Jul 22, 2010 | Branding, Communication, Innovation, Marketing, Social Media
It will be fascinating to watch how Apple, the masters of digital marketing, handle the latest hiccup with the antenna problems on the iPhone4.
Apple has now stumbled twice in a short time, the first was the furore over the wages paid to employees at Foxconn, one of their major suppliers factories in China, leading to an unusually high suicide level, and now the dodgy antenna story, furiously being stirred by Apples grateful competitors.
The speed that such problems emerge and are all over the user communities has outstripped the response times of even the most sensitive and paranoid of businesses, and now it appears that Apple is going in to defiant mode by using Steve Jobs to front the problem and say, in effect, “all smart phones suffer from the same problem, we are no worse than the others.”
Apple has grown in an extraordinary way for the last decade, tapping in to the mindset of the early adopters to become apostles for their brand and products, and by being consistently first out there with a product that delivers a highly differentiated proposition. The Apple brand is now a very tall poppy indeed, and attracts attention, so they had better be careful that the legions of fans who have fed the myth do not turn around and bite it, because their hero shows themselves to be fallible, and therefore not worthy of being their hero, in fact, it becomes a source of satirical comment that speeds the process of brand erosion.
Such loyalty scorned can turn nasty very quickly.
Jul 15, 2010 | Communication, Leadership
“Values” is a widely misused term, one that is often a key break out subject at the annual senior management off site session, subject to sage pronouncements, then usually ignored.
Having participated, and more recently facilitated many of these sessions over the years, I have seen a few words that emerge, and that have actually evolved to mean something to the businesses concerned once the bull session is over:
- Reciprocity, where each individuals takes responsibility for their performance, that of their colleagues, and the organisation as a whole. When all individuals take this step, and the structures in the organisation are aligned, a powerful mutual and widely shared obligation, reciprocity, can emerge.
- Teamwork, that fosters collaboration and cross functional value creation
- Achievement, where the employee is recognised and rewarded for setting and achieving ambitious goals, but where money is only a small part of the reward system
- Integrity, which creates barriers to the short term, and is the foundation of the other values.
The words used differ from place to place, but the presence of these four in some form appears to be a basic recipe for success.
Jul 13, 2010 | Communication, Innovation, Leadership
Straying from my usual “beat” I read the Rolling Stone article that caused the downfall of General Stanley McChrystal, the US commander in Afghanistan.
It seems to me that he was fired, not because he was insubordinate, but because he failed to manage the politics surrounding the adventure in Afghanistan.
The article is a revealing, and fascinating narrative of an innovative, unconventional manager who got things done by ignoring the weight of the status quo, and its proponents. The parallels in management are everywhere, to be different, take closely considered risks, apply the unconventional, take information from the “front line” and argue with authority, all are traits necessary in a leader who is successful, and particularly successful at implementing innovative solutions to seemingly intractable problems.
Afghanistan has been a problem for every army since Alexander that has sought to place its stamp on the place, the US is no different. Engagement there screams for the unconventional, as the conventional has never worked, but conventional leaders cannot deliver unconventional solutions.
Many more will die, and more billions spent before the US and its “allies” including Australia wake up, but it is hard to admit you are wrong.
Jul 11, 2010 | Branding, Communication, Customers, Sales
It is often pretty easy recognise marketing hyperbole when we see it, particularly in a category where we have some knowledge. However, in a category where we have no knowledge, it probably is not as easy to pick the fact from the flummery, so even some of the more extravagant claims made may get through the mental fence.
Therefore, hyperbolic claims extolling the virtues of a new small car for example, are more likely to be rejected by the men who may engage with the ad, because they largely believe they know a bit about cars, rather than women, who believe they know little about cars, and are therefore less able to pick the BS from the facts.
This becomes very relevant when marketing a product to a category of consumers who know a bit about the product, and are therefore going to be more critical of the message based on what they know, or believe they know about the category, so be careful of the hyperbole, it will almost always turn off potential buyers, rarely persuade them.
Jun 22, 2010 | Branding, Communication, Customers, Marketing
How often we confuse the reasons our customers buy products, how easy it is to get carried away with the technology, the newness, the features of the product, and never consider the real, usually unstated drivers of consumption.
Great marketing is always about the benefits a product brings to the consumer, and whilst the features play a role in delivering the benefits, consumers do not really care about features, they want what the product delivers for them.
Defining the benefits is marketing, translating them into images and words consumers can relate to is advertising, and is only a tiny slice of marketing, at the end of the process.
Poor products, no matter how well advertised, do not succeed, great products with poor marketing that fails to identify the benefits of consumption, usually fail, but even poorly advertised products with clear and distinctive benefits usually find their way, because consumers are generally smart enough to make the connection. It is this last distinction that may appear at first glance to be semantic, that is often the biggest hurdle. This great clip from Mad Men says it all.
Jun 9, 2010 | Communication, Marketing, Personal Rant
A while ago, I sat through two consecutive presentations on related topics, the first was energising, interesting, and memorable, the second was cold, dirty, dishwater.
Thinking about the manner of the presentations, rather than the value of the words, led to the conclusion that the difference was more than the capacity of the presenters to sell a story, which was markedly different, it was also about the manner the story was presented.
The first used a visual backdrop as a tool to highlight key points, and make them memorable by creating some emotion, and the visuals were very sparse, terriffic. The second used the built in capacity of Powerpoint to drive the agenda of the presentation, demonstrate the speakers mastery of the program, and provide speaker notes to the audience, dishwater.
The reason a presentation is given, whether it be to a few colleagues in an office communicating a routine matter, or thousands in a auditorium presenting a world changing idea or view, is the same. It exists to get a sale, to create buy-in to an idea, gain agreement, and approval. Whatever the driver, a presentation seeks to communicate and engage. No chance of doing that by boring people to death.
Seth Godin, one of the best salesmen of an idea around came up with a rant against Powerpoint some years ago, his arguments were thumped into me by the juxtaposition of these two presentations.
