That's what I see and hear when I look at packaging that says "New look. Same great flavor."
What that says to me is: "I spent hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars to improve this product you bought but instead of making it better for you, I made it better for me."
In a few rare instances, packaging is updated because consumers that want to find the product simply cannot amidst the clutter of a typical retail shelf. (BTW, I'm referring to packaging graphics not the structure itself.) But most of the time, the packaging is updated so it practically screams at you from the shelf. Marketers will say things like "we've got to make sure the package has stopping power" or "make the package intrusive."
Well guess what? I don't want to be stopped. And I do not want to be intruded on.
When you play with packaging this way, you've resorted to gimmickry. You're not calling on the rational faculties of a consumer to try and assist in the purchase decision. Instead, you're preying on the irrational, the built in little cognitive and cultural biases we have that, generally, help us make better decisions but often lead us astray.
I have a better idea. Try this new line on your packaging: "Same old look. New improved taste." Make the damn chips taste better. Make the soda taste better. Make your product work better. Instead of trying to trick me with flashiness, convince me with true product benefits.
Oh, and consumers. I have a message for you too. See here's the thing. As one of my favorite people pointed out, these gimmicks work. Marketers do this because notwithstanding their cynicism and lack of respect for the consumer, these tactics do work. You know why? Because you allow yourself to be seduced by shiny objects rather than demanding better products. When you stop letting yourself be taken advantage of, when you start demanding from manufacturers that they truly respect you, then you will start seeing better tasting chips.
Until then, enjoy the new bag.
Showing posts with label marketing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label marketing. Show all posts
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Monday, September 21, 2009
Yeah, it's that fast
I got a message from Twitter on Sunday at 12:15AM that some entity was now following me (I'll leave the name out but it sounded like some marketing agency). Ten seconds ago (so that's almost 24 hours to the minute), I got a direct message from them with a "special offer" to their new "Twitter friends" for their internet marketing training program.
Don't I feel special.
They have already been blocked and unfollowed.
It didn't have to be this way at all. They could have let me read their stuff for a while. They could have sent me a message telling me who they are, what they do and the kind of content I could expect from them. Over time, I might have been receptive to a pitch about their internet training. Now they will never know. They apparently wanted to skip the introductions, avoid buying me dinner and just hop right into bed. All without the benefit of me seeing how hot they are.
My friend Jeremy Epstein writes about this all the time. The world has changed. If you try to get in my face with your selling as opposed to engaging me respectfully in a relationship, you're done. You're done because it's just that easy to block you.
Don't I feel special.
They have already been blocked and unfollowed.
It didn't have to be this way at all. They could have let me read their stuff for a while. They could have sent me a message telling me who they are, what they do and the kind of content I could expect from them. Over time, I might have been receptive to a pitch about their internet training. Now they will never know. They apparently wanted to skip the introductions, avoid buying me dinner and just hop right into bed. All without the benefit of me seeing how hot they are.
My friend Jeremy Epstein writes about this all the time. The world has changed. If you try to get in my face with your selling as opposed to engaging me respectfully in a relationship, you're done. You're done because it's just that easy to block you.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Motor oil ain't indulgent!
There's a new Starbucks near my house on Rt. 4 just west of the George Washington Bridge. They've got a sign out front advertising the fact that they are open 24 hours / day and that they have drive-thru service.
Great. I'm sure that's convenient for lots of folks.
But Starbucks isn't about convenience. Not that they are about inconvenience, but they are not a convenience store.
Starbucks is an indulgence. It's an experience that goes beyond the coffee. Or at least that is what propelled its growth for so long. Before they lost their way and found out what happens to brands that lose their way.
Starbucks has always been about re-creating that Italian coffee experience in a way that American consumers could enjoy. It's the third place away from home and office where you can enjoy seeing your coffee made and even sit down to enjoy the beverage with some measure of tranquility.
What about 24 hour drive-thru tells you this will be an indulgent experience? 24 hour drive-thru is for fuel. Actual fuel or oil for your car. Or just crappy junk food like Twinkies that you pick up at the little store at the rest stop to fuel your road trip.
24 hour drive-thru does not at all fit the Starbucks brand. If this is how they choose to compete, they will have their ass handed to them by McDonald's.
Instead, they need to stick to their mission. And if they need to grow and have an opportunity to acquire valuable real estate on key highways, go ahead and start a new brand that's all about convenience with high quality. You cannot be all things to all people.
Great. I'm sure that's convenient for lots of folks.
But Starbucks isn't about convenience. Not that they are about inconvenience, but they are not a convenience store.
Starbucks is an indulgence. It's an experience that goes beyond the coffee. Or at least that is what propelled its growth for so long. Before they lost their way and found out what happens to brands that lose their way.
Starbucks has always been about re-creating that Italian coffee experience in a way that American consumers could enjoy. It's the third place away from home and office where you can enjoy seeing your coffee made and even sit down to enjoy the beverage with some measure of tranquility.
What about 24 hour drive-thru tells you this will be an indulgent experience? 24 hour drive-thru is for fuel. Actual fuel or oil for your car. Or just crappy junk food like Twinkies that you pick up at the little store at the rest stop to fuel your road trip.
24 hour drive-thru does not at all fit the Starbucks brand. If this is how they choose to compete, they will have their ass handed to them by McDonald's.
Instead, they need to stick to their mission. And if they need to grow and have an opportunity to acquire valuable real estate on key highways, go ahead and start a new brand that's all about convenience with high quality. You cannot be all things to all people.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
When your message is better than your product
I was sitting in the steam room after my workout this evening. Was not in a great mood. Had one of those de-inspiring days.
My workout was pretty good. The steam was doing its trick. I was feeling tired, but the good kind of tired. And when that happens - particularly when I'm feeling down - I get to thinking "it's Miller time."
I really thought that. In those words.
But here's the thing. I don't really drink Miller. It is basically not in my consideration set at all. Miller to me is cheap tasteless American beer. Don't get me wrong. There are times when I really want a cheap American beer. Hot summer days are a good example. And on those occasions if someone offers me a Miller, I will accept. But for the most part, Miller doesn't have a shot with me.
So I'm sitting in the steam room thinking "it's Miller time" and knowing damn well that I would either be drinking the Kasteel Rouge, Westmalle or Rogue Hazelnut that I had in the fridge.
Miller owns that little part of my mind that articulates the need for beer on certain occasions. But other brands have a lock on my palate and, therefore, my wallet.
If you like winning advertising awards, spend your time and energy on slogans and jingles. You can create an iconic line that will reverberate from the lips of consumers for decades. But if you have a need to make some money, better to spend your time developing a kick ass product.
My workout was pretty good. The steam was doing its trick. I was feeling tired, but the good kind of tired. And when that happens - particularly when I'm feeling down - I get to thinking "it's Miller time."
I really thought that. In those words.
But here's the thing. I don't really drink Miller. It is basically not in my consideration set at all. Miller to me is cheap tasteless American beer. Don't get me wrong. There are times when I really want a cheap American beer. Hot summer days are a good example. And on those occasions if someone offers me a Miller, I will accept. But for the most part, Miller doesn't have a shot with me.
So I'm sitting in the steam room thinking "it's Miller time" and knowing damn well that I would either be drinking the Kasteel Rouge, Westmalle or Rogue Hazelnut that I had in the fridge.
Miller owns that little part of my mind that articulates the need for beer on certain occasions. But other brands have a lock on my palate and, therefore, my wallet.
If you like winning advertising awards, spend your time and energy on slogans and jingles. You can create an iconic line that will reverberate from the lips of consumers for decades. But if you have a need to make some money, better to spend your time developing a kick ass product.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Of consumers and unicorns
B2C marketers talk about consumers all the time. Consumer insights. Consumer needs. Consumer benefits. Consumer centricity. The entire marketing enterprise is supposedly built around this thing called "the consumer."
There's just a small problem. Consumers don't exist. There's no such thing. "The consumer" is a chimera, a reification.
There is consumption behavior. People do engage in the behavior of buying and then consuming various goods and services. But identifying or defining people as "consumers" is entirely inappropriate and it masks the complexity of human nature - and, even, human behavior.
The "thing" that is buying and consuming is not a buying / consumption machine. (Though we have done our best to confuse this point.) The "thing" is a human being. A person. At one moment it buys or consumes. At another it loves or grieves. At another it reaches up to the heights to exalt itself and others. And at another it stoops down to commingle with the dirt. Even more, it does all of this at once.
When we attempt to succeed in business by somehow influencing a "consumer," all we are doing is closing our minds to the richness of the person we seek to influence. Our behaviors are, thus, necessarily shallow and incomplete. If we were, instead, to insist on always imagining a complete human being in front of us, I suspect we would realize that our marketing efforts are not only woefully inadequate, but often counterproductive.
So let's stop using the word "consumer." Or, at least, let's use it as we use the word "unicorn." Instead, let's think about people. Talk about people. And seek to make people's lives better. In so doing, we can create success for our businesses.
There's just a small problem. Consumers don't exist. There's no such thing. "The consumer" is a chimera, a reification.
There is consumption behavior. People do engage in the behavior of buying and then consuming various goods and services. But identifying or defining people as "consumers" is entirely inappropriate and it masks the complexity of human nature - and, even, human behavior.
The "thing" that is buying and consuming is not a buying / consumption machine. (Though we have done our best to confuse this point.) The "thing" is a human being. A person. At one moment it buys or consumes. At another it loves or grieves. At another it reaches up to the heights to exalt itself and others. And at another it stoops down to commingle with the dirt. Even more, it does all of this at once.
When we attempt to succeed in business by somehow influencing a "consumer," all we are doing is closing our minds to the richness of the person we seek to influence. Our behaviors are, thus, necessarily shallow and incomplete. If we were, instead, to insist on always imagining a complete human being in front of us, I suspect we would realize that our marketing efforts are not only woefully inadequate, but often counterproductive.
So let's stop using the word "consumer." Or, at least, let's use it as we use the word "unicorn." Instead, let's think about people. Talk about people. And seek to make people's lives better. In so doing, we can create success for our businesses.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Preying on impulses
Marketers spend quite a bit of time thinking about how to encourage impulse buying. In a sense, trying to encourage impulse buying is a form of gravity fighting. You're trying to get people to do something that they didn't really want to do.
[See my earlier posts on the folly of gravity fighting.
http://adam-1001words.blogspot.com/2008/06/gravity-usually-wins.html
http://adam-1001words.blogspot.com/2008/12/innovation-rule-5-dont-fight-gravity.html]
But although I do believe that trying to fight gravity is generally a foolish strategy, it does not fail entirely. There are ways to get people to do what they don't really want to do. There's quite a bit of art and science behind this. Good retailers study this carefully. They know which products to put near the cash registers. They know what kind of signage will "interrupt" people. And so on.
I'm seeing a lot more of this sort of behavior on the part of businesses. The poor state of our economy puts pressure on businesses to sell sell sell. So I'm getting lots more emails with all sorts of sales incentives.
But let's play around a bit with the notion of impulse buying. I think it's safe to say that, in general, the impulse purchase is one that the consumer didn't need. If it was a need, it would have been on the shopping list. One way or another, people manage to buy their needs (assuming they can afford to do so). You don't have to encourage the need based purchase. You may need to make sure that it's your brand or product that is selected to fill the need, but you do not have to convince people to buy what they need.
Impulse purchases, on the other hand, are not needs. They are wants. And they aren't even really significant wants or they would have ended up on the shopping list. Rather, they tickle some small non-rational fancy buried somewhere in our minds that we probably cannot explain or justify.
Since people don't need these, I would argue that they are harmful. Why? Because they consume resources for no good reason. People are spending money that they could have used for a need or a truly significant want, on something that will do almost no good for them. In more flush times, this may not be so bad. But now that consumers are genuinely strapped and many are out of work, can we morally defend business practices that encourage impulse buying?
I wonder whether devising marketing strategies to get people to impulsively buy more gum, DVDs, options for their new car, etc. is on firmer moral ground than prostitutes trying to drum up business by finding married men they know are sexually unsatisfied. (Assume for the moment that prostitution was legal.) Or the alcohol industry trying to sell to recovering alcoholics. Or the mortgage industry trying to sell homes to people who couldn't afford them. Oh wait, they actually did that. My point is that all of these situations involve impulses. The sexually unsatisfied man has impulses. The recovering alcoholic has impulses. And shoppers have impulses.
When you spend time developing strategies and tactics to get people to add a few more items - that they don't really need or want - to their shopping cart, how are you better than the prostitute, booze pusher or predatory lender? Because you just sold a pack of gum and it doesn't cost that much or really hurt anyone? OK, you have a point. But not a very strong point. I'll agree that there is a quantitative difference between "taking" someone for $1 and conning someone out of thousands or wrecking their marriage... But it's just a quantitative difference. The fundamental behavior is the same. You have used guile to get people to do something that is bad for them and good for you.
On one hand, I say "shame on you!" On the other hand, our economy is entirely dependent on this. Maybe it's shame on us all.
Seem my earlier post regarding excessive consumption and Tim Jackson's poignant comments on the issue.
[See my earlier posts on the folly of gravity fighting.
http://adam-1001words.blogspot.com/2008/06/gravity-usually-wins.html
http://adam-1001words.blogspot.com/2008/12/innovation-rule-5-dont-fight-gravity.html]
But although I do believe that trying to fight gravity is generally a foolish strategy, it does not fail entirely. There are ways to get people to do what they don't really want to do. There's quite a bit of art and science behind this. Good retailers study this carefully. They know which products to put near the cash registers. They know what kind of signage will "interrupt" people. And so on.
I'm seeing a lot more of this sort of behavior on the part of businesses. The poor state of our economy puts pressure on businesses to sell sell sell. So I'm getting lots more emails with all sorts of sales incentives.
But let's play around a bit with the notion of impulse buying. I think it's safe to say that, in general, the impulse purchase is one that the consumer didn't need. If it was a need, it would have been on the shopping list. One way or another, people manage to buy their needs (assuming they can afford to do so). You don't have to encourage the need based purchase. You may need to make sure that it's your brand or product that is selected to fill the need, but you do not have to convince people to buy what they need.
Impulse purchases, on the other hand, are not needs. They are wants. And they aren't even really significant wants or they would have ended up on the shopping list. Rather, they tickle some small non-rational fancy buried somewhere in our minds that we probably cannot explain or justify.
Since people don't need these, I would argue that they are harmful. Why? Because they consume resources for no good reason. People are spending money that they could have used for a need or a truly significant want, on something that will do almost no good for them. In more flush times, this may not be so bad. But now that consumers are genuinely strapped and many are out of work, can we morally defend business practices that encourage impulse buying?
I wonder whether devising marketing strategies to get people to impulsively buy more gum, DVDs, options for their new car, etc. is on firmer moral ground than prostitutes trying to drum up business by finding married men they know are sexually unsatisfied. (Assume for the moment that prostitution was legal.) Or the alcohol industry trying to sell to recovering alcoholics. Or the mortgage industry trying to sell homes to people who couldn't afford them. Oh wait, they actually did that. My point is that all of these situations involve impulses. The sexually unsatisfied man has impulses. The recovering alcoholic has impulses. And shoppers have impulses.
When you spend time developing strategies and tactics to get people to add a few more items - that they don't really need or want - to their shopping cart, how are you better than the prostitute, booze pusher or predatory lender? Because you just sold a pack of gum and it doesn't cost that much or really hurt anyone? OK, you have a point. But not a very strong point. I'll agree that there is a quantitative difference between "taking" someone for $1 and conning someone out of thousands or wrecking their marriage... But it's just a quantitative difference. The fundamental behavior is the same. You have used guile to get people to do something that is bad for them and good for you.
On one hand, I say "shame on you!" On the other hand, our economy is entirely dependent on this. Maybe it's shame on us all.
Seem my earlier post regarding excessive consumption and Tim Jackson's poignant comments on the issue.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Sales without selling at Nordstrom
Below is a card I received from a shoe salesman that sold me one or more pairs of shoes at Nordstrom several months ago.
For me, it is a perfect example of how I like to be sold to. Fred knows he's trying to sell. I know Fred's trying to sell. Fred knows that I know he's trying to sell. I know that Fred knows he's trying to sell. And now you know that Fred knows that I know that he knows he's trying to sell. What I'm trying to say is that we all know Fred is trying to sell.
But here's the magic. It doesn't feel that way to me. And you know what? Feelings matter. [Can someone pass me a hankie please?] I feel that Fred is just treating me like a human being. He's thanking me for "letting" him help me in the past. He makes no mention whatsoever of his desire to help me in the future. He doesn't say anything about hoping to see me again soon. None of that. He just thanks me for being a customer in the past.
Super classy and it makes me feel great.
Just another reason why I buy all my shoes at Nordstrom.
For me, it is a perfect example of how I like to be sold to. Fred knows he's trying to sell. I know Fred's trying to sell. Fred knows that I know he's trying to sell. I know that Fred knows he's trying to sell. And now you know that Fred knows that I know that he knows he's trying to sell. What I'm trying to say is that we all know Fred is trying to sell.
But here's the magic. It doesn't feel that way to me. And you know what? Feelings matter. [Can someone pass me a hankie please?] I feel that Fred is just treating me like a human being. He's thanking me for "letting" him help me in the past. He makes no mention whatsoever of his desire to help me in the future. He doesn't say anything about hoping to see me again soon. None of that. He just thanks me for being a customer in the past.
Super classy and it makes me feel great.
Just another reason why I buy all my shoes at Nordstrom.
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Calcified relationships are useless
I recently wrote about leaving T-Mobile for AT&T. I did it largely because I want to get an iPhone, although my employer's significant discount with AT&T definitely helped.
But I've been thinking about why I left T-Mobile and what they could have done to keep me. As I wrote in my last post on this issue, the customer service rep was really nice when I called to tell them I was switching. The language he used made me feel special. He talked about what a great customer I had been for 7 years and how if I chose to come back, they would really take care of me.
It got me thinking: where were they for all of those years when I wasn't calling to tell them I was leaving? I will admit that I have noticed - over the past year or so - that when I call them, the experience is quite pleasing. But that isn't really enough. The problem is that my relationship with them never changed. I put in more years. I remained loyal, but they never acknowledged that in any way. Only when I called to dump them, did they express their love and show appreciation for my loyalty. Too late.
Think about it. Relationships either change or they end. The change doesn't have to be dramatic. But long lasting relationships often get the feel of a very comfortable old piece of clothing that gets softer with age. Where you know its every wrinkle and it seems to know just how to fit itself onto your body. Or an old bottle of wine or an aged whiskey that doesn't radically change flavor but seems to settle into its existing flavor with more grace and dignity over time.
The value of a long-lasting relationship is huge (when the relationship doesn't suck). But only if it acquires some greater breadth or depth. Otherwise it is calcified and its uselessness screams out until you fix or end it.
My relationship with T-Mobile never changed. They never acknowledged my loyalty in any way. They never behaved differently towards or with me when I was a 7 year customer than when I was a new customer. What that says is that they don't care. It's not a real relationship.
How could they have created a real changing relationship? Here are just some ideas:
* An "anniversary" present on the anniversary of my joining T-Mobile with a gift that increased in value every year
* Every now and then just sending an email, a text or calling me and letting me know - for no apparent reason - that they really appreciated my x years of business
* Giving me a special customer service line, good for long-standing customers only
* Having special in-store events for long-standing customers
And so on. See, this is not hard. And some of these ideas are really cheap. But they would have made me feel really good. I don't know if they would have been effective at stopping me from getting an iPhone. But if they had really cared about me and really showed it, I probably would have gotten an iPhone and unlocked it for use with T-Mobile.
Relationships where one or more of the parties is human, change. Period. If you are a business and you want to have a relationship with a human customer, you should have a plan for this. How will you evolve the relationship over time? I think, perhaps, that many businesses either don't think about this issue at all, or, worse, think of customers as equipment that depreciates over time. But the opposite is true. Customers get more valuable over time. So make sure to have a customer lifecycle plan for managing this incredibly valuable asset.
But I've been thinking about why I left T-Mobile and what they could have done to keep me. As I wrote in my last post on this issue, the customer service rep was really nice when I called to tell them I was switching. The language he used made me feel special. He talked about what a great customer I had been for 7 years and how if I chose to come back, they would really take care of me.
It got me thinking: where were they for all of those years when I wasn't calling to tell them I was leaving? I will admit that I have noticed - over the past year or so - that when I call them, the experience is quite pleasing. But that isn't really enough. The problem is that my relationship with them never changed. I put in more years. I remained loyal, but they never acknowledged that in any way. Only when I called to dump them, did they express their love and show appreciation for my loyalty. Too late.
Think about it. Relationships either change or they end. The change doesn't have to be dramatic. But long lasting relationships often get the feel of a very comfortable old piece of clothing that gets softer with age. Where you know its every wrinkle and it seems to know just how to fit itself onto your body. Or an old bottle of wine or an aged whiskey that doesn't radically change flavor but seems to settle into its existing flavor with more grace and dignity over time.
The value of a long-lasting relationship is huge (when the relationship doesn't suck). But only if it acquires some greater breadth or depth. Otherwise it is calcified and its uselessness screams out until you fix or end it.
My relationship with T-Mobile never changed. They never acknowledged my loyalty in any way. They never behaved differently towards or with me when I was a 7 year customer than when I was a new customer. What that says is that they don't care. It's not a real relationship.
How could they have created a real changing relationship? Here are just some ideas:
* An "anniversary" present on the anniversary of my joining T-Mobile with a gift that increased in value every year
* Every now and then just sending an email, a text or calling me and letting me know - for no apparent reason - that they really appreciated my x years of business
* Giving me a special customer service line, good for long-standing customers only
* Having special in-store events for long-standing customers
And so on. See, this is not hard. And some of these ideas are really cheap. But they would have made me feel really good. I don't know if they would have been effective at stopping me from getting an iPhone. But if they had really cared about me and really showed it, I probably would have gotten an iPhone and unlocked it for use with T-Mobile.
Relationships where one or more of the parties is human, change. Period. If you are a business and you want to have a relationship with a human customer, you should have a plan for this. How will you evolve the relationship over time? I think, perhaps, that many businesses either don't think about this issue at all, or, worse, think of customers as equipment that depreciates over time. But the opposite is true. Customers get more valuable over time. So make sure to have a customer lifecycle plan for managing this incredibly valuable asset.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)