Is imitation flattery?

I've been meaning to post a picture of this for a while. On my drive to work I pass these two billboards. I was hoping to get a decent picture of them side by side but this will just have to do. It's much harder to snap a photo while driving than I expected but I think you'll get the point.

So the billboard on the right is a Bell advertisement for 3G service in Canada. With the new Bell brand, the "B" is used to create the "M" in "More 3G".

The billboard on the left is for a local car dealer. You'll notice that there appears to be a "M" on the lower left in similar fashion to the Bell ad.

Coincidence? What do you think?

Or is there something obvious I'm missing here.

When people become consumers

We fail.

I don't mean when-a-person-buys-your-product consumer. I mean when you start to view all people as consumers.

Here's why:

When we talk about consumers we tend to talk in general terms and assumptions. "The target audience is 22 - 54 years old, married, probably 2 kids, lives in a house, likes things, hates bad people, etc" We all do this. We may want to sell to that target audience, but that does not describe the 'people' that constitute it. It also doesn't help anyone market effectively to those individuals. How many similarities between a 22 year old and a 54 year old are there?

We tend to look at consumers with weird golden rules. We want all consumers to be our friends, while at the same time paying us with their attention and then their pocket books. I'm as guilty as the next person - often in my blog referring to The Customer in this way. The customer is always right. We want share of wallet with that consumer base. Today's consumer is not easily deceived by our crafty advertising. When was the last time your befriended a neighbour by shouting over the fence "hey 22 year old male, listen here, have I gotta deal for you...". You probably sold him that lawn mower, but he probably didn't invite you over for a beer.

This mindset leads us to create a sense of numbness and inpersonality around 'the consumer'. They become some other form. We use sentences to describe how we interact with them or to define what action we want from them. How does our consumer identify value? What is the differentiators our consumer will notice? There are two easy ways to step out of that foggy world.

1) Check your sales. Are people buying? No? Then what you are selling they do not like. It could be more complicated than that, but usually that's the problem. If they do like what you are selling you are poorly priced in comparison to the benefit you deliver to them. This is far less a marketing problem than a corporate problem.

2) Change the tone of the discussion. "How does our consumer identify value?" covers up the real point: "What do people want from us". "What are the differentiators" good to know, but better is "Why do people buy from us". You're thinking he just said the same thing in two different ways. The use of the word 'people' changes the response. Make it personal. If you want people to have a relationship with your brand, you need to pull your weight on the other end.

We have an audience in Papua New Guinea?

Who would have thought so many consumers would be interested in hearing our story? We would have never guessed that 80% of our engaged base are 32 year old males from that area of the country. Why would so many people leave that webpage? These are the voices of surprised companies upon reviewing a measurable online campaign. The response to most of these ideas and questions is pretty easy. Who cares?

The volume of information for any integrated campaign can be overwhelming. It can be paralyzing for an unprepared marketing team, leading to irrelevant questions or a confirmation biased approach to analyzing the results.

To avoid this and be better prepared here are three things to keep in mind:

1) The online audience is not always a reflection of your audience. This is a dangerous one for me to write, but let me explain. The people who react to your marketing or advertising online will be very specific to the action you instituted. In this case the word 'action' should not be mistaken with the word 'strategy'. For example, you may develop a funny viral video. As a result 300,000 people may view it - exciting, I know. Then you read the comments on YouTube that reflect disdain for the video or lower than enthusiastic love for your brand. Probably a less comforting experience. This doesn't mean that the consumer who buys your product feels the same way. In this case, your action (the viral video) may have appealled to a broader crowd. Your strategy was to reach 2,000 people (which you did) but the nature of your action allowed the online masses to take control. You can control the message all you like but you can't control who likes it.

2) Beware the vocal minority. When the agency I work for is first hired to listen online, the companies that we are working with are surprised about the level of negative/positive discussion. I often relate the online environment to any public meeting (if your in University think Student Union issues, if your have kids think PTA meeting, if you engage in public planning think 'public' feedback on the planning process). The people who are the loudest are usually those on the fringe. You rarely here someone speak up "I am adequately satisfied with this proposal, this is pretty good". You usually hear "that sucks" or "autograph me a copy so I can frame it". Some people will never like you. Some people love you (but aren't guaranteed to always love you - a post for another day).

The act of listening online alone is not enough. You require the skill to assess the risk and acknowledge the ability of when take action. Prop up the people who are your fans. Don't let them turn. Reach out to the haters, but do so knowing the probable outcome. It may be a case of showing your intent, rather than the outcome (don't mistaken this with selfishly assisting someone, that will get you burned). With this in mind, you can use the information found from 'listening' online very effectively, but do not mistaken it with the views of the majority. Most companies in Canada do not yet have the critical consumer mass to have their audience accurately reflected online. There will be people who will never speak up, but who will only watch. They are equally as important and should not be forgotten in the hype of social media.

3)Listen to the people you do engage. This may sound like a contradiction from the first two points. The intention with listening to the engaged people - the people who respond to your survey, buy your product online, engage in whatever action your online tactic is aiming to do - is to find out how to get more people like that. You're online audience may not always be a great reflection of the broader mass audience, but it is still an audience with a wallet. Identifying who reacts positively online, and tailoring integrated marketing efforts online to build this base of positive reactions in the ultimate key to a sustainable online strategy.

Mitch Joel on perseverence

I've been working with a few folks at Seth Godin's Triiibes project on an ebook currently titled "We want you to fail". It explores perseverance and its impact on the success or outcomes in ones life. We've been compiling interviews with a variety of individuals - from the famously successful to those stories of the lesser known. About two months ago I did my first interview for the project with Mitch Joel.

I first met Mitch Joel just over a year ago. I was attending the Annual General Meeting of a client, and had heard that there were a few guest speakers. When I arrived I was seated at a table in the front left. Beside me sat a young guy with a shaved head and glasses. We were both listening intently to Terry O’Reilly give an impassioned speech about creative communications. When Terry finished and the applause was over, I noticed he was in my direction. That’s odd, I thought. He sat down to my left. As he did this, that guy on my right stood up and proceeded to the podium. That’s when I realized I was sitting at the speakers table (uninvited). As I looked up at the podium, that guy was introducing himself. It was Mitch Joel.

I wanted to speak to Mitch about perseverance because he has had an extraordinary ride, but did not come from a priveledged environment, invent some new technology, or climb his way through some political ladder. I wanted to speak to Mitch because he has successfully made it where he is based on knowledge, insight and audience. These are intangibles that are a valuable currency in any industry and being able to use them effectively is not a common story.

Here are a few excerpts from our interview:

Q: When did you realize that for you – the rules of the game were changing and you wanted to be ahead of the curve? Your colleagues must have thought you were crazy…

A: Pereverance has two sides. One side is negative. This is has to do with facing obstacles that come along and viewing them as problems or adversity. The negative comes out mostly in external factors you cannot control, like the people who are naysayers, or the barriers you create for yourself. With this side of perseverance you have to keep on pushing no matter what people say to you or how you feel.

For example, people will look at the Newpaper industry and say ‘look how it is persevering through these tough times”. I think that’s not it at all. I would say that Newspapers, like the music industry, are failing to persevere. Persevering for these industries would be to acknowledge the shift from content ownership to content publication. They would look at what they’re creating and who they’re connecting with. They would see the change in consumer habits, the prospects in new revenue and ad models, and the greater opportunity of taking advantage of the limitless opportunities that exist beyond their traditional walls.

The other side of perseverance is positive. This is how I look at the equation. You determine what you want to do. Then you do what you want to do. It’s really rooted in the knowledge that when you wake up in the morning you know what you want to do and you’re excited to do it. You know what success looks like and that excites you. You want to learn and take the steps to get there.

These two sides of perseverance are two different worlds. The positive side is not about doing it to keep on doing it. That’s not smart and strategic. Our actions should be flowing with the times, always searching for that better way.

Q: How is that going reflected in what you do (work, book, blog, etc)?

A: The positive side of perseverance has affected my career in a fundamental way.

About three weeks ago I had a light bulb moment… I started in magazine publishing and journalism. I still love the industry. I was preparing the sales and marketing plan for the book [Six Pixels of Separation] with my team at Twist Image, and it hit me. My blog Six Pixels of Separation, my podcasts, Media Hacks, Foreward Thinking, my business book review twitter feed, the columns in the Montreal Gazette and the Vancouver Sun - wait I’m a publisher. While persevering in my career I’ve become more of a publisher than when I owned two magazines.

If you would have asked me 5-10 years ago what I wanted my book to be, I would have said the standard answer “I’m working for this to be everything I know it can be” At the time, for most people, a book was ones opinions published and projected to the masses. Now, a book doesn’t feel the same. It is no longer the single source of opinion, commentary or insight. My blogs, columns and opportunities to speak are all part of that impression and each influence the other. Think about it. I finished the book in December 2008. However it set to launch in September 2009. The book is coming out almost 9 months after it was finished. In that time I’ve published a blog post everyday, gathered more ideas from colleagues and podcasts, it’s almost another book worth of valuable content.

The book is really a reflection of all my other content publishing efforts. It’s not a feature on Mitch Joel but on the columns and experiences I write about. The blogs, podcasts, and columns supplement the book, while the book provided the road map.

And my favorite quote of the interview:
"One thing I can say that I’m most proud of - I will always try things even at the risk of my livelihood. That’s not always the best choice (ha), but it keeps the fire burning and drives my excitement. Understanding how to be proactive in a serious confrontation is the self defense of marketing."

We give ourselves too much credit

Yesterday I posted how we don't give our customers enough credit. That we underestimate the role our brand plays in their lives. This should not be confused with the other side of the equation. That is - that we over estimate the role our products play in the lives of our customers.

We love the products we make. We're pretty sure that everyone else who uses them feels the same. Unfortunately, there are a few problems with this.
1) We are all very poor judges of what other people think is important (don't pretend otherwise).
2) Our competitors love the products they make, and think everyone else feels the same way.
3) Our shared customer base is not buying your product. They are buying the product that fits them at that particular moment in time. To them it's not so much a choice, as social availability: its what I want at this time and it fits my current standards.

When we focus on our product our messaging changes to focus on immediacy, exploiting the weakness of the old or building a mountain of value around what is shiny and new. This increases sales by nudging consumers into a state of inadequacy. What used to pass as 'great' drops down in their standards to 'useless'. We shift their focus to filling that void with our new product. Unfortunately, this focus does nothing to build trust in a consumer base. It does nothing to stand out from our competitors. It fails to be truly different.

This may sound crazy, but people tend to enjoy feeling confident. They enjoy being praised for their decisions or comforted by their peers. The role your product plays in their lives is only as good as the narrow promise that product can make to them. Chances are, someone else's product can make a comparable promise (I mean comparable in the mind of your consumer - yes, I know your product is different, holds more value, blah, blah, blah). Shift that focus to your brand - as my last post describes - and you change the game to a relationship strategy over a product strategy. One where whoever has the most fans wins.

Of course to do this, you require significant confidence in what you are selling. Your product needs to be great. Your people need to be better. Every measure of consumer interaction has to be held to that brand promise. In the long run, this strategy will win. In the short run, you'll definitly piss off at least a couple of sales and product managers - but it will be worth it.

We don't give our customers enough credit

We often under estimate the role our brand plays in the lives of our customers. As companies, we downplay the value of direct communication (of any form - social media, face-to-face, hand written letters, etc) because we don't think anyone cares enough about our brand for this stuff to matter. This is a problem derived from a combination of two corporate self esteem issues:

1) A brand's fear of being called out for being something other than its corporatly controlled definition
2) combined with a brand/corporate/marketing culture focused on 'the mass' rather than the customer. Our brands have long tried to get bigger, but only rarely focuses on getting better.

As a result, we avoid situations where the brand message is open for public interpretation. We over manage every piece of advertising just in case our customers notice (or even care) that our product is facing left instead of right and as a result decide jump ship. We tell our retail stores to sell but take away the opportunity to keep customers by always referring them to a 1-800 number or passing the responsibility to a higher power.

Be a brand that believes in its customers more than its ego.

One example of a brand who has made the effort to overcome its self esteem issues is T-Mobile. I've talked before about their current obsession with flash mobs. They've taken their benign, easily comparable mobile phone product, and repositioned it in favor of the customer (rather than the masses). They removed technology from the equation and made it about sharing. The Life's for Sharing campaign has so far be quite successful. I can't comment on T-Mobile's ability to fulfill the promise, as its service is unavailable to me.

The latest attempt at a flash mob involved 13,000 people in Trafalgar Square singing Hey Jude together. It has seen mixed reviews. Some digital marketing folks are slamming it as disappointing and a failure. Lucky for T-Mobile - those guys aren't really their target. The most allusive consumer are those who are 25 years old or younger. This also happens to be the sweet spot for the communications indusrty. These folks use the most bandwidth (= most profit) and have little loyalty. Mobile carriers around the world have been trying to figure out how to reach them. I think you could almost define a new category targeting this market within the mobile phone industry (thinkBoost, Fido, Virgin, Koodo).

So what are these consumers saying?
"These T-mobile events are great, keep them coming, im proud to be with T-mobile!"(15 year old CraigTaylor94 on YouTube)
“OMG, I love the new T-Mobile advert that just premiered tonight at 9! #Trafalgar Square” (from this excited tweet) Source: ViralBlog

That's not everyone - but the fact that a 15 year old would say that he's proud to be with a brand from an industry full of boring players is a huge step.

Give you customers some credit. They are waiting for you to surprise them. They almost expect it. Eliminate the legal/corporate mindfield of what would make everyone happy and focus on what would make the people who care about your brand happy - a focus on the individual instead of the masses. You'll get people talking and your customers will reward you for it.

When did viral become funny?

I'm sad to say that I caught a few minutes of the latest "Apprentice" the other night. The two teams had been asked to come up with a viral video for a laundry detergent. The results were beyond disastrous and in the boardroom Trump asked the teams why they both selected humor to deliver the video. The response was "...the client asked for a viral video."

This happens a lot. The assumption that for content to be worth sharing it must be funny. This is the case with a lot of the online examples and works on occasion. Yes, most of these examples get thousands of views - but works on occasion was meant to imply that the right people share the video and actually connect with the brand. I love the use of humor in all advertising, but I think that in some cases it is too easy to jump to the conclusion that viral = humor. If you look at why we share something, it's usually funny, exciting, shocking, puzzling, self-assuring, or some other emotional response that drives us to find someone else to share that something with. The point is that we tend to only share things that are interesting. I'd avoid the word if I could - but it just needs emotion. Sometimes funny is the cop-out. The cheap trick. There can be more done with this strategy if we continue to push it past the comfortable.

Thinking interesting means using the media for what it can deliver, rather than what it does now.