The curse of knowledge in marketing

The curse of knowledge in marketing

Sep 6, 2019 | Marketing

Human beings are unconsciously subject to confirmation bias, and marketers are  no different. We tend to see the things that conform what we already believe, and not see, or dismiss the things that go counter to those existing beliefs. This is a dangerous tendency in commercial life, one that can lead to considerable wasted effort and resources.

We think we understand the customer in some detail, most marketers would claim to be ‘customer centric’.

We think we understand the customers pain points.

We think we understand the customers behaviour.

We think we understand the customers price sensitivity.

We think we understand the customers response to competitive offers.

We think they see our brands the same way we do.

Because we think it, does not make it true, and often we are wrong.

Nobody likes to admit they are wrong, even to themselves, so many marketers  continue chasing lost causes, blaming others, finding fluffy clichés as justifications, and generally wasting resources.

Many Marketers I see spend way too much time examining spreadsheets, research done by third parties, listening to  various service providers, and not talking to customers.

Customers are not always able to clearly articulate what they want, but they are usually able to articulate their pain points if you are smart enough to ask the right questions, understand the answers, and ask the penetrating follow up question.

I often ask the question of clients, how they would rate their ‘customer centricity’. Typically, the answer is between 70 & 80%. Some work to do, but looking good. I then go and ask the question of some of their customers, to rate their suppliers ‘customer centricity’. A score over 30% is as rare as rain in Broken Hill.

Perceptions do tend to differ, but the sort of variation I see is not a statistical error, but a reflection that we are simply not close enough to customers, and listening with an open mind.

A bit of sceptical thinking from an outside source can save you a lot of heartache.   

 

 

 

How can you build a relationship with an algorithm?

How can you build a relationship with an algorithm?

Sep 2, 2019 | Customers, Marketing

You cannot.

Building a relationship with an algorithm is beyond even the wildest imaginings of the ‘AI forever’ set, which is why I prefer people.

Algorithms are there to be gamed.

On the provider side, wherever you see a platform that uses ranking algorithms, at some point, it will become a pay for performance regime. Equally, when the algorithm is king, the gamers who understand the system better than you, will win. Algorithms cannot tell the difference  between an article ‘written’ by another AI algorithm, and one that you sweated over, but your friends and connections who genuinely know you can.

When you meet someone and you seem to be on their ‘wavelength,’ stuff happens, deep conversations, referrals, collaboration. When was the last time an algorithm referred you to someone that was useful, and who had not paid for the referral via some means or another?

What happens when you receive a thank you via email, generated by an autoresponder? You ignore it, often do not open it, but if you recieved  a hand written note, posted, it is opened every time, and remembered.

It takes a bit more effort, which is why it works, it taps our deepest needs to be social and connected to people.

Algorithms are not human, they have no conscience or social awareness.

If I suggested that we put an ad for grog at an AA meeting, you would be disgusted with me. However, and algorithm does not have any social conscience. Such an ad would likely be very successful, and deliver a great ROI on the advertising cost, which is what  algorithms are designed to do.

In our digitising world, those who continue to demonstrate their  humanity will win in the end.

Header cartoon courtesy Tomgauld.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 sad and entirely avoidable death of a great old FMCG brand.

The sad and entirely avoidable death of a great old FMCG brand.

Aug 26, 2019 | Branding, Innovation, Marketing, Strategy

Currently in my cupboard almost gone, is a bottle of detergent, a well known and trusted brand, formerly the market leader, been around for ages.

It will not be bought again by anyone in my household.

Here is what I suspect happened.

Sales of the brand were eroding as cheaper, usually house branded product ate into the volumes. Somewhere in the multinational that owns the brand there was a bright young thing charged with resurrecting volumes, a project to ‘test their metal,’ requiring a 20% increase for success to be declared.

He, or more likely these days, she, did the corporate rounds seeking inspiration.

The R&D people believed they could improve the performance of the product by utilising a new emerging technology, but it required an extensive  R&D program to clarify some of the technical issues. No budget available.

The Engineering people reckoned they could speed up the line, reducing costs by updating, at considerable capital cost, the existing machinery, making production cheaper and more flexible. This would  reduce the systemic out of stock problem caused by the long runs required to generate factory efficiencies. These factory KPI’s are completely disconnected to the increasing difficulty of forecasting sales as volumes erode and become more erratic. No capital budget available.

The accountants are arguing for a price increase as well as a reduction in retailer promotional spend, as the gross margins fall below their target rates. Neither tactic seems well suited to the problem at hand.

The advertising agency strongly recommended a multi million dollar integrated TV, Magazine and digital marketing campaign, designed to bring back lapsed users to the brand, while intriguing new users to give it a try. No budget available.

The marketing he/she concerned reckoned it would be easier and cheaper to make the hole in the top bigger, make the product flow faster, encouraging a quicker usage cycle and therefore increasing replacement sales.

On a spreadsheet it looks logical, sensible, and with a great ROI. Everybody was happy, especially the product manager, who could see the trappings of corporate success coming his/her way by Christmas.

Whoops: forgot the value conscious consumer, to whom the integrity of the brand had remained, until now,  an important consideration, and who is not stupid. She is my wife, (who still does the bulk of the shopping) and believe me,  she is absolutely unforgiving.

Being captured by the interaction of functional KPI’s, status quo management processes, and resistance to any change, is a common corporate problem. It is unsolvable by anyone other than the Boss, who is mostly too busy contemplating the forest next door (or their navels) to see the trees in the forest they currently occupy, and take some decisive action.

When your brand, marketing, and innovation processes need a reality check, call me to tap into the ‘experience bank’ in my possession. 

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.

 

 

 

 

Consider your ‘Doorman’ strategy

Consider your ‘Doorman’ strategy

Aug 19, 2019 | Branding, Marketing

 

It appears that the role of a doorman in a hotel is to hold the door for guests, easing their way into and out of the hotel.

Ostensibly the role is simple, a smiley face, welcoming word, courtesy extended. However, when you think about it, there are many more roles played by the doorman, taxi getter, luggage helper, direction giver, polite conversationalist, security,  all the while, adding to the value by creating a human face for the hotel.

When  you get rid of a doorman, as many do, and put in automatic doors, it may be cheaper, but you lose the impact of all that humanity that adds value to guests and visitors. The result over time will be added pressure on margins, as regulars go to the hotel down the road with a smiling doorman who takes the trouble to learn their names, welcome them back, and offer friendly assistance.

A cheap hotel will not have a doorman, guests in that hotel would see it as an extravagance,  but the sudden absence of a doorman in a 5 star hotel would somehow signal its slide to 4 stars.

These days, your doorman can be a website, social media persona, the tone of your advertising, as well as the people at the ‘front line’ of customer contact.

A former employer had a receptionist named Janice. She made everyone with whom she came into contact, in person or over the phone, feel better about themselves, every day. We did  not pay her anything like the value she delivered, just by being her smiling, generous self.

How does your ‘doorman’ shape up?

 

Header photo courtesy ‘Frank’  via Flikr.