How do you delight a customer?

Oct 7, 2019 | Customers, Marketing

Delight the customer has become a cliché, popping up in all sorts of places from PR blurb, to websites, mission statements, and sales rev-ups.

However, few seem to have any real idea of what it really means, can put a solid foundation under the fluff, to make it something meaningful.

I asked the question recently of a group, one of whom had used the words as a throwaway.

 ‘What does delight the customer mean to you’?

I got the expected fluffy strings of adjectives and adverbs back, until someone at the back of the room came up with what I think is the right answer.

She said, ‘We provide an answer to a pressing problem for our customers that is dramatically superior to anything else they have seen’

Do that, and no matter the words, your customer will be delighted.

 

Photo credit: David Woo via Flikr

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

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.