Apr 5, 2011 | Communication, Customers, Marketing, Social Media
Following on from yesterdays somewhat cynical observations about the supposed ease of using viral marketing as an advertising “strategy”, driven often by cost considerations and dills who do not understand, it seems sensible to take a closer look at e-advertising, and the ways to target advertising to where it may deliver a marketing return, and hopefully eventually, a financial one.
Ads on the net have proliferated, from targeted ads that look like the stuff on TV or in magazines, to stuff, sometimes highly creative, posted by individuals, and that would never cut it in the advertising old days, but that leveraged the dynamics and connectedness of the net and have worked a treat. Predictably, the tools to manage placement have evolved pretty quickly as service providers seek an alternative to the disappearing revenue from traditional media.
The social media phenomenon of the web 2.0 has opened up another way to slice and dice potential audiences to target communication at those more receptive for some reason, but when you have a starting point of 600 million facebook, and hundreds of millions of other “opportunities”, Foursquare, Flikr, U-Tube, et al, the problem becomes one of analytics. Predictably there are a host of start-ups addressing the challenge of organising the data into a useable form, but the numbers are huge, and the organic unpredictability of an individuals capacity to respond to messages of all sorts makes this a real challenge.
I still fall back on the old fashioned formula of identifying a need, then over-delivering to customers, one by one, as the starting point. The difference is we can now conduct hundreds of small scale “experiments” using all the digital tools and low cost communication, the “experiments” themselves becoming the medium of communication exchange with highly fragmented potential and existing customers.
Apr 4, 2011 | Communication, Marketing, Social Media
Bosses, often with no idea of marketing, and the social networks and how to engage them seem to be increasingly thinking forget the TV, (good idea that in most cases) “just make a silly/funny/outrageous video, and it will go viral”.
Voila, marketing success at little cost, up go the profits.
Wish it was that easy, if it was, everyone’s’ creative baby would get a million views on U-tube, but it only happens to a few.
The basic rules of marketing and communication still need to be respected. Identify a problem for a group that your product solves better than any other, demonstrate the solution, praise the value, and build a relationship between the user and the product.
Making a video of cats that look like Hitler and dancing babies only work very occasionally, then usually only once, so be relevant. Take a look at the “virals” in Tom’s narrative of his cartoon in the link, they work!
Apr 3, 2011 | Communication, Customers, Sales, Small business
I’ve seen lots of customer service initiatives that promise “delivery by ……..” and no matter how quick that may be, there is still uncertainty about when it will be delivered, and customers will be anxious.
By contrast, “we will deliver at 3pm on the 25th” is very specific, and so long as you do deliver at the nominated time, every time, even if it is a few days longer than then quickest possible, customers just love the certainty.
Mar 23, 2011 | Branding, Communication, Marketing, Social Media, Strategy
How does a branded product withstand the power of a retailer duopoly that controls 65% of Australia’s supermarkets?
That question has exercised the minds of proprietary FMCG brand owners for over 30 years, since the first house-branded “No Frills” products appeared on the now almost defunct Franklins shelves. It has become a really serious question over the last couple of years as the big two retailers more actively set about building a brand of themselves as more than a place to shop, but also a range of products to buy, following the patterns set in the UK by Tesco and Sainsbury, and it hotted up a month ago with the beginning of the “milk war”.
The Nielsen Global Private Label report puts Australia’s private label penetration at 14%, not really accurate if you happen to own a milk brand. Milk had a sales channel split between supermarket and route sales about 60/40, with Housebrands holding a share around 50% in supermarkets, but nothing in route, until a month ago. Overnight, the “milk war” has dragged sales from route into supermarkets, (I do not have the numbers) and the house-brand sales must be now 85-90% plus, again, I do not have the numbers, just a set of eyes. “Dairy Farmers”, “Farmers Union” “Paul’s” all venerable brands in the milk market have had their value decimated almost overnight.
Now it seems we have Fosters pulling their beer brands from the shelves of Coles and Woolworths owned liquor outlets as a defense against the risk of having their brand equity, built over long periods, with huge investments, being trashed by under cost sales by retailers. It may lose them lots of sales in these outlets, but the 50% of the market still controlled by independent retailers will be cheering, it offers them a competitive advantage over the chains to have brands like “VB” on shelf when Woolies and Coles owned Dan Murphy and First Choice do not.
Suppliers of produce to supermarkets have faced the dilemma for many years. The retailers simply will not allow proprietary branded products on their shelves, if you want distribution of your oranges, potatoes, or lychees, it is as unbranded produce, or increasingly branded with the supermarket brand. In these categories, housebrand share is 100%, so I wonder where the innovation will come from in this drive to the bottom of the price equation, and will consumers in the long run be better off?.
Back to the core question, to which I wish I had a simple, glib answer, but I don’t. However, I think the answer is tangled up in the way we manage the changes emerging from the digital revolution we are undergoing.
- Mass media is dead, the cost cannot in the long term be recovered if hard won brand equity can be destroyed overnight by a retailer who wakes up with a good idea. In the future, mass media will not be used to build brands, with the exception of a few huge multinational brands. Apart from the cost/risk equation, the “mass audience” has fragmented anyway, and is increasingly hard to find. Time to sell your shares in TV networks.
- Social media now has a framework for communication, like it or not, that framework has two major dimensions, called “Facebook” and “Twitter”. As we figure out how to use them, these two related frameworks, and the others offering similar but more specifically targetted access to individuals, will drive the way brands engage with their adherents, attract new ones, reward their loyalty, and build equity that is remote from the ravages of duopoly bricks and mortar retailers.
- Marketers have to get to grips with this stuff, mostly it is beyond the young brand manager who does not understand, and should not have the power anyway to make brand related decisions. The case for the CEO to be the “Chief Brand Officer” in any business is getting stronger daily.
Building a brand just got a whole lot harder. Dollars to spend now bears no relationship to success, nor does longevity, (facebook had its 5th birthday day before yesterday), so just hanging around is not an option. Instead, markets have to do the hard yards to really deliver value, huge value, to customers, and keep “value-innovating” as if their lives depend on it, as it surely does.
Mar 9, 2011 | Communication, Leadership, Management
There is a big difference between these two states, and they can have a powerful impact on the way organisations react to the decision maker.
Someone who is seen as decisive, but as yet undecided will be have the respect of others, who will usually assist in the process of coming to a decision in a positive manner.
By contrast, someone who is seen as indecisive, will be ignored, and work-arounds will be used to get things done, and at some time, if it is a personal trait, it needs to be removed from behavior patterns, or the individual will be removed.
Feb 2, 2011 | Communication, Customers, Management, Marketing, Sales
Opportunity cost is a concept well understood, and often used in a theoretical sense, but not often is it translated into something easily understood.
In a store just before Christmas, I was tossing up between two brands of domestic coffee machine, that appeared pretty similar in all but price, the better known brand being substantially more expensive. The sales assistant sensing my indecision, and perhaps thinking I might do more ‘research” and he would lose a sale solved the dilemma by asking, “would you rather have” X” brand, or “Y” brand and 20kg of coffee beans?”
That turned the theoretical “opportunity cost” although I had not considered it in these terms at the time, into something tangible that had a value relevant to the purchase, and made all the difference…… I took the “Y” brand machine and with the saving, bought some exotic coffee beans.
