Marketing technology. Master or servant?

Mar 4, 2020 | Communication, Marketing

 

 

This is a story of two modest sized SME clients.

One has spent a lot of time, effort and money building a marketing technology ‘stack’, to use the vernacular. The expectation was that it would deliver significant marketing productivity, which they defined pretty well with a range of measures.

The other uses a basic system to record customer contacts and follow ups, as well as a semi manual system to create, collect and collate information, or ‘content’,  combined with social platforms and their website for lead generation.

The first client, with the sophisticated system has a tiger by the tail. The technology is ruling them, is unrelenting, unforgiving, and prone to drive them down dead ends because their data input is patchy  and sometimes flawed. Their recognition is that after all the effort, they are  little  better off than before the technology, just lighter in the pocket, and wearing people out.

The second client is struggling with the processes, particularly the manual interventions required, and the personal level of engagement necessary. There is frustration as they are continually told, ‘all this should be automated’ ,  but when you look at the total cost of conversion, share of wallet, lifetime value and referrals, they are much better off.

The question then is the extent to which the software is serving the purpose to which it has been directed, vs. serving itself. The intervention of people has been removed, automated, and the automation does not give a fig about the human interactions that make relationships, it just needs to be fed data.

Greek philosopher  Sophocles is quoted to have said, ‘nothing vast enters out world without a curse’ , and never has that reported quote been truer than when we consider the automatic responses we all have to the digital triggers now prevalent in our lives.

Give me back some of the humanity, with all its ambiguity and nuances any day.

So, as you are considering automation of your revenue generation processes,  never forget to account for the fact that people do business with people, in strong preference to algorithms, which are just tools.

 

 Header cartoon, Courtesy XKCD

The curse of insider knowledge

Nov 22, 2019 | Communication, Leadership, Management

When we know something, the automatic expectation is that those with whom we are communicating understand it equally well.

This automatic, unrecognised assumption can be a barrier, and at its worst, a curse.

Participating in a conversation a while ago where I was the outsider amongst a group of Canberra bureaucrats, their verbal shorthand, particularly around the departmental names and programs was incomprehensible to me. The terminology  was perfectly well understood by all of them, and they were surprised at my ignorance, when I pulled them up and pointed it out.

Try a little experiment.

Tap out a song, like happy birthday, with a pencil on a desk, and have people tell you what it is. We expect most to be able to pick it, the tune is obvious to us, singing it in our minds as we do it, but only a few actually pick it.

Of course, this closed communication loop is used all the time as a badge of membership, and a means of exclusion.

It may be that the group I was talking to were expressing their status as insiders by excluding me, but assuming this is not the intent, it was nevertheless the effect.

Every group has its own set of verbal and behavioral tools. These can be used as an offensive weapon, a means of exclusion, or they can be a tool of inclusion, it just depends on how you use it.

 

Header cartoon credit: Scott Adams and his mate Dilbert.

Content marketing or Marketing content?

Sep 23, 2019 | Communication, Marketing

These two things are different, absolutely different.

Content marketing means different things to different people. Last week I attended a presentation of a self-styled content marketing expert. He was pontificating from the stage about the value of content, and content marketing, but when I asked his definition of content marketing, all I got was clichés.

To me this is pretty typical, disappointing, but perhaps forgivable, as we are just in the early stages of really understanding how best to use this new(ish) medium.

To me, the best definition is that of Joe Pulizzi who runs the Content Marketing Institute.

‘Content marketing is a strategic marketing approach focused on creating and distributing valuable, relevant, and consistent content to attract and retain a clearly defined audience — and, ultimately, to drive profitable customer action’.

This definition does not at any time mention selling. It focusses on delivering information of value to an audience, which may, in time, result in a transaction.

This implies there is a strategy in place, an organised, strategically focussed process that generates content for publication, that reports to someone who carries the accountability for the process and its management.

Without a process, and someone accountable, it becomes chaos.

Trouble is, much of the so called content pushed out is just rubbish. Chaotic gibberish that rehashes what others have said, not an original thought amongst them. Any good stuff in that maelstrom of rubbish is likely to be lost.

Whenever I hear the words ‘Content marketing campaign,’ which is often, usually from agencies of various types, I cringe. Content marketing is not a campaign, at its best, it is a consistent, ongoing  flow of information that may be of value. It is a journey, not a campaign!

Marketing your content is different again, it is simply the management of the challenge of getting your content, good, bad or indifferent in front of those who might be interested, gaining their attention, and extracting an action.

It is largely an exercise in channel management. In the ‘good old days, you had a few options, radio, TV, magazines, letterbox drops and direct mail. Not so now, when there are multitudes of channels all fighting for the attention of potential customers.

You can do a good job of marketing your content, but if your content is crap, it will not do you much good, indeed, it will work against you. Poor content is toxic to the receiver, as it has consumed some of their valuable time, but delivered no value in return.  

 

Header cartoon courtesy of Tom Fishburne www.marketoonist.com

Is this statement a turning point in Corporate Culture?

Is this statement a turning point in Corporate Culture?

Aug 28, 2019 | Communication, Governance, Leadership

In 1970, Milton Friedman wrote an article for the New York Times  that set the tone for enterprise management and culture from that time. His argument was that the role of the executive was to conduct the affairs of his employer: ‘in accordance with their desires, which is generally to make as much money as possible while conforming to their basic rules of society both those embodied in law and those embodied in ethical custom’

The executives ‘social responsibility’ was to act in the best interests of his employer. By doing otherwise, he is making a judgement about what others outside his employer may wish to spend their money on, and making that choice is outside his responsibility. To do otherwise is to accept the socialist view that political mechanisms, rather than market mechanisms, are the more appropriate way to allocate scarce resources to their best use.

Last week, the ‘Business Roundtable,’ an association of the CEO’s of many of Americas leading  companies released an update, signed by181 of those CEO’s. Titled ‘Statement on the purpose of a corporation’ it committed their leaders to: ‘lead their corporations for the benefit of all stakeholders, customers, employees, suppliers, communities, and shareholders’. 

In todays world, remarkably different from that of the 1970’s, such a statement makes sense, not just as a statement of intent, but as a driving value. Who now does not want to build customer loyalty by looking beyond the transaction currently on the table, and the battle for talent is now mobile, transparent and global, so being acknowledged as a great employer builds competitive advantage.

In Australia, the content of Royal Commissioner Haynes report should tell us all we need to know about the cultural changes necessary in many of our largest corporations. While the government procrastinates and prevaricates, hoping the fence gets a bit more comfortable after their surprise election win, perhaps we, as those charged with the responsibility of managing and directing those corporations, will have gained a little wisdom.  

For the fabric of our communities, let’s hope so.

The header cartoon, courtesy of Tom Fishburne was published to poke fun at the hypocrisy evident in much of the corporate PR speak about sustainability. However, it struck me as also being a metaphor for the Business Roundtable statement, given the pressures of Wall Street, and entrenched ‘short termism’,although I hope I am wrong.

 

Sustainability in blogs used.

 

The hyperbole trap

The hyperbole trap

Aug 21, 2019 | Communication, Customers

 

We marketers as a stereotype tend to adjective driven descriptions that make little logical sense, and in some cases, are in fact misleading.

Yesterday in a major supermarket deli section I saw two examples that should be taken out the back and flogged.

The first was ‘organic salami’. I am aware of organic chicken, beef, tomatoes, and others, but I am unaware of an organic salami running around anywhere. I am not sure I would recognise a live salami if I saw one.  Presumably the motivated copywriter hidden in the bowels of the retailer, or more probably, a well-meaning deli manager in the store, wanted to differentiate this salami from the others on display. They were probably made in the same factory, from the same ingredients as some of the others,  and certainly were not certified organic. Hyperbolic over-reach, and either completely incorrect, or the rules governing the use of the word ‘organic’, have been radically and terminally loosened since the last time I looked.

The second, equally misleading, was ‘Fresh Sea Barramundi’. Unfortunately for the copywriter, barramundi is a fish species that does not live in the sea, it is native to the coastal rivers of northern Australia, with close genetic relatives found throughout S.E. Asia.  The only exception to this rule of nature is when the barra is ‘farmed’, presumably not an attractive description. Again, a misleading and factually wrong product description used in the quest for hyperbolic impact.

I am nit-picking, these examples are relatively minor in the scheme of things that are manipulated to attract consumers, but nevertheless, struck a chord when I saw them. I will admit to a chuckle at the evident lack of recognition that most consumers are not fools, and would see through the hyperbole for what it was: flowery and meaningless language.

However, retailers are held to account. Regulators do not like false product descriptions, and more importantly, consumers, who have come to accept that the food they buy in supermarkets is as described, may start to have the trust eroded, just a tiny bit by such nonsense, and in the long term, this will damage the supermarkets brand.   

Do you allow your marketing people to wax illogically lyrical, or insist on well crafted copy that delivers a value proposition devoid of superfluous hyperbole?

 

Header cartoon courtesy Tom Gault.

 

 

 

 

The huge power of relative risk in sales.

The huge power of relative risk in sales.

Jun 28, 2019 | Communication, Sales

‘Risk’ is an emotive word, it immediately conjures up danger, and an instinctive reluctance to avoid it, if at all possible.

Relative risk is often used in a selling situation as a means to motivate the potential buyer to take that last step, and buy, immediately. The risk may be of missing out, of a price rise, or of an unpleasant event happening, and many other things that might incite a sense of urgency. Unless you apply some added, and not usually made available logic, you can be seduced by the size of the stated risk, and buy, when it may not be a logically consistent decision to do so.

When you see the word ‘Risk’ in a brochure, offering research numbers that demonstrate how much this new ‘whizzo’, newly developed after much research,  will reduce your risk, do not take them at face value.

For example, if I was selling a new medication aimed at older fathers, of which there is an increasing number, I might use something like the copy following.

‘For men of 50 fathering children, there is an 18% greater chance of those children suffering seizures, than children of a father of 30′. New ABC medication from XYZ company can more than halve this risk’

This first part of this copy would be alarming to any man in this group, but misleading. It is a relative risk, comparing one group to another. It does not tell you how likely it is that an individual child will have a seizure, which is an absolute risk. The second part, promises a huge reduction in this risk as an inducement to buy, but again, very misleading, because the reduction in risk is relative.

Had the copy been complete, it would also have told the reader:

The child of a father aged 30 has a risk of seizure of .024%, 24 out of 100,000 children.

The child of a father aged 50 has a risk of seizure of .028%, 28 out of 100,000 children.

(Data source new scientist November 2018)

An increase of 18% to the risk of children of fathers over 50 suffering seizures, compared to that of fathers of 30 sounds shocking, but when you consider it is 4 children in 100,000, it is less so. Equally, the reduction coming from new ABC medication is less impressive when viewed as an absolute reduction, from 4 to 2, and the (poor) statistician in me tells me it is within the boundaries of statistical error in any event.

Daniel Kahneman in his great book ‘Thinking Fast & Slow’ uses a number of examples similar to the one above, and in addition would apply the question: ‘How much would you pay to reduce the risk of your child having seizures from 4/100,000 to 2/100,000’? to get a better measure of the price difference between a purely rational decision, and an emotional one.

Emotion sells way, way better than rationality, so the usual way to present data will almost  inevitably be relative. Watch out for it, and ask the appropriate questions before you jump to a purchase decision. 

 

Header cartoon courtesy of Scott Adams and ‘Dilbert’ https://dilbert.com/