Archive for the ‘Marketing 2.0 Win’ Category

Doing Good… Is it Good Marketing?, Good Business?… or Just Crazy?

September 9, 2010

Knights Apparel is paying its workers in the Dominican Republic three and half times the going rate. Can they thrive when their shirts cost 20% more to produce than everyone else?

  • Introduction
  • Investing in better working conditions and worker salaries in Dominican Republic so that product costs are higher than the competition… are they crazy?
  • Why it can work… applying marketing principles to counter the drive to lower prices and commoditize the product
  • How “doing good” can be good business

Introduction

One of my roles is marketing professor at a great college in Boston. A foundation of all of my courses is to have students comb traditional and online media to find and share marketing-related stories in each and every class. There are a number of reasons for this including the fact that business is dynamic and literally evolving on a minute by minute basis sometimes, a fact that no textbook, at least in the print format, can ever keep up with.

What this means for me as a teacher is that I have to “eat the dog food” as well, if I am to keep up, let alone lead such a research-based activity in a classroom.

So it is that earlier this summer I came across an article in the New York Times last month by Steven Greenhouse, Factory Defies Sweatshop Label, but Can It Thrive?

I was very excited when I read the article and have not been able to get it out of my mind since. This is because contrary to the implication that “doing good” cannot lead to business success as implied by the question “Can It Thrive?” in the headline, when looked at it through a marketing strategy and positioning lens, we can easily see it is very likely this business can and will survive, thrive and perhaps be a model that other more well known consumer brands can and should adopt.

Lowering Costs Drives Business, Doesn’t It?

No, I am not trying to buck the research that typically asserts doing good for its own sake does not necessarily move customers or prospects to act and buy a product or service. There was much discussion a few years back about “green” business initiatives and would customers pay extra for them, and if so how much. Was Green enough on it’s own to drive a marketing program and deliver results?

Perhaps not.

We may have, want and maybe even expect a “green sensibility”, but we see again and again that when it gets to the pocketbook, we don’t want to pay more, at least too much more. We may penalize a product for say a lack of “green-ness” but we don’t necessarily reward them for it either.

In this mindset, the negativity implied in “Can It Thrive?” may make some sense.

The answer however, is far different from a strategic marketing perspective when doing good is positioned as added value.

First a little background.

Introducing Knights Apparel

The company in question is Knights Apparel, based in Spartanburg, South Carolina. Knights is, according to the article, “the leading supplier of college-logo apparel to American universities, according to the Collegiate Licensing Company.” The factory discussed in the article is in the Dominican Republic and produces high quality, college/university logo’d t-shirts for sale under the Alta Gracia label in campus bookstores across the US. The cost of the actual shirt is $4.80 with a wholesale price of $8 and retail cost of up to $18.

What is unusual here is that Knights pays workers a living wage. Where other factories may pay workers $147 a month in often harsh working conditions, the lucky workers at this factory earn $500 a month, up to 3 and a half times more. Not only this, workers are allowed to unionize and work in a clean, friendly, modern and safe environment, which is unheard of at most factory locations.

Shirts of this quality which may cost others $4 to produce, costs Knights $4.80, a 20% premium, so there is an added cost.

Sounds crazy, doesn’t it? Whereas in today’s globalized manufacturing world companies are on a constant quest for countries and workers where they can pay ever lower wages and cut overhead costs in order to maximize profits and value to investors, here is a company bucking the trend and going in the opposite direction.

Plus if the research is to be believed, what customer in their right mind will pay a higher price for a commodity item like a T-shirt?

We do, and we do it all the time.

Positioning Can Be Used to Support Different Business Strategies

It comes down to positioning, brands and value. Using the product adoption lifecycle for a model, we can see the following:

The Early Majority supports leadership and works like a herd… if my friends and peers do it, so will I. And not only that, this audience will pay a premium for a leading product, for its perceived value. This is where brands come in and why they can be very successful. If my friends see value in Nike, so will I. And yes, we all know that cool little swoosh will cost me more, sometimes much more.

To the Late Majority, a t-shirt, is a t-shirt, is a t-shirt. Lowest price wins their purchase. And if we can get a branded shirt at a lowest price in say a discount store, we are not fools, we will buy it. But if it costs more, forget it. Cost, lowest cost is more important to here.

The game here is added value. If Alta Gracia shirts were focusing distribution on say Wal-Mart or other discount channel, the strategy would fail. Pennies matter to the cost of the product, and the higher production cost would not be able to play out in this arena.

But as we read, Knights strategy is to not play in that space. In fact, they are reverse positioning themselves to play in the Early Majority segment, and quite cleverly.

Reverse Positioning For Added Value

Here’s how.

1. The shirt is a high quality shirt. The facility is not manufacturing a commodity quality, no label generic t-shirt.
This alone is not enough.

2. Alta Gracia has not yet built awareness and value for itself as a stand-alone brand, although apparently there will be point of sale merchandising in college bookstores to raise awareness.
However, by providing the academic market with college/university branded product, they in effect are partnering with colleges and univerisites to offer a high quality, high value, co-branded product.

3. Students (and therefore their parents) are known to care about social concerns and they do support with their wallets.
These customers will pay a premium for products that they consider to fair traded, if the value is clear and the cost is in line.

Have you checked out the price for a Nike T-Shirt lately? Alta Garcia’s wholesale and retail pricing is well in line with other high value branded t-shirt products that can often cost $20 or more.

Add it all up and Knights has done its work to strategically position this product right where it needs to be, so it can, and I will argue almost certainly will meet its social and business objectives.

Does “Doing Good” Make Sense?

Are there lessons here for the Nike and Reebok’s of the world, whose logos have high brand value in their own right?

It seems like they have a choice.

A few years ago, Nike and others (remember Kathy Lee Gifford’s clothing line?) were slammed by the media, and customers for simply the appearance of allowing sweatshop conditions in some of their out-sourced, off-shore factory operations. They felt the pain of lost sales and as a result developed and imposed higher standards and better working conditions over time since then.

Left to balancing the quest for higher profits against the public’s expectation of social responsibility, it seems likely this kind of back and forth may continue. Companies will try to cut costs all they can, and consumers will respond if it appears they have crossed some ill-defined line and gone too far. At what is too far?

Is there a business value to a more pro-active posture like the one taken by Knights?

Costco Thinks So

As it turns out, there is a best practice we can look at here as well courtesy of Costco, the leader in the warehouse store category, outlined in a 2005 article in the New York Times, How Costco Became the Anti Wal-Mart.

For many years Costco has been a leader in the retail industry paying its workers “liveable” salaries well in excess of those paid by another leader, Wal Mart (and others) where associate salaries are pegged to the Minimum Wage.

At the same time Costco’s management has been under pressure to lower employee costs, something that Costco’s management has resisted. As noted in the article, one analyst even complained that with Costco “it is better to be an employee or a customer than a shareholder.”

Why then does Costco resist this pressure?

Costco has found that fairly compensated employees are loyal, honest and stay with the company longer. Churn is down, retention high, training costs reduced, and productivity enhanced. Throw in that Costco’s affluent customer base appreciates that lower costs do not come at employee expense, well we get the idea, there is a monetary benefit.

As Costco’s CEO Jim Sinegal put it, “This is not altruistic, this is good business.”

Sound familiar?

Our marketing model shows that companies can do good, quantify its value, serve customers and in the deliver more value to customers, if they live in the right place on the Product Adoption Lifecycle.

The Marketing Lesson of the Product Lifecycle… You Can Choose Where You Live

Then think of the transformative impact this has on the actual workers. One of the workers at Alta Gracia put it this way, “We never had the opportunity to make wages like this before. I feel blessed.” Feel good now?

Here is the recipe that adds value and re- or reverse positions Alta Gracia T-Shirts from a commodity to value product:

1.    The higher quality of the product itself

2.    “Borrowed” Brand Value that leverages the affinity of the College/University

3.    Added Value of a Good Deed that in fact is also doing “Good Business”

4.    Opportunity to build Alta Gracia as a stand alone brand recognized by students

5.    Natural brand extensions to other intersecting markets (parents, etc)

6.    Other affinities, such as sports, music and others can build on model

Add it all up and it means higher value, the kind of higher value customers are willing to pay a premium for.

Advertisements

iPhone 4 Static: Does “Fuzzy” Reception Kill the Golden Goose?

July 14, 2010

There has been a lot of media noise over the past week or so about the “antenna/reception issue” on the new iPhone 4.

This is exactly the kind of thing the precipitates the boundary between Early Adopter and Early Majority on the Product Adoption Lifecycle.

Early Adopters are willing to put up with a host of issues that may arise in order to get their hands on the new product as soon as possible. If there is a bug or two, which is often the case with a new version, so be it. Being one of the first to have such a device more than makes up for any inconvenience, which in many cases is expected.

Mainstream Early Majority buyers on the other hand, are a different breed. They don’t like experiments or issues. They want a “baked” product that works as expected.

As we have discussed in the past, they buy when their peers or friends buy, and they naturally gravitate to the category leader. They want the “one” and reward leadership by being willing to pay a premium for it. If there is an issue in the early phases… they do what comes naturally. They wait until everything is sorted out!

Consumer Reports Downgrades iPhone 4

Apple’s initial public position is the issue is a software issue, and a fix is on the way. Yesterday (July 13, 2010), as reported in the Wall Street Journal and other publications around the world, Consumer Reports reported that the problem is intrinsic to the design and amounts to a hardware issue that apparently can be fixed with a piece of duct tape in the right place. In response they downgraded their rating of this “hot” product to “not recommended.”

Is this Issue an iPhone Killer?

We doubt it. Remember the first iPhone launch? I had a client who waited in line (actually he had his assistant do it) for hours and hours to get his hands on one. And then for almost a week, he literally pranced around the office showing the device off. He was in heaven. And then, weeks later Apple dropped the price a couple of hundred bucks!

The joy quickly turned to fury and anger. He knew the price would inevitably drop but didn’t expect to blind-sided by such a move for many months. Suddenly his joy didn’t seem like such a good deal. He was right too. Ah the perils of Early Adopter-hood!

To it’s credit, Apple quickly got the message too, and quite smartly offered these early buyers $100 Apple Gift Cards, and the smile quickly returned to my boss’s face.  Just what he wanted, another trip to the Apple Store!

Bottom line. He expected such a move, but later. And Apple acted, after the problem blew up. In the end, sales kept taking off and we know the rest.

It Comes with the Territory

In many ways the situation is similar here. Early Adopters know this kind of thing happens .

We also fully expect Apple will fix the problem. It’s intrinsic to the brand. Other computer makers often force customers to put up with “known issues.” Unlike these more “commodity”-like companies, Apple is premium brand, and we fully expect the problem will be fixed to Consumer Reports’ satisfaction.

Once this happens, Consumer Reports, which in general was quite positive about the device overall, will recommend the product again. The brand connection with customers will be strengthened as consumers worldwide see that the Apple stands by it’s products as expected and the Early Majority will jump in once the dust settles.

Now if they would just open up the iPhone in the US to other carriers!!!!!

Marketing The New Gillette Pro Glide: From a Positioning Perspective, Is this The Best A Man Can Get?

July 11, 2010

Today we will explore how we can use positioning best practice to engage the full range of the product adoption lifecycle simultaneously in order to:

  1. Capture the larger Early Majority segment
  2. Extend the reach to the Late Majority/Commodity buyer at the same time
  3. Provide a compelling value proposition and pathway to convert many of these commodity customers into more profitable premium buyers
  4. Lift the whole product category.

I have to admit it. When it comes to Gillette razors, I am a classic early adopter. I just have to get their latest and greatest right away. Why?

Maybe it goes back to when I was a kid. I remember watching my dad shave in amazement morning after morning. Such an arcane process that never seemed to change: shaking up his can of Foamy and slathering that creamy stuff all over his face. And then the razor. The heavy chrome handle that would pop open by turning a knob on the bottom. Slide in a Super Blue from the special dispenser, twist the handle closed and then let the shave begin. When completed he’d sprinkle Aqua Velva on his hands and slap it on. Done!

I also remember feeling his face. He had a heavy, scratchy beard, something I inherited. After the shave, his face felt smooth as glass.

Is it any wonder that at 10, I desperately wanted to shave too. Dad would always say, no rush, no rush. It really isn’t fun. And if you don’t do it right… ouch. I remember those little dabs or two of toilet paper on his face to staunch the bleeding on a bad day.

As you can see, there is deep connection I have with the process and the Gillette brand that transcends the actual experience itself and sets me up as a classic Early Adopter in this category.

In this light I recently found myself excited when Gillette announced that it’s latest and greatest Fusion Pro Glide System featuring 5 thinner blades with a special low resistance coating and a suspension system that would eliminate that pesky tug and pull. I couldn’t wait. My excitement mounted as the launch day, June 8, 2010 approached.

Needless to say, I got one right away and the product does not disappoint. It’s awesome! It really feels like the razor is literally gliding as I shave, and afterwards my face, well it feels smooth as “glass,” even smoother than my Dad’s.

The Right Message for the Wrong Audience?

Now regarding the marketing… Yes, it’s slick, it’s integrated… And it’s old hat. Not to say that this is bad. Or not effective, at least as far as it goes. After all, the previous flagship blade in the Gillette line, Fusion with its Turbo style imagery, was the most popular razor in the world. But is there more?

Here is a screen capture of Gillette’s today.

As you can see, in the current state, the message is all about the product and its features and the primary message is turning Shaving into Gliding. As an Early Adopter, see arrow, I am sold. And in truth, it didn’t matter what the claim or message, I was sold even before the blades hit the market.

It All Comes Down to Connecting the Dots

The goal in positioning is to connect dots and answer questions for the customer, not pose them. And as we have learned from Apple and other marketing virtuoso’s, linier time as far as the Product Adoption Lifecycle goes is often a self-imposed obstacle. So why wait if you don’t have to, especially when there is so much at stake on a global scale?

With this in mind, and stepping outside of my Early Adopter mindset, what do we see with Gillette’s Fusion Pro Glide?

Product Lifecycle: A Quick Review

Just to make sure we are all on the same page, here is the famous Product Lifecycle bell curve made famous in Geoffrey Moore’s landmark book Crossing the Chasm.

Early Adopters like me love a product and it’s features. We are not price sensitive and are always on a quest, in this case, for a better shave. We have to have the latest and greatest right away.

However, Early and Late Majority buyers, where the heart of the lifecycle (and greatest profits) resides, have no interest in product features.

The Early Majority is concerned with “what does the product do for me” coupled with market leadership and peer adoption. If my friends buy, so will I. These buyers are also willing to pay a premium for the acknowledged leader.

The Late Majority is concerned about price… getting the product for the lowest price. They also don’t want to be bothered with the rest.

Positioning to Win for Maximum Impact

As we all know, Proctor and Gamble, Gillette’s parent company, is a brand and marketing powerhouse. And Gillette is an established market leader in the razor space and has been so for decades.

This means that a big part what it takes to capture and exploit the Early Majority is in place already with brand leadership and millions of satisfied users around the globe.

In it’s current state, you can see that the current product messaging is actually talking to Early Adopters, NOT the Majorities. The marketing question is, is this it for now, or is there more we can do to exploit the new Fusion Pro Glide product?

If we look at positioning best practice, the answer is yes!

Here’s a structural model of how this can work (by segment):

1. Early Majority

A. Leadership
These buyers appreciate and will pay a premium for the leading product in the category, making this is a clear sweet spot for this particular product now.

As mentioned earlier, the key to effective positioning here is connecting the “what’s in it for me?” question in the clearest terms possible that yields maximum results. In this case, Gillette has opted for a “Turn Shaving Into Gliding” message, which begs the question, “What does Gliding mean?” It glides, perhaps, but so what? What does Gliding do for me?

And yet buried deep in the current presentation, there is an answer… all the wonderful product features, YouTube videos, NASCAR endorsements, and Dream Job promotions are designed, perhaps indirectly to support the message that Fusion Pro Glide delivers “Gillette’s most comfortable shave ever.”

That’s what Early Majority buyers looking for. Now we get it! The big benefit, the compelling reason to buy. It was there, but buried by the Gliding message. All we need to do is call this message out front and center. And if you want to be slick about it, again from the current messaging, add… “Guaranteed.”

Roll it all up, here is what’s in it for the Early Majority buyer. Pro Glide Fusion is: Gillette’s most comfortable shave ever. Guaranteed.


B. Peer Influence
The next element to drive this segment is peer influence. “Do my friends have it, and do they like it. If so, I want one!” This is where endorsements fit. Gillette is a master of professional endorsements and has been so for decades. Today it’s in the form of NASCAR personalities and the “Young Guns” Challenge.

Even more interestingly perhaps is Gillette has begun to masterfully use social networks to get the “every man” endorsements that most likely will be more important as a marketing activity moving forward.  It takes a lot of guts to surrender control, which is essential for authenticity to address “Do guys like “me” use it, love it, etc.”

This is where Early Adopters come in. If we love the product, we are natural advocates and influencers, and can be one of these authentic  guys “like me” who heartily recommend the product to our “Johnny come lately” friends. What we need is some help or incentives to voice our feelings. In other words a promotion.

Example:
Right now men are invited to vote for their favorite “NASCAR “Young Gun.” The winning driver gets to donate $10,000 to their favorite charity. What do we get? How about adding a Win Blades for Life! premium? This could be for the vote if the person registers. And if we are looking for real endorsements by real men, it could be for submitting the funniest Pro Glide testimonial. And the prize, along with the charity donation could be presented to the winner at say, a NASCAR event.

2. Late Majority

Research I found seems to indicate support my Dad’s feelings about shaving. It is a necessary evil, something we have to do due for social conventions, but inconvenient at best. This attitude sets up commodity-style, low-price “just get it over with” thinking.

As it stands, Gillette has a dizzying array of lower cost blades and razors from earlier category leaders Fusion and Mach 3 to a whole slew of disposables. “Dizzying” is the operative word. Extremely complex.

What we need here is a clear roadmap of products, perhaps broken down into 1. blades and 2. disposables from Good to Better and Pro Glide in the role of BEST… with a blade price of “lowest” to “more” to “most” expensive. Your Choice.

And since Fusion Pro Glides fit in millions of Fusion handles already in the market, it is easy to slip in a free blade and coupon for later purchase in the package to engage these established buyers and get them into the pipeline.  We have to assume this is in the works already.

3. The Best A Man Can Get: Positioned for Growth Across the Lifecycle

If we go back to Gillette’s core brand, we can see we have the platform we need to cut across the whole razor line… “the best a man can get.” I was surprised to see that it is still alive and core… embedded right in the logo treatment itself. As one would expect with a brand of this caliber, it was like seeing an old friend. Powerful indeed.

This offers up a value platform with the opportunity to move customers up the ladder from “cheap” to Better and Best products and from a commodity buyer to a premium one. I call this Marketing JuJitsu. Here is where positioning focused on costs per shave and other metrics commodity buyers think about can come into play to demonstrate brand value to the these buyers too.

Example:
Let’s assume we can get two-weeks of shaves out of one Fusion Pro Glide blade. (Note: I have gotten up to four weeks, even with my heavy beard). Two weeks of comfortable shaves at $3 per blade equals approximately $.21 per shave. Let’s assume you can buy a disposable for $.20 per razor that safely delivers a shave, or two. Now the value proposition to this segment can be turned around to something like…

“For just pennies extra a day you can move up to Gillette’s closest, most comfortable shave. Take the challenge to see and feel the difference for yourself. Low(est) cost and most comfort from Gillette… The Best A Man Can Get.”

Here is what the structure looks like all together with above.

As you can see, now we have a Strategic Framework capable of positioning Fusion Pro Glide in multiple segments across the Lifecycle simultaneously under the Best A Man Can Get Brand Platform:

  1. Early Adopter with Glide
  2. Early Majority with Comfort
  3. Convert Early Adopters to Influencers building on incentives and promotions
  4. Create simple and understandable tiers of lower cost products for Late Majority
  5. Drive a Cost per Shave Value Message and convert Commodity into Premium buyers


This is FIOS… This is BIG!???

June 2, 2010

Summary:

1. The Situation
• The Curse of the Anti-Brand Continued
• Field of Dreams Marketing: Build It and They Will Come?
• Oh Really!

2. Positioning 101
• The Ultimate Choice in Marketing: Make It Easier to Sell… or to Buy
• Customers Know “This is Big,” is Bad and Act Accordingly

3. Recommendations/How to Fix It
• The Power of One Word
• See The Difference

4. Conclusion

• Getting the Positioning Right Means Success. Getting it wrong…

This is Bad!
We have explored anti-brand/worst practice marketing before, notably in the airline industry. We explored the disintegration of the legacy carrier brands (United, Delta, American and the like), and how this has created openings for the quote unquote discount carriers such as Southwest, Jet Blue and Virgin to add value to in a variety of ways and in doing so develop true and sustainable brand connections with customers.

Another industry that traditionally seems to take this anti-brand/anti-customer approach is the telecom sector – phone, cell phone, cable and broadband providers again and again seem to go out of their way to make it as complex as possible to purchase and service these vital products that are so much a part of our daily lives today…. plans, contracts, service agreement periods, rebates, data services, VoIP, bundles and variable pricing, locked phones, unlocked phones, smart phones, dumb phones… figuring this all out is a daunting task!

And it is not to say these anti-brands don’t spend money on marketing. They do. And lots! It’s just that from a marketing and positioning perspective, many of these companies have attempted to make their product easier to sell, not easier to buy. This is a subtle yet often profound distinction which has often led customers to such a confusing array of product and bundled offerings and “deals” that get in the way of achieving the desired outcome, ironically of maximizing sales.

The result…

A Better Product Alone Does Not Mean Success
Last week, after a 2-year wait, we finally had Verizon’s FIOS installed in our home, and the promise of fiber optic digital broadband bundled with HD and voice over internet IP phone service was a reality for me and my family. We are all delighted to be freed from the shackles of our former broadband, cable TV provider for reasons noted above. We met our contract obligations years ago and costs continued to rise to unacceptable levels for what amounted to basic TV and Internet service without recourse.

When at last the day arrived, we were lucky enough to have a savvy, seasoned installer handle the actual installation process. It was in talking with him, that the results of anti-brand thinking, relative to positioning became very clear to both of us.

Just like the Nexus One discussion in an earlier posting, FIOS to me is a clearly superior product. Fiber optics is a much more efficient networking technology over say, cable and copper wire. Plus fiber is 21st century technology, copper wire represents the past.

On one level what this means is that FIOS’ speeds are faster, and do not slow down if say others on the same line are also connected at the same time as they do with cable or DSL. All things being equal, we found that FIOS is cheaper than the cable offering available to us with many more TV channels, and unlimited long distance to boot.

Sounds like a recipe for competitive advantage and market share domination, right!

This is where the conversation with installer got interesting.

Misplaced Positioning Can Doom Even the Best Products
Superior product and a massive TV buy not withstanding, he told me that FIOS apparently only wins only a small portion of the business where it competes against cable, and has not meet expectations for quite some time. It does apparently carve into the cable business some, but it does not dominate, not even close, at least in the markets covered buy our installer.

That was a surprise, especially since FIOS can make the case of being superior and cheaper! And then there have been news reports lately that FIOS’ planned expansion program in other markets has been postponed, affirming lackluster results so far.

What could be the problem? Could it be loyalty? Is there a deep brand connection to cable providers?

Nothing in any research I have seen over the years indicates consumer love for cable companies. Many are anti-brands with a clear take it or leave it attitude. Customer-centric service? Forget it.

In fact from what I see, on the TV side in particular, customers really resent cable providers. Many dislike bundled programming offerings in particular, and often feel gouged with ever higher prices and the inability to pay a la carte for just the channels they want.

And then without prompting, the installer and I both blurted out at the same time, obviously in harmony with an “aha” moment… “This is FIOS, This is Big!”

Verizon has spent untold $ millions to embed this unforgettable slogan in our minds. But what does it say from a positioning point of view?

Slogans are often what we remember, what we pass along, what we act on… or don’t.

Slogans that get the positioning down and answer questions, connect dots, and give us that “compelling reason to buy” message right on the spot are the ones that deliver results. Slogans that don’t, memorable though they may be, can’t do the job, no matter how much cash is thrown at it.

Unfortunately this is where Verizon missed the boat.

It Comes Down to One Word…
Let’s take this slogan apart for a minute. We know from an overarching perspective this is a Verizon product, and Verizon is the network, isn’t it? But what is FIOS anyway?

I will guess it has to do with FIber Optic System or something like that. It could be called ACME or ALPO for that matter. The name can be important, but all of us have seen meaningless names such as Accenture, Altria, and Exxon that have been created for very successful companies.

No, the problem word here is not FIOS, it is the word BIG. This is the key word and it does not tell us as customers what’s in it for us. To be effective, this word has to be clear, direct and mean something. It has to answer questions, not beg them.

In this case, BIG addresses the latter. I am sure Verizon loves the technology… they invested $ billions to bring it to us. But BIG. What does BIG do for you and I? We don’t know. We… have to think about it.

This is a problem because actually, in today’s busy world, we tend not to think about things like this. When left to our own devices and unintended questions arise in our minds, usually these questions support inertia and inaction.

For example, isn’t changing providers is a hassle?, and why change now?, immediately come to my mind. Customers, typical mainstream customers facing such a rhetorical quandary without a clear reason to switch, will typically say to themselves “I will happily stay where I am” and act accordingly.

This puts the “connecting of the dots” in the hands of market forces outside of Verizon’s control, which in terms of grabbing market share, is deadly! And Needless!

All of this is wrapped up in one, in this case, one misplaced 3-letter word.

BIG or BETTER Internet Service. What Do You Prefer?
As a marketer I have learned over the years that if you are going to critique someone else’s work, you should also offer up an alternative. This is only fair after all. So in this spirit, I offer up the word… BETTER.

The altered slogan would then read:

This is FIOS, This is Better!

I am not saying it is perfect or pretty or elegant, but now we as readers of the message have something to grab on to, that we can understand. Leadership is reflected in qualitative advantage… something that differentiates FIOS from the cable product and says there may be something in it for me as well.

Imagine now the conversation I might have had with the installer if the take away message we all remember is… This is FIOS, This is Better.

In the one instant a series of questions posed by the word BIG are replaced by a declaration of superiority over the competition… the Better that is Fiber Optical TV/Phone/Internet connections over copper wire/cable. Customers would almost feel like they are acting foolishly not to get a better product and better deal, no matter what.

Our minds would be embedded with Better than… cable positioning, so taking the buy action is natural and something already clearly mapped out. This is what effective positioning is all about and one example of creating a compelling reason to buy with a positioning core.

3-D Movies: How to Kill the Golden Goose Before It’s Time… Coming Soon to a Theater Near You!

April 2, 2010

I want to preface this posting to say I don’t like to look at movies as a horse race or the “who wins the weekend box office $’s derby.” I realize this is one way to measure popularity and success… and if movies are a popularity contest, don’t we like to invest, ooops, I mean spend our hard earned cash on the winners, the ones we know we will enjoy? But is volume the real measurement of goodness? In the herd mentality, of the if everyone else likes it, it must be good, kind of thinking, yes. But of actual goodness, perhaps not.

Earlier in the week, I was reading Lauren Shuker’s article in the Wall Street Journal entitled ‘Dragon’ Movie Fails to Tip Scales as Price Increases go Into Effect (March 29, 2010), which has gotten some great reviews, and am once again struck by the apparent marketing incompetence that seems all too inherent in the entertainment industry.

Here’s why.

It appears that there is no doubt that audiences very much enjoy today’s 3-D film experience. Huge 3-D successes such as Avatar and Alice in Wonderland, and the IMAX sales of each testify to this.

Now of course, in the sequel style, copy-cat mania that seems to be Hollywood these days, everyone and his brother wants in the bonanza. I gather that How to Train Your Dragon was filmed in 3-D, but for example, but Clash of the Titans, which will be released next week, was enhanced after filming was concluded and is not a native 3-D film, as Avatar and Alice were.

I have no problem with the studios tripping over themselves to milk the 3-D train for all its worth. But the operative word here is CARE. In the drive for revenue (greed?), it is becoming clear that if studios and exhibitors over reach, sales will be diminished and the technology reduced once again to fad status.

When looked at through our marketing lens, there are a couple of things to remember to prevent the latter while maximizing the revenue generating opportunity 3-D presents:

1. It is and I think always will be the story. James Cameron and Tim Burton are at their core master story-tellers which, love them or not, informs all of their work. 3-D is an enabler to the story, not the driver of it.  In other words, if you are going to charge a premium, it probably won’t work for lesser fare, at least until the film has built a core audience.

2. The last few years haven’t been all that kind to the movie industry. And we are still living through a recession. The market is price sensitive. The new price for 3-D movies under the new structure is approaching $20 a ticket! This can easily add up to  $100 per outing for a family of four, which makes a night at the movies a very pricey, special purchase, not a casual and affordable date night type of event.

3. Seeing a movie in a theater has some communal benefits and people love to go out.  However, part of the audience dip these last few years has been a convergence of sorts… where home movie systems with surround sound offer a near multiplex movie experience at a lower cost. And if that isn’t enough, 3-D capabilities are coming to a flat screen TV in your home, very soon!

So considering these elements, what should the exhibitors do to maximize this technology in a manner that makes marketing sense?

Make Sure That 3-D Adds Value to the Communal Theater Experience!

Central to the exhibitor point of view has to be exploiting the positive elements of the communal viewing experience and doing everything possible to add value to it.

I live in the Boston area, and one of the pioneers of the multiplex phenomenon is a locally based company called National Amusements.

Multiplexes were great for revenue generation, but with ever smaller screens and smaller auditoriums that result, the exhibitors themselves over time have diluted the big screen viewing experience thus opening the door for home theater to be a competitive threat today.

So much so, perhaps, that National Amusements itself is now leading the charge of such innovations as stadium style seating to enhance the comfort and viewing pleasure of their guests in such a way that is very hared to duplicate at home. They also created Cinema De-Lux, a first-class section in selected theaters offering food & beverage service and plush seating that audiences happily pay a handsome premium for.

The dilemma for 3-D is to add value without adding price resistance. The way to do that is to understand and then compress the product adoption lifecycle.

How can we do this successfully — Grow the audience for films and exploit the revenue generation potential?

There are a couple of ways this can happen.

The Simple Method

  • Keep prices low and raise them gradually for general screens.
  • Raise prices and focus marketing activities on IMAX and De-Lux venues, where movie goers expect to pay more.

The trick to remember is that 3-D is a positioning “ace up the sleeve”, something that can be compelling and different that makes the communal movie-going experience special versus the home theater and other options available today.

This in essence creates a tiered pricing structure. And of course prices can also be adjusted should say another Avatar-style blockbuster come along. The key then is not raise prices prematurely until the audience demand is established.

The Complex Method
Don’t raise prices for 3-D films shown on “standard” screens for an initial period, say the first week or so.

This offers a couple of extra powerful benefits:

  • The Power of Choice & A Sense of Urgency
    By setting up “Popular Pricing” now with a higher price later, an incentive, is applied to drive business for that first critical weekend that offers the audience a choice—go now pay less, or wait and pay more.
  • Audience Empowerment
    In this way the public can literally join the critics and other influencers to help decide the fate of the film, especially by getting the word out through social networks to their “friends” and support films they love.

Option #1 focusing price increases on the self-selecting premium segment piece is easier to adjust with the already high priced options such as IMAX and De-Lux in place. In other words raise the first class price and gradually raise coach fares over time.

Option #2, however, offers a variety of counter-intuitive tools that can help launch new films, stimulate choice and create a great reason for the public to join with others to get the word out that can also serve as the basis for a whole variety of promotional activities.

In either case, once the public is used to a staggered pricing schedule it will be easier for prices across the board to rise over time.

Care however, must be taken to matter what directions are taken (or not) to exploit 3-D as a value added tool to support the movie theater experience first. This is the golden goose that must be nurtured and protected at all cost.

Otherwise audiences will turn in other directions, which will negatively impact each new film’s success as we have just seen with Dragon, a worthy effort where it seems great notices are not enough to overcome resistance to new, steep and sudden price increases.

Toyota and Tiger… Brand Collapse or Rebirth or Both?

March 25, 2010

We have all heard the news…. 8+ million Toyota automobiles are recalled due to a variety of malfunctions; and everything and more than we wanted to know about the many loves of Dobie Gillis… oops, I mean Tiger Woods.

Toyota, a brand synonymous with quality and reliability for decades appears to be imploding right before our eyes. Their war room/siege mentality, ready to rebut “any and all” negative customer comments strategy does not resonate with the public or in any way appear authentic. Whether it’s the floor mats, the gas pedal or of course, customer error, yes, the company is sorry, so sorry for injury or death. Software, hardware issues? Apparently Toyota can’t replicate some of these problems, therefore it appears they do not exist, or isn’t it our fault anyway?

And does this calm our fears?, and support the brand promise of quality and reliability?

I don’t know about you, but I feel a deep and shocking sense of uncertainty with Toyota’s response. And I own two Camry’s, although of a vintage before these apparently unstable “drive-by-wire” electronic technologies we adopted. Yikes!

Talk about a brand conflict, reliability versus uncertainty.

This is a huge problem for Toyota. And a major inconvenience at best for customers worldwide. We have to bring our cars in for a fix we aren’t sure will solve the problem. Oh, and now what about the resale value of these cars? Toyota was noted for high resale value… who wants to buy a used and potentially unsafe Toyota now at any price? Not me! You?

And if that isn’t enough, Toyota appears to be diddling. You can sense it, and as some of their internal e-mails we hear about attest, their approach is to delay, stall and of course, minimize the cost of the damage.

Their ads add insult to injury. “Thanks for sticking by us,” they intone… and to “thank you, we are offering incentives like 0% financing so you can buy a new one.”

Just what I want! Even though you, Toyota can’t replicate them, these issues may still exist. People have died, cars have very publically careened out of control for who knows why, and resale value at least for now has gone down the tubes. And to top it all off, I have to suffer the inconvenience to bring in my car to get a fix that may or may not take care of the problem, and you thank me by trying to sell me a new car!

This is outrageous and insulting. Add it all up and what this says to me is that Toyota has lost touch with the power of their brand. And such moves like these are damaging it, perhaps permanently.

Tiger has a similar problem. Although perhaps not on the same scale as Toyota, he is a very public, well known brand, like it or not, and a multinational one at that. For many people Tiger is golf itself and a $ multi-billion corporation burnished with a champion’s glow…. He and his handlers positioned him as a problem-solving icon able to take on and beat any challenge that may come his way. Until now.

We now know this is may, I repeat may, be limited to the golf course and in the “perception is reality” world of brand recognition, but certainly not in real life.

I will argue that Tiger’s final lot as a brand is not yet set in the public mind. Yes, he is certainly human, a junk yard dog perhaps, but is this unusual? And yes, a number of high profile sponsors like Gillette and Accenture have pulled away.

Questions still linger that if answered authentically and humanly, could likely restore his brand image to be even more powerful than before.

Here’s how.

Tiger himself proclaimed at his highly staged news conference a few weeks ago that he thought he was above it all and could behave as he wished… that the rules the rest of us follow didn’t apply to him.

He also told us that he understands the hurt he has caused and the error of his ways and that he will do what it takes to be a better person. Great stagecraft!, and positioning…. I am working hard to be a better person. Who can throw the first stone with such a revelation?

So that is where we are.

Two powerful brands under attack, one disintegrating right before our eyes, the other, a work in progress, the jury still out. What kind of marketing thinking and strategy could be applied to turn these brand conflicts around?

Let’s look at Toyota first.

Toyota’s issue is that they appear to be self-absorbed and cheap, focused on cost containment and damage control, going so far as to lay the blame on those pesky customers that are us.

This is not the time for that type of non-marketing approach by an automobile company. Audi famously blamed their customers in the 80’s for cars that apparently shifted into gear on their own. They had to change the names of their models and literally re-build demand for their vehicles from scratch, a costly process that took them out of the game for years.

In this case, assuming Toyota is doing everything in its power to solve the issues, known and unknown, the company needs to remember that it’s the brand connection and it’s relationship with customers that matters most. That is where real long term value is.

I am not privy to the details but over time, the value of the Toyota brand, as the perhaps soon to be world’s former #1 auto maker, has to be in the $ hundreds of billions, or even more.

From an integrated, marketing to win perspective, Toyota needs to take a two-pronged, pedal to the metal communications approach:

1. Reassuring the public that the cars are safe, and

2. Acknowledging customers’ inconvenience and uncertainty along with the hassles of bringing cars to the shop entails.

In other words, they need to be bold in terms of solutions, it will cost, and the investment is worth it!

As far as reassurance is concerned, good news or bad, in today’s instant, social media world, transparency is essential. Customers need to be in the loop to see for ourselves what the company is doing to make us safe again.

It easy today to take us the labs and testing grounds, give us Q&A and other access to the engineers and scientists, etc. Let us see that no stone is being left unturned and at the same time show us the operational excellence the company is famous for, in action.

And as far as customer inconvenience is concerned, Toyota needs to honor the value of our time, let alone the anxiety we feel, and understand it in the context of brand value as well.

Once understood, the company then needs to then honor us with something tangible. That means, Toyota if you are listening, setting up drive in check stations for all post 2002 cars and then, give us something in return like a free oil change or service, something of value that honestly recognizes the value of our time and our loyalty. Giving to receive is the operative principle here.

I can tell you now, that a great deal on a new Toyota feels cynical and indeed is NOT it! And if they were clever, perhaps Toyota could partner up with say a Sirius/XM or other outside entity and offer a free 3-month subscription or something like that… because “you care… care about us, your valued customers!”

On the Tiger front.

His solution is a bit more under his personal control, but no less impactful. He can no longer claim the cover of privacy to be left alone… the genie is out of the bottle and won’t fit back in. And yes, just like the Wizard of Oz, we now have peered at the man behind the curtain, and see all too well that he is human like the rest of us.

Now that Tiger is off the pedestal and the announcement has been made that he will indeed play at the upcoming Masters Tournament, it comes to two things again:

1. His performance on the course, and

2. His performance on the course.

What do I mean?

On one level, we will expect him to play well and perhaps even win. He is to many, Golf after all. But we also expect that he has learned from his self-induced embarrassment, that he is, in fact, in the process of becoming that better person. This means that no, we don’t necessarily want him to be more approachable, but we need to know he can perform in this “better,” more realistic and human manner.

So how does this play out?

First, that he handles the catcalls, the embarrassing hoots, questions and other assorted unscripted realities that will inevitably come his way with humor and poise. That he not dodge but roll with it in a manner befitting a champion. In other words, the focus and drive (no pun intended!) that has made him the champion he is, also extends to his personal improvement, and that he is a winner here too.

If he does a Brat Pack-type, moody thing and wrap a club or two around a tree or smash a camera, punch someone out or otherwise behave poorly, or that he sets up an impenetrable barrier so no one can get near and utter a bad word, he will be positioned by his own actions as an arrogant “bad person” which will forever tarnish the best golfer, iconic status that he has already achieved.

If you don’t believe me, remember 2004 presidential candidate Senator John Kerry? Like him or hate him, that wishy-washy answer he gave at the Grand Canyon regarding whether he would change his vote for sending troops to Iraq, knowing the original premise of “Weapons of Mass Destruction” was inaccurate, forever labeled him as… well you know, a Flip Flopper, irrespective of his many impressive achievements.

The jury is still out on this one, at least for the moment. One thing is certain, the embarrassment and hurt will fade over time, but the position he takes and fosters in the public eye through his next set of actions will stick, and the choice in the end will be his. So what will it be, great golfer and jerk, or very human champ for the ages. What would you choose?

And I will guess that if Tiger does take the high road and shows us he has or is mastering his demons like he has mastered his sport, will Accenture, Gillette and other more lucrative sponsorships be far behind? It is clear that the “championship, do anything image” would be more real this time, and well earned to boot.

Move forward Toyota… Go get ‘em Tiger!

Clash of the New Titans… Is Google’s new Nexus One an iPhone Killer?

January 7, 2010

Yesterday (January 5, 2010) was a day I had been waiting for… the launch by Google of its own quote unquote game changing Nexus One smartphone. Already the pundits are proclaiming that Google will depose Apple as the smartphone leader… Long Live Google!

And we all know what Apple’s buzz machine has been up to. It seems that there will be big announcement at the end of this month where it is likely, quite likely that Steve Jobs himself will launch another game changing device, an iTablet kind of thing.

So how do these products intersect?

A couple of things are clear. In the portable music player space, Apple, the undisputed leader, has reached a turning point. Sales of iPods, the most popular music player on the planet are declining, perhaps for good reason. Using my students as a non-scientific focus group, I have seen again and again that not only do 99+% have an iPod, many have two and some even have three or even more! Could the market be saturated?

The iPhone which as we all know is only available on the ATT network, has proven to be a game changer and massive success, not only surpassing sales goals and a critical element to shareholder value, with Apple shares now pegged at $200+, but also the catalyst to the current generation of wi-fi enabled, touch screen iPods, the disruptive app store with over 100,000 applications available, and yes Mac sales, especially the latest Mac books with the 1-piece “aluminium” chassis/case.

I don’t know about you, but I also hear about more and more “windows” folks making the switch to Mac these days.

I bring this up because right now Apple’s marketing is working at virtuoso/best practice levels. Assuming this is the case, and knowing full well Apple’s penchant for keeping it’s cards close to the chest, I see a strategy here where there is more that meets the eye.

The iPhone is too important to simply let slide. And Apple has shown time and time again it has learned from its past and will not go down without a fight.

So here is an outsider’s perspective of what I expect.

1. Yes, there will be a tablet announcement. And if lead designer Johnny Ive still has his “touch” to create usable, game changing devices, this will be a hit, and will function on a number of levels, including as a book reader. Assuming color and the ability to highlight and add notes and such, let alone offer interactive and collaboration capabilities, the textbook market is ripe for the picking, today.

2. There will also be an iPhone announcement. If I read the tea leaves right, Apple will announce that the iPhone will be available on Verizon and perhaps other carriers too. This is essential and will allow the iPhone to maintain its first mover advantage and current leadership position. Apple has been here before. Remember that iPod was one of many until it became Windows-compatible. And yes, we have a number of articles that the ATT network is overloaded with data usage generated by the iPhone. This is signal for this change if ever there was one.

And to go a bit further out on a limb…

There will also be a next generation iPhone announced with longer battery life, perhaps expandable memory and a better camera, plus the ability to run multiple apps at once. And yes, there will be a software update for those using older versions.

Those are the big ones. And there is more…

3. There has been a lot of noise about an iTunes upgrade. Subscription, Movies on Demand, etc. This may impact all of the above.

4. Lastly, my guess also is that Mac books in particular will also get something new to add more premium value to the product line. Perhaps the addition of the new low voltage chips we have been hearing about that will extend battery life to up to 8 hours, and dreamer that I am, how about quad core chips on these machines?

Add it all up. Apple has been on the “to kill” list for quite some time, and has always stayed at least one step ahead, to ensure leadership in segments it created. I have no reason to expect anything less this time.

That said, Google’s entry is a welcome addition and great for consumers, but an iPhone killer… probably not, if the Apple marketing machine is half what I believe it is. The only wrinkle is that sustaining type of improvements won’t do it. The good news for Apple is that disruptive game changers are what they are all about.

Don’t know about you, but I am looking forward to the next announcement at the end of the month.

The “Bucks” Ends Here…

June 10, 2008

One of the core principles of our 5 Laws at Marketing 2.0 Win is the Law of Process = Chaos. What this principle says is in simple terms is that process in the service of strategy is a good thing, however if it is the driver or central organizing principle of a company’s marketing or in this case public face, take care, take very good care.

We can see this playing out on a grande scale right in front of our eyes with coffee giant Starbucks. After an incredible run of phenomenal growth on a global scale, we see the symptoms… declining stock price and unhappy investors clamoring for relief, bringing visionary Howard Schultz back into the CEO role at the company. His self proclaimed goal… to help the company get back to its core… the coffee/community experience that in today’s Starbucks’ corporatized environment seems lost.

How? Howard himself gave us a couple of examples… of this disconnection: fresh-locked packaging, where you can’t smell the product anymore. And “goof proof” espresso machines. Machines that make it simple and fast to “build” a specialty drink, while put a wall between the customer and barrista and taking the artistry out of the drink making process.

I agree with that these are customer disconnects. But do they disconnect with the brand that Starbucks is?, enough so, so as to flatten sales in existing stores, like we have seen with Wal Mart, Dell and others?

In this case I am going to argue the answer is NO. The issue is not a brand conflict here.

Yes, these changes matter to some degree… but they are fixable and incremental issues, touch points that need to be aligned, indeed, but not a commodity-busting strategy that they really need to fix the problem.

You can see this in action in the Got a Great Idea/Tell Us, community function that now is front and center on their web site. I love the concept. Surrender control and open up the floor for your customers to offer their insights and then respond back, with action.

Some popular customer generated ideas… Free WiFi, a Loyalty card (buy 10/get one free) and others are incremental ideas… and sound hardly new or radical. My advice… implement them. However, don’t expect they will turn the tide.

The real issue is that the Starbucks concept is now approaching the mature phase of the product lifecycle, as these ideas so clearly demonstrate. The reality is that the Starbuck’s concept is now a commodity, which in fact the company with its “goof proof” drink making process helped bring about. This means that price, lower price and greater non-differentiated competition are the business drivers.

Look at it this way. MacDonald’s is now rolling out espresso/specialty drinks. Dunkin Donuts, one of the big winners in the Starbuck’s phenomenon, has been offering these lower cost specialty drinks for the past couple of years. Soon enough it seems every fast food chain will offer them. So now what?

Let’s take a closer look at Dunkin Donuts, because here is where the solution lay. At the outset, I admit it, I am a Starbuck’s regular. It is not my favorite, but with locations it seems at every corner nationwide, Starbucks delivers a consistent and premium product that meets my expectations almost every time.

Last week I offered to make the office coffee run, and one of my colleagues ordered not a Starbuck’s but a Dunkin Donuts coffee, medium vanilla. It was then that my mind was blown.

We know that Dunkin is not a premium coffee but a more everyday product, a blend I am told of Arabica and other less expensive coffees. It is a lower wholesale cost, more generic product. But when I saw the price for the cup at Dunkin which was $1.79 or in essence $.10 less that a similar size Starbuck’s, I was floored… generic product at a premium price! The folks at Dunkin must be smiling all the way to the bank! Thank you Starbuck’s!!!

So Starbuck’s is in an interesting position… its premium product is being attacked by generic products and commoditized… forced to concede on price or lose customers, because as we know, you can get a specialty drink anywhere… for less!

What is Starbucks to do?

Howard Schultz, if you read this… incremental, process-oriented activities focused on your existing customers are good but in fact cannibalizing, because these kinds of activities are pulling revenues from your existing audience. I will argue that the way forward in this case is to reposition Starbucks and counterattack to build market share.

In other words, Loyalty is important, but it comes at a cost and won’t drive growth. Look at it this way, “free WiFi” and “buy 10 get one free” are tactics and I will argue not nearly enough. Nor is “watch the barrista” or “smell the coffee.” Although appropriate, these tactics do not a growth strategy make.

Just as Dunkin and others offer what we can argue is an inferior product at a better price thanks to you, Starbucks now needs to execute a jujitsu strategy and show consumers in simple and clear terms the added value of their premium product over the competition. This is a classic re-positioning strategy.

So… ladies and gentlemen, the drum roll please… time for the Pepsi… ooops, the Starbuck’s challenge. Put your product up against the competition in “blind” tastings and build a campaign around it… Wow! This really is better!

As it stands, an espresso is an espresso is an espresso, and it will stay that way until Starbucks does something about it. That time, I will argue, especially if I was an investor and I am not, is NOW. And by doing so, the company can carve out MacD’s and Dunkin customers who in fact are ready to appreciate the difference premium makes. The key is to connect the dots positioning wise and make it clear to them what this difference is where the rubber meets the road, and for Starbucks that is in what is a better tasting cup of coffee every time.

Are Ad Words Dead?

April 8, 2008

We have seen the headlines over the past few months… “signs of click recession!” or “decelerating clicks!” Obviously these are referencing Google and are referring to ComScore’s recent monthly data reports showing decline in the number of times consumers clicked pay per click ads that accompany Google search results.

We can infer from the headlines that journalists and the powers that be may attribute this to environmental factors as a result of a slowing economy. Others say this is the result of a conscious effort by the company to trim clicks so that they can limit the supply and charge more.

We can go back and forth about the cause, but it clearly appears that advertisers, after years of consistent and meteoric growth, may be getting fewer sales per click, which is bad news indeed for all concerned.

Marketing 2.0 Win has its own theory, borne out of let me say up front non-scientific research in my work as an adjunct professor of marketing at Emerson College in Boston. I see it in the classroom all the time, the search-based PPC ad platform is becoming mature and students (vis a vis consumers) aren’t noticing or responding to them as they have before.

Remember Banner Ads? Or Flash-based web site intro’s? How cool they seemed… then, and how they don’t now?

Thus is it may be with search-based adwords. When we first encountered them, they raised the bar for relevant ads, based on what we were searching for at the current moment. Google not only delivered us better search results than the others, the search based ads as often as naught mirrored our interest at that instant and offered us the potential to find best price for products we may be seeking. We were interested, we noticed, we clicked through and we bought, finally making the long sought after promise of the web to deliver relevance to individuals a reality.

No, don’t me wrong, Google is not resting on any laurels. They are a great innovating company and their acquisitions of YouTube and DoubleClick prove this. However, YouTube even with huge numbers of visitors is still hard to monetize, and the DoubleClick approach to knowing where you have been, as well as where you are in order to make better inferences leading to more relevant ads, well this opens up a whole Pandora’s Box of issues from privacy to trust that will only get more intense and slow things down.

In our world view, if relevance is king then as the Law of Surrender = Victory dictates, control is key… customer control. To make it simple, ask the customer what they want. Offer them a way to choose from a menu of ads or create a profile that can be changed at any time, which can then help serve up ads on search, on You tube, Hulu or wherever, that will be more relevant. For example, when is a car ad most relevant? Probably when you are in the market. Give customers the ability to declare their interest.

By doing this two things happen. 1. With the customers help and control, ads will be more relevant and targeted, and 2. The more opportunities the customer has to raise their hands, the more likely a prospect they will be, which will translate into higher conversions and sales.

So, has search-based advertising had its day? You be the judge. However from where we sit there is no doubt that the novelty may be wearing off and that the quest for relevance is ongoing. In Marketing 2.0 Win, it is certain that if companies do more to bring customers into the mix, relevance will follow, which in the end creates even more opportunities for growth.

Radiohead Surrenders Control and Makes a Bold Move

October 3, 2007

The big news on the music marketing front this week has to be the upcoming release of Radiohead’s 7th album “In Rainbows.” The reason is simple… the extremely popular band is no longer affiliated with a major label and releasing the music direct to the public themselves… no label, no itunes. This alone is fairly radical. Some great artists have been unaffiliated with a label and releasing product for years quite successfully.

 

One example that comes to mind is one of the most successful jazz artists today, composer Maria Schneider and her constantly touring “big band”. She is a part of a cooperative record label called Artists Share and is able to offer her fans a variety of levels of participation with her recording projects… from simple album purchase to tiered access to the project’s creative process all the way to Executive Producer level for higher financial contributions… audience choice. She has been so successful with this that not only has she been able to take on and fund ever more ambitious projects, she even received the first ever Grammy for a pure digital album.

 

And others such as Prince who take the long view of their business have distributed their latest recordings for free, in his case as in insert in a newspaper or at concert events.

 

Radiohead is taking this thing to new level because customers are invited to pay what they wish for a download version of upcoming album…directly from them!

 

If you follow Marketing 2.0 Win you know that one of our 5 laws of marketing for the 21st century is “Surrender = Victory.” In essence what this law indicates is that in our topsy turvey world, like it or not customers have control and the more we as marketers are willing to surrender control to them, the more successful we will be.

 

Radiohead is doing just this…surrendering maximum control. We can argue that they can afford to, especially when you consider that they are one of the world’s most popular bands with a huge fan base and they have in effect disintermediated most of the middle men in the process. But the inverse is also true, one could also argue they have the most to lose.

 

One outstanding question what will fans do?

  • My sense is that some will choose to pay nothing… which is totally acceptable.
  • Many will base their choice based on the digital retail price which, depending on how you look at it is 9.99 on iTunes and 8.99 on the new Amazon MP3 service.
  • And assuming people like the new album, many will probably pay more based on its emotional value.

This “feeling” will also be driven by the fact that fans will be dealing with the band directly and my guess is this will be perceived as a righteous act, worthy of support.

 

This is all good, but there is one more factor in the mix of this bold act that excites me the most. We know that iTunes has been the most successful legal distribution channel with 3+ billion tunes downloaded. This represents a tiny fraction of music that is downloaded… for free every day however.

 

This what some would call “underground audience” is in the hundreds of millions of individuals worldwide. They have contempt for licensed content and labels and believe it is their right to get the music they want for free. Like it or not, they feel entitled to it.

 

By surrendering control, I figure Radiohead is making the first real and legitimate move to capture some of this audience. If they can pay whatever price they wish, I will guess many will. The only question then is how much? No matter what, Radiohead wins… consumers win… and a whole new way to engage the largest possible audience may emerge… an audience that is empowered to dictate their own terms in the transaction. Welcome 2.0 a new day!