Benevolence is nice, but benefits are even better

In case you missed it, there was an interesting story in the New York Times last week explaining all the perks received by early-adopters of the Nissan Leaf electric vehicle. Click here to read the story.

Implications: On a personal level, I would describe myself—personally—as a little more environmentally aware and active than most. Even so, my “green” pursuits know a limit. I do not have solar panels on my roof, nor a wind turbine in my back yard.

Nissan has demonstrated an understanding that “green” is not a black and white issue. There are shades of green… that might help illustrate the degree to which different people consider themselves, “environmentalists.”

Do we all want to save the planet? Of course. But it helps if there is a consumer benefit or payoff that is more immediately gratifying. Few families consider themselves non-profit organizations.

As you plan your next environmentally-friendly campaign... it might be a good idea to include very specific ideas about why the product or service offering is also "consumer-friendly."

Mike Anderson

A more perfect union: Looking at the world through the other side's eyes

Colleague Kim Willoughby shared an article that she had read in the New York Times last week. It had to do with an agreement between General Motors and the United Auto Workers union that included significant wage cuts for a part of the workforce that will help build a new compact/sub-compact car in the U.S. Click here to read the story.

Implications: I’m going to express this as an opinion, but bear with me: Both unions and companies have long thought that for one to win, the other must lose. At times, this prevailing attitude has resulted in harm to the company, the union, or both.

In light of another challenging month for the jobs market (click here to see the Bureau of Labor Statistics report, also from last week), it is not surprising to see unions and companies—finally—look at the world from each others’ point-of-view, and realize that they are mutually dependent entities… not archrivals.

Think about the participants in your own business cycle. Whether product vendors, service suppliers, customers or workers, have you ever looked at a person or company as if they were adversaries to be defeated, rather than partnerships waiting to happen? Review your negotiation/transaction process, and the answer will probably reveal itself to you.

Mike Anderson

Customer-approved clarity

A Research Brief story from last week suggests that up to three-fourths of Americans surveyed said they have been confused by a television commercial recently. Click here to read the story.

Implications: In my opinion, the same could be said of messages that are printed, served or broadcast in almost any media: Too much clever, not enough clarity.

Next time you’re proofing an ad for your company, consider getting some help from a customer. If your target consumer doesn’t get it, your approval or opinion of the creative is not all that relevant.

Tips: Start by knowing who the customer is that you're trying to target, the benefits they desire most when purchasing your product or service, which other providers they might be considering (as an alternative to buying from you), and what kinds of tactics might spur them to action now or very soon.

Mike Anderson

Good food they can have at home. When people go out, they want service.

A survey by Empathica is cited in a Marketing Daily story this morning, which suggests that consumers across the U.S. and Canada want great service, not just good food, when they decide on a restaurant. Click here to see the story.

Implications: During Consumer DNA workshops over the past several weeks, I’ve had more than one conversation with marketing executives about how sit-down, family-casual restaurants lost share during the great recession, and what kinds of tactics might bring those customers back, now that a recovery is underway. My position: Low price is what drew customers from sit-down restaurants to fast food, but low price is probably not what will gain them back.

What about candle-light dining and date night? What about the feeling of being “waited on” by someone who sincerely enjoys serving customers? What about the quality of the food (and health), not just an entrée at a sale price?

Talk to your customers to be sure—a little good research is better than a lot of speculation—but what customers want from their sit-down dining experience or upscale restaurant is probably not limited to a cheap price on a meal. A coupon might get them back in, but the way they enjoyed their evening will bring them back in again and again.

Mike Anderson

Twitter (and other modern-day Mad Men and women)

A story in today’s New York Times suggests that Twitter is making revenue a much higher priority than it has in the past, seeking to cash-convert the audience/neighborhood it has built. Click here to read the story.

Implications: What I enjoy most about this story is the hint that advertising agencies and even digital experts have not decided how social media is best used. It’s about time someone suggested that a lot of “best practices” have not even been invented yet. (Much less practiced.)

Have you seen the AMC television series “Mad Men?” I think one of the reasons for its amazing popularity is that we know how the story ends. The show focuses on a very young advertising industry, in an era when television was still this new, unexplored advertising beast. In the present day, we know just how large and important television became.

In 2010, we are all involved—at least to some extent—with the Internet, social media, mobile apps… each of which are already amazing media and advertising tools, but whose full marketing potential could still be described as unrealized.

And here we all are… participating, and in a way, influencing how those new stories will unfold.

Mike Anderson

Reconsidering your target

This is a grocery story, but its lesson could be applied in many other categories.

In this morning’s email newsletter, Phil Lempert (The Supermarket Guru) suggests that it might be time for food stores to start targeting lower-income shoppers. Often, supermarkets focus on middle- and higher-income shoppers because that’s where a significant share of revenue comes from.

Click here to see the video from today’s newsletter, or click here to read the text version that was sent out last week.

Implications: While profit margins might be better on premium or upscale products, some companies might be wise to re-evaluate all potential targets to see where fresh revenue could be obtained. Maybe your new “best prospects” are younger… or older. While your best “sale” opportunities may have come from homeowners a few years ago, perhaps renters are a group worth looking at now. If you used to court “blue chip investors” prior to the recession, maybe it would be smart to consider “emerging investors” these days.

What has changed about your target market in the past 36 months? It is quite likely that attributes of the people you sell to have changed; it might also be possible that you could/should be targeting an entirely different group of people, in addition to the target you once knew.

How has your most important target changed? Are the people different? Or are they different people?

Mike Anderson

Research informs the next marketing move

There was an interesting story in a recent issue of the Marketing Daily newsletter, announcing that Intercontinental Hotel Group had commissioned an extensive photography shoot for their hundreds of hotels. Click here to read the story.

Implications: The most important aspect of this story might be easy to overlook, when set beside the impressive number of hotels involved (approximately 3,500) and images to be captured (estimated at 100,000)… not to mention the 360-degree tours of hotel rooms and facilities.

The thing that caught my attention was the way consumers drove this decision: IHG did some research, and realized the importance of the web as a tool people use to decide on a hotel, and the importance of the visual representation those web sites provide.

Do you carry web-worthy digital camera with you frequently (or have one handy at your desk)? Have you done justice to your product or service in the way it is represented, visually, on your web site?

Or, have you listened to your consumers… to understand their consideration process, and how you can more effectively serve it?

Mike Anderson

Companies like this could really clean-up

Last week, an article from Marketing Daily touted the new “sustainability initiative” of Proctor & Gamble. It talks about making their distribution system (including trucks) more energy-efficient, reducing the amount of materiel that goes into their packaging, and powering their manufacturing centers with more solar and wind energy. Click here to read the story.

Implications: Aside from convincing people to wash with cold water instead of hot, there did not seem to be a huge marketing focus behind this announcement (yet). Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me that P&G is getting the back-end of their operation into good environmental condition, before shouting about it on the front-end of their marketing strategy.

Smart.

I’m not at all opposed to green marketing. But I appreciate it when a company’s environmental policy is created by its leadership, rather than by a copywriter. (I suspect consumers will, too.)

[Also see: “Learning Opportunities,” posted 7/23/10, or other stories from Elm Street that are “Environmentally Friendly.”]

Mike Anderson

In trying to clarify rules about children's product safety, only confusion results

A story from the New York Times this week explained how companies are trying to duck the new rules about toy safety—which have not even been completely explained yet. (Click here to read the story.) The Consumer Product Safety Commission will vote on the “definition” of a children’s product sometime soon, although it has postponed such a vote on three occasions already.

The impending policies are one one outcome of the wave of toy recalls that happened beginning in 2007.

Implications: It is not my intention to start a political conversation about new regulations (although that is a tempting proposition). But I raise this issue because… if it is confusing for policy makers and toy manufacturers, the regulatory process and outcome will surely cause confusion for consumers.

If you sell products that are intended for children’s use, can you be a of clarity, as well as reliability?

Mike Anderson

Healthy thinking about why people still don't eat their vegetables

“But they’re good for you.” Remember when you first heard that phrase, in support of eating your vegetables. According to this recent story from the New York Times, a lot of people probably know, but don’t care. (Click here to read the story.)

Implications: Is your product or service “good” for people? Do they care? This story focuses on things like quantity (for a reasonable cost) and convenience as benefits that are more important to consumers than the healthy attributes of eating vegetables.

You know the various benefits associated with your product(s) or service(s). But do you know their order of importance, in the mind of the consumer? Even if what you sell is “good for me,” that might not be good enough. Know the benefits that resonate most with your customers.

Mike Anderson

Are women still hitting a glass ceiling? (And can that last much longer?)

Earlier this week, there was a story in the New York Times about a GAO report that women are still not on equal footing in terms of holding management jobs. Click here to see the story.

Implications: Sorry to hear that the playing field has not yet been “leveled” effectively, according to this report. But I think the next couple of years are going to be very interesting to watch, in terms of employment.

Men, after all, took a bigger hit than women during the recession, at least in terms of job loss (according to this story from the NY Times back in February). I’ve heard from a lot of business owners during the past few years… and I’m also under the impression that companies did not cut people during the recession, they cut payroll. (Companies were not targeting people, they were targeting paychecks.) If that assertion is reasonably accurate, and if men were earning more as we entered the recession, it would only follow that men were a more attractive target in management reductions during the great recession.

Could the recession have served as an equalizing force, in terms of gender balance in the workplace? That might be important to think about… because employees (whether line-level or C-suite) are also influential consumers.

Mike Anderson

Why consumers have hang-ups about buying a new phone

According to this recent story from Marketing Daily, consumers might have some hang-ups about spending money on a new phone right now. For one thing, money is still a bit tight. For another, many consumers are unsure about the impact of data-use payment plans on their pocketbook. Click here to see the story.

Implications: Quick, answer this question: How many bytes of data did you use from your phone last month? Most people haven’t the foggiest idea.

Some phone company marketing is not as smart as the phones they’re designed to sell. If you think about it, whether you’re talking about apps or GPS or communication management… the reason smart phones are so beloved is the way they intuitively respond to the needs of the consumer.

Few consumers think in terms of data bytes used. We think in terms of text messages and emails sent or received, music or videos streamed, or photos uploaded to our favorite social network. Wouldn’t it be great to receive an invoice at the end of the month that said, “This month, you sent ____ messages, compared to your average of ____ messages. You uploaded ____ photos, at an average file size of _____; this compares to your typical monthly average of ___ photos per month over the past year.”

If we started to comprehend how many photos, songs or messages were involved with a 5 GB data plan, we might start grasping the value of ever more functional phones.

The fast food industry does not promote a fixed quantity of protein and carbohydrates for $5.99. They advertise a combo meal.

Mike Anderson