Woe to the Vacationer

Norwegian Cruise Line has an ad in this week's New Yorker which touts its "no set dining times" policy. The header for the ad is interesting:

Woe to the Vacationer who is forced to dine at 7 p.m. at table 8 with the Wurtzels from Albany.

Woe. Wow. Whoa.

First off, if I were from Albany, I might be a little insulted by this. And if my name were Wurtzel and I were from Albany, I might be a lot insulted by this. Well, on White Pages, I didn't find any Wurtzels in Albany, but there are plenty of them in NY.

What makes Norwegian Cruise Line so certain that I, as a potential cruiser, would not want to dine with Irving Wurtzel from Poughkeepsie, or Alan and Ruth from Great Neck, or Catherine from Fishkill.

In truth, I wouldn't want to be forced to dine with anyone, but I think that Norwegian is setting a pretty poor tone here. There are a number of different ways that they could have gotten the message across that didn't seem quite so insulting. They could have used a more generic, less ethnic name for starters: the Johnsons, the Smiths, the Rogerses. They could have used a made up a town name - some generic suburban name like "Rolling Meadows Glen". Or made up some ridiculous descriptor - "the couple with the matching poodle hair-do's" or "the family that named all their children after Gumby." Maybe even that would be insulting to someone.

But the real point is that while Norwegian may be trying to make fun of the "boring" passengers on other cruise lines, it unfortunately comes across as a put down of their own customers. After all, if the Wurtzels from Albany are on your ship, they're your customers, too.

Cool Tool

This is interesting: a little tool called Page2RSS that creates an RSS feed for you to monitor updates of sites that don't publish their own feeds.

I'm not sure how well it works, but I've set a couple of feeds up, and so I'll find out.

Found it via Micro Persuasion.

Do ROI Calculators Add Up?

Few things have driven me battier over the years than ROI Calculators. It has always been exceedingly hard for me to believe that anyone would actually use a vendor-supplied calculator thinking that it was going to product any result that didn’t scream BUY OUR PRODUCT AND SAVE BIG!

Admittedly, when it comes to a lot of technology purchases - most office “productivity” applications and IT tools - it’s pretty difficult to prove whether any cost or time savings were actually ever realized. In any cases, new technology-based products actually make work. (How much time did you spend on presentations before PowerPoint existed? I thought so.) It’s just that they become must haves – it’s the way you have to do business.

And then there’s the dirty little secret about ROI. Sssshhhh, don’t tell: for product purchases, very few companies ever actually look back and figure out whether their expected ROI actually came through. (I call this phenomenon Lot’s wife syndrome, i.e., the belief that if you actually do look back you’ll turn into a pillar of salt. Or a bowl of quivering jello as you try to come up with your excuses for making an investment that hasn’t panned out.)

So between self-serving, all-roads-lead-to-purchase ROI calculators, and the fact that so few places actually go back and calculate whether they achieved any R on their I, why bother with the damn things?

The truth is that, whatever they do or don’t do after the fact, most prospects will need to make some type of an ROI argument to get a purchase approved. And you will need to be prepared to help your prospects make that argument.

One way is to provide a detailed write-up on where to look for sources of return. If you’re a web hoster, sources will include equipment purchase and extended support. If you’re providing some type of automation tool, the checklist will include time savings, etc. In self-defense, you may have to provide a spreadsheet or some sort of simple calculator, but note that your prospects will – or should - be skeptical of any data that you’ve got in there that is not objectively verifiable, i.e., the actual cost of your product. ROI calculators that you hire a third party to put together aren’t all that much better, since their numbers probably came from you. If there’s a third party that’s developed a generic calculator for your product, you’ll be higher up the believability scale, but these will be costly.

Also keep in mind that, if you’re making the argument that your product will cut personnel costs, it may not be all that attractive to the purchaser (unless you’re selling to the CFO or someone on the business side who’s keeping the P&L). In cases where you’re threatening the livelihood of the people you’re trying to sell to, you’re much better off if you can point towards saving on actual new hires, rather than getting rid of people.

Don’t forget that ROI is not just tied to saving money. In the best of circumstances, it’s tied to making money. If your product or service can be used to attract more customers, handle more calls, close more deals, make sure to fill in that side of the equation first. It may just be a matter of expressing the same data in a different, more positive way. Rather than say that something will decrease employee costs, state that it will enabling employees to get more done.

It seems squishy, but you should throw in the “intangibles” to your ROI argument. They may sound completely lame, but they may actually be true. Automating a pedestrian, time consuming process really will let your people focus more important things, and that really should help your business.

In the end, however you end up handling it, when it comes to ROI calculators, honesty is really the best policy. Let your prospects know what’s real and what’s theoretical. Don’t make extravagant claims, make likely cases. As always, one customer is worth a thousand words, and if you have a customer who’s willing to talk about where and how they got their ROI, by all means use this information, even if you have to disguise the company.

Bad Actors

This story of a virus being distributed through Wikipedia is interesting, and disturbing. It highlights an inherent problem in all social media and user-generated content: while most people participate in a positive way, there are always some bad actors out there.  

Malicious hackers have turned to Wikipedia to try to help them catch out PC users.

The virus writers created a page on the German Wikipedia that linked to a fake fix for a new version of an old malicious Windows worm.

But instead of curing a bug, those installing the fix would be infected by a new Windows virus.

The booby-trapped page on the German version of the online encyclopaedia has now been removed.

"The very openness of websites like Wikipedia - which allow anyone to edit pages - makes them terrific, but can also make them less trustworthy," said Graham Cluley, senior technology consultant for Sophos. "In this case, the article in question wasn't just misleading, it was downright malicious."

Whether it's somebody hijacking your social media platform for nefarious purposes, creating content that diminishes your brand, or some newly-dreamed-up way to cause trouble, it's going to keep happening. The story of interactive marketing has been one of marketers (and content creators in general) ceding control to their audiences. With lack of control comes the possibility of trouble.

11:00 - 11:04 - Scheduled Unstructured Time

Today was a day where it seemed like I barely had time to refill my coffee cup, which is why I so appreciated a piece on MarketingProfs called Have You Scheduled Your Goofing-Off Time Today?

I goof off almost every day.

In fact, when I'm very busy, as I have been lately, I work very hard to incorporate some goofing-off time in my schedule. Usually it's just a few minutes here and there, between projects or during a fit of writer's block. Nevertheless, this time is invaluable to me....

The author's point is that spending some time looking at things because they are interesting and engaging, not because they are relevant to your job. Why? It makes you smarter.

This is why I have such a hard time reading business books. I do read them, because some of them are quite good. But when I can finally grab a little time to actually sit with a book, I find myself desparate to read a novel, not a book about marketing.

So I balance it out, and keep some business books in the mix - but make sure that my reading feeds the rest of my brain, too.

Manning vs. Brady: Who's the Better Brand

I admit, I’m not getting as much joy out of this post as I would be if the Patriots had actually beaten the Colts last night in what had been hoopla’d into the game of the season in these parts. Still it’s interesting to take a look at the different brands of each team’s superstar quarterback.

For those completely uninterested in sports and/or who never turn on the television, that would be Peyton Manning for the Colts, and Tom Brady for the Patriots.

Like Microsoft and Apple, like Coke and Pepsi, Manning and Brady dominate their game - or at least dominate the conversation around the game. The run-up to last night’s game revolved around a hyped-up head-on between these two guys.

Peyton Manning’s brand is about unquestionable talent. When it comes to stats, he beats Brady pretty much across the boards, and he’s arguably the single most talented quarterback in the NFL today. I don’t like him one little bit, but when he’s got game, he is amazing to watch – just a machine. The Manning brand is also about pedigree. Manning’s father was a pro-football quarterback and is Hall of Famer. His kid brother is the quarterback for the NY Giants.

Manning’s brand is about personal performance, and his is formidable. But it’s also more or less a me brand. Until the Colts manage to win a Super Bowl, that’s what it will remain.

If you’ve seen any of the ads that Peyton Manning is in – I’m not sure what they’re for, but he eats things, goes shopping, cheers for people, and kicks his brother in the butt – they seem to exemplify the jock who hasn’t quite grown up yet. I’m sure these ads are intended to create the image of a good-humored guy, but he comes across as a case of arrested development.

Tom Brady's brand is unquestionably about winning. Even though he just got upstaged by Manning – as he did the last time these two teams met - when it comes to winning the big games (i.e., the games that win the Super Bowl), Brady’s the one who’s got game. He may not have the breathtaking talent of Peyton Manning, but somehow it comes together to put a lot of W’s up there. There’s nothing robotic or perfect about Brady’s performance. And maybe because I’m a Pats’ fan, whenever “we’ve” got the ball, I’m nervous – is he going to get sacked, is he going to get intercepted. (If you watched last night’s game, you saw why a Pats’ fan has reason to be nervous: 4 interceptions.) Yet whatever is happening, I tend have faith that, in the end, Tom Brady will pull things out.

Brady’s brand is also about leadership. When he’s interviewed after a game, he takes ownership and responsibility, but it’s not in any “all my doing/all my fault” kind of way. It’s as if he just finished internalizing a business book on the habits of effective leaders. He doesn’t let people (including himself) off the hook, but I’ve never seen him toss someone under the bus, either. And the only ads I remember Brady doing - and I haven’t seen any in a while - were for some credit card or other – and he did them his teammates, not solo. No wonder his teammates love the guy.

Like Peyton Manning, Tom Brady’s brand is somewhat about family. In Brady’s case, however, it’s not about Crown Prince son and “spare heir” trying to play out their Oedipal strife on the football field. It’s about the hug and kiss little Tommy gave his father in the locker room after a big loss (which showed up in a 60 Minutes profile on Brady, but did not seem staged at all).

Frankly, both of these guys are overexposed, but most of Brady’s overexposure is at the hands of press and media that just can’t get enough of Mr. Wonderful. I have no idea how many handlers he has at work getting him on the cover of Sports Illustrated, GQ, and this week’s Boston Sunday Globe (in an article entitled “The Brady Brand”, no less.) He even made this week's list of the most fashionable people in Boston. (OK, in the land of LL Bean and Brooks Brothers, that might not be saying that much.

But listen to the announcers talk about Brady during a nationally-televised game. They’re typically gushing to the point where I’m embarrassed for them and for him. Sure, the announcers do a lot of talking about Peyton Manning, and most of it’s positive. But there’s always the ‘can he win the big one’ question lurking there. And the sense that he’s just not as likeable (and, let’s face it, adorable) as Tom Brady.

Yeah, I’m sure it helps that Brady’s a cutie while Manning’s kind of bland looking, but if you ask anyone who’s got the better brand, Brady by a long shot. (I’d bet that even Peyton Manning would agree to that.)

Brady’s brand is better because he has won more. Manning might have better features, but when taken together, the overall package works better for Brady. The sum is more than the parts of the whole. With Manning, the sum is so far less than the parts. Maybe this will be the season when he takes it all. We’ll see.

If on feature-by-feature basis you come out ahead of your competitor, and they’re still the winner, look again – there may be something missing in your product. If you’re product is truly better, you’re being out-marketed. (Now, if someone’s outspending you 100:1 there may be nothing you can do about it, but if that’s not the case, get in there and figure out how marketing can make your product add up.)

Brady’s brand is better because his exposure comes from the “objective” press – not through advertising. Advertising can be a very powerful way to raise awareness and, in fact, gain credibility. But real credibility comes when “someone else” is saying good things for and about you. That’s why getting in front of press and analysts is so critical. That’s why having customers talk about you is so potent.

To me, Manning always comes across as kind of befuddled that he’s not adulated the same way Brady is. It’s as if he’s thinking, Hey, I can’t help it if I’m already the best. Brady knows he’s not the best, and in a sense that makes his brand all the better. He doesn’t rest on his laurels – if ever there were a poster boy for continuous improvement, it’s Brady. Don’t assume that his year’s good press, Magic Quadrant, and customer satisfaction will last forever. It won’t if you’re not doing something about it.

For all his undeniable brilliance on the field, and his supreme confidence when he's got the ball in his hands, Manning’s brand just doesn’t seem all that confident to me. Brady’s brand is better because he exudes confidence. I think he’s one of those athletes (or business people) who can really look at himself objectively, look at his strengths and weaknesses, and not get into his head about it in either direction. You need to have confidence in your products. Focus on what you have that’s great, acknowledge what you have that’s not so great. Don’t whine about it, improve on it. But don’t let it get you down on your product. If marketing doesn’t have faith in its products, there’s no way they’re going to be capable of convincing anyone else that they should.

What Marketers Can Learn from Catalog Retailers

Now that all that's left of Halloween is smashed pumpkins and candy corn on sale, it's time to usher in the catalog season. As I was sorting through this day's stack of catalogs, it occurred to me that there's a lot that marketers - even those of us in the T2B (techie to business) world - can learn from the most effective catalog marketers.

1. Make things easy for your customers. I haven't ordered anything from Harry & David in a couple of years, but as Christmas "nears", they always send a nice package telling me who I ordered gift baskets for in the past, and what I ordered. I can call Harry & David 24/7, or get on their web site, and I'm just a click away from ordering a couple of "Twelve Days of Christmas" treat baskets, knowing that I won't be repeating what I so lovingly sent a couple of years ago. don't need to key in much information: I can even keep the same gift message.
   
   No matter what your product or service, you need to make sure that you're customers can communicate with you in multiple modes (and on their time) - what if they want to order something at 3 a.m.? - and that their data is up to date and accurate.
   
2. Reward your best customers. In the scramble for new customers, we're often ready to cut good deals that aren't available to our existing customers. Guess what? Existing customers don't like it if they get wind of it, so you'll have the worst of both worlds: new customers who may not be paying enough, and old, loyal customers who feel gouged. I order a lot from L.L.Bean, and I use their credit card. This gives me free shipping and monogramming, and lets me accrue bonus points. Free shipping is an unbelievably good benefit: if I spill iced coffee on my white t-shirt, I can order a $12 replacement without incurring $6.95 in shipping and handling. Bonus points are a real boon, too - when I'm shopping with my coupons in hand, I always end up buying more than I would have otherwise.
   
3. Even if you're focused on a niche, you still need to grow your product and expand your market. When I get the Vermont Country Store catalog, I pore through it like Laura Ingalls Wilder going through the Sears Roebuck Wish Book in 1885. For those how aren't familiar with the Vt. Country Store, they sell all kinds of odd-ball, retro, fuddy-duddy merchandise. They used to have stuff my grandmother liked. (Odd-ball hairpins, "Chenille Bedspread with Fanciful Flowers and Ruffled Time [that Creates a Whimsical Air.") Then they had stuff my mother liked. ("Jaunty Wool Scarf Hat," "Luxurious Electric Blanket.") Then all of a sudden, they had stuff that I liked. Some of it is, no doubt, my moving inexorably toward fuddy-duddy-hood. I haven't gone over to the jaunty scarf hat yet, but I have bought things like a wooden clothes rack, nice wool kneesocks, and nail hardener.
   
   Faced with an aging audience for their products, what Vt. Country Store has really done to get the baby-boomers hooked is to start carrying all these nostalgic items from the 1950's and 1960's. Hey, I remember those wax choir boy and Santa candles that made Santa look like an albino. Glass Wax - hey, now I can stencil my windows. Ribbon candy. Nonpareils. Davey Crockett caps. Potholder looms. Spoolies. They even carry that ridiculous "electronic football game" that vibrated its little plastic players up and down the gridiron. My brothers had one. Maybe I should order it so we can play it on Xmas Eve.
   
   The point is that Vt. Country Store has expanded their catalog of practical, useful, and hard to find things to include all sorts of impractical, non-useful, hard to find things that hit the graying babyboomers where they live (which, as inevitably happens as people get older, is at least somewhat in the past). And they're even starting to carry items from the 1970's and beyond. I may not get all teary-eyed about Click-Clacks, but the kids who drove their parents nuts clacking them in the 1970's probably are.
   
   What Vermont Country Store is doing quite well is consistently expanding their product line both horizontally - more stuff for their existing base - and vertically - to drag in the "younger folks" who could care less about Shari Lewis' Lamb Chop or Zippy the Chimp, but who are already nostalgic for Kermit the Frog.
   
   A good lesson here for those of us with very focused, very niche markets. You need to keep improving and expanding what you offer your market, and also figure out how to find new, adjacent markets when you saturate your niche.
   

I must away, I have to go order a deck of "Authors" playing cards and some footsie-PJ's for my husband.