spread consensus of what the brand is all about---how it is thought of, compared to other brands in the category. It may or may not have anything to do with what’s most important to users. But it is vital to understand this to begin.
Positioning. This is the key. You should find out what benefits are being delivered, through research and watching how and when the product is being used.
Then you determine which benefit is the most important. That will become the one thing you will be known for---your positioning, the basis for your brand’s success.
Participation. Mindset Marketing identifies with a user’s persona and taps into his most basic needs with a winning positioning. It also makes possible marketers’ fondest dream---that users become fans. They might communicate with us through social media, become loyal customers, and recommend us to friends.
Mindset Marketing means walking in the user’s shoes, feeling what he feels, and making human contact at the tipping point of brand prefence.
The traditional “Four P’s” proceed from the makers’ point view---Product, Price, Place and Promotion.
But the Mindset Marketing “Four P’s” are more basic---Persona, Perception, Positioning, and Participation---come from the users. That’s a good place to start and to end.
end
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Loud Laughs, Fake Friends
Some salesmen use the “Big Ha-Ha” technique to announce they are here, they are with it, and you are included in their joyful and productive reason-for-being.
Some members in the country-club-set use “Forced Hilarity” to establish that they are indeed the in-crowd, sharing the in-secrets and the everlasting good will of the group.
Some sycophantic social climbers use “Loudly Assumed Status” as a tool to bring instant acceptance into privately held domains.
These high-decibel shouters haven’t heard that silence is golden, or that less is more. Instead, they practice that noise is better. Their overbearing shrillness marks insecurity and insincerity, not the confidence and stature they covet. To them, silence is a vacuum to be abhorred.
The salesman bursts into a room with a hearty guffaw, a demand that all within his hearing should bow to his superiority and emulate his mirth. “Hey, did you hear this one?” Then, “How many did you conquer (wink and smirk) yesterday?” This verbal slap on the back says, “I’m in charge here and I am a funny, down-to-earth guy, let’s all hear it---ha ha ha!”
The Country Club regulars assemble again---liquidity fortified---by restating last week’s banal nothings---
“I saw the Galbraiths at Aspen!” (Chuckles)
“My shrink says I should eat more lettuce.” (Laughs)
“I think they should turn up the speakers.” (Knee slapper)
The upward mobile wannabe interrupts by announcing, “It was nice to see everybody at the Van Gogh Exhibit!” After the nods, she continues, “Oh Marge, I loved your remarks at the ball--- priceless! And how can I help at the next bazaar?”
Why do some people need to talk loud and laugh louder? Is it because their arguments are weak and their egos weaker?
Why do some people shout into their cell phones? Are the phones their tickets into the breathlessly waiting world?
If “A soft answer turneth away wrath,” can a softer voice silence the false prophets?
Turn the radio volume down for the car commercials; turn away the ha ha’s.
Some members in the country-club-set use “Forced Hilarity” to establish that they are indeed the in-crowd, sharing the in-secrets and the everlasting good will of the group.
Some sycophantic social climbers use “Loudly Assumed Status” as a tool to bring instant acceptance into privately held domains.
These high-decibel shouters haven’t heard that silence is golden, or that less is more. Instead, they practice that noise is better. Their overbearing shrillness marks insecurity and insincerity, not the confidence and stature they covet. To them, silence is a vacuum to be abhorred.
The salesman bursts into a room with a hearty guffaw, a demand that all within his hearing should bow to his superiority and emulate his mirth. “Hey, did you hear this one?” Then, “How many did you conquer (wink and smirk) yesterday?” This verbal slap on the back says, “I’m in charge here and I am a funny, down-to-earth guy, let’s all hear it---ha ha ha!”
The Country Club regulars assemble again---liquidity fortified---by restating last week’s banal nothings---
“I saw the Galbraiths at Aspen!” (Chuckles)
“My shrink says I should eat more lettuce.” (Laughs)
“I think they should turn up the speakers.” (Knee slapper)
The upward mobile wannabe interrupts by announcing, “It was nice to see everybody at the Van Gogh Exhibit!” After the nods, she continues, “Oh Marge, I loved your remarks at the ball--- priceless! And how can I help at the next bazaar?”
Why do some people need to talk loud and laugh louder? Is it because their arguments are weak and their egos weaker?
Why do some people shout into their cell phones? Are the phones their tickets into the breathlessly waiting world?
If “A soft answer turneth away wrath,” can a softer voice silence the false prophets?
Turn the radio volume down for the car commercials; turn away the ha ha’s.
Friday, September 25, 2009
How the Little Guys Can Win
Here’s a story about a little guy. His name is John Lamb and he runs “Bagel Boys,” right next to a Starbucks in the Atlanta suburbs. Here’s why he is successful, and this is a template for anyone who runs a store and wants to survive and prevail.
He has a great distinctive product. He worked for a big bagel chain for years, so he knows all their secrets. He knows how to make a better product even though it costs more.
He knows his market. Location is key. He chose a high traffic spot right next to a Starbucks! He stole some of their customers, and he’s proud of the comparison and the choice. The moral---don’t hide it, flaunt it!
He knows his customers and how to serve them. He calls most of them by their name, and they say, “Hi, John.” His presence is there.
He lives his business. It’s personal. The “Bagel Boys” are literally his boys. Life sized pictures of his adorable sons are the art works of his décor. It depicts them joyfully turning dough into bagels.
He sticks to his guns. He sells tasty sandwiches and salads, but he closes shop at 3:00.
“Nobody eats bagels for dinner,” he says. If Burger King wants to stay open ’till 2 AM, that’s their problem. “I have a life after work. I want to go home with my boys.”
He knows where he’s going. I’d bet his formula works. He’s looking for a second location, and possibly franchising is in the future. But I can’t see him trading his life for a position as a corporate executive.
He has the secret. He works hard, and he smiles. “I love this business,” says John Lamb.
John Lamb connects with his customers and they connect with him. Some big stores and big advertisers are pretty good at that, but most are not. They act as if they are entitled to your patronage and your loyalty. Lamb thinks like he’s your friend.
Does WalMart force thousands of small stores out of business? Or do their customers do it for them? Small stores can’t compete with the big guys on price and variety because they don’t have a big boxes or big bucks. So they have to do something different. They have to go down to the personal level, to one customer--like John Lamb and the Bagel Boys.
He has a great distinctive product. He worked for a big bagel chain for years, so he knows all their secrets. He knows how to make a better product even though it costs more.
He knows his market. Location is key. He chose a high traffic spot right next to a Starbucks! He stole some of their customers, and he’s proud of the comparison and the choice. The moral---don’t hide it, flaunt it!
He knows his customers and how to serve them. He calls most of them by their name, and they say, “Hi, John.” His presence is there.
He lives his business. It’s personal. The “Bagel Boys” are literally his boys. Life sized pictures of his adorable sons are the art works of his décor. It depicts them joyfully turning dough into bagels.
He sticks to his guns. He sells tasty sandwiches and salads, but he closes shop at 3:00.
“Nobody eats bagels for dinner,” he says. If Burger King wants to stay open ’till 2 AM, that’s their problem. “I have a life after work. I want to go home with my boys.”
He knows where he’s going. I’d bet his formula works. He’s looking for a second location, and possibly franchising is in the future. But I can’t see him trading his life for a position as a corporate executive.
He has the secret. He works hard, and he smiles. “I love this business,” says John Lamb.
John Lamb connects with his customers and they connect with him. Some big stores and big advertisers are pretty good at that, but most are not. They act as if they are entitled to your patronage and your loyalty. Lamb thinks like he’s your friend.
Does WalMart force thousands of small stores out of business? Or do their customers do it for them? Small stores can’t compete with the big guys on price and variety because they don’t have a big boxes or big bucks. So they have to do something different. They have to go down to the personal level, to one customer--like John Lamb and the Bagel Boys.
The Perfect Ad: Yogi and the Duck
What are your favorite current ads? A lot of my young students answered that
question with the Chic-fil-A “Eat More Chikin” campaign. (Others chose products
and ads that I’m not familiar with. I guess those advertisers know who their target
is not.)
I had to suggest my choice, and here it is, and why. In case you are one of the few
who hadn’t seen it---
Yogi Berra is in the chair and admonishes the barber not to
cut it too close---“Do you think I got that insurance?”
The barber asks, “What insurance is that, Yogi?” A
dialogue ensues between Yogi and the Aflac duck, that
includes the memorable lines “The one that you need when
you don’t need it,” and “And it gives you cash, which is as
good as money.”
The duck leaves the shop, with a trail of mystified
customers.
I think this is a classic, because:
• It uses a recognizable and likeable celebrity. (It’s risky to use famous
people, because they sometimes they fall from fame, some consumer
groups don’t like them, or the connection with the product is vague.)
• The central point is the benefit of the product.
• The conversation is low key and short.
• It is funny. Why do I think it’s funny? Because I’ve seen people laugh.
• It lasts. This is at the least its third year.
Back to the “Eat More Chiken” ads. It has legs---it lends itself to other related
materials. It is centered on the benefit of eating chicken. It has a memorable charm.
Again, what are your favorite ads? What makes them click, what makes them
timeless in your mind?
Oh, before we forget. The Aflac/Yogi and the “More Chikin” ads have the most
important attribute: they (at least apparently) have sold a lot of insurance and
chicken sandwiches.
question with the Chic-fil-A “Eat More Chikin” campaign. (Others chose products
and ads that I’m not familiar with. I guess those advertisers know who their target
is not.)
I had to suggest my choice, and here it is, and why. In case you are one of the few
who hadn’t seen it---
Yogi Berra is in the chair and admonishes the barber not to
cut it too close---“Do you think I got that insurance?”
The barber asks, “What insurance is that, Yogi?” A
dialogue ensues between Yogi and the Aflac duck, that
includes the memorable lines “The one that you need when
you don’t need it,” and “And it gives you cash, which is as
good as money.”
The duck leaves the shop, with a trail of mystified
customers.
I think this is a classic, because:
• It uses a recognizable and likeable celebrity. (It’s risky to use famous
people, because they sometimes they fall from fame, some consumer
groups don’t like them, or the connection with the product is vague.)
• The central point is the benefit of the product.
• The conversation is low key and short.
• It is funny. Why do I think it’s funny? Because I’ve seen people laugh.
• It lasts. This is at the least its third year.
Back to the “Eat More Chiken” ads. It has legs---it lends itself to other related
materials. It is centered on the benefit of eating chicken. It has a memorable charm.
Again, what are your favorite ads? What makes them click, what makes them
timeless in your mind?
Oh, before we forget. The Aflac/Yogi and the “More Chikin” ads have the most
important attribute: they (at least apparently) have sold a lot of insurance and
chicken sandwiches.
What Commercials are the Worst?
hat commercials irritate you, offend you, or bore you most?
That’s a question of personal taste, but here are three categories that should be
considered that bring out the worst in the art and science (?) of
advertising.
The Superbowl. The commercials are anticipated as much as the game itself. They
are extremely expensive to air and costly to produce. They are talked about, rated
and dissected immediately. The favorites are the funniest and the most unusual.
They are getting better. A few years ago in the “dot com” era they were replete with
special effects, but the messages and the brand names were soon forgotten, lost in
the clutter.
Advertising on the Superbowl is an ego trip, a corporate morale builder for small
companies and newcomers. Budget busters.
The 2008 Olympics. I wore out my clicker switching from venue to venue, from
station to station. I really can’t remember one commercial from another. As with
the Superbowl, the benefit for the advertiser must have been that they were on the
Olympics! If advertising is effective, mustn’t be watched, paid attention to?
Election campaigns. Talk about overkill. Almost everybody shares the “I’m sick of it
and wish it was over” syndrome. But they always have tons of money coming in, and they have to spend it. I’m impressed with the quality of the production values of much of it. And the speed which they create it and get on the air boggles the mind.
The most serious knock on political advertising is that it is blowing in the wind. The
strategists look at what happened today, and then get on the air tomorrow to refute
it. And then, tomorrow night rethink and remake the whole thing. The last few
days before the election are the most important.
I guess when you are attacked, you must attack back. Turning the other cheek is
not a winner in this game. Even though we might hate political campaigns, there
will be an end. Somebody will win, somebody will lose. Then they will fold their
tents and steal away into the night.
So, what do you think and how can you judge? The worst thing you can say about
advertising is that it didn’t work, that it didn’t sell.
That’s a question of personal taste, but here are three categories that should be
considered that bring out the worst in the art and science (?) of
advertising.
The Superbowl. The commercials are anticipated as much as the game itself. They
are extremely expensive to air and costly to produce. They are talked about, rated
and dissected immediately. The favorites are the funniest and the most unusual.
They are getting better. A few years ago in the “dot com” era they were replete with
special effects, but the messages and the brand names were soon forgotten, lost in
the clutter.
Advertising on the Superbowl is an ego trip, a corporate morale builder for small
companies and newcomers. Budget busters.
The 2008 Olympics. I wore out my clicker switching from venue to venue, from
station to station. I really can’t remember one commercial from another. As with
the Superbowl, the benefit for the advertiser must have been that they were on the
Olympics! If advertising is effective, mustn’t be watched, paid attention to?
Election campaigns. Talk about overkill. Almost everybody shares the “I’m sick of it
and wish it was over” syndrome. But they always have tons of money coming in, and they have to spend it. I’m impressed with the quality of the production values of much of it. And the speed which they create it and get on the air boggles the mind.
The most serious knock on political advertising is that it is blowing in the wind. The
strategists look at what happened today, and then get on the air tomorrow to refute
it. And then, tomorrow night rethink and remake the whole thing. The last few
days before the election are the most important.
I guess when you are attacked, you must attack back. Turning the other cheek is
not a winner in this game. Even though we might hate political campaigns, there
will be an end. Somebody will win, somebody will lose. Then they will fold their
tents and steal away into the night.
So, what do you think and how can you judge? The worst thing you can say about
advertising is that it didn’t work, that it didn’t sell.
Proof the Advertising Does Work
Despite reports of advertising’s imminent demise, it still does work, under the ideal
circumstance.
The proof. I was comfortably vegetating on my couch watching my third NFL game
of the day, when a TV commercial interrupted my peace. I sprang into action, put
on my Nikes, ran to my car, and raced to the nearest place where I could buy the
product that alerted me to its existence.
I completed the transaction, drove expectantly homeward, and enjoyed the
satisfaction of a purchase well made.
Are you longing to know what it was that awoke my latent need or instilled the
urgency of my frenetic action? Or what irresistible force overcame the immovable
object?
It was Arby’s. The TV situation depicted a man who couldn’t find a living soul until
he found a live one. The discoveree was stuffing his mouth and explained that
everybody is at Arby’s, where they are selling five Roast Beef and Cheddar
Sandwiches for five bucks. That triggered me.
Why did it work for me?
• I was hungry
• I could get there quickly
• I am of their targeted audience---older, a roast beef lover
• I was a lapsed user----hadn’t had an Arby’s in five years
• I identified with the characters. Average looking guys.
So, is this the proof that you needed that advertising can work? Yes.
All you need is a product that works, the right audience, a brand that is
acceptable, and an incentive. It’s obvious that timing is essential.
Technology hasn’t made advertising as we knew it passé, but it has made it tougher.
Competition is fiercer, and consumer patience is thinner.
Arby’s connected with me on a late Sunday afternoon. How many commercials
sped through my head, unnoticed and uncared for?
The ones that made it to TV are presumably for products that made it to the store
or the restaurant, or are in demand in business. How many new ideas don’t even it
that far?
Did you ever think you had a new idea---one that would make you rich? Where do ideas come from? Where do successful ads come from?
circumstance.
The proof. I was comfortably vegetating on my couch watching my third NFL game
of the day, when a TV commercial interrupted my peace. I sprang into action, put
on my Nikes, ran to my car, and raced to the nearest place where I could buy the
product that alerted me to its existence.
I completed the transaction, drove expectantly homeward, and enjoyed the
satisfaction of a purchase well made.
Are you longing to know what it was that awoke my latent need or instilled the
urgency of my frenetic action? Or what irresistible force overcame the immovable
object?
It was Arby’s. The TV situation depicted a man who couldn’t find a living soul until
he found a live one. The discoveree was stuffing his mouth and explained that
everybody is at Arby’s, where they are selling five Roast Beef and Cheddar
Sandwiches for five bucks. That triggered me.
Why did it work for me?
• I was hungry
• I could get there quickly
• I am of their targeted audience---older, a roast beef lover
• I was a lapsed user----hadn’t had an Arby’s in five years
• I identified with the characters. Average looking guys.
So, is this the proof that you needed that advertising can work? Yes.
All you need is a product that works, the right audience, a brand that is
acceptable, and an incentive. It’s obvious that timing is essential.
Technology hasn’t made advertising as we knew it passé, but it has made it tougher.
Competition is fiercer, and consumer patience is thinner.
Arby’s connected with me on a late Sunday afternoon. How many commercials
sped through my head, unnoticed and uncared for?
The ones that made it to TV are presumably for products that made it to the store
or the restaurant, or are in demand in business. How many new ideas don’t even it
that far?
Did you ever think you had a new idea---one that would make you rich? Where do ideas come from? Where do successful ads come from?
Does Your Idea Pass the "Why Didn't I Think of That" Test?
Launching new products is a numbers game. About 650,000 patent and 500,000 trademark applications are processed every year. That’s good for consumers, because more choice is better. And it’s comforting for society, because somebody out there is thinking about progress.
What does that mean if you’re in the technology or consumer products business? How many of those great ideas will see the light of day? How many will have market success and become household necessities? Will any of them become a brand so popular as to have a fan club?
The big guys can absorb some losing ideas. But how about the not-so-big guys---the guys that can’t afford innovations that are doomed to fail?
For a little bit of history, the US Patent Office was founded in about 1790. Benjamin Franklin and George Washington had a hand in it. Thomas Jefferson wrote some of the language of its charter and he believed that, “Only physical, useful inventions should be granted a patent.” By 1840, less than a thousand patents were granted each year, and by 1867 the numbers grew to over 21,000. Abraham Lincoln is the only president to hold one. Some of the other famous patent holders are Otis, Yale, Eastman, and Bell.
By 1899, the legend has it that the Commissioner of the Patent Office sent a letter to President McKinley urging him to close the Patent Office because, “Everything that could be invented has been invented.” Can you imagine what the 20th century would have been like if that were true?
A modern counterpart is Larry Ellison, who in 2001 argued that “There will be no new architecture for computers for the next 1000 years---and for high-tech entrepreneurs, get out of the tech business, it’s too late.”
So is there a future for inventors? Are there breakthrough ideas out there? Yes. Because someone out there will do it. But the world isn’t waiting for most ideas, nor will it beat paths to many doors.
The future of technological progress was foretold in the first message sent over Morse’s telegraph, “What hath God wrought!” Now, “everything made by man under the sun” is eligible for a patent. That is why so many patents are useless and why smaller companies are playing in the bigger, higher risk game. Ray Alderman wrote recently:
“The Patent and Trademark Office will patent most anything, whether it makes sense or not. Companies reward their engineers who apply for and are granted patents, regardless of the validity or applicability of the invention. It’s the publish or perish mantra often heard in academia, but applied to the engineering department. Some patent activity is simply rooted in making a resume look nice”
Alderman continues by saying there are two reasons why people and companies apply for patents. These are to protect a company from patents owned by other companies, and to make money. (And of course there’s always the thrill of creating something new.)
Over 90% of all new products fail. Most are dead on arrival because they have no reason for being. About 10% are possible winners, dependent on timing, resources and marketing skills.
What does that mean if you’re in the technology or consumer products business? How many of those great ideas will see the light of day? How many will have market success and become household necessities? Will any of them become a brand so popular as to have a fan club?
The big guys can absorb some losing ideas. But how about the not-so-big guys---the guys that can’t afford innovations that are doomed to fail?
For a little bit of history, the US Patent Office was founded in about 1790. Benjamin Franklin and George Washington had a hand in it. Thomas Jefferson wrote some of the language of its charter and he believed that, “Only physical, useful inventions should be granted a patent.” By 1840, less than a thousand patents were granted each year, and by 1867 the numbers grew to over 21,000. Abraham Lincoln is the only president to hold one. Some of the other famous patent holders are Otis, Yale, Eastman, and Bell.
By 1899, the legend has it that the Commissioner of the Patent Office sent a letter to President McKinley urging him to close the Patent Office because, “Everything that could be invented has been invented.” Can you imagine what the 20th century would have been like if that were true?
A modern counterpart is Larry Ellison, who in 2001 argued that “There will be no new architecture for computers for the next 1000 years---and for high-tech entrepreneurs, get out of the tech business, it’s too late.”
So is there a future for inventors? Are there breakthrough ideas out there? Yes. Because someone out there will do it. But the world isn’t waiting for most ideas, nor will it beat paths to many doors.
The future of technological progress was foretold in the first message sent over Morse’s telegraph, “What hath God wrought!” Now, “everything made by man under the sun” is eligible for a patent. That is why so many patents are useless and why smaller companies are playing in the bigger, higher risk game. Ray Alderman wrote recently:
“The Patent and Trademark Office will patent most anything, whether it makes sense or not. Companies reward their engineers who apply for and are granted patents, regardless of the validity or applicability of the invention. It’s the publish or perish mantra often heard in academia, but applied to the engineering department. Some patent activity is simply rooted in making a resume look nice”
Alderman continues by saying there are two reasons why people and companies apply for patents. These are to protect a company from patents owned by other companies, and to make money. (And of course there’s always the thrill of creating something new.)
Over 90% of all new products fail. Most are dead on arrival because they have no reason for being. About 10% are possible winners, dependent on timing, resources and marketing skills.
If I Build It, People Will Come. Not Likely
The world isn’t waiting for your invention, nor will it beat a path to your door. Over
95% of new products fail. That includes brilliant high-tech improvements.
That’s not new. Thomas Edison became rich and famous because he knew that only
a few of the great inventions of his labs would generate sales. He could deal with
failure. His cement business went down in flames, he couldn’t figure out how to
separate iron from ores, and his talking movie machine was way before its time.
New products fall into three categories:
Sure winners---less than 1%. Can’t get out of the way of success.
Dead on arrival---About 90%. No reason for being.
Possible winners---10%. Half of these will bite the dust.
So which half of the possible winners will still be around after a year?
The answer---and some technical people might cringe---are those few that use the
dirty words: Marketing.
The losers have misconceptions about the role of marketing. They think it is just
“sales,” and failure must be because of a lousy sales department. Or they think of
marketing—especially advertising--- as the icing on the cake, or the sizzle. Instead,
they should consider marketing as a partner in the process. It is the factor that
breathes life into the process.
But the winners understand that marketing is the way to connect a product to a user.
The product won’t get there by itself. It needs a bridge. It needs a message that says,
“Hey, I have a new thing that can help you.”
Marketing can be the inventor’s best friend. It can find the key to users’ hearts---or
brains. Then it can eagerly unlock their wallets.
Here is why winning new products work:
They serve a beneficial need. That can include a problem users didn’t even
know they have.
They fit into users’ lives.
They always work.
Users don’t care how they work.
Users want to know and trust the builders.
What should be obvious is that successful products start with the users, not with the
inventors.
Users’ motivation is the currency of marketing. It’s more of an art than a science. It
works by sorting through the hundreds of reasons why people buy, and finding the
driving force.
Are any of these four motivations for buying true for you?
Control. With bewildering advances in technology, do you want to believe
that you are the boss—not a pawn in somebody else’s chessboard?
Choice. The days of mass marketing may be over. People want to believe
they are individually intelligent.
Convenience. You don’t want to wait or be confused. You deserve flawless
service.
Clarity. You need to understand exactly what problem a product solves and
why you should choose this one.
Clarity is most vital quality for good marketing. This is the benefit that will be the
cornerstone of the product’s “reason for being.” It will be the basis for building a
brand, and a continuing stream of revenue called brand equity---meaning loyalty.
95% of new products fail. That includes brilliant high-tech improvements.
That’s not new. Thomas Edison became rich and famous because he knew that only
a few of the great inventions of his labs would generate sales. He could deal with
failure. His cement business went down in flames, he couldn’t figure out how to
separate iron from ores, and his talking movie machine was way before its time.
New products fall into three categories:
Sure winners---less than 1%. Can’t get out of the way of success.
Dead on arrival---About 90%. No reason for being.
Possible winners---10%. Half of these will bite the dust.
So which half of the possible winners will still be around after a year?
The answer---and some technical people might cringe---are those few that use the
dirty words: Marketing.
The losers have misconceptions about the role of marketing. They think it is just
“sales,” and failure must be because of a lousy sales department. Or they think of
marketing—especially advertising--- as the icing on the cake, or the sizzle. Instead,
they should consider marketing as a partner in the process. It is the factor that
breathes life into the process.
But the winners understand that marketing is the way to connect a product to a user.
The product won’t get there by itself. It needs a bridge. It needs a message that says,
“Hey, I have a new thing that can help you.”
Marketing can be the inventor’s best friend. It can find the key to users’ hearts---or
brains. Then it can eagerly unlock their wallets.
Here is why winning new products work:
They serve a beneficial need. That can include a problem users didn’t even
know they have.
They fit into users’ lives.
They always work.
Users don’t care how they work.
Users want to know and trust the builders.
What should be obvious is that successful products start with the users, not with the
inventors.
Users’ motivation is the currency of marketing. It’s more of an art than a science. It
works by sorting through the hundreds of reasons why people buy, and finding the
driving force.
Are any of these four motivations for buying true for you?
Control. With bewildering advances in technology, do you want to believe
that you are the boss—not a pawn in somebody else’s chessboard?
Choice. The days of mass marketing may be over. People want to believe
they are individually intelligent.
Convenience. You don’t want to wait or be confused. You deserve flawless
service.
Clarity. You need to understand exactly what problem a product solves and
why you should choose this one.
Clarity is most vital quality for good marketing. This is the benefit that will be the
cornerstone of the product’s “reason for being.” It will be the basis for building a
brand, and a continuing stream of revenue called brand equity---meaning loyalty.
That's Great Idea. But I'd Rather Have One that Works
A nutritionist came up with the ultimate dog food and his co-workers liked the idea,
but it flopped. Nobody tried it on the dog.
You should shove a thousand pounds of opinions---“Hey that’s a great idea!” and
trade them for an ounce of behavior---“Yes, I’ll buy that.”
An article in the WSJ talked about some great new design successes, and they all
had one ingredient: they came from product users, not from an engineer’s dream:
Women said that a golf club maker’s six iron carried farther than their four
iron. So the line was redesigned so each club worked the way it should with
women - not with strong teen-aged men.
An auto maker discovered that the Chinese cared more about the comfort in
the back seat than in the front. They then reversed the priority in the design.
Some others are still learning.
Segway predicted sales of up to 100,000 a year, but they average under
10,000. “People found them impractical and couldn’t use them to replace
driving, walking or biking.”
The Susan B. Anthony silver dollar (1979) was supposed to replace dollar
bills, but no-one wanted to carry more coins. “That’s why people have
bowls full of change in their dressers.”
A dozen German car execs came over and virtually lived with American
drivers. They were astounded. We didn’t think of our cars as an ultimate
driving machine, but as our living rooms. Why? Because America is big and
it takes longer to get there. Voila, and duh!
I was asked by a restaurant owner to re-invigorate his sales plateau. I studied his
operation numbers, looked at his traffic patterns, and considered his attitude
research. I had no good ideas. So I sat in his place---ate, watched and listened.
Then the lights turned on for me. It had too many choices, and the essence was
hidden behind an abundance of signs and clutter. So my “marketing plan”
consisted of simplifying the menu, tossing ¾ of the signs, and having an intensive
effort against the hundreds of employees in the adjacent shopping center.
The sales took off to the point where the owner has enough revenue to attract a
buyer and sell the joint!
The point was he didn’t need a new product. He needed to sharpen the one he
had. He needed to define and build his brand.
but it flopped. Nobody tried it on the dog.
You should shove a thousand pounds of opinions---“Hey that’s a great idea!” and
trade them for an ounce of behavior---“Yes, I’ll buy that.”
An article in the WSJ talked about some great new design successes, and they all
had one ingredient: they came from product users, not from an engineer’s dream:
Women said that a golf club maker’s six iron carried farther than their four
iron. So the line was redesigned so each club worked the way it should with
women - not with strong teen-aged men.
An auto maker discovered that the Chinese cared more about the comfort in
the back seat than in the front. They then reversed the priority in the design.
Some others are still learning.
Segway predicted sales of up to 100,000 a year, but they average under
10,000. “People found them impractical and couldn’t use them to replace
driving, walking or biking.”
The Susan B. Anthony silver dollar (1979) was supposed to replace dollar
bills, but no-one wanted to carry more coins. “That’s why people have
bowls full of change in their dressers.”
A dozen German car execs came over and virtually lived with American
drivers. They were astounded. We didn’t think of our cars as an ultimate
driving machine, but as our living rooms. Why? Because America is big and
it takes longer to get there. Voila, and duh!
I was asked by a restaurant owner to re-invigorate his sales plateau. I studied his
operation numbers, looked at his traffic patterns, and considered his attitude
research. I had no good ideas. So I sat in his place---ate, watched and listened.
Then the lights turned on for me. It had too many choices, and the essence was
hidden behind an abundance of signs and clutter. So my “marketing plan”
consisted of simplifying the menu, tossing ¾ of the signs, and having an intensive
effort against the hundreds of employees in the adjacent shopping center.
The sales took off to the point where the owner has enough revenue to attract a
buyer and sell the joint!
The point was he didn’t need a new product. He needed to sharpen the one he
had. He needed to define and build his brand.
What's the Difference Between a Brand and a Branding Iron?
n the very old days, ranchers and farmers were victims of horse and cattle thieves.
Hostilities and bad feelings resulted. Some of that still exists.
To protect their property, the owners seared their names, or a unique mark, into the
hides of the livestock. (Done humanely, of course.) That way, all would know which
is whose. This “brand” said, “Hey, get your thieving hands off of that bull---it’s
mine!”
So branding started out to be a symbol of ownership.
Now it has changed horses, so to speak. The buyer has become the co-owner of the
brand. When the horse’s owner wants to sell, if he’s honest and trustworthy, he’ll
vouch for the beast: it’s of high quality, and you can count on it!
That’s what brands are about now. A promise, based on the deserved reputation of
the seller.
What is your brand, as a person? Are you on the market for a job? Compare you
“every person” with no name—a generic product in your category.
I ask my students--- What would happen if brands were not allowed?
A few would say, “That would be good! Everything would be equal. The so-
called brands wouldn’t be able to hoodwink us. It would a level playing
field.”
But most reflect and say, “Bad news. You wouldn’t know what you are
getting. Buyer beware!”
Well, would there ever be any improvements, anything new? Can you imagine a
generic fan club?
Brands bring life and trust. Building a brand can be painful at first, but it’s worth
it in the long run. It’s the ultimate tool in marketing.
I’m biased, but I think brands make the world go around. They’re about innovation
and progress, challenge and competition, and may the best brands win!
Hostilities and bad feelings resulted. Some of that still exists.
To protect their property, the owners seared their names, or a unique mark, into the
hides of the livestock. (Done humanely, of course.) That way, all would know which
is whose. This “brand” said, “Hey, get your thieving hands off of that bull---it’s
mine!”
So branding started out to be a symbol of ownership.
Now it has changed horses, so to speak. The buyer has become the co-owner of the
brand. When the horse’s owner wants to sell, if he’s honest and trustworthy, he’ll
vouch for the beast: it’s of high quality, and you can count on it!
That’s what brands are about now. A promise, based on the deserved reputation of
the seller.
What is your brand, as a person? Are you on the market for a job? Compare you
“every person” with no name—a generic product in your category.
I ask my students--- What would happen if brands were not allowed?
A few would say, “That would be good! Everything would be equal. The so-
called brands wouldn’t be able to hoodwink us. It would a level playing
field.”
But most reflect and say, “Bad news. You wouldn’t know what you are
getting. Buyer beware!”
Well, would there ever be any improvements, anything new? Can you imagine a
generic fan club?
Brands bring life and trust. Building a brand can be painful at first, but it’s worth
it in the long run. It’s the ultimate tool in marketing.
I’m biased, but I think brands make the world go around. They’re about innovation
and progress, challenge and competition, and may the best brands win!
The running of the 39th Atlanta Journal-Constitution Peachtree 10k Road Race is
over, and as usual I didn’t win. But as a marketing man, I was struck by the
enormous scope of the event and the vast implications to the sponsor and to the city
of Atlanta.
If you listed some qualifications of a winning brand, this 10k has them all:
1. Total Awareness. You could not be unaware that it was happening.
2. Immediacy. TV cameras, helicopters, clocks, real-time energy.
3. Involvement. 55,000 citizen/runners, thousands of volunteers, untold
numbers of watchers and rooters.
4. Loyalty. The most frequent conversation starter as we waited to begin was,
“How many times have you done this?” Many answered, “At least 10.”
5. Good Will. Comrades all in a pilgrimage, a journey to the unknown. And
a lasting warm feeling.
6. Good planning and communication. It seemed like everything was thought
of.
7. Rewards and benefits. Self esteem, bragging rights, good health, fun. What
more could a brand offer?
Can an event such of this be called a “brand”? Well, it has uniqueness, longevity,
and dividends to the owners. It has a lasting value to the AJC, and to the whole
metropolitan area. If it were not continued, it would be missed.
Here are a few random observations that are probably related to branding:
1. I didn’t mind waiting. My group didn’t start until 9:00, but the fastest ones
began at 7:30 and were over before I began. I usually don’t suffer delays
gladly.
2. I didn’t mind walking a half mile from the finishing line to where I got my
rewards—a T-shirt and a banana. How many brands enjoy that kind of
forgiveness?
3. I identified with the participants. I felt part of a team, young or old, male or female. (I noted and don’t understand the proportionate lack of ethnic minorities. I do understand the scarcity of the obese.)
4. I felt good and righteous. Despite the fact that I trained and hydrated
according to instruction, my knees still hurt hours after the fact and I
vegetated the rest of the day. But I was proud, and resolved to do better
next year.
My only advice to the operators of the Peachtree Road Race is that it is not broken,
so don’t fix it. Tweak it a little. This brand is a treasure.
over, and as usual I didn’t win. But as a marketing man, I was struck by the
enormous scope of the event and the vast implications to the sponsor and to the city
of Atlanta.
If you listed some qualifications of a winning brand, this 10k has them all:
1. Total Awareness. You could not be unaware that it was happening.
2. Immediacy. TV cameras, helicopters, clocks, real-time energy.
3. Involvement. 55,000 citizen/runners, thousands of volunteers, untold
numbers of watchers and rooters.
4. Loyalty. The most frequent conversation starter as we waited to begin was,
“How many times have you done this?” Many answered, “At least 10.”
5. Good Will. Comrades all in a pilgrimage, a journey to the unknown. And
a lasting warm feeling.
6. Good planning and communication. It seemed like everything was thought
of.
7. Rewards and benefits. Self esteem, bragging rights, good health, fun. What
more could a brand offer?
Can an event such of this be called a “brand”? Well, it has uniqueness, longevity,
and dividends to the owners. It has a lasting value to the AJC, and to the whole
metropolitan area. If it were not continued, it would be missed.
Here are a few random observations that are probably related to branding:
1. I didn’t mind waiting. My group didn’t start until 9:00, but the fastest ones
began at 7:30 and were over before I began. I usually don’t suffer delays
gladly.
2. I didn’t mind walking a half mile from the finishing line to where I got my
rewards—a T-shirt and a banana. How many brands enjoy that kind of
forgiveness?
3. I identified with the participants. I felt part of a team, young or old, male or female. (I noted and don’t understand the proportionate lack of ethnic minorities. I do understand the scarcity of the obese.)
4. I felt good and righteous. Despite the fact that I trained and hydrated
according to instruction, my knees still hurt hours after the fact and I
vegetated the rest of the day. But I was proud, and resolved to do better
next year.
My only advice to the operators of the Peachtree Road Race is that it is not broken,
so don’t fix it. Tweak it a little. This brand is a treasure.
If Congress Were a Brand it Would Be Discontinued
Any good manufacturer would deep-six a brand that has a 17% approval rating.
Any good retailer would show it the door.
Any good consumer would return it and demand a refund.
Unfortunately, congress is a brand that has tenure. We can’t get rid of it. We can
only change its members every two or six years.
An economic bail-out mess has been described as
A failed administration, and
a failed congress,
bailing out failed businesses
that have failed the country,
yet we are assured that it cannot fail!
Our constitution guarantees legislative continuity, but it is silent about competence.
The market is brutal for brands that fail. Over ninety percent of new products and
new stores are gone after two years. Here are some reasons why brands fail. One
could only wish that our leaders would pay attention:
• They don’t stand for anything in particular
• They don’t listen
• They don’t keep up-to-date
• They think they are bullet-proof
• They think they are above the laws (of marketing that is)
I think that politicians should take Marketing #101. (They obviously skipped
Economics and History.) Good brands live by these rules:
• We exist because of our customers and survive at their pleasure
• We offer a promise and we keep it
• We aren’t the boss
• We are trustworthy
• We are accountable, right now, every day
We have term limits for our president, for good reason. Why not for congress? Sure,
we would give up some experience, but we would gain more from fresh air.
I tell my students that if they want to succeed in marketing they should first go out
and sell something. That is a humbling experience. They would learn how to fail---
graciously. They would have to experience the real world. Politicians---likewise?
“Public Service” is a noble calling. But where has it gone wrong with congress?
Any good retailer would show it the door.
Any good consumer would return it and demand a refund.
Unfortunately, congress is a brand that has tenure. We can’t get rid of it. We can
only change its members every two or six years.
An economic bail-out mess has been described as
A failed administration, and
a failed congress,
bailing out failed businesses
that have failed the country,
yet we are assured that it cannot fail!
Our constitution guarantees legislative continuity, but it is silent about competence.
The market is brutal for brands that fail. Over ninety percent of new products and
new stores are gone after two years. Here are some reasons why brands fail. One
could only wish that our leaders would pay attention:
• They don’t stand for anything in particular
• They don’t listen
• They don’t keep up-to-date
• They think they are bullet-proof
• They think they are above the laws (of marketing that is)
I think that politicians should take Marketing #101. (They obviously skipped
Economics and History.) Good brands live by these rules:
• We exist because of our customers and survive at their pleasure
• We offer a promise and we keep it
• We aren’t the boss
• We are trustworthy
• We are accountable, right now, every day
We have term limits for our president, for good reason. Why not for congress? Sure,
we would give up some experience, but we would gain more from fresh air.
I tell my students that if they want to succeed in marketing they should first go out
and sell something. That is a humbling experience. They would learn how to fail---
graciously. They would have to experience the real world. Politicians---likewise?
“Public Service” is a noble calling. But where has it gone wrong with congress?
An Ounce of Behavior is Worth a Pound of Attitudes
We have to build awareness first,” says the neophyte.
A common mistake by advertisers to assume that a new user of a product goes
through these stages: (1) awareness of the brand, (2) favorable attitude, (3)
purchase. So therefore the first purpose of our advertising is to create awareness.
After all, you aren’t going to buy something that you aren’t aware of. And then, the
next step is you must think highly of the brand. And then, we hope, they’ll buy it.
The problem is “Awareness” becomes the empty goal of the ads. Awareness of what?
Some intrusive ads catch your attention by their cleverness. Did you ever tell your
friends, “Hey, did you see that ad where the guy….”? But you forgot what the
product was.
Certainly it’s essential that a brand should earn a favorable attitude, but that’s not
enough. I learned this when I had an ice cream client. When choosing the “Flavor
of the Month,” we had people come into the dairy and taste and rate a number of
new ones. But the “winners” often turned out to be flops in the market place. Why?
Because they didn’t have staying power. We switched to a different method. We
gave them a generous amount of several flavors to take home. Then we visited them
after two weeks and measured how much of each their family had eaten. The
winners were the flavors that were consumed most. So the initial attitude was
trumped by behavior. And that stood up in the real world.
Here’s a way to get the horse before the cart. Start with the reason-for-being---the
one benefit your brand or service brings to the customer, the promise that ends up
with action.. Make that benefit at the hero of your ads.
What I’m suggesting is to compress the three stages mentioned above. Don’t think
of it as a leisurely process. Make awareness/attitude/behavior happen
simultaneously. Make the end use the reason for the awareness, and if that’s good
enough, favorable attitudes will happen at the same time.
The cyber generation expects immediate results.
A common mistake by advertisers to assume that a new user of a product goes
through these stages: (1) awareness of the brand, (2) favorable attitude, (3)
purchase. So therefore the first purpose of our advertising is to create awareness.
After all, you aren’t going to buy something that you aren’t aware of. And then, the
next step is you must think highly of the brand. And then, we hope, they’ll buy it.
The problem is “Awareness” becomes the empty goal of the ads. Awareness of what?
Some intrusive ads catch your attention by their cleverness. Did you ever tell your
friends, “Hey, did you see that ad where the guy….”? But you forgot what the
product was.
Certainly it’s essential that a brand should earn a favorable attitude, but that’s not
enough. I learned this when I had an ice cream client. When choosing the “Flavor
of the Month,” we had people come into the dairy and taste and rate a number of
new ones. But the “winners” often turned out to be flops in the market place. Why?
Because they didn’t have staying power. We switched to a different method. We
gave them a generous amount of several flavors to take home. Then we visited them
after two weeks and measured how much of each their family had eaten. The
winners were the flavors that were consumed most. So the initial attitude was
trumped by behavior. And that stood up in the real world.
Here’s a way to get the horse before the cart. Start with the reason-for-being---the
one benefit your brand or service brings to the customer, the promise that ends up
with action.. Make that benefit at the hero of your ads.
What I’m suggesting is to compress the three stages mentioned above. Don’t think
of it as a leisurely process. Make awareness/attitude/behavior happen
simultaneously. Make the end use the reason for the awareness, and if that’s good
enough, favorable attitudes will happen at the same time.
The cyber generation expects immediate results.
If Present Trends Continue, That'll Be the First Time
Trends are fickle. They seem unstoppable, but something happens. They end up
falling by their own weight, they get tired, or someone comes up with a
better idea. They aren’t irresistible forces after all. They get overtaken by events.
That’s why the patent office should never close.
The ancient Persian proverb says, “Even this shall pass away.” The smart money
says, long term bet against the trend.
Everybody thought in mid-2008 that prices of oil will always go up. Then a sudden
decrease in demand reversed that trend, to the dismay of OPEC. Six months later
the price of a barrel went down by two thirds. So is that a new enduring trend?
Don’t count on it.
Oil is our main problem to be solved. We need an (over used term) paradigm
shift. We need a way out. Existing alternative fuels don’t seem to have enough horse
power.
A good concept is “creative destruction.” That’s when a category or an industry
becomes obsolete. Disruption takes tolls. But after time something new takes its
place, at different places and workers with different skills.
If there were a way to harness all the talents of our private sector’s
entrepreneurship and creativity, we would come up with brilliant, breakthrough
answers. Imagine you are on a team whose mission is to supplant oil with
something better. You have no restrictions, no boundaries. You could tap into all
the greatest brains in history---Edison, Newton, Bill Gates, da Vinci, and all those
hidden inventors working in their garages.
What would they come up with? A bigger windmill won’t cut it. We can’t just muddle through. Some people out there are out to get us. We must have ideas and will power.
So will this be the first time that present trends will continue, that we’ll forever be
dependent of oil? Three hundred million Americans can’t let that happen. Twenty
years from now will we be able to look back and say we rose to the occasion, or that
we went quietly into the night?
What will that be? A marketing man’s dream; a needed product that works all the
time. A simple idea, found everywhere, and cheap!
falling by their own weight, they get tired, or someone comes up with a
better idea. They aren’t irresistible forces after all. They get overtaken by events.
That’s why the patent office should never close.
The ancient Persian proverb says, “Even this shall pass away.” The smart money
says, long term bet against the trend.
Everybody thought in mid-2008 that prices of oil will always go up. Then a sudden
decrease in demand reversed that trend, to the dismay of OPEC. Six months later
the price of a barrel went down by two thirds. So is that a new enduring trend?
Don’t count on it.
Oil is our main problem to be solved. We need an (over used term) paradigm
shift. We need a way out. Existing alternative fuels don’t seem to have enough horse
power.
A good concept is “creative destruction.” That’s when a category or an industry
becomes obsolete. Disruption takes tolls. But after time something new takes its
place, at different places and workers with different skills.
If there were a way to harness all the talents of our private sector’s
entrepreneurship and creativity, we would come up with brilliant, breakthrough
answers. Imagine you are on a team whose mission is to supplant oil with
something better. You have no restrictions, no boundaries. You could tap into all
the greatest brains in history---Edison, Newton, Bill Gates, da Vinci, and all those
hidden inventors working in their garages.
What would they come up with? A bigger windmill won’t cut it. We can’t just muddle through. Some people out there are out to get us. We must have ideas and will power.
So will this be the first time that present trends will continue, that we’ll forever be
dependent of oil? Three hundred million Americans can’t let that happen. Twenty
years from now will we be able to look back and say we rose to the occasion, or that
we went quietly into the night?
What will that be? A marketing man’s dream; a needed product that works all the
time. A simple idea, found everywhere, and cheap!
Are You a Motorist or a Pedestrian?
“Segmentation” has always been a worthy goal of marketers. It’s a good way to
target customers, so they don’t waste your time going after people who don’t like
them anyway.
It makes sense for them to know who might buy their product. Rich people or
poor? Young vs. old, farmers or city-dwellers? College grads, illiterates, parsons or
felons? It’s useful to put them into big buckets. That makes targeting makes efforts
efficient.
The accepted wisdom is “psychographics”---the art of grouping people into lifestyles.
Psychologists have sliced up the population into many pieces, like----Early Achievers,
Stay-at-Homers, Frontrunners, Bookworms, and Deadenders.
The problem is it pigeonholes people into static stereotypes. Once you’re a Trend
Buster, always a Trend Buster. But people change roles and attitudes daily, even
hourly. Are you same person at eight as at five? Monday as Saturday? At a ball
game as in a traffic jam?
I ask my students whether they are a motorist or a pedestrian. Most think awhile,
then choose the one with best fits them. (They thought I was analyzing their inner
selves.) But after discussion they all agree that the right answer is, “BOTH---it
depends!” And there are times they are a cyclist or an equestrian. Sometimes
they’re even motionless.
Psychographics can be interesting, maybe useful. But it becomes psychobabble
when it replaces common sense. Wouldn’t be better if they would segment a
product according to the benefit it bestows, and let the customers self-select across
all artificial lines?
I have invented a new way. It’s called “Schizographics.” It groups the citizens
according to what ails them. I haven’t able to sell it yet
target customers, so they don’t waste your time going after people who don’t like
them anyway.
It makes sense for them to know who might buy their product. Rich people or
poor? Young vs. old, farmers or city-dwellers? College grads, illiterates, parsons or
felons? It’s useful to put them into big buckets. That makes targeting makes efforts
efficient.
The accepted wisdom is “psychographics”---the art of grouping people into lifestyles.
Psychologists have sliced up the population into many pieces, like----Early Achievers,
Stay-at-Homers, Frontrunners, Bookworms, and Deadenders.
The problem is it pigeonholes people into static stereotypes. Once you’re a Trend
Buster, always a Trend Buster. But people change roles and attitudes daily, even
hourly. Are you same person at eight as at five? Monday as Saturday? At a ball
game as in a traffic jam?
I ask my students whether they are a motorist or a pedestrian. Most think awhile,
then choose the one with best fits them. (They thought I was analyzing their inner
selves.) But after discussion they all agree that the right answer is, “BOTH---it
depends!” And there are times they are a cyclist or an equestrian. Sometimes
they’re even motionless.
Psychographics can be interesting, maybe useful. But it becomes psychobabble
when it replaces common sense. Wouldn’t be better if they would segment a
product according to the benefit it bestows, and let the customers self-select across
all artificial lines?
I have invented a new way. It’s called “Schizographics.” It groups the citizens
according to what ails them. I haven’t able to sell it yet
ositioning is the most important asset for a brand. A brand or a company is more
things that it isn’t than what it is. Therefore positioning is deciding what it is left for
your customers after you get rid of the rest.
A sculptor described how he made an equine carving: “I take a block of marble and
chip away everything that doesn’t look like a horse.”
”Comprehensive Positioning” is a contradiction in terms. Comprehensive means
broad and inclusive. Positioning means narrow and exclusive; it’s the single place
where you will take your stand, where you step up to the window and make your bet.
It takes guts.
Here’s what I have found are the common points of a winning positioning:
1. It's more important to be important, than to be different. It’s definitely not important to make irrelevant distinctions, like “All our cats’ paws have six toes.”
2. It leads with strength. You didn’t get this far on your weaknesses. Hide them until you fix them. If you are red, talk about crimson or scarlet or ripe tomatoes.
3. It can't be just a wish. Just because a niche is available, or you’d like to be there, doesn’t mean you can fill it. It must be true and appropriate for what you are, or you be exposed as a huckster. Wishing doesn’t make it so.
4. It must be simple. Can it be grasped at a glance what it’s all about? If not, it’s too sophisticated and eyes will glaze over.
5. It must be singular. What is the one thing you want to be known for?
This is key. If customers believe you are best at something good, they’ll also think other good things about you. People like to follow leaders. That’s called the halo effects.
What words do you want come to customers’ and prospects’ minds after hearing
your name? That’s your desired positioning, and it will be a winner if you follow
those rules.
things that it isn’t than what it is. Therefore positioning is deciding what it is left for
your customers after you get rid of the rest.
A sculptor described how he made an equine carving: “I take a block of marble and
chip away everything that doesn’t look like a horse.”
”Comprehensive Positioning” is a contradiction in terms. Comprehensive means
broad and inclusive. Positioning means narrow and exclusive; it’s the single place
where you will take your stand, where you step up to the window and make your bet.
It takes guts.
Here’s what I have found are the common points of a winning positioning:
1. It's more important to be important, than to be different. It’s definitely not important to make irrelevant distinctions, like “All our cats’ paws have six toes.”
2. It leads with strength. You didn’t get this far on your weaknesses. Hide them until you fix them. If you are red, talk about crimson or scarlet or ripe tomatoes.
3. It can't be just a wish. Just because a niche is available, or you’d like to be there, doesn’t mean you can fill it. It must be true and appropriate for what you are, or you be exposed as a huckster. Wishing doesn’t make it so.
4. It must be simple. Can it be grasped at a glance what it’s all about? If not, it’s too sophisticated and eyes will glaze over.
5. It must be singular. What is the one thing you want to be known for?
This is key. If customers believe you are best at something good, they’ll also think other good things about you. People like to follow leaders. That’s called the halo effects.
What words do you want come to customers’ and prospects’ minds after hearing
your name? That’s your desired positioning, and it will be a winner if you follow
those rules.
How to Create a Failed Positioning
Perhaps a more useful way to create a winning positioning for your brand is to
think of ways not to do it.
Here are some examples of thinking that will be doomed:
1. Claim that it’s for everybody; otherwise you might leave some unwitting
user out. Compile a list of all the features of your product and all the
benefits it provides. Mention them all. To focus on just one is a foolish
way to separate other brands.
2. Thinly disguise its weakness. If your pet is a cuddly lapdog, brag that
it is a tireless hunter and a brave guardian. If your store has trouble
keeping employees, talk about your great service.
3. Make a wish. Conduct a focus group and ask the ladies what they
hope for. Pick the wildest dream and make that the fulfillment of your
brand’s offer. Proving it and earning it can come later.
4. Find a difference, no matter how minor. Dig deep. Surely there is
something about you that is distinguishing. Make that the reason
people should prefer it.
5. Assure its obsolescence. Find the latest fad, latch on to it. Put the
current buzz words in your headlines.
6. Be sure it’s politically correct. Never risk offending anybody. Sharp
edges must be dulled. When in doubt, leave it out.
7. Don’t try to be the leader. Leaders get shot at and pulled down. Be
content to sit in the third chair. Under the radar. “Uneasy lies the crown--.”
So when you’re evaluating alternative positionings, look at each one: does it fall
into any of these traps? Discard it, and look for a better one.
think of ways not to do it.
Here are some examples of thinking that will be doomed:
1. Claim that it’s for everybody; otherwise you might leave some unwitting
user out. Compile a list of all the features of your product and all the
benefits it provides. Mention them all. To focus on just one is a foolish
way to separate other brands.
2. Thinly disguise its weakness. If your pet is a cuddly lapdog, brag that
it is a tireless hunter and a brave guardian. If your store has trouble
keeping employees, talk about your great service.
3. Make a wish. Conduct a focus group and ask the ladies what they
hope for. Pick the wildest dream and make that the fulfillment of your
brand’s offer. Proving it and earning it can come later.
4. Find a difference, no matter how minor. Dig deep. Surely there is
something about you that is distinguishing. Make that the reason
people should prefer it.
5. Assure its obsolescence. Find the latest fad, latch on to it. Put the
current buzz words in your headlines.
6. Be sure it’s politically correct. Never risk offending anybody. Sharp
edges must be dulled. When in doubt, leave it out.
7. Don’t try to be the leader. Leaders get shot at and pulled down. Be
content to sit in the third chair. Under the radar. “Uneasy lies the crown--.”
So when you’re evaluating alternative positionings, look at each one: does it fall
into any of these traps? Discard it, and look for a better one.
What is the Gap Between the Defacto and the Desired Positioning?
A lot of people don’t really understand positioning. They equate it with a “mission
statement” like, “We are the highest quality and the most caring company in the
food business, providing the best-tasting nutritious frozen meals and baby foods
throughout the world.”
Mission statements are what the management and the board of directors think of
themselves. Customers don’t care. Customers care what’s in it for them.
The positioning of a product or a company is what comes to people’s minds when
they hear its brand name. That’s called the de facto positioning. It’s also called
reality.
But what would management want people to say? That is their desired positioning.
Is there is a gap between the two? Then there’s an identity and a marketing
problem.
The first step is to find out: what is our standing right now? How do people place us
in their lives, versus other options? What are our assets and our baggage?
Then, what are we going to do about it? Think about your desired positioning.
Imagine that you are conducting groups of customers and prospects, two years from now.
Focus Group moderators might throw out this question:
“Think about this brand. What comes to mind?”
Put words in their mouths and thoughts in their minds. What words? If they are
different than today’s responses, what shall you do? Is it fixable? What must
change?
statement” like, “We are the highest quality and the most caring company in the
food business, providing the best-tasting nutritious frozen meals and baby foods
throughout the world.”
Mission statements are what the management and the board of directors think of
themselves. Customers don’t care. Customers care what’s in it for them.
The positioning of a product or a company is what comes to people’s minds when
they hear its brand name. That’s called the de facto positioning. It’s also called
reality.
But what would management want people to say? That is their desired positioning.
Is there is a gap between the two? Then there’s an identity and a marketing
problem.
The first step is to find out: what is our standing right now? How do people place us
in their lives, versus other options? What are our assets and our baggage?
Then, what are we going to do about it? Think about your desired positioning.
Imagine that you are conducting groups of customers and prospects, two years from now.
Focus Group moderators might throw out this question:
“Think about this brand. What comes to mind?”
Put words in their mouths and thoughts in their minds. What words? If they are
different than today’s responses, what shall you do? Is it fixable? What must
change?
The Black Hole of Marketing is in the Middle
perceptual map of any category will include a few dominant players, some
specialty niche entries, and a lot of losers who are destined for oblivion. Some of the
latter will go silently in the night, but a lot will expire violently, with a big bang as
they get sucked into that black celestial hole.
Just as a star system expands too fast and collapses into itself with such
gravitational attraction that not even light can escape, a swirling, whirling vortex of
a seemingly liquid business can suddenly spiral down the drain.
The poet Yeats said, “Things fall apart; the center cannot hold.” The center is
untenable. The biggest brands usually have a big enough base to straddle the middle.
The specialists cling to the edge. The rest have one of these characteristics---
1. They try to appeal to all sides, but they don’t have the wherewithal to
stretch that far.
2. They have a niche, but no exclusivity.
3. They strangle themselves by hiring poor employees.
4. They fall easy prey to stronger players who delight to under-price and
out-service them.
The drown-ees are stuck in the middle of the pool, can’t swim, have no life-
preserver and no paddle.
Here’s what they need to do:
1. A Persian proverb says, “No matter how far you’ve traveled down the
wrong path, turn back.”
2. Cut your losses and begin again. You’ve already stopped to smell the
roses, so act.
3. Get back to basics and create a useful brand. Pick an edge to the
perceptual map and latch on to it with a strong product and appealing
positioning.
There might be a place for you. But it’s not in the middle.
specialty niche entries, and a lot of losers who are destined for oblivion. Some of the
latter will go silently in the night, but a lot will expire violently, with a big bang as
they get sucked into that black celestial hole.
Just as a star system expands too fast and collapses into itself with such
gravitational attraction that not even light can escape, a swirling, whirling vortex of
a seemingly liquid business can suddenly spiral down the drain.
The poet Yeats said, “Things fall apart; the center cannot hold.” The center is
untenable. The biggest brands usually have a big enough base to straddle the middle.
The specialists cling to the edge. The rest have one of these characteristics---
1. They try to appeal to all sides, but they don’t have the wherewithal to
stretch that far.
2. They have a niche, but no exclusivity.
3. They strangle themselves by hiring poor employees.
4. They fall easy prey to stronger players who delight to under-price and
out-service them.
The drown-ees are stuck in the middle of the pool, can’t swim, have no life-
preserver and no paddle.
Here’s what they need to do:
1. A Persian proverb says, “No matter how far you’ve traveled down the
wrong path, turn back.”
2. Cut your losses and begin again. You’ve already stopped to smell the
roses, so act.
3. Get back to basics and create a useful brand. Pick an edge to the
perceptual map and latch on to it with a strong product and appealing
positioning.
There might be a place for you. But it’s not in the middle.
"Service" is a Lousy Positioning
ne of ways stores and companies try to find their strongest positioning is by asking
people what they want. And of course that’s good. But they should look hard at the
results of their research.
As I said earlier, you can’t wish a position, you have to earn it.
Many studies confirm that “Service” is what customers want, so OK, says the store
or a manufacturer, we’ll say that’s what we give. But “Under-service” and “No
Service” doesn’t cut it, and that’s what customers frequently get.
The promise of service is fraught with danger, embodied with every employee,
tested with every encounter. The worst sin of marketers is to not deliver what is
promised. If they fall short, they have broken a trusted relationship.
I can think of two companies that could proclaim good service as their claim to fame:
Nordstrom and Ritz-Carlton. They deliver it every day. It is part of their culture.
Can you think of any more?
So until a company is known for its service, and they live it every day, they should talk about something else.
“Lowest Price” is also a losing positioning. There can only be one lowest price
player in every category. Wal*Mart owns that game. If you go that route, be ready
to get undercut.
The same is “Value.” That word is worthless, the king of vagueness.
I’m certainly not saying that “Service” is bad; they should be pursued and treasured.
Once a company delivers it, unbroken, for about five years, then it could be shouted
from the roof.
I was with an ad agency that had a hotel client. We sold them a “Service” strategy
and created one of the worst campaigns of all time: “If it’s not your mother, it must
be us.” Their service was lousier than their positioning. We lost that account.
people what they want. And of course that’s good. But they should look hard at the
results of their research.
As I said earlier, you can’t wish a position, you have to earn it.
Many studies confirm that “Service” is what customers want, so OK, says the store
or a manufacturer, we’ll say that’s what we give. But “Under-service” and “No
Service” doesn’t cut it, and that’s what customers frequently get.
The promise of service is fraught with danger, embodied with every employee,
tested with every encounter. The worst sin of marketers is to not deliver what is
promised. If they fall short, they have broken a trusted relationship.
I can think of two companies that could proclaim good service as their claim to fame:
Nordstrom and Ritz-Carlton. They deliver it every day. It is part of their culture.
Can you think of any more?
So until a company is known for its service, and they live it every day, they should talk about something else.
“Lowest Price” is also a losing positioning. There can only be one lowest price
player in every category. Wal*Mart owns that game. If you go that route, be ready
to get undercut.
The same is “Value.” That word is worthless, the king of vagueness.
I’m certainly not saying that “Service” is bad; they should be pursued and treasured.
Once a company delivers it, unbroken, for about five years, then it could be shouted
from the roof.
I was with an ad agency that had a hotel client. We sold them a “Service” strategy
and created one of the worst campaigns of all time: “If it’s not your mother, it must
be us.” Their service was lousier than their positioning. We lost that account.
Is Your Customer Always (or Just Sometimes) Right?
When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve
the political bonds which have connected them with another-----”
This Declaration of Independence applies to employers, clients and customers as
well. When you’ve had enough of a tyrannical boss, a recalcitrant client, or a
thieving customer, it is your right and duty to say, “I’ve had enough. YOU’RE
FIRED!”
Who ever said “The Customer is Always Right” was a fawning, sycophantic wimp.
I was with an ad agency that had a big profitable account where the ad manager
was a moral deviant. He delighted in making us miserable. I talked with our
president, who wrote this on his pad as he was making the decision:
As I sat lone and musing, a friend came up and said,
Cheer up, things could be worse.
So I cheered up, and sure enough,
Things got worse.
So he got the account group together and said, “He who angers you controls you.”
He made the hard but joyous call and severed the relationship. We replaced that
account very soon with a better one.
I was the head of customer service at Target Stores. They are very kind to their
customers, meeting them more than half way on their problems. The benefit of the
doubt is theirs.
But Target is not a jerk. While we took back almost everything, we drew a line; we
recognized the repeaters and told them politely that they would be happier not
shopping here any more. (“Try Kmart---”) I saw a lot of sweat-stained garments
that “were never worn.” My favorite was the “unused” crock pot that began to reek
from the chicken inside.
Small firms can be devastated by the loss of any client, so it’s understandable that
they endure untold miseries. But it’s a quantum leap when they first stand up and say,“No more. There is some crap I will not eat.” So, bite the bullet and get rid of the problem.
Freedom comes next, and more business.
the political bonds which have connected them with another-----”
This Declaration of Independence applies to employers, clients and customers as
well. When you’ve had enough of a tyrannical boss, a recalcitrant client, or a
thieving customer, it is your right and duty to say, “I’ve had enough. YOU’RE
FIRED!”
Who ever said “The Customer is Always Right” was a fawning, sycophantic wimp.
I was with an ad agency that had a big profitable account where the ad manager
was a moral deviant. He delighted in making us miserable. I talked with our
president, who wrote this on his pad as he was making the decision:
As I sat lone and musing, a friend came up and said,
Cheer up, things could be worse.
So I cheered up, and sure enough,
Things got worse.
So he got the account group together and said, “He who angers you controls you.”
He made the hard but joyous call and severed the relationship. We replaced that
account very soon with a better one.
I was the head of customer service at Target Stores. They are very kind to their
customers, meeting them more than half way on their problems. The benefit of the
doubt is theirs.
But Target is not a jerk. While we took back almost everything, we drew a line; we
recognized the repeaters and told them politely that they would be happier not
shopping here any more. (“Try Kmart---”) I saw a lot of sweat-stained garments
that “were never worn.” My favorite was the “unused” crock pot that began to reek
from the chicken inside.
Small firms can be devastated by the loss of any client, so it’s understandable that
they endure untold miseries. But it’s a quantum leap when they first stand up and say,“No more. There is some crap I will not eat.” So, bite the bullet and get rid of the problem.
Freedom comes next, and more business.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Six Emerging Reasons Why Stores Go Out of Business
Over eighty percent of new stores will go out of business within ten years.
Some will be DOA; others will have painful slow deaths. And some old stand-bys
may also bite the dust. (Who’s next? I’d watch K-Mart. I think the merger of Sears
and K-Mart was not a marriage made in heaven. Two plus two makes three.)
There are over nineteen-and-a-half square feet of retail space for every shopper in
this country. Over-stored? Probably. But there will always be new ones springing
up, and that’s good. Otherwise women and some men would die of boredom.
The obvious and time-tested reasons why stores fail are poor quality, too high prices,
bad locations, and obsolescence. But here are six that are becoming more prevalent:
1.They Don’t Connect with the Cyber-generation. Twenty-ish folks are savvy and
smart. They are in instant and constant communication with each other. They are
technically adept and immersed on-line. They expect information to be delivered to
them digitally, free and now. So they seek out stores that have individuality,
immediacy and are interesting
2. They Sound Uncertain and Discordant Trumpets. They can’t decide what business
they’re in. They add lines, and confusion.
3. They Aren’t Dancing With the One Who Brought Them. Starbucks is an experience
and a meeting place. What is a Starbucks in a Target Store? Virtually empty.
4. They Have Mega Un-service. Customer loyalty is down to one bad experience, then out. Zero tolerance. Poor service is an epidemic.
5. They Are Near a Good Location. There is a site in my neighborhood that has
witnessed four or five separate tenants. Why? Around the corner are thriving
establishments. Due diligence would have been nice. Why did the others fail?
6. They Aren’t a Destination. Survivors draw crowds. Stores that are fun to visit have a chance to last. Could a store stand alone, or does it depend on other traffic? If not, a going out of-business sale will come soon.
So if you intend to start a new store, it must be cool, with it, exciting,
understandable, easy to get to, and provide great service. Otherwise, try anything
else.
Some will be DOA; others will have painful slow deaths. And some old stand-bys
may also bite the dust. (Who’s next? I’d watch K-Mart. I think the merger of Sears
and K-Mart was not a marriage made in heaven. Two plus two makes three.)
There are over nineteen-and-a-half square feet of retail space for every shopper in
this country. Over-stored? Probably. But there will always be new ones springing
up, and that’s good. Otherwise women and some men would die of boredom.
The obvious and time-tested reasons why stores fail are poor quality, too high prices,
bad locations, and obsolescence. But here are six that are becoming more prevalent:
1.They Don’t Connect with the Cyber-generation. Twenty-ish folks are savvy and
smart. They are in instant and constant communication with each other. They are
technically adept and immersed on-line. They expect information to be delivered to
them digitally, free and now. So they seek out stores that have individuality,
immediacy and are interesting
2. They Sound Uncertain and Discordant Trumpets. They can’t decide what business
they’re in. They add lines, and confusion.
3. They Aren’t Dancing With the One Who Brought Them. Starbucks is an experience
and a meeting place. What is a Starbucks in a Target Store? Virtually empty.
4. They Have Mega Un-service. Customer loyalty is down to one bad experience, then out. Zero tolerance. Poor service is an epidemic.
5. They Are Near a Good Location. There is a site in my neighborhood that has
witnessed four or five separate tenants. Why? Around the corner are thriving
establishments. Due diligence would have been nice. Why did the others fail?
6. They Aren’t a Destination. Survivors draw crowds. Stores that are fun to visit have a chance to last. Could a store stand alone, or does it depend on other traffic? If not, a going out of-business sale will come soon.
So if you intend to start a new store, it must be cool, with it, exciting,
understandable, easy to get to, and provide great service. Otherwise, try anything
else.
Why People Continue to Shop
A lot of people say that retailing is dead. Why go to a store when you can compare
and shop on the internet, get it paid for and delivered without leaving home?
Despite its growth and acceptance, internet sales are still less than five percent of all
purchases. I predict it will never reach fifteen percent? Why? Because people need to
shop. They need to get out and connect with the world,
In my experience at Target I saw nine reasons why people came into our stores. Do
you fit any of these?
1. They want to be in a crowd. It’s somewhere to go, to be with human beings.
They can’t stand to be alone. They need sporting events, restaurants, or just
walking through the city.
2. The opposite—to be alone. In other words, to be lost in a crowd. When they
get stressed out they relax by shopping. Somehow they recharge their
batteries there. They can still be anonymous while making human contact.
3. They want companionship. They come in pairs. “Hey, let’s get together---we
can go shopping!” Some couples develop strong bonds---they are facing the
world as a team.
4. They want to see what’s new. It’s a better way to be with it and not rely on
what they read in the paper or see on TV.
5. They need a challenge. It’s a competitive sport. Compulsive shoppers are
very competitive. They can sniff out a bargain from a hundred yards away.
They bag their stuff as trophies, and come home victorious.
6. They need to pamper themselves. They need to spend in order to affirm their
beauty and worth. It’s an award they bestow on their egos. It makes them
feel better than a workout at the gym.
7. They need to dream. They need to see how the upper class lives. They envy
wealth. Women try on stuff that there’s no way they can buy.
8. They need to brag. These are the worst kind. They have to show how smart
and rich they are.
9. They need something. Duh. This applies mostly to men. Shopping is a
problem for them to be solved---go out and find it, shoot it, and bring it home.
My Dad hated shopping: he waited in the car for Mom and smoked his pipe.
My daughter was told by her mother, “Clean your room or I’ll make you go
shop with your father!”
Of course people will switch from one reason to another, day to day. Sometimes
from store to store.
But can you imagine what it would be like if there were no shopping? How else
could you satisfy the basic need to be connected?
and shop on the internet, get it paid for and delivered without leaving home?
Despite its growth and acceptance, internet sales are still less than five percent of all
purchases. I predict it will never reach fifteen percent? Why? Because people need to
shop. They need to get out and connect with the world,
In my experience at Target I saw nine reasons why people came into our stores. Do
you fit any of these?
1. They want to be in a crowd. It’s somewhere to go, to be with human beings.
They can’t stand to be alone. They need sporting events, restaurants, or just
walking through the city.
2. The opposite—to be alone. In other words, to be lost in a crowd. When they
get stressed out they relax by shopping. Somehow they recharge their
batteries there. They can still be anonymous while making human contact.
3. They want companionship. They come in pairs. “Hey, let’s get together---we
can go shopping!” Some couples develop strong bonds---they are facing the
world as a team.
4. They want to see what’s new. It’s a better way to be with it and not rely on
what they read in the paper or see on TV.
5. They need a challenge. It’s a competitive sport. Compulsive shoppers are
very competitive. They can sniff out a bargain from a hundred yards away.
They bag their stuff as trophies, and come home victorious.
6. They need to pamper themselves. They need to spend in order to affirm their
beauty and worth. It’s an award they bestow on their egos. It makes them
feel better than a workout at the gym.
7. They need to dream. They need to see how the upper class lives. They envy
wealth. Women try on stuff that there’s no way they can buy.
8. They need to brag. These are the worst kind. They have to show how smart
and rich they are.
9. They need something. Duh. This applies mostly to men. Shopping is a
problem for them to be solved---go out and find it, shoot it, and bring it home.
My Dad hated shopping: he waited in the car for Mom and smoked his pipe.
My daughter was told by her mother, “Clean your room or I’ll make you go
shop with your father!”
Of course people will switch from one reason to another, day to day. Sometimes
from store to store.
But can you imagine what it would be like if there were no shopping? How else
could you satisfy the basic need to be connected?
There's Nothing New Under the Sun
What is Creativity? That word is the curse of advertising, according to David
Ogilvy, the industry’s guru. It puts copy writers and art directors into a realm
where they don’t belong. They should think of themselves as salesmen, but with a
special gift of words and pictures.
There are only new connections. Combine some old thing with another existing
thing and---Wow, a “new” idea!
I think the secret to finding un-thought of connections lies in the subconscious
mind. Do you get your best ideas in the middle of the night, or in the shower?
What are dreams but the subconscious at work---trying to relate your problem
to another circumstance. Hypnotism can put you into the subconscious mind,
where connections are rampant.
Lateral thinking---out of the box---also works. You must smash boundaries, force-fit
one subject into another and look somewhere else. My favorite quote from an
unknown genius is, “When we find the answer, it will be simple.” It’ll be right there,
waiting to be connected.
If you have reached the bottom going deeper, try going broader. Look outward and see what’s going on there that you can connect creatively with your problem.
Ogilvy, the industry’s guru. It puts copy writers and art directors into a realm
where they don’t belong. They should think of themselves as salesmen, but with a
special gift of words and pictures.
There are only new connections. Combine some old thing with another existing
thing and---Wow, a “new” idea!
I think the secret to finding un-thought of connections lies in the subconscious
mind. Do you get your best ideas in the middle of the night, or in the shower?
What are dreams but the subconscious at work---trying to relate your problem
to another circumstance. Hypnotism can put you into the subconscious mind,
where connections are rampant.
Lateral thinking---out of the box---also works. You must smash boundaries, force-fit
one subject into another and look somewhere else. My favorite quote from an
unknown genius is, “When we find the answer, it will be simple.” It’ll be right there,
waiting to be connected.
If you have reached the bottom going deeper, try going broader. Look outward and see what’s going on there that you can connect creatively with your problem.
What Kids Can Teach Us About Creativity
There’s no question that the most effective advertising has a simplicity and purity to
that makes us say, “Yes—of course!”
This is the same reaction I have when some two or three year old just knocks me over with an observation that is extremely fresh and revealing. But when they reach four, it doesn’t happen so much, and when they are adults it’s very rare, unless they are one of a few child-like creative directors of a big advertising agency.
What goes on here? Why are learning, growing up, and sophistication the enemies of clarity and creativity?
Why can my two year old daughter called the old game, “Hide and Sneak,” thereby imparting it with a dimension and truth that wouldn’t occur to us jaded adults. Why can she break the day into two parts---“Night Time” and “Light Time”? How can she invent a new product by remembering her dinner as being a “Grilled Ham and Cheeseburger”?
We are too cynical if we call these things happy accidents, or malaprops, of simply dismiss them as being a result of children’s imperfect understanding. Instead, we should try to learn their secret and see if it could help us solve our own communications problems.
Kids undoubtedly have a heightened awareness and sensitivity to the world around them. That happens to be a pretty good description of a poet or an artist as well----heightened awareness and sensitivity. Kids also have an eagerness to tell us and to share their impressions. Do we still have as much enthusiasm?
Kids have an advantage over us that we can’t overcome. They have a limited vocabulary, so they have to make do with the few words they know. As our education increases, so does our vocabulary and our ability to make fine distinctions by finding the precisely correct word.
We have a plethora of synonyms, and one might be slightly better than the last. But kids have no choice but to make a quantum leap—out of one category to another. Kids’ worlds are all one, all jumbled together. They can and must use one part of their lives in the context of another.
Our gurus call this lateral thinking, or thinking outside the box. To kids, it’s their world view. They connect everything; we stay in the comfort zone of our sophistication.
How would you and your brainstorming group go about naming, for example, a camera, a dairy drink, and a table on which diapers are changed? You would use logic. When that fails, you would develop great lists of synonyms, functional parts and relatives of creatures from Greek Mythology. As last resort you would settle on new coinages such as Sacravista, Quencharoo, and Lovebottoms.
My three year old son named them instinctively by assuming the name is what you say when the product is used.. The camera is a “Smile,” the drink is “Some More,” and the diaper table is a “Lie Down!” These might be lousy names in the marketplace, but they are clearer thinking than I could have brought to the exercise.
A good creative idea, like a good poem, isn’t whipped cream dolloped on top of chocolate cake. Instead it goes deep inside and you can taste the cocoa bean. A good definition of creativity is that it brings order out of chaos.
There’s nothing new under the sun, there are just new combinations. That is what kids do. From their ingenuousness springs the intuitive leap, the impeccably clear explanation of what’s going on. They are walking connections.
The girl pulled the drawer out of her dresser and it fell on her left foot. We asked if it also smacked her right foot. Through her tears she blurted out, “No. It looked out.” Could we have said it more graphically or concisely?
What they say about vacationing in North Dakota is also true about being a child: time takes a whole lot longer there. Adults move and think too fast, everything jumbles together, we can’t see. We carry too many memories and mental baggage, so we can no longer witness an event or have an experience for the first time. How can we be a child again and make each moment forever?
One way is to stop making distinctions and start making analogies. Stop analyzing, start experiencing. Be a far reaching generalist, not a narrow minded specialist. Slow down.
What might kids tell us who are in advertising or sales? Creativity is not an end for us, it’s a means. Good selling begins at the gut level, a primal contact with our prospect. That depends on how creatively we’ve chosen our words and images. Maybe we’d be better salesmen if we dust off our most precious heritage---that we were all kids once.
The poet Thomas Hood said it well----
I remember, I remember
The fir-trees dark and high
I used to think their tender tops
Were close against the sky;
It was a childish ignorance
But now tis little joy
To know I’m farther off from heaven
Than when I was a boy.
that makes us say, “Yes—of course!”
This is the same reaction I have when some two or three year old just knocks me over with an observation that is extremely fresh and revealing. But when they reach four, it doesn’t happen so much, and when they are adults it’s very rare, unless they are one of a few child-like creative directors of a big advertising agency.
What goes on here? Why are learning, growing up, and sophistication the enemies of clarity and creativity?
Why can my two year old daughter called the old game, “Hide and Sneak,” thereby imparting it with a dimension and truth that wouldn’t occur to us jaded adults. Why can she break the day into two parts---“Night Time” and “Light Time”? How can she invent a new product by remembering her dinner as being a “Grilled Ham and Cheeseburger”?
We are too cynical if we call these things happy accidents, or malaprops, of simply dismiss them as being a result of children’s imperfect understanding. Instead, we should try to learn their secret and see if it could help us solve our own communications problems.
Kids undoubtedly have a heightened awareness and sensitivity to the world around them. That happens to be a pretty good description of a poet or an artist as well----heightened awareness and sensitivity. Kids also have an eagerness to tell us and to share their impressions. Do we still have as much enthusiasm?
Kids have an advantage over us that we can’t overcome. They have a limited vocabulary, so they have to make do with the few words they know. As our education increases, so does our vocabulary and our ability to make fine distinctions by finding the precisely correct word.
We have a plethora of synonyms, and one might be slightly better than the last. But kids have no choice but to make a quantum leap—out of one category to another. Kids’ worlds are all one, all jumbled together. They can and must use one part of their lives in the context of another.
Our gurus call this lateral thinking, or thinking outside the box. To kids, it’s their world view. They connect everything; we stay in the comfort zone of our sophistication.
How would you and your brainstorming group go about naming, for example, a camera, a dairy drink, and a table on which diapers are changed? You would use logic. When that fails, you would develop great lists of synonyms, functional parts and relatives of creatures from Greek Mythology. As last resort you would settle on new coinages such as Sacravista, Quencharoo, and Lovebottoms.
My three year old son named them instinctively by assuming the name is what you say when the product is used.. The camera is a “Smile,” the drink is “Some More,” and the diaper table is a “Lie Down!” These might be lousy names in the marketplace, but they are clearer thinking than I could have brought to the exercise.
A good creative idea, like a good poem, isn’t whipped cream dolloped on top of chocolate cake. Instead it goes deep inside and you can taste the cocoa bean. A good definition of creativity is that it brings order out of chaos.
There’s nothing new under the sun, there are just new combinations. That is what kids do. From their ingenuousness springs the intuitive leap, the impeccably clear explanation of what’s going on. They are walking connections.
The girl pulled the drawer out of her dresser and it fell on her left foot. We asked if it also smacked her right foot. Through her tears she blurted out, “No. It looked out.” Could we have said it more graphically or concisely?
What they say about vacationing in North Dakota is also true about being a child: time takes a whole lot longer there. Adults move and think too fast, everything jumbles together, we can’t see. We carry too many memories and mental baggage, so we can no longer witness an event or have an experience for the first time. How can we be a child again and make each moment forever?
One way is to stop making distinctions and start making analogies. Stop analyzing, start experiencing. Be a far reaching generalist, not a narrow minded specialist. Slow down.
What might kids tell us who are in advertising or sales? Creativity is not an end for us, it’s a means. Good selling begins at the gut level, a primal contact with our prospect. That depends on how creatively we’ve chosen our words and images. Maybe we’d be better salesmen if we dust off our most precious heritage---that we were all kids once.
The poet Thomas Hood said it well----
I remember, I remember
The fir-trees dark and high
I used to think their tender tops
Were close against the sky;
It was a childish ignorance
But now tis little joy
To know I’m farther off from heaven
Than when I was a boy.
Sampling is by Far the Best Promotion Weapon
Are you giving away the farm when you give away some of your product? Are you
giving away your secrets, and not protecting your family’s jewels?
Assuming you are a believer in your product and are proud of it, sampling is the
most potent arrow in your marketing quiver.
If a picture is worth a hundred words, then a taste is worth a thousand pictures.
One definition of a sample is, “A representative part from a larger whole presented
for inspection as evidence of quality.” How could there be a smarter prelude to
winning marketing?
Some of the greatest food chains are Wegman’s (Rochester, NY) and Whole Foods.
You can’t get out of one of their stores hungry, because the have fed you with
delicious samples. And it’s hard to leave without spending a bundle.
There are many ways, other than eating, to sample your goods:
Barnes Noble wants you to read books, so they make that inviting and easy.
They don’t care if you mess up their displays or spill coffee. You will
ultimately buy books.
A good car dealer lets you take a car home for the weekend.
A masseuse gives you a free neck rub.
The “spritzer” in Macy’s cosmetics aisle gives you a breath of alluring air.
A financial planner or a marketing consultant gives you a free hour of advice.
A stand-up comedian starts with a chuckle, and preacher invokes hope.
It’s important to note that sampling should not be a preview of the price. It’s a
demonstration of the confidence in your product. Don’t compete on price: only
Wal*Mart can succeed in that game. Don’t give away too much.
Suppose that you are in a play-off with two others for a new customer, and you are
each given thirty seconds. The first two gave good, succinct “elevator speeches.”
Then it’s your turn. You announce your name, your brand’s main benefit, and
bestow a sample. Guess who wins.
giving away your secrets, and not protecting your family’s jewels?
Assuming you are a believer in your product and are proud of it, sampling is the
most potent arrow in your marketing quiver.
If a picture is worth a hundred words, then a taste is worth a thousand pictures.
One definition of a sample is, “A representative part from a larger whole presented
for inspection as evidence of quality.” How could there be a smarter prelude to
winning marketing?
Some of the greatest food chains are Wegman’s (Rochester, NY) and Whole Foods.
You can’t get out of one of their stores hungry, because the have fed you with
delicious samples. And it’s hard to leave without spending a bundle.
There are many ways, other than eating, to sample your goods:
Barnes Noble wants you to read books, so they make that inviting and easy.
They don’t care if you mess up their displays or spill coffee. You will
ultimately buy books.
A good car dealer lets you take a car home for the weekend.
A masseuse gives you a free neck rub.
The “spritzer” in Macy’s cosmetics aisle gives you a breath of alluring air.
A financial planner or a marketing consultant gives you a free hour of advice.
A stand-up comedian starts with a chuckle, and preacher invokes hope.
It’s important to note that sampling should not be a preview of the price. It’s a
demonstration of the confidence in your product. Don’t compete on price: only
Wal*Mart can succeed in that game. Don’t give away too much.
Suppose that you are in a play-off with two others for a new customer, and you are
each given thirty seconds. The first two gave good, succinct “elevator speeches.”
Then it’s your turn. You announce your name, your brand’s main benefit, and
bestow a sample. Guess who wins.
Nature's Best Packaging
Once I was a judge in Chain Store Age’s packaging contest. I had no qualifications,
except I then worked for a retailer and they wanted a retailer’s point of view.
Worse yet, they made me head judge and I had to give a speech and make the
presentations.
Before we looked at all the entries, a few of us went through a practice judging, one
that you might want to try. It’s called “What is nature’s best package?”
Somewhere I once heard the egg given that distinction, probably by a chicken. For
you information, we did not judge the egg to nature’s best package. It came in third.
Our list included the apple skin, the orange peel, the pea pod, the peanut shell, the
banana peel and the corn husk. Each judge was allowed one disqualification for
personal reasons, and we quickly came to three finalists: the egg shell, the banana
peel and the peanut shell.
We then got scientific and used criteria. If you’re ever confused, resort to criteria.
Here are the ones we used:
Aesthetics. The egg won hands down. Gracefully smooth, and artist’s conception of
a beautiful shape. The banana isn’t bad, but the peanut shell failed miserably.
Product Protection and Durability. The peanut shell is nature’s tank, the clear
winner. The egg shell is durable if you don’t drop it. Few points for the banana.
Indicator of Freshness. An obvious winner for the banana peel. There should be no
surprises when you peel one open. On the other hand, you could find any degree of
maturity under the other two, including a young chicken.
Display Potential. Try stacking a dozen eggs. Peanuts and bananas are better. You
have to handle eggs like you are walking on eggs.
Alternative Uses. Egg shell can only be discarded after use. Peanut shells can be
used as land fill. Banana peels are best; keep one handy to throw down in front of
an attacker.
Ease of Opening. No contest. The banana peel is an inventor’s dream. The others
could hurt your thumb.
We rated each of the competitors on a ten-point scale for each criterion, added them
up, divided, and the winner was the banana peel, with a score of 47. The peanut
shell nosed out the egg shell for second place, 41 to 39.
We dwelt on the results for a while, before we had to go in and do it for real, and
decide what lessons we learned, what enduring, guiding principle we could find that
would sound us profound and fascinating.
Beyond the raw scores, why did the banana peel win? What intangibles did this
lowly butt of all jokes possess?
Here it is: the best package turned out to be the best extension of the product it
contained. It added appropriate value to the product.
How to make sense of it all? I look at the banana peel, and conclude that is very
like a good ad. It should grow out of the product, define it, extend it and add an
important dimension. And, like a banana peel, you don’t eat an ad. You handle it
carefully, at your own peril.
except I then worked for a retailer and they wanted a retailer’s point of view.
Worse yet, they made me head judge and I had to give a speech and make the
presentations.
Before we looked at all the entries, a few of us went through a practice judging, one
that you might want to try. It’s called “What is nature’s best package?”
Somewhere I once heard the egg given that distinction, probably by a chicken. For
you information, we did not judge the egg to nature’s best package. It came in third.
Our list included the apple skin, the orange peel, the pea pod, the peanut shell, the
banana peel and the corn husk. Each judge was allowed one disqualification for
personal reasons, and we quickly came to three finalists: the egg shell, the banana
peel and the peanut shell.
We then got scientific and used criteria. If you’re ever confused, resort to criteria.
Here are the ones we used:
Aesthetics. The egg won hands down. Gracefully smooth, and artist’s conception of
a beautiful shape. The banana isn’t bad, but the peanut shell failed miserably.
Product Protection and Durability. The peanut shell is nature’s tank, the clear
winner. The egg shell is durable if you don’t drop it. Few points for the banana.
Indicator of Freshness. An obvious winner for the banana peel. There should be no
surprises when you peel one open. On the other hand, you could find any degree of
maturity under the other two, including a young chicken.
Display Potential. Try stacking a dozen eggs. Peanuts and bananas are better. You
have to handle eggs like you are walking on eggs.
Alternative Uses. Egg shell can only be discarded after use. Peanut shells can be
used as land fill. Banana peels are best; keep one handy to throw down in front of
an attacker.
Ease of Opening. No contest. The banana peel is an inventor’s dream. The others
could hurt your thumb.
We rated each of the competitors on a ten-point scale for each criterion, added them
up, divided, and the winner was the banana peel, with a score of 47. The peanut
shell nosed out the egg shell for second place, 41 to 39.
We dwelt on the results for a while, before we had to go in and do it for real, and
decide what lessons we learned, what enduring, guiding principle we could find that
would sound us profound and fascinating.
Beyond the raw scores, why did the banana peel win? What intangibles did this
lowly butt of all jokes possess?
Here it is: the best package turned out to be the best extension of the product it
contained. It added appropriate value to the product.
How to make sense of it all? I look at the banana peel, and conclude that is very
like a good ad. It should grow out of the product, define it, extend it and add an
important dimension. And, like a banana peel, you don’t eat an ad. You handle it
carefully, at your own peril.
Feel Good Viral Media. Does it Work Good:
Stride Gum has a YouTube four-and-a-half minute world-wide dance routine that
has achieved over 20 million viewers. It makes you smile and want to get up and
dance.
How many sticks of gum has it sold? Don’t know.
I think that it’s now very important for advertising to be liked. Not like the old
show-and-tell days, when all you needed was a benefit and a reason-why.
But how do the marketers of Stride Gum hope it works? I guess the sequence is---
I identify with (like) this brand, because
It makes me want to dance, and that is true because
It makes a lot of people want to dance, therefore
I will buy Stride Gum.
Maybe that’s all implied, but I am so old-fashioned that I think it has to be stated, it
must be true, and that the brand name must somehow be linked to the benefit.
What’s the buzz, and where’s the beef?
Small budget advertisers must make their dollars stretch far. Once it awhile a Stride
may be a stride ahead (intended), but all froth must fizzle. “It’s not creative unless it
sells” and “Advertising is salesmanship” are good words to live by.
Viral Advertising of course is Word of Mouth gone bonkers. It works short term—
like an endorsement from a friend. How many times have heard this conversation---
“Hey, have you seen the ad about----”
“No. Who’s it from?”
“I forget.”
Does Viral Advertising have the seeds (germs?) of its own demise? Its unfortunate
connotations are about disease, spreading destruction and death.
Branding is based on a substantial benefit and a continual delivery of that promise.
Healthy brands are self-nourishing, growing, and vibrant. Lawyers are advised if
your argument is weak, shout louder. If your brand is weak, make noises and hope
it spreads. Go Viral!
has achieved over 20 million viewers. It makes you smile and want to get up and
dance.
How many sticks of gum has it sold? Don’t know.
I think that it’s now very important for advertising to be liked. Not like the old
show-and-tell days, when all you needed was a benefit and a reason-why.
But how do the marketers of Stride Gum hope it works? I guess the sequence is---
I identify with (like) this brand, because
It makes me want to dance, and that is true because
It makes a lot of people want to dance, therefore
I will buy Stride Gum.
Maybe that’s all implied, but I am so old-fashioned that I think it has to be stated, it
must be true, and that the brand name must somehow be linked to the benefit.
What’s the buzz, and where’s the beef?
Small budget advertisers must make their dollars stretch far. Once it awhile a Stride
may be a stride ahead (intended), but all froth must fizzle. “It’s not creative unless it
sells” and “Advertising is salesmanship” are good words to live by.
Viral Advertising of course is Word of Mouth gone bonkers. It works short term—
like an endorsement from a friend. How many times have heard this conversation---
“Hey, have you seen the ad about----”
“No. Who’s it from?”
“I forget.”
Does Viral Advertising have the seeds (germs?) of its own demise? Its unfortunate
connotations are about disease, spreading destruction and death.
Branding is based on a substantial benefit and a continual delivery of that promise.
Healthy brands are self-nourishing, growing, and vibrant. Lawyers are advised if
your argument is weak, shout louder. If your brand is weak, make noises and hope
it spreads. Go Viral!
Speech is Free, But an Audience Will Cost You
“Say whatever you want, anywhere,” said the professor, “But I don’t have to
listen.”
Freedom of speech is constitutionally guaranteed, within some limits. A person can’t
endorse the violent overthrow of the government, libel his neighbor, or shout fire at
a rock concert. An advertiser can’ lie, he has to be able to prove his claims. (A
politician? He can say anything. Truth has nothing to do with it.)
To be heard, you have to earn it. Deaf ears abound. Advertising is a numbers game.
You can buy rating points or circulation, but not listeners or readers, certainly not
believers. The value and importance of your message will determine its delivery.
Is that fair? Shouldn’t every product or cause have equal chance?
Well, they do. You can buy time, space or a theater. What if nobody came? (You
can always rent actors or paid mourners.)
There’s talk of bringing back the “Fairness Doctrine,” which dictates that radio
stations must give “balance.” That means airing equal time for opposing viewpoints.
The problem (among many) is that equal time doesn’t deliver equal amounts of
listeners. For some unknown reason, conservative talk shows attract far greater
audiences than liberal hosts. So if stations have to make time available to each, their
audience would shrink. And so would advertising revenues. So much for fairness.
The justification for the “Fairness Doctrine” is that since radio frequencies are
limited, the government owns them and can license them. Ergo, they can police and
control their content to assure equal access to all points of view. But what does that
mean---equal number of listeners, the same time slots? Who will monitor and
decide? And where will stations find liberal talkmasters that will be as popular as
Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh? So much for free speech.
If the government does this, somehow political un-correctness causes will find a way to be heard.
Unless the internet is the next thing to be regulated----.
How do you get listeners? Try this---have something important to say.
listen.”
Freedom of speech is constitutionally guaranteed, within some limits. A person can’t
endorse the violent overthrow of the government, libel his neighbor, or shout fire at
a rock concert. An advertiser can’ lie, he has to be able to prove his claims. (A
politician? He can say anything. Truth has nothing to do with it.)
To be heard, you have to earn it. Deaf ears abound. Advertising is a numbers game.
You can buy rating points or circulation, but not listeners or readers, certainly not
believers. The value and importance of your message will determine its delivery.
Is that fair? Shouldn’t every product or cause have equal chance?
Well, they do. You can buy time, space or a theater. What if nobody came? (You
can always rent actors or paid mourners.)
There’s talk of bringing back the “Fairness Doctrine,” which dictates that radio
stations must give “balance.” That means airing equal time for opposing viewpoints.
The problem (among many) is that equal time doesn’t deliver equal amounts of
listeners. For some unknown reason, conservative talk shows attract far greater
audiences than liberal hosts. So if stations have to make time available to each, their
audience would shrink. And so would advertising revenues. So much for fairness.
The justification for the “Fairness Doctrine” is that since radio frequencies are
limited, the government owns them and can license them. Ergo, they can police and
control their content to assure equal access to all points of view. But what does that
mean---equal number of listeners, the same time slots? Who will monitor and
decide? And where will stations find liberal talkmasters that will be as popular as
Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh? So much for free speech.
If the government does this, somehow political un-correctness causes will find a way to be heard.
Unless the internet is the next thing to be regulated----.
How do you get listeners? Try this---have something important to say.
Fifteen Bucks for a Checked Bag? What Next?
American Airlines seems have received a lot of flak for their announced policy of
charging fifteen dollars for a passenger’s first checked bag. They tried to explain it
by citing the increased cost of fuel. If they just increased the price of a ticket they
might have gotten less grief.
Maybe others will copy it, and maybe it will become the standard. But for now the
question is, “What are consumers entitled to have?” Can we expect to have free
meal on a flight---like we used to have? Can we expect to have our baggage handled
for us---which obviously is a labor cost for the airline? What’s next---a charge for
carry-ons? A charge for using the restroom? A ticket priced on your weight?
It’s an age old dilemma in many fields---should you pay a la carte for every item or
service, or have the costs buried in one fee, the same for everyone?
Decades ago we had the price stamped on every product in the grocery store.
Consumerists said we are entitled to have that. Then came the bar codes, and prices
were printed on your receipt. The system became more efficient; it was progress
and we accepted it.
Before fast foods, we didn’t clear our own tables. Now we are expected to tidy up
before we leave. Now it’s our habit to do it and we feel guilty if we don’t.
I guess we thought that when we pay for a ticket, our bags will fly free. When we
buy a TV set, we expect free programs will come with it (for the most part.) In that
case, advertisers foot the bill; is there a way we can slough off the cost of baggage to
someone else?
The increased cost of oil is having a ripple effect with unexpected consequences.
When other costs rises will companies look for other chores they can pass on to you?
And make you feel good about it! Think hard about that. Free lunches might be
over.
charging fifteen dollars for a passenger’s first checked bag. They tried to explain it
by citing the increased cost of fuel. If they just increased the price of a ticket they
might have gotten less grief.
Maybe others will copy it, and maybe it will become the standard. But for now the
question is, “What are consumers entitled to have?” Can we expect to have free
meal on a flight---like we used to have? Can we expect to have our baggage handled
for us---which obviously is a labor cost for the airline? What’s next---a charge for
carry-ons? A charge for using the restroom? A ticket priced on your weight?
It’s an age old dilemma in many fields---should you pay a la carte for every item or
service, or have the costs buried in one fee, the same for everyone?
Decades ago we had the price stamped on every product in the grocery store.
Consumerists said we are entitled to have that. Then came the bar codes, and prices
were printed on your receipt. The system became more efficient; it was progress
and we accepted it.
Before fast foods, we didn’t clear our own tables. Now we are expected to tidy up
before we leave. Now it’s our habit to do it and we feel guilty if we don’t.
I guess we thought that when we pay for a ticket, our bags will fly free. When we
buy a TV set, we expect free programs will come with it (for the most part.) In that
case, advertisers foot the bill; is there a way we can slough off the cost of baggage to
someone else?
The increased cost of oil is having a ripple effect with unexpected consequences.
When other costs rises will companies look for other chores they can pass on to you?
And make you feel good about it! Think hard about that. Free lunches might be
over.
Does Anybody Care What You Think What Business Your're In?
It’s important to have at least a general idea of what business you’re in, so you’ll
know where to look for it in the yellow pages. But if you want to grow and prosper,
you should dig deeper. What do people need and what are they buying? If you
don’t know this, your “business” can pass you by.
My elevator speech is “I am a marketing guy and I teach marketing and advertising
at Georgia State. I help clients find out ‘who cares?’ what they do and act
accordingly.”
Let’s put it this way---what are you selling, as opposed to what are they buying?
Some examples:
Black and Decker sells little machines that goes round and round and they
call them drills. But people don’t need a drill. They need holes.
Barnes & Noble says--- right on their logo---they are booksellers. But people
don’t eat books, they read them. B&N is in the reading business, and they
make it easy and enjoyable for people to come in and read. They’ll buy
later.
Ask a professor what business your college is in. He’ll say, “Education.” But
what they hope to get is educated alumni---the kind that gives money back.
Do you like Starbucks Coffee? It ranks 21st nationally on flavor. But when
was the last time you said, “Let’s meet at Starbucks”? Are they in the coffee—or the
meeting business?
Free yourself from definition tyranny. Join the customer in his never-ending quest
to find a better use for your product. Then when you find it, sell that.
know where to look for it in the yellow pages. But if you want to grow and prosper,
you should dig deeper. What do people need and what are they buying? If you
don’t know this, your “business” can pass you by.
My elevator speech is “I am a marketing guy and I teach marketing and advertising
at Georgia State. I help clients find out ‘who cares?’ what they do and act
accordingly.”
Let’s put it this way---what are you selling, as opposed to what are they buying?
Some examples:
Black and Decker sells little machines that goes round and round and they
call them drills. But people don’t need a drill. They need holes.
Barnes & Noble says--- right on their logo---they are booksellers. But people
don’t eat books, they read them. B&N is in the reading business, and they
make it easy and enjoyable for people to come in and read. They’ll buy
later.
Ask a professor what business your college is in. He’ll say, “Education.” But
what they hope to get is educated alumni---the kind that gives money back.
Do you like Starbucks Coffee? It ranks 21st nationally on flavor. But when
was the last time you said, “Let’s meet at Starbucks”? Are they in the coffee—or the
meeting business?
Free yourself from definition tyranny. Join the customer in his never-ending quest
to find a better use for your product. Then when you find it, sell that.
What is Your Company Worth?
Are you thinking about an exit strategy? Is your biggest asset---your nest egg---
wrapped up in your brand and your company? (For most small and medium sized
companies, the company has become the brand.)
Your Brand Equity is simply what it could sell for. Look at it from the other side of
the table. If you were considering two brands to buy---each competes in the same
field and has about equal sales. How would you choose?
My measure of Brand Equity is how much the brand will be worth in the future, not
what it could be liquidated for now. So you would choose the one that you could
bank on (!) to produce the most growing profits for a long time. Here are some
things you should compare:
1. What are their trends on sales and profits, and other assets and
debts?
2. How strong are their products? Any differences, any patents?
3. How strong are their organizations? Hirable?
4. Most important---what is each of their Brand Franchises? And
that is--
---How loyal are their customers?
---How enthusiastic are they? Would they care if the brand
disappears?
---What is their Brand Positioning? Is it unique and sustainable?
A brand is nothing more than a promise. It’s what you expect when you buy it,
based on previous consistent performance. What is your promise?
So what is your brand worth? Is it as much as your competitors? If this was a
horse race, who would you bet on?
The key to increasing Brand Equity is not just bigger sales. It’s building a stronger
brand. That is your greatest asset, the one you should nurture, the “family jewels”
that will give your nest egg the most value.
wrapped up in your brand and your company? (For most small and medium sized
companies, the company has become the brand.)
Your Brand Equity is simply what it could sell for. Look at it from the other side of
the table. If you were considering two brands to buy---each competes in the same
field and has about equal sales. How would you choose?
My measure of Brand Equity is how much the brand will be worth in the future, not
what it could be liquidated for now. So you would choose the one that you could
bank on (!) to produce the most growing profits for a long time. Here are some
things you should compare:
1. What are their trends on sales and profits, and other assets and
debts?
2. How strong are their products? Any differences, any patents?
3. How strong are their organizations? Hirable?
4. Most important---what is each of their Brand Franchises? And
that is--
---How loyal are their customers?
---How enthusiastic are they? Would they care if the brand
disappears?
---What is their Brand Positioning? Is it unique and sustainable?
A brand is nothing more than a promise. It’s what you expect when you buy it,
based on previous consistent performance. What is your promise?
So what is your brand worth? Is it as much as your competitors? If this was a
horse race, who would you bet on?
The key to increasing Brand Equity is not just bigger sales. It’s building a stronger
brand. That is your greatest asset, the one you should nurture, the “family jewels”
that will give your nest egg the most value.
Change? From What to What?
“The more things change, the more they stay the same.” French Proverb
but--
“The fundamental things apply, as time goes by.” Composer Herman Hupfeld
Which is true---in marketing and in life?
In every election time, the “out” candidates call for change. Changes in policy and
ethics, but mostly for the people in charge---‘them”replaced by ‘us.’ (And often with
favorable result---good riddance!)
Before we throw the baby out with the bathwater we should consider---
Where exactly are we headed, and as far as we can tell,
What are the unintended consequences?
Students in my advertising classes are certain that my generation (Mad Men) is
obsolete. The internet and the ubiquity of social media wipes out all the old beliefs,
and the old “rules” are silly.
But when the cyber dust settles, what will remain?---
The wreckage of brands with no equity, and
Innumerable files of failed ads with no benefits, no reason–why, no human
contact.
No matter where technology leads us next, the fundamental things of marketing
(and life) will still apply.
The dot-com boom of the ’90s convinced most of us that there is a new ball game in
investing---the substance and longevity of new issues were irrelevant. Yes, it
changed, to our regret. Now we’re back to sanity.And the housing bubble burst.
What goes up----?
In marketing we should usually view change as incremental, not revolutionary. Technology is a tool, not an end. What is the (hidden) worth of a product, and how can technology make it easier to use? Hamlet said it best---
“And makes us rather bear the ills we have.
Than fly to others we know not of.”
Students are masters of dazzling power point presentations. Sometimes, somewhere
in them is a germ of an insight, a telling fact. But most of the dazzle is blowing in the
wind.
I say, beware of change merchants. What are they really selling? If they say, “Hey,
buy this product because it is something different, not like the old stuff.” Shouldn’t
your reaction be, “All well and good. Now show me why it’s good for me and why
should I believe it.”
Addition by Subtraction Works
A good definition of marketing is, “Find out what they want and give them more of
it. Find out what they don’t want and give them less of it.” Good planners give
them more of it. Very few spend any time at all giving them less of it.
There’s certainly nothing wrong with generating lots of alternatives. It’s fun. The
brainstorming principle of “There’s no such thing as a bad idea” is valid during the
meeting. The trouble is that once a new idea, or direction, automatically makes
someone’s to do list, it takes on a life of its own. It gets stuck in the flypaper and it
keeps on buzzing. The truth is that most ideas are lousy.
The real villain of trying to do too much isn’t brainstorming. It’s Benjamin
Franklin. He hung a perpetual guilt trip on us by boasting, “Every day I very way I
get better and better.” That’s fine for an average Renaissance Man, but a more useful admonition for the rest of us would have been, “Every day I will cut out one
irrelevancy.”
There’s a handy way to develop the “Only the Best” method for planning. Borrow a
trick from statistics. Use the “Null Hypothesis,” which assumes that there is no
correlation between two functions: they don’t need each other. The burden of proof
is on he who thinks that another idea is a necessary extension of the base product.
So the Null Hypothesis asks, “Must this be done? Can’t we do without it?” The
“keeper ideas” will rise to the top.
Some clichés are hard to refute---
• It’s harder to write a short letter than a long one
• It’s hard to write a simple plans
• It’s hard to stick to your guns
• It’s hard to dance with the one who brought you
it. Find out what they don’t want and give them less of it.” Good planners give
them more of it. Very few spend any time at all giving them less of it.
There’s certainly nothing wrong with generating lots of alternatives. It’s fun. The
brainstorming principle of “There’s no such thing as a bad idea” is valid during the
meeting. The trouble is that once a new idea, or direction, automatically makes
someone’s to do list, it takes on a life of its own. It gets stuck in the flypaper and it
keeps on buzzing. The truth is that most ideas are lousy.
The real villain of trying to do too much isn’t brainstorming. It’s Benjamin
Franklin. He hung a perpetual guilt trip on us by boasting, “Every day I very way I
get better and better.” That’s fine for an average Renaissance Man, but a more useful admonition for the rest of us would have been, “Every day I will cut out one
irrelevancy.”
There’s a handy way to develop the “Only the Best” method for planning. Borrow a
trick from statistics. Use the “Null Hypothesis,” which assumes that there is no
correlation between two functions: they don’t need each other. The burden of proof
is on he who thinks that another idea is a necessary extension of the base product.
So the Null Hypothesis asks, “Must this be done? Can’t we do without it?” The
“keeper ideas” will rise to the top.
Some clichés are hard to refute---
• It’s harder to write a short letter than a long one
• It’s hard to write a simple plans
• It’s hard to stick to your guns
• It’s hard to dance with the one who brought you
The Complex Road to Simple High Tech Marketing
Remember the Super Bowl commercials of 2000? High speed blazing graphics, obscure mind bending images, scarce facts or ideas, resulting in disappearing products and companies. These dot.com fiascos were the results of the convergence of exploding technology and an engineering mind set that said, “We build it so they will come.”
The perpetrators thought they were above the old rules of business and beyond the old needs of marketing. They thought they deserved success because they had invented a new high tech whistle, bell, or mouse trap. They burned their investors’ dollars.
Not all new high tech products have succumbed to that kind of self-defeating arrogance.
iPod is a shining example. It created and filled a need flawlessly and then followed the time-tested rules of good marketing.
But many of those “dot-bombs” were built on a wild idea, a technological add-on that added complexity to a relatively simple and understandable base. The products weren’t needed and added no value, and the business plans had no substance. Investor insanity fueled the whole mess.
Here are the fundamental errors that took place, as those new “ideas” failed in the transition to the marketplace:
The connection from a product to a user failed.
A product must have a benefit that somehow makes the user’s life easier, not harder or
more complex.
The user must believe that a product always works for me and serves a beneficial need. I
don’t know or care how it works, but it should fit into my life, and it comes from somebody I
trust and like.
The technological “Knowledge Explosion” results in instantaneous obsolescence. Remember when the car industry was condemned by building superficial planned obsolescence into every model year? Now change seems perpetual, with almost weekly add-on features, especially in the electronic arena.
While the intervals betweens technical advances are compressed, the time for consumer acceptance and assimilation stays slow. Right now, at least for many older people, they are in the “bafflement” stage. At the other end, or the hot-shot engineering group, more and new is always better, and the fundamental marketing things don’t apply any more.
If electronic trends continue, everyone will soon own a one-ounce portable device that has instant access to all human history and knowledge. It connects with everybody---with sound, pictures and print, right now. And of course it is yours alone with iron-clad assurances of privacy.
But trends fall of their own weight, and this one-ounce thing would be too heavy. It goes too far, too fast. It does too much. People want and need control and choice. It’s already happening, and the smart marketers are whittling away the fat. Instead of going deeper into the labs, they are going deeper into the consumers’ habits and preferences.
A scientist said, “The answer, when we find it, will be simple.” The answer for new high tech products, and for their marketing, will also be simple. The fourteenth century scholar, William Ockham, said, “Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.” This is “Ockham’s Razor,” which in modern terms is, “Keep it simple, stupid.”
If you had the job of advertising a new high-tech product, I’d urge you to consider the user’s point of view:
Does it always work?
Do I need it?
Does it fit into my life?
Do I care how it works?
Do I trust and like the maker?
No matter how high the technical complexity, the road to simplicity will get to the customer quicker. The product may be complex, but the motivation to buy it (if you find it) will be simple. Technology is only a tool that may provide control, choice, convenience and clarity.
The perpetrators thought they were above the old rules of business and beyond the old needs of marketing. They thought they deserved success because they had invented a new high tech whistle, bell, or mouse trap. They burned their investors’ dollars.
Not all new high tech products have succumbed to that kind of self-defeating arrogance.
iPod is a shining example. It created and filled a need flawlessly and then followed the time-tested rules of good marketing.
But many of those “dot-bombs” were built on a wild idea, a technological add-on that added complexity to a relatively simple and understandable base. The products weren’t needed and added no value, and the business plans had no substance. Investor insanity fueled the whole mess.
Here are the fundamental errors that took place, as those new “ideas” failed in the transition to the marketplace:
The connection from a product to a user failed.
A product must have a benefit that somehow makes the user’s life easier, not harder or
more complex.
The user must believe that a product always works for me and serves a beneficial need. I
don’t know or care how it works, but it should fit into my life, and it comes from somebody I
trust and like.
The technological “Knowledge Explosion” results in instantaneous obsolescence. Remember when the car industry was condemned by building superficial planned obsolescence into every model year? Now change seems perpetual, with almost weekly add-on features, especially in the electronic arena.
While the intervals betweens technical advances are compressed, the time for consumer acceptance and assimilation stays slow. Right now, at least for many older people, they are in the “bafflement” stage. At the other end, or the hot-shot engineering group, more and new is always better, and the fundamental marketing things don’t apply any more.
If electronic trends continue, everyone will soon own a one-ounce portable device that has instant access to all human history and knowledge. It connects with everybody---with sound, pictures and print, right now. And of course it is yours alone with iron-clad assurances of privacy.
But trends fall of their own weight, and this one-ounce thing would be too heavy. It goes too far, too fast. It does too much. People want and need control and choice. It’s already happening, and the smart marketers are whittling away the fat. Instead of going deeper into the labs, they are going deeper into the consumers’ habits and preferences.
A scientist said, “The answer, when we find it, will be simple.” The answer for new high tech products, and for their marketing, will also be simple. The fourteenth century scholar, William Ockham, said, “Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.” This is “Ockham’s Razor,” which in modern terms is, “Keep it simple, stupid.”
If you had the job of advertising a new high-tech product, I’d urge you to consider the user’s point of view:
Does it always work?
Do I need it?
Does it fit into my life?
Do I care how it works?
Do I trust and like the maker?
No matter how high the technical complexity, the road to simplicity will get to the customer quicker. The product may be complex, but the motivation to buy it (if you find it) will be simple. Technology is only a tool that may provide control, choice, convenience and clarity.
The Quest for Mediocrity: Guides for the Cautious Manager
The only true mission of any organization is survival. Companies where
“excellence” is embedded in its culture are invariably in the spotlight, run by
overachievers and are candidates for hostile takeovers. Companies that live by tidal
trends will sink or swim, and frequently drown in the undertow.
But computer simulations prove that survival correlates best with
unobtrusiveness, and all major trends are doomed to collapse from their own weight.
Survivors coast under the radar.
Therefore, I am pleased to offer these “Guides for Cautious Executives” who yearn
to stay in the back of the pack. Mediocrity, once achieved, cannot be denied. It will
carry a company through thick.
I asked what organizations are truly mediocre models. Our average panel voted
these companies, brands and entities to be unexceptional:
Ford
France
The Pirates
MSNBC
Kmart/Sears
We examined them carefully, and concluded that they will probably live long lives,
unconcerned and oblivious. Can you think of some more living mediocrities?
Cautious managers are not in the limelight. We have a process that identifies nega-
trends, based on the Principle of Omission. We studied whatever is not in the news,
what is not a fad. We have proven that nega-trends, once identified, can be used to
justify the most comfortable course.
Combining the habits of the most mediocre institutions with nega-trends, we’ve
come up with eleven immortal “Guides for Cautious Executives,” If you observe
them dispassionately, you can achieve everlasting indifference.
Here they are:
1. Innovation: There’s nothing new under the sun. Innovators are degenerate boat
rockers. The patent office should have closed a century ago, because there is
nothing left to invent. New products are for high rollers; you should “Know when
to fold ‘em,” and that’s now. Don’t try anything new and risky.
2. Human Resources: The touchy-feely black hole. People are the way they are and
you can’t change them. You shouldn’t try. Watch out for today’s fads, such as
“Talent Management” and “Succession Planning.” These are the fruits of the
educational “Self Esteem” movement and, heaven forbid, could lead to “Social
Computing.” Don’t try to understand people and change them.
3. Solution Selling and Customer Relationship Management: No match for a shoe
shine, a cigar, and a smile. If your salesmen talk like psychologists, they will drive
you right to the couch. Good ol’ boys are the way to go. Your customers should just
buy your products, not you.
4. Strategic Planning: Contemplating the Corporate Navel. Mediocre planning must
be pure, uncontaminated by mention of implementation or accountability. We must
fight the alarming tendency to shorten the time-frame of planning. Forget about the
next three years and concentrate on the far future, when things should calm down.
Remember:
A. Planning should be done only by planner, not doers.
B. Any plan of less than a ten-year vision is an exercise in expediency.
C. Communication of the plan should be limited to those empowered to revise it. Broader exposure can cause corporate unrest.
5. Corporate Culture: A Bias for B.S. Action is the natural enemy of mediocrity.
Therefore, a company that has a bias for action will operate in the high-risk mode.
Fortunately, action can easily be diverted into pointless activity, and activity diffuses
into B.S. When this becomes ingrained, managers need not worry about such ugly
phrases as “task orientation” or “management by objectives.” Some tips:
A. Preach and live the doctrine that contemplation is the highest calling.
B. Leeave no stone unturned. If all are turned, turn them back. Further
study is prudent.
C. Always play for the tie.
6. Advertising and Marketing: From Positioning to Posturing. Positioning has been
rightly described as the art of irrelevant distinction. The most mediocre are never
trapped into over-defining and hence limiting their offerings. We have seen a
pattern among our select institutions that we call “Power Posturing.” You have
reached this level if you can make these affirmations:
A. My company has taken the high ground on all issues, such as
corporate responsibility. (For proof, see our Mission Statement!)
B. We don’t want customers. We want friends who share our values.
We’ll be happy with 23/6.
C. We don’t satisfy needs. We offer fulfillment.
7. Public Relations: The Spinning Age of Disinformation. There is but one cardinal
rule: Facts and truth, like beauty and spooned grapefruit juice, are in the eye of the
beholder. Learn from the politicians---answer only your own questions. Muddle
through. Don’t take a stand, step aside.
8. Finance: A Borrower nor a Lender Be. The intricacies, uncertainties and risks of
modern financial management require expertise beyond the skills of mediocrity.
Therefore, keep all funds in an on-line checking account.
9. Manufacturing: Make it or Break It? There is a bogus issue in some quarters
called “quality control.” This is anathema to mediocrity. As long as your output is a
sincere effort, buyers should be happy to get it. Outsource wherever you can, settle
for Sigma Five and a Half.
10. Organizational Planning: From Lean to Neo-flatulent. Mediocrity cannot be
achieved on an empty stomach. Leanness must be eschewed. Proper staffing
requires back-up support at every job level. Here are tests to indicate adequacy:
A. Generic job descriptions are good enough for all positions.
B. Tenure is granted for all employees as soon as they qualify for major medical.
C. Hire well-rounded, socially aware C students.
11. Visible Management: Back Row, by the Aisle. In some circles, “hands-on”
management is extolled. But why? How can workers be fulfilled if they are watched?
The proper place for mediocre management is at the rear, by the aisle. From there
they have a clear view of the proceedings, but can escape quickly in case of fire.
These guides should suffice for now. I will continue to watch for stories that don’t
make the papers. But we doubt we’ll learn anything more, because the strength of
mediocrity is that it doesn’t change. You can’t be too cautious. You can’t just talk
about mediocrity-- you have to live it—to execute it every day.
“excellence” is embedded in its culture are invariably in the spotlight, run by
overachievers and are candidates for hostile takeovers. Companies that live by tidal
trends will sink or swim, and frequently drown in the undertow.
But computer simulations prove that survival correlates best with
unobtrusiveness, and all major trends are doomed to collapse from their own weight.
Survivors coast under the radar.
Therefore, I am pleased to offer these “Guides for Cautious Executives” who yearn
to stay in the back of the pack. Mediocrity, once achieved, cannot be denied. It will
carry a company through thick.
I asked what organizations are truly mediocre models. Our average panel voted
these companies, brands and entities to be unexceptional:
Ford
France
The Pirates
MSNBC
Kmart/Sears
We examined them carefully, and concluded that they will probably live long lives,
unconcerned and oblivious. Can you think of some more living mediocrities?
Cautious managers are not in the limelight. We have a process that identifies nega-
trends, based on the Principle of Omission. We studied whatever is not in the news,
what is not a fad. We have proven that nega-trends, once identified, can be used to
justify the most comfortable course.
Combining the habits of the most mediocre institutions with nega-trends, we’ve
come up with eleven immortal “Guides for Cautious Executives,” If you observe
them dispassionately, you can achieve everlasting indifference.
Here they are:
1. Innovation: There’s nothing new under the sun. Innovators are degenerate boat
rockers. The patent office should have closed a century ago, because there is
nothing left to invent. New products are for high rollers; you should “Know when
to fold ‘em,” and that’s now. Don’t try anything new and risky.
2. Human Resources: The touchy-feely black hole. People are the way they are and
you can’t change them. You shouldn’t try. Watch out for today’s fads, such as
“Talent Management” and “Succession Planning.” These are the fruits of the
educational “Self Esteem” movement and, heaven forbid, could lead to “Social
Computing.” Don’t try to understand people and change them.
3. Solution Selling and Customer Relationship Management: No match for a shoe
shine, a cigar, and a smile. If your salesmen talk like psychologists, they will drive
you right to the couch. Good ol’ boys are the way to go. Your customers should just
buy your products, not you.
4. Strategic Planning: Contemplating the Corporate Navel. Mediocre planning must
be pure, uncontaminated by mention of implementation or accountability. We must
fight the alarming tendency to shorten the time-frame of planning. Forget about the
next three years and concentrate on the far future, when things should calm down.
Remember:
A. Planning should be done only by planner, not doers.
B. Any plan of less than a ten-year vision is an exercise in expediency.
C. Communication of the plan should be limited to those empowered to revise it. Broader exposure can cause corporate unrest.
5. Corporate Culture: A Bias for B.S. Action is the natural enemy of mediocrity.
Therefore, a company that has a bias for action will operate in the high-risk mode.
Fortunately, action can easily be diverted into pointless activity, and activity diffuses
into B.S. When this becomes ingrained, managers need not worry about such ugly
phrases as “task orientation” or “management by objectives.” Some tips:
A. Preach and live the doctrine that contemplation is the highest calling.
B. Leeave no stone unturned. If all are turned, turn them back. Further
study is prudent.
C. Always play for the tie.
6. Advertising and Marketing: From Positioning to Posturing. Positioning has been
rightly described as the art of irrelevant distinction. The most mediocre are never
trapped into over-defining and hence limiting their offerings. We have seen a
pattern among our select institutions that we call “Power Posturing.” You have
reached this level if you can make these affirmations:
A. My company has taken the high ground on all issues, such as
corporate responsibility. (For proof, see our Mission Statement!)
B. We don’t want customers. We want friends who share our values.
We’ll be happy with 23/6.
C. We don’t satisfy needs. We offer fulfillment.
7. Public Relations: The Spinning Age of Disinformation. There is but one cardinal
rule: Facts and truth, like beauty and spooned grapefruit juice, are in the eye of the
beholder. Learn from the politicians---answer only your own questions. Muddle
through. Don’t take a stand, step aside.
8. Finance: A Borrower nor a Lender Be. The intricacies, uncertainties and risks of
modern financial management require expertise beyond the skills of mediocrity.
Therefore, keep all funds in an on-line checking account.
9. Manufacturing: Make it or Break It? There is a bogus issue in some quarters
called “quality control.” This is anathema to mediocrity. As long as your output is a
sincere effort, buyers should be happy to get it. Outsource wherever you can, settle
for Sigma Five and a Half.
10. Organizational Planning: From Lean to Neo-flatulent. Mediocrity cannot be
achieved on an empty stomach. Leanness must be eschewed. Proper staffing
requires back-up support at every job level. Here are tests to indicate adequacy:
A. Generic job descriptions are good enough for all positions.
B. Tenure is granted for all employees as soon as they qualify for major medical.
C. Hire well-rounded, socially aware C students.
11. Visible Management: Back Row, by the Aisle. In some circles, “hands-on”
management is extolled. But why? How can workers be fulfilled if they are watched?
The proper place for mediocre management is at the rear, by the aisle. From there
they have a clear view of the proceedings, but can escape quickly in case of fire.
These guides should suffice for now. I will continue to watch for stories that don’t
make the papers. But we doubt we’ll learn anything more, because the strength of
mediocrity is that it doesn’t change. You can’t be too cautious. You can’t just talk
about mediocrity-- you have to live it—to execute it every day.