acronym soup and other pointless marketing distinctions

B2C. B2B. CPG. FMCG. ABC123UNME. i have seen the google serps on this topic, and i am more than a little disappointed. oh, marketers of the 21st century (or at least the last 5 years), apostles of david meerman scott and seth godin and andy sernovitz, where are you with your salient comments on how these distinctions no longer apply (or at the very least, need to be re-addressed in light of web 2.0, social media, democratization of technology, and the like?)

those who believe that there are important differences between B2B and B2C generally make the following arguments:

1. B2B sales are more complex, influenced by more people, have longer lead times, and higher dollar values than B2C sales.



2. therefore, B2B buyers are more "rational" vs. emotional, purchase generally based on cost, quality or other measurable factors, and require marketing materials packed with data and devoid of personality.



3. if you use B2C tactics on B2B audiences, or vice versa, you'll fail miserably, put on weight, and die an early but well-deserved death, which will be a fitting punishment for your failure to follow these archaic rules that were cobbled together when dinosaurs roamed and most people, including bill gates, thought that 64K would be quite enough RAM for anyone, thank you.

here's the deal. the factors affecting the success of marketing -- and i do mean ALL marketing -- as the necessary juice in the great fat delicious orange of commerce have been changing rapidly and remarkably on virtually a moment-to-moment basis due to technological innovation and the ability of people to quickly and easily communicate with each other. Companies, irrespective of their products, services or offerings all have been thrown into a giant information vortex that is propelled by the Web ... and by what i like to think of as a virtuous cycle of understanding and influencing human behavior in a way that puts money in the coffers of those organizations that are generally (tho not always) most deserving.

Monica's Virtuous Cycle of Understanding and Influencing Human Behavior (or "Marketing," if you must).


in my world, this is the way all customers -- those who are buying furiously expensive stuff for data centers AND those who're thinking it might be time for a new car that doesn't smell like dirty dogs AND those who're just wanting some chewing gum -- are properly "marketed" to.

identification. whether you're selling machine tools or mister potato head, you need to correctly identify your targets (see dm scott's world wide rave for an excellent take on "buyer personas"). what links those folks together in a compelling manner? (clue -- it's how they think and why they think that way, not how old they are or where they live.).

attraction. if you really understand your bps, you can figure out the best ways to attract them. where do they hang out, and with whom? is it some industry association or business roundtable or charitable event, or a neighborhood bar or the privacy of their own home with the dvr going while they surf the web? again -- whether the buyer is purchasing for business or personal reasons matters not. what matters is that you have something that will solve his/her problems and, if you've done a good job in correctly understanding his/her needs, he/she will usually be willing to listen.

engagement. and if only "listening" and "engagement" were the same thing. they're related, but listening is more just the front-end. engagement is the back-end ... the hard, hard work of making promises to your customers (as a brand, as a company, as a sales or customer service person, whatever) and keeping them. it's the business of delivering surprise and delight, whether it's in how easily the server software installed or how cool the gps map thing is or how the gum comes in a package that keeps the stuff from turning into melty mush in the summer heat.

retention. some people think that if they simply do engagement right, retention is a given. but sadly, that's not true in any kind of human relationships -- marriages included. customers, irrespective of what kinds of things they buy, the cycle they buy them on, or any of that other old-style marketing drivel, MUST feel that you care about them if you want them to buy from you again. whether you do this through rebates or coupons or email offers or dinners at trade shows, it's vitally important. i know a terrific pr guy who ends every meeting with the question: "how else can i help you?" just this simple act yields repeat business on a regular basis.

advocacy. i wish that this happened automatically, sort of a reward for our dutiful following of the cycle, and sometimes it does -- but more often, advocates have to be cultivated. think about the number of times you've made a recommendation to someone on a product or service APART from them asking you a prompting question. this is the difference between getting a good net promoter score -- not an unimportant thing, by the way -- and leads, revenue and margin increases that begin with your customers making an effort to help their colleagues, friends and family get the same great experience from you that they themselves have received. twitter and facebook, in my view, have completely upended how we've thought of advocacy in the past, as people can quickly and easily pass along recommendations, special offers, and their personal word-of-mouth mojo on behalf of brands and companies they trust. of course, advocacy also makes your job in identification and attraction much easier, since customers will now enter the cycle with the kind of positive mindset that makes the rest of wheel much easier to traverse.

what do you think? are there really key differences between these audiences that take precedence over the simple fact that people are people, given how much easier it now is for them to get information and form opinions? do we take off our human hat when we sit down at our company desk, somehow mysteriously clearing our subconsious of preconceived notions of brands?



photo credit: codyfrew.wordpress.com. if you're going to copy my "virtuous cycle," please credit me and this post.

playing hooky, part 2

so now i see that for once, i appear to have blogged about something before my heroes at mashable, who have now reported that dave carroll's united breaks guitars you tube video has racked up more than 3 million views in 10 days.

in my post, i talked about the fact that one of the reasons i think dave's video has gone viral is that it's a hooky little tune, and, in a nice double entendre, that united played hooky for a year on the topic.

but, dear readers, it's now come to my attention that there are yet other parties who are also playing hooky (to my great astonishment, actually): american airlines, delta airlines and southwest airlines, to name a few -- all of whom, i think, could take great advantage of this situation by doing something to differentiate themselves on a subject that appears to be of some great interest to the travelling public.

let's see what they're doing:

at american, (which is pretty much still my favorite airline even though i don't get to fly them a lot anymore), a search on "guitars" from their home page reveals a ton of text and tables on various baggage-related topics, including this regarding guitars:

Small musical instruments may be carried onboard the aircraft providing they meet existing carry-on size requirements and fit in the overhead bin or under the seat in front of you. Case dimensions may not exceed 45 dimensional inches (width + length + height), except for guitars which may be brought on board only if they can be safely stowed in an overhead bin or approved stowage location in the cabin. The instrument is considered the passenger's one allowed carry-on bag. A personal item is allowed in addition to the instrument. See Carry-On Allowance for more information.If an instrument is too large to fit in the carry-on baggage space, an additional seat may be purchased. In this case, an instrument must travel in a window, bulkhead seat, with the customer in the adjoining seat. Due to their size Bass Fiddles are not accepted in the coach cabin and are only accepted on certain aircraft types, please contact an American Airlines representative at 1-800-433-7300.Instruments may also be transported as checked baggage, however, due to their fragile nature AA does not accept liability for damages and has limited liability for loss. AA is also not liable for any damage to checked musical instruments not presented in a hard-sided case. If the outside of the hard-sided case does not have visible damage, AA is not liable for any damage to the musical instrument inside the case.

wow. not great. i think this is pretty much identical to united's language on the topic. but it makes me wonder whether or not in dave's case there was damage to the outside of the hard-sided case. if the bottom of the guitar was crushed in, i'd imagine that there would have to be damage to the case as well, and therefore, had dave been flying on american instead of united, it seems like he would have had a leg to stand on here

a search on "guitars" at the website of my friends at delta/northwest reveals an entire page devoted to the topic of musical instruments, which at least includes a statement indicating they "get" the importance of these items to their customers:

We know that your musical instrument is important to you and depending on the size, we accept musical instruments or equipment as checked baggage, carry-on baggage, or cabin-seat baggage. Please help us to keep your instrument safe by bringing it in a hard-shell case.

they then go on to tell you that you can pay for a regular seat to sit next to your guitar, etc. great. but even worse, they go on (on the page dealing with "delayed or damaged baggage" to let you know that they're no worse than anyone else:

Like most major airlines, we don't accept liability for damage to checked luggage such as:
Broken wheels or feet
Lost pull straps
Minor cuts and scratches
Damage resulting from over packing
Damage to retractable luggage handles
Fragile or perishable items damaged during transport
Items unsuitably packed or unsuitable for transportation
Damage resulting from Transportation Security Administration (TSA) inspections

yikes.

southwest airlines doesn't have a search box on its home page, and after hunting around for a while i finally resorted to the site map to see if i could find out anything about guitars. they do have, it turns out, a small section on musical instruments which says:

If your musical instrument does not meet the sizing requirements for carryon items (10”x16”x24”), it will be handled as checked baggage provided you do not wish to purchase a seat for the instrument. In the event you are traveling with a musical instrument that is larger than our sizing requirements for carryon luggage and is fragile in nature, you may purchase a seat for the instrument and carry it in the cabin under the following conditions:
The instrument must fit in the seat without blocking aircraft signage and be secured with a seatbelt.
The instrument must be placed in the first row and in a seat closer to the window than any other Customer in that row.
Reservations must be made and a ticket must be purchased at a charge no greater than the Child’s Fare. Musical instruments cannot be transported in place of a free companion under any fare promotion.
Instruments that are transported in a soft-sided case or other packaging that is not strong enough to protect the instrument under normal baggage handling conditions will be conditionally accepted, which means that Southwest assumes no liability for any damage sustained to the item during transport.

that's not really the warm, friendly southwest airlines we've come to love, is it? though they do have a cool viral video of their own which has gotten quite a bit of traffic in the last year.

c'mon, you airline marketers... where are you??? run a giant homepage banner saying something as simple as WE DON'T BREAK GUITARS (OR WE'LL PAY YOU WITHOUT HASSLE IF WE DO). i would bet you could expect significant pickup in the blogosphere, not to mention mainstream media who love nothing better than follow-on stories.

of course, this means that you should probably have a reasonably well-coordinated effort with your baggage-handling and customer service folks to ensure that you don't break any guitars -- or damage other luggage, either -- while you're promoting this capability (and afterwards, too, since the internet is forever and the aforementioned mainstream media, as well as the blogosphere and whatever else we have by that time, will make quite a stink about you if you fall into the poor baggage-treatment abyss. however, in that case you truly will be just like everyone else.

measurement, metrics and morons

early last century, when mark twain popularized benjamin disraeli's famous "lies, damned lies, and statistics," i doubt he had any idea about just how frequently that phrase would come to be referenced by marketers the world over. today it seems that every conference, every webinar, every agency pitch has a bevy of charts and graphs included, seemingly with the intent of making it clear that they've found the holy roi grail and claimed it in the name of all that is right, good and worth paying more for.

those of us of more mature standing certainly remember a time when pr firms counted and physically measured news clippings, and then performed column-inch calculations to quantify the value of "free" news coverage in terms of the cost of advertising space in those publications. as one who was, as a junior account person in a large agency in those halcyon days, tasked to spend hours with ruler and calculator, i recall thinking, among other things:

"this is $*%&W$* stupid."

even to me, a pr neophyte at the time, the idea we would be trying to make an roi argument based on the expense of another medium vs. the true outcomes of our work simply didn't make sense. sadly, though, this kind of moronic thinking is still with us, as we see what i think is undue focus put on the level of activity measures -- everything from HUT levels to impressions to CTRs and even web "stickiness" minutes -- and not nearly enough on quantifying the relative impact that each of those engagement types has, and even more importantly, how they collectively meld to affect the target's perception.

this is important because (and it's amazing how many marketers miss this simple-but-not-easy-idea) customers do not buy based upon what you do. customers buy based upon how they think and feel as a result of what you -- and your competitors -- do (and sometimes, what you/they don't do).

if you believe, as i do, that people will act based upon their perceptions, then the most important thing to figure out is why they think the way they do, and what actions you can take that will have the highest likelihood of either reinforcing their positive assessments of your brand, or changing their minds if they have a neutral or negative mindset.

that's why ongoing tracking research is key. sometimes changing the customer's or prospect's mind is the most difficult thing in marketing (as it is in all relationships). it takes careful planning, concerted effort, and sometimes a fair amount of money because people don't often change their minds without clear rationale, personal experience, their boss's pointy finger, or some other compelling reason. and it almost never happens overnight.

what should you track? that depends upon your customers, your category, your brand, and a host of other factors. but i would say there are minimally 3 questions to which you should know the answers at all times:

1) what's important, and how do you do on what's important, relative to your competitors?
2) what must change for you to be perceived as different and better?
3) how can those changes be made in a clear, credible, compelling way?

note the inclusion of "perceived" in #2. you may in fact actually already be different and better, you're just not perceived that way. this is why activity without an understanding of relative impact on perception is useless. if you just keep doing the same stuff -- or even different stuff -- without tracking its impact on how people think, you're wasting your (and your customer's) time.

it won't necessarily be easy to figure out how each of your marketing efforts is changing perceptions -- this is, in fact, the holy grail as far as i'm concerned -- because they often act in concert and it's extremely difficult to control for the impact of one versus the others. but i think it's worth trying. it's only with this kind of insight that marketers can get beyond the old "column-inch" thinking and onto the things that really make a difference in attracting and retaining customers.

these pants are made for standing

These boots are made for walking
and that's just what they'll do
one of these days these boots
are gonna walk all over you.
- Nancy Sinatra

i have not been able to get that stupid song out of my head for the last couple of days. here's why.

it all started when i purchased a pair of Issey Miyake pleated pants. i was planning a trip that involved a 3-hour plane ride from austin to new jersey, and the pants (if not the wearer) had to look good at the end of the ride. i figured they'd be comfortable, too.

now, i didn't know that issey miyake was into apparel. call me fashion-backward ... i guess somehow i'd missed that issue of instyle. but i've worn the cologne for years and love it, so i was willing to give the guy some brand largesse in an adjacent category. plus, they were on sale, which was good 'coz they're typically not ... shall we say... value-priced.

the pants are pleated in hundreds (i'm guessing) of tiny, 1/16" pleats, which is what gives them their unique look. pleats reportedly have been with us since the time of the egyptians, who apparently had enough free time on their hands to do this sort of thing when they weren't trying to get the philistines to look the other way. but i wasn't really thinking about this when i bought them. i needed a good-looking, good quality, comfortable, well-wearing pair of pants, and that's what i thought i was getting.

so i wore them on the trip, and it was all good. the pants held up fabulously well, even when my return flight was cancelled and forced me to go through cleveland to get to milwaukee. i have nothing in particular against cleveland, but suffice it to say that 5pm on a day that started at 4am, i was more interested in my pants coming off and being replaced by pajamas as quickly as possible.

it was only later, when i was assembling clothing for a trip to the dry cleaner, that i actually got a look at the pants' labels. ordinarily, i check the care instructions when i buy a garment, just to see whether or not i'll be putting my dry cleaners' kids through post-doc studies (their undergraduate work has already been well covered). but i was in a hurry at purchase time and didn't see this -- because i guarantee you, if i had, the pants would still be on a hanger in the store and i would be in the hospital recovering from whatever injury you get when you can't stop laughing hysterically.

here is what the tag says (and i could not make this up if i tried):

minimum machine wash
do not bleach
do not iron
do not dry clean
do not tumble dry

so i'm thinking ... well, ok, i have some hand-washing ahead of me. not the worst thing in the world. but wait, there's more!

in order to preserve the shape, please observe the following. pleats are easily marred by heat and pressure. avoid sitting and applying other types of pressure for long periods of time.

avoid sitting? they're pants! i can't tell you how much my sensibilities as a marketer are offended by this type of total disregard for product-in-use. it reminds me of when motorola in its early days made a cell phone where you had to press the "on" button to turn the phone off, or the kind of phone voicemail systems that are supposed to get you to a relevant contact more easily but have exactly the opposite effect. it's just plain silly... and annoying.

good product design, in my view, starts with ethnographic research so you can actually understand in a very specific way how your customer behaves and how the product is, or is not, likely to meet his/her needs and expectations. in an ideal world, you uncover some bit of something that enables you to create a product that offers surprise and delight, or at least one that doesn't work to offend your target.

i still can't get the tune out of my head, except now it goes:

These pants are made for standing
and that's just what they'll do
one of these days these pants
are gonna go to Goodwill, too.

when all else fails, try puppy eyes....

hi, folks .. it's me, willy the yellow lab, serving as your guest blogger today. my mom has been avoiding a ton of stuff and says she's too busy to bother with you, her loyal fans. i keep telling her seth godin and other marketing experts say this is a serious marketing error, and how can she ever expect to have more than 14 followers if this is how she behaves .... but now she's waving me off and telling me to get lost. i know that's impossible 'coz she put one of those damn GPS chips in my neck and now i can't even sneak out with my friends like a normal, self-respecting dog.



anyway, as you all know, my considerable expertise in marketing comes from watching hours of animal planet, and even more hours of sometimes good, sometimes bad, but always interesting human behavior. here are some things you may want to think about as you construct your next marketing program:



1) have a clear objective. and i don't mean something vague like "drive sales." to me, a clear objective is something very specific -- like, "get that piece of chicken shaped like a triangle."



2) have a clear strategy. a while back, my mom was pretty interested in a linkedin forum where some people didn't know the difference between objectives, strategies and tactics. to me (and her), strategies are pretty easy to discern from objectives and tactics. strategies are approaches, the general means by which objectives are accomplished. some people go right to tactics, which is a mistake because it doesn't allow you to fully consider all the alternatives that you have at your disposal when it comes to achievement of a goal. for example, in the case of the chicken triangle, my strategy is going to be to get her to give it to me willingly. there are a number of alternate approaches i could use, such as jumping up and nabbing it off the plate, or by creating a diversion ...by say, taking a leak on the sofa and subtly stealing the chicken while she races off to get the upholstery cleaner. those 2 latter strategies, however, are likely to get me a big doggy spanking, while the first approach is much easier and devoid of pain.



3) select appropriate tactics. now that i've decided on the "willing" strategy, i have to find specific actions that align. i have a huge arsenal of tools i can use, everything from double-barreled drool strands (my personal best: 8"!!) guaranteed to make a mess on the floor, to doing a little circle dance i know she loves ... or even telepathy, which hasn't yet actually worked but which i continue to pursue by staring fixedly at the chicken or whatever in hopes that my brain will actually compel movement of the food to my anxiously awaiting gullet. again, tactics like nabbing or barking or peeing are not well aligned with this strategy and so i won't pursue them. however ... puppy dog eyes are guaranteed to work in nearly every situation and in this case will be the primary, and quite possibly only, tactic required.



why puppy eyes work for dogs - and how they can work for you



here's the thing -- the most effective brand and marketing efforts are built on emotional connections, not on rational arguments. features, advantages and benefits -- all that stuff you learned about early in your career -- it's all still really important, but you've got to move on and understand this at a higher level. if FABs were all that mattered, all salt would be the same price (remember chemistry? all salt is NaCL. it's as much a commodity as any product i can think of, although my mom also likes to use toothpaste as an example.) next time you're at your local grocery, compare the price of morton's to the store brand.



anyway, i digress. the reason why puppy eyes work for dogs is that they inspire 2 very important emotions -- guilt and fear -- which most humans are completely inept at handling. when i fix her with that look, my mom feels guilty because she knows she blew off my walk today, yesterday or last october. it doesn't matter which date -- what matters is that she knows she doesn't do as much for me as she thinks she should (note, i didn't say as much as I think she should. i know i'm getting a pretty sweet deal, but that's for another post). the second emotion is fear --she's afraid that if she doesn't give me the chicken, i might eat something else outside that's not good for me and hurt myself. and then she'd have a giant vet bill, in addition to the guilt. not a good combo.



these emotions can work for you, too, especially if you're in cause marketing. i've seen this work brilliantly on my mom. when the local charities send their people around collecting door-to-door, she gives them money; when the people come collecting on a bitterly cold day, or in the rain, she gives them 2x whatever she usually gives them.



fear is a little trickier ... but still very effective. my mom has a friend who says fear is an essential element of ANY sale. the customer has to, deep down, somehow believe that whatever the other alternatives are aren't going to be as good, or deliver as much value, or be available under the same circumstances, as whatever it is you're offering. when mom finds our food on sale and isn't sure it'll still be available next time, woo wee! we get lots!!



so, when all else fails, try puppy eyes. (it works for me).

"when people get paid to do a thing...

... you should pay them to do it." it's become a favorite motto of mine, having made all kinds of home improvement mistakes over the years.

there was the time i tried to fix the slow leak in the pipe under the kitchen sink, which resulted in water collecting in the crawl space underneath the house. of course, i didn't find that out until about 2 years later, when it was far too late to do anything other than call the guy i should have called the first time, and pay him about 10x what it would have cost if i HAD called him the first time.

then there was the other time when i sat on my sofa in the living room with a glass of wine after dinner and thought, "hey, i could paint this place in about 3 hours." it seemed like a good evening activity. three weeks later, after 3 - 4 hours of painting virtually every night, i was no longer removing hardware from the walls, deciding that i would just stick my finger in the paint can and draw around lighting fixtures, hinges, pictures, etc. that house also had a vaulted ceiling and i had only my god-given 5'0 of height and a 6'0" ladder. when i sold the place, i had to take the cost of repainting it out of the proceeds.

i mention all this as background to my latest excuse for ignoring you, dear readers, as my husband mike and i decided that we would stain and seal our 10' x 50' deck ourselves. it should be noted that the 50' length includes a post-and-rail fence, and that each of those silly rails has 4 sides. it also turns out, which i did not know in advance, that one has to apply stain/sealant in a certain way (i.e., with a brush ... or if you use a roller and or sprayer, you STILL have to use a brush, which is ridiculous but true).

after what seems like an eternity, we're about half-done, having managed to apply the stain to the deck and the insides of the rails and the stairs. unfortunately, like most objects in real life, the deck exists in 3 dimensions, and that means that the entire rear of the thing, including the back sides of the stupid aforementioned rails, is still bare-assed ugly pine. to be fair, i should point out that willy and hoover, from the beginning, knew this was an ill-conceived venture, and studiously avoided my attempts to attach brushes to their tails.


the quality of our work is ... um ... crappy. there are blotches, little circle marks where small drops of stain fell and solidified, places where we stopped and then started again that are darker than the rest of the boards, uneven finishes, etc. we're thinking about starting a new business, tentatively called "distance decking." our slogan would be: "it looks ok from far away." our target market would be people who don't really care what their decks look like up close -- so for example, sitcom characters, movie prop people, and the folks making brochures and videos for google earth. i realize it's a pretty niche market ... but i bet it's a niche that's somewhat under-served.

the point -- and as is sometimes the case, i do have one -- is that marketing, advertising and communications are fields in which professional people grow and develop their expertise. i've noted that often small businesses (and even large ones, on occasion) try to do this work themselves rather than paying people who know what they're doing. what they get in return is similar to our deck -- it looks ok from far away -- but upon closer inspection, doesn't have the impact or quality or effectiveness or ANYTHING, really, that the end product is supposed to have. it's just ... there, kind of like our deck, waiting for us to come out and look at it and wish we'd had the sense to hire a professional.

but the consequences for those businesses are somewhat more severe. why? because in the end, we'll sell this place (i hope!) and we might have to pay the new buyer something to get the deck fixed. the deck, by itself, is not serving as an attractant to potential buyers. but the business that relies on cheap, shoddy marketing to attract new customers or reinforce its value to existing ones does itself a disservice that can ultimately result in people ignoring it, or staying away, or taking advantage of a well-presented offer by a competitor. net net: do it right the first time!

the marketing of anti-life

apologies, all, for the gaping hole left in the blogosphere by the absence of monica-generated drivel over the last couple of weeks. i was officially on vacation... or, as i like to think of it ... the "anti-life." that's because the type of vacation i typically select, when given a choice, is the kind that involves basting in a delicious broth of one's own juices combined with SPF30 (anything over 30 is marketing) and the last dribbles of that umbrella drink that never quite made it to its proper and final destination.

i've been going to negril beach, located on the western tip of jamaica, for roughly the last 2 decades, because it provides a highly enjoyable and consistent brand experience which is mostly about that anti-life. the anti-life is, by definition, the opposite of real life (meaning my life, for the most part). for example, in real life, one generally must be prompt -- but in jamaica, everything runs on "jamaica time," which is anywhere between 5 minutes and 45 minutes late, and if you're on time for something, you look (and feel) silly. in real life, one generally only sings in public if one is either a performer, or silly enough to think that s/he is as good as a performer. but in jamaica, everybody sings, pretty much about everything, and they don't seem to care whether anyone's listening (and somehow, even non-performer jamaicans sound much better than non-perfomer americans, though i've never been able to figure out why this is so). and in real life, one finds it generally most productive to be awake during the day and asleep at night ... but in jamaica this portion of the time-space continuum is stood on its beautifully tanned head, and the place doesn't even really get going until midnight or so.

when i first started vacationing there, they didn't have either telephones or tv sets in the rooms (remember, it was 1989 and the internet was not even a twinkle in al gore's eye) and that was just fine by me, since, in real life, i was on the phone and paying attention to the television pretty much all day. a mcpaper cost $5 (and that was before they were doing the special weekend editions). if you wanted to know something about what was going on in the u.s., the best way was to locate someone who'd just arrived and ask what the headlines were in the last day or so. like playing "telephone," the children's game, the news was not always told in the most accurate fashion ... but then again, when one has had enough umbrella drinks, sometimes one is willing to make allowances for that.

but i thought (and still think) the oddest thing is that, rather than marketing all this as "anti-life," which was the whole reason i -- and others, too, i think -- were going there, they were busy trying to promote the experience for its "real life" qualities... the great beachfront, the great food, the great hotel amenities, etc. and there's no doubt those things were (and are) great .... but the truth is, those things are pretty much the same in ANY vacation place. my point -- and i do have one, trust me -- is that the things which were truly the best and most meaningful differentiators of the experience were ignored in favor of some things that were not really differentiators at all. i hate to admit i'd ever pay more for anything, but truth is, if they'd proclaimed something like: "come to jamaica, where you'll never hear a ringing telephone," i would have been inclined to spend twice the money to go there.

remember jolt cola? as i recall, this product evolved in the mid-80s at a time when diet and caffeine-free drinks were all the rage. rather than take on coke and pepsi, wet planet beverages brought out jolt with 2x the caffeine and 2x the sugar of regular soda -- and charged more for it!

net net: the best brands fight carefully on chosen turf. they don't necessarily seek to appeal to everyone -- in fact, it's hard to be a strong brand with a large, diffuse target because you end up trying to be everything to everybody.... which means, in the end, you're often nothing to nobody. if what you're marketing is, in some ways, inferior to your competitors, you're better off figuring out how those shortcomings might be turned into unique advantages vs. attempting to come-from-behind in the areas where others are already ahead.

Willy's Guest Blog #2

hi, everyone. it's me, willy! i know you all have missed me since my original post. so i thought i'd update you on what's going on in my life.

first of all, i'm taking a cue from my mom and using a photo that is lovely but not ... ah, shall we say, nowsville? and i'm a dog! that means i'm 7 years older than something, sometime. i forget exactly what since i've been multiple 7s and early doggie forgetfulness is beginning to creep in. but that's ok coz my mom can't remember anything either and it hasn't seemed to make much of a difference. except occasionally she forgets to feed us and i have to pull a cujo to get her to wake the hell up.

how does this relate to marketing? well, certainly good marketing has to be memorable so people feel like they've seen whatever it is before and therefore it must be good. like, when i go to PetSmart, there's this one shelf that i really like. it has rawhide stuff on it and i'm not allowed to have rawhide ever since i ate some when i was a puppy and my mom had to spend the entire weekend outside with me and my intestines... but believe me, i'm buying whatever these people are selling. i can imagine that lovely scent in my doggie dreams! if i ever bust outta this joint, that's the first place i'm headed.

what else. well, you know, it's march in wisconsin and that means ... it's still cold, and we're not putting the stupid doggie boots away for another 2 months. shoot, i'll bet we get another snowfall. that's really hoover's thing more than mine; i'm ready to be a california canine anytime. and take those stinking boots (literally!) back to PetSmart where they belong.

bagels don't get it back

it's funny how people think food is the universal "fixer."

now, i myself am a big fan of food, generally speaking, and probably enjoy a little too much of it on a too-frequent basis. this is why, though willy & hoover would be ecstatic to have me working from home, i must leave my house for minimally 8 hours every day. otherwise, i would be spending 6 of them in, on my way to be in, or thinking about what's in... the refrigerator.

i would eventually become so large that i would be unable to hoist myself from the couch, but i'm quite certain i would still be able to crawl, slide or drag myself across the floor to have yet another grazing session. how do i know this? a few years ago, i had to have surgery on both feet at the same time, and was, effectively, unable to hoist myself from the couch. didn't lose a pound, though.

anyway, food as fixer sometimes occupies an interesting position in the efforts of companies and people to right past wrongs or convince you of something that may in fact not be true.

for example, you'll see a restaurant have a health department issue, and then 2 months later they're open again, and giving away free apps as a way to entice diners to return (shame on you if you believe the rats are really gone for good). or you'll see a boutique that had horribly overpriced things have a "special sales event!", and they'll have snacks and drinks to lure you in to see marked-down things which are still ridiculously expensive... but now you've chowed down on the canapes and slugged back the wine and feel guilty that you're taking advantage of the store if you don't buy something. or, my personal favorite ... someone mistreats or offends you and later brings you bagels or cookies as a "peace offering" to convince you that he/she isn't such a bad guy/gal after all.

what a bunch of horse hockey this sort of thing is! it's bad practice on at least 3 fronts: 1) it's dishonest because it's not well-intentioned; 2) it's stupid because it presumes the recipient is not smart enough to see through the charade; and 3) it's unncessary because people are not going to believe you anyway.

net net -- bagels don't get it back for you. people may eat them, but ultimately it's unlikely that they're going to change their minds. if you want to have a strong brand, you have to behave with integrity -- the first time, and every time, you engage with people whom you wish to be loyal to you over the long run.