What did I just pay for?

My wife and I booked a vacation a few months ago. We're set to travel in about a month. We decided to support a local business and booked a trip for eight people with Maritime Travel. As everyone in the group that was traveling with us had strict travel time needs, we wanted to deal with someone face to face to ensure that we could trust the travel itinerary and rely on a local human being for assistance if something was to come up. I don't ordinarily care if the person I'm dealing with is local, but I wanted everyone else who was traveling with me to feel comfortable too.

We'll be flying on Canada's other charter airline - Air Transat. We usually fly with Air Canada when going to an all-inclusive resort, as they tend to actually organize these things pretty good (in comparison to the debauchery they call domestic travel). We arranged the flights so that everyone could arrive home at a convenient time and feel rested prior to getting back to work. Nothing sucks more than needing a vacation after a vacation. So, we'll be flying out on a direct flight on a Friday night and flying directly home on a Sunday night. Direct being the #1 influence on our decision to book an Air Transat Vacation through Maritime Travel.

Then a few days ago my wife received an email from Maritime Travel. Nothing big. They just wanted to inform us that our direct flight down south would now be a little less direct, stopping in Jamaica. The flight that we paid a premium for to go direct was now stopping at a country further south than our destination. As a result, our arrival time shifted by 3 hours so that we arrive well after midnight. Our departure time pushed out about the same so that we'll be arriving home Monday morning at about 7:00am. I'll be sleep deprived and pissed off rolling into work after my vacation.

The best part about this interaction with Maritime Travel is that they don't actually care. They didn't apologize or provide any alternative. There was no gesture of "sorry this screws things up for you, could we provide you with x for your inconvenience?". Instead the response was
"We have no control over the change in flight. Air Transat is responsible for the change and you will need to talk to them. Air Transat reserves the right to change the itenerary - it says so in the Terms and Conditions of your vacation package".

First of all - the Terms and Conditions are in the catalog you buy these packages from. Not on a receipt. Not noticeably on any material from Maritime Travel. They were also never mentioned during the purchase. But that's understandable. I'm in advertising. Without fine print, there would be a lot of stressed out executives and under employed lawyers.

Second of all - Who gives a sh@*$ about the Terms and Condition AND the fact that Maritime Travel doesn't control the flights. If I sell spinach and the spinach sucks, I don't tell my customers that there's nothing I can do because I'm just the grocery store. I get better spinach. I stand behind the products I sell. I look for an alternative way to keep these customers coming back to my grocery store. Getting the sale is only the first step in the keeping a customer. Don't forget the rest.

Two things that need to be said:

1. Martime Travel: You need to empower your employees to help people. Your local. Your not Expedia (who does help people - funny). If you're going to take someones money, you better be able to back up your commitment. I paid you for a specific vacation experience. You have provided a sub-par experience to-date with no will to assist me further and no suggestions for alternative solutions (let me help: room upgrade, apology, discount, call Air Transat) And I haven't even started my vacation. Make me feel that I bought a vacation through a local business and a human being for a reason.
2. Air Transat: That's a low blow. I know you probably changed the flight because my direct flight wasn't full. But that's not my fault. I shouldn't be penalized. The only difference between you and Air Canada in my purchase decision was a direct flight. You've eliminated the only advantage you offered. It only reinforced the fact that the resorts that I'm traveling to are not yet full. What can you give me that will make me happy? I'm not sure. Your bureaucracy will probably eliminate the possibility of a discount and room change.

All eight of us traveling will be hard pressed to ever book another vacation through Air Transat. Unfortunately for Maritime Travel, the same impression is left on them. I'll stick to booking online where companies try harder, offer better value, and a more positive experience.

How not to sell a house

A few months ago I was selling my house. I listed it just before the market took a nose dive. I didn't end up selling it and just let the real estate listing expire. Four months on the market and only a half dozen interested people - only one real estate agent (other than my own) showed my house.

A week after my house was off the market I got a call. It was a real estate agent. He wanted to know if I was still interested in selling my house. He had a list of potential buyers who were really excited about seeing it. Wondering why he never brought anyone through over the previous four months, I asked when would they like to see it. He responded he could probably get some of them through my house in the about 30-45 days. Yes, you heard right. His "extremely motivated" buyers were about 45 days from even being interested enough to look at my house. That was my first hint that this call was far from credible. My next hint was a little more obvious. The agent said "So if I sell this house I'll get full commission right?" Done. This agents credibility dissapeared. He was a bottom feeder. He looks through the real estate listing for expiring contracts, then hops on them looking for the easy sell. He probably makes good money doing that.

But it's this type of marketing and sales that hurts the real estate industry. The same thing happened to the lawyers that chase ambulances, to that used car salesmen that sold you a 'newly upholstered' car that just happened have been submerged in a river, or the insurance agent who convinced your grandmother that she needed that extra premium just in case. (industries mentioned were easy targets - sorry)

Advertisers make the same mistake. That keyword ad on Google that sent me to a irrelevant site (just type "Buy" followed by a product of your choice and look at the ads). The Facebook ads that fish for your cell number are breaking trust in an environment that is struggling to establish. The seven lines of legal type on the bottom of that car ad in the newspaper, regardless of what it says, just shows you that $295 a month is just too good to be true. Then there's that "Starting at $9.99" advertisement followed by "when you spend $150 dollars on our premium service". You've seen it a million times - it probably doesn't even effect you now. But that's the problem. We can't ask consumers for time when we continuosly waste it.

The first step is to be authentic and honest.

The real estate agent that called me would have been better to just ask if I was unhappy with my last agent and willing to talk about the benefits he could bring.

The car company with the legal type might be better using messages that provide clarity and break the standard - especially now. Why use a cool photo of the European fully-loaded vehicle, and just show the one that I'll get when I pay the advertised price (the answer is they want to upsell from the advertised price - but you get the point).

These examples are everywhere. Common sense solutions are often the least common used.

Social Media Best Practices

Looks like a Media 2.0 Workgroup has organized a group of great minds to to work on an initiative that will focus on the ethics of participation. The project however, is fairly open to anyone looking to get involved - just head over to Media 2.0 Best Practices page to learn more.

I think the approach is great - collaborative and community oriented. Definitely reflective of the social space. It is also relevant. Although many of us who engage in the social media space tend to practice and preach the genuine connection of community and corporation, there is a silent majority who are still uncertain of what this new media stuff is all about. Clients flood agencies with requests like "I think it'd be great to do something social in Q3" or "I want to do something around social media. Here's my budget. Now get to work and we'll talk in five days". These requests are not ignorant - just uncertain. Having a definitive document that is as dynamic as this industry should help educate that silent majority and allow for better decisions prior to getting their feet wet.

We don't have to look far from home for an example of unethical marketing. The dangers are easily seen within the Facebook advertising model. Find a truly relevant product/service ad in your Facebook profile. Chances are at least two out of three ads will be bait & switch ads or spam proclaiming the glory of "I got fired and now I make $7k a week". Most of these ads are just hunting for mobile phone info (and will abuse the "permission" you give them). As a result there will be a very [very] skeptical consumer base on Facebook who will eventually block all ads from their impulse and memory. Marketers tend to ruin it for themselves. Hopefully Media 2.0 Best Practices can capture some attention from those who spend money in this space.

Go check it out at @ Media 2.0 Best Practices

New is not always better

Improved is not always better either. As companies we often try to quickly improve on what we previously sold or serviced. The lure of doing a new product launch, the temptation to ignore the dismal sales of the old product, and hearing our new and improved product excitedly discussed within our company in a sort of messiah tone is a great pat on the back. However, sometimes that new and improved product is the wrong answer. Sometimes what's new doesn't actually matter to the consumer.

There are a lot of reasons why this may be the case - a poor product, high competition, mixed messaging, no market, the crap economy - all the excuses we tell ourselves when something doesn't go as planned.

One of the biggest reasons stuff that is new, improved and offers 'more value' rarely takes off is that there is no scale. What is it better than? Is it better than something I even care about? If it's improved, what does that even mean? Does the improvement relate to me and how I use your product?

Roger Dooley wrote a great article in Neuromarketing about the need for consumers to be able to compare and relate. This is less about choice (which is often debated as a consumer purchase trigger) and more about scale. If I know that x service gives most of what I need and costs me y, and x2 service gives me all of what I need want and costs me y2, then I can make an 'educated' purchase that leaves me happy and comfortable. I've left educated in quotes as Martin Lindsrtom will quickly point out that we rarely make a purchase based on a cognitive decision making process.

Roger uses the case study of the The Economist, which was trying to sell combined print and online subscriptions. Here are the results:

Offer A:

$59 - Internet Only Subscription (68 chose)
$125 - Internet and Print Subscription (32 chose)

Predicted Revenue - $8,012

Offer B:

$59 - Internet Only Subscription (16 chose)
$125 - Print Only Subscription (0 chose)
$125 - Internet and Print Subscription (84 chose)

Predicted Revenue - $11,444

Crazy. No logical difference between offers. The only difference - Offer B gives me more information to judge my decision. Not just that, Offer B actually persuades me to spend more on what I want rather than what I need. Classic decoy marketing. Often misused and overlooked in advertising and product launch marketing.

Lesson Learned:

1. We focus too much on the story we want to tell and to little on the story the consumer wants to be told.
2. Consumers aren't logical, so don't market as if they are.
3. The success of a new product has far less to do with the new benefit, and for more to do with how that benefit relates to your consumers view of your existing benefits.
4. Usually the last thing on a marketer or product/service managers mind - sometimes targeting the low hanging fruit is just better. This is about raising the floor instead of just focusing on raising the ceiling.
   

You already know that it is easier to talk to someone you know over a stranger. Apply that to your marketing and you'll end up finding a new standard for value and something that's actually relevant to consumers.

Why we fail.

Have you ever been in a meeting and found it truly motivating and insightful? Not insightful in the "wow, this is the start of something great" kind of way, but in a "holy sh*#!, this is a train wreck" kind of way.

It is all too common to hear about the experiences of a company trying to rejuvenate there sales and marketing efforts. You find yourself in a situation where the more you listen the more you feel that something isn't adding up. It runs deeper than the initial pain of hearing the "sell to everyone" message that has crippled dozens of once-great companies...then it hits you. The strategy being discussed is based on assumptions rather than insight.

Polaroid failed because it assumed that it would be the 'instant' photo choice forever. Who would have thought consumers would stop printing photos?

Hotmail faltered because Microsoft assumed that, just like Explorer, nobody would need an alternative to the webmail app. Where was the insight into internet habits? The search is more powerful than the browser. Gmail popularity has sky rocketed.

Palm got blown away by a company that only delivered one solution. In 2002 I sat in a Palm product launch where they said "Sure, Blackberry might give you a better email experience - but we have endless applications, colour, and a touch screen!". Unfortunately people only wanted email at the time. Then came out new Blackberry's, Smartphones from every manufacturer, and then the iPhone. All of them full of colour, applications and touchscreens. Where is Palm's market share? (side note: Around the same time I also sat in a Blackberry product presentation where we were assured that Blackberry would never change it's monochromatic screen to colour as it was "it's not what consumers want - they want the functionality. Colour is just not that important" - turns out there was more than one lesson learned from the popularity of colour TV vs. B&W TV)

• We assume we know the reason why we are the best in the business.

• We assume we know why our product is popular.

• We assume we know why our consumers go to the competition (let me guess, it has nothing to do with your competitor's price, personality, marketing, experience).

• We assume that the tactics we used yesterday are relevant to use tomorrow.

We avoid thinking hard and, instead, react. We just do what we're supposed to do. We go through the motions. We avoid the tough questions. We rely entirely on our experience or, worse, the collective corporate instincts.

Luckily, finding insight has never been easier. There are endless examples of organizations successfully turning the tides. (Just search the big companies - Dell, Boeing, Dole, T-Mobile. and these small companies Moleskin, NS Crystal, Etsy, Toms Shoes, and Umpquabank)

The consumer has never been more accessible and influential. The first step is to acknowledge this. Then we can change the way we think of that relationship and how we can grow it.

A little personality can go a long way.

Although they hate to admit it, the media is loving the doom and gloom that is smeared through each of its channels. "Thank god the economy sucks - we finally have a story that doesn't involve that old war (where is that again?) or those [insert local sports team name here]". Instead they can focus on how the fall of Wall Street and gross mismanagement of the world's leading industries are dragging down our local businesses.

So what do you do when that target lands on your company?
How about this:
1) Don't get a response drafted and released by your lawyers or a PR team.
2) Try (even if it hurts) to be a human, rather than a company.
3) Talk to the people who matter most. Hint: that's not the media.

What do I know about being a target for doom and gloom media? Nothing. But Nova Scotian Crystal does. After seeking debt protection for a slow Q4 2008, the local media jumped on this industry gem like a fly on crap.

The response: a well crafted, human letter that went to loyal/paying customers. It gets a bit formal at the end, but the language is in conversation form. The tone is frank and sincere. Nova Scotian Crystal even asks for customers to buy from them as that's what it takes to stay in business (Holy Sh*t! That's just crazy).

Here's the letter in its entirety that was sent to a colleague of mine. Awesome example of how to be a better business.

Mannequins can't dance.

By now you've probably joined the other 5 million people who have viewed T-Mobiles "Life's for sharing" video. It features 300 joyful dancers in London's Liverpool Street Station. The emotion felt real, it was a engaging and it tied into the companies new messaging. The video was also followed up with "Join the Dance" promotions and a website. All-in-all this would pass for a successful viral campaign.

But do these things actually work? Did it inspire emotion and engage consumers? Isn't that what most of this type of communication is for - to inspire emotion? A brand wants to leverage an emotion in order to be associated with it and, as a result, be more relevant to the consumer and sell more stuff. But I think most of the 5 million viewers were skeptics and thought..."Wow, that’s great but my brand is different. I just don’t see how this could leverage our brand or connect with people beyond the video”. Well, it was an idea the people connected to. So much so that a consumer Facebook group invited people to gather at London’s Liverpool Street Station to do a much bigger dance. The output and buzz you can see in this video…




Now let's take that campaign and compare it to Sony's mannequins. You get a group of models, dress them the same, equip them with Viao's and... BAM! instant buzz. Models become the surreal mannequins/art while performing for a surprised audience. Here's the video...



So what's the difference? Who wins - Mannequins or Dancers?

T-Mobile managed to produce emotion and a tangible shared experience. It can be repackaged and repeated. It can be easily shared. People can keep returning to the idea behind "Life's for sharing".

Sony on the other hand produced a stunt. One blast landed in front of a couple hundred people. Sure, the video shows a few guys using the product - but how many people in that one location felt engaged with the product. There's no emotion. No shared experience.

The audience watching the Sony stunt is just that - an audience. For this type of marketing to work and to continue working we have to move past the stunts and cool one-offs. It will get some YouTube views and will give some buzz. Instead, use the flexibility of these strategies to engage the audience. Take them from audience to participant. Let them own the idea.

Challenge: How can you take a single point of advertising or communication in your business and allow consumers to participate? One rule: No Contests.