I'll take 'Competitive Sets' for $200, Alex

We all tend to get a tad myopic when it comes to our particular categories of expertise. Our brains are imprinted with the complete insider's road map, with all of the associated jargon, acronyms, reputations and rules of thumb of a battle-worn soldier. It is all too easy to find oneself disconnected from the way consumers view the marketplace. The ante is raised in a recession since we're all fighting for a share of a wallet that isn't growing. But who exactly is our competition? This is an important question because it frames a marketer's world view, how we apply our limited resources, and the manner in which we react to changes in the landscape.

Certainly we all know our direct competitors-- the list of players that sell related products and services at similar price points. We know the leaders, the second tier challengers, the upstarts, and the fading stars. No doubt, it is highly important to track the behavior of this group, the shifts in tactics and strategy, product development, etc.-- not only is it vital to measure up head-to-head with the right comparative advantages, it's also critical to be tuned into what our customers are seeing.

But we also know that there is an entire world outside of our category that affects our prospects for success. After all, most consumers aren't disciplined enough to rigidly categorize their household budgets akin to the way we segment the market... "this is my clothes money, this is my new car fund, and this is my going out money..." It's more likely that most people operate off a fairly fluid household budget-- with perhaps the greatest deviation separating must-haves (e.g., mortgage payment, school tuition) from the nice-to-haves (new laptop, gym membership). So in reality, if we're both targeting the same household, on some level we are all competitors, regardless of what we sell. This is an easy dynamic to accept at face value, but it's rather unactionable in the abstract. We are tuned into competition with direct competitors... the world of winners and losers in a defined space. But how do I keep up against... everybody? How and where do I address that in my marketing plan?

I think we have to go back to examining the purchase process. For illustrative purposes, let's throw up a generic purchase funnel. I know many regard this particular tool as antiquated-- frankly, since no purchase process or consumer is quite the same, there can really be no perfect model anyway. For example, the braintrust at McKinsey recently drew up a new model, dubbed The Consumer Decision Journey, that resembles a loop that actually grows bigger prior to becoming smaller-- this after reportedly researching the purchase behavior of some 20,000 people. While that theory makes as much sense as anything, I'll refer to this classic model for purely illustrative purposes.

The basic premise is that there is some kind of trigger that ushers a would-be consumer into a purchase process. There are, of course, people that do nothing but study how to manufacture these types of "triggers," but putting that aside for a minute... this is the stage where consumers become aware of the choices available to them. The theory is that over the course of this process, which can take anywhere from 3 seconds to 3 years depending on the category, a consumer acquires more information that breeds familiarity, allowing them to formulate opinions, a consideration list and, eventually, a hierarchy of preferences. The consumer then shops their preference(s) and consummates the purchase, at which point they enter the ownership experience, which ideally will produce loyalty that will draw them into repurchase at a later date.

If we believe this, then we'd have to also believe that there are various questions that need to be satisfied along the way for the consumer to advance to the next stage of this process, such as:

So I think the question one has to ask themselves is: Where am I engaging my prospects? I currently work in the restaurant business, and like other industries many in my tribe automatically start at the middle or even lower in the funnel-- we assume anyone we talk to is in the market to dine out now... and to be fair, statically this is a good assumption since more than 90% of consumers surveyed report a restaurant purchase in the previous 30 days. So the theory goes, people have to eat, with the overwhelming majority dining out at least a little, so let's get right to competitive advantages and deals, mano y mano with my direct competitors.

And while there's obviously a huge role for this kind of focus in a marketing plan, this is also, undoubtedly, the most vicious and contested area of the battlefield-- where all brands go to fight. And I can't help but wonder why, as marketers, who are ostensibly trained in the art of differentiation, why we don't spend more time and resources at the top of the funnel. I mean, by the time consumers reach the theoretical consideration stage, haven't the criteria largely been defined by our competition? And another thing, isn't the whole point of a "funnel" that the playing field gets smaller farther down in the process by way of hefty consumer and brand attrition? If so, one could argue that there are more fish-- albeit not all qualified-- at the top of the funnel, and thus potentially the opportunity to circumvent the bloodbath further along in the process.

I suppose this is just the age-old branding vs. retailing/selling argument. How much time and resources should I invest against defining my worth to a broader audience, where I am competing against a virtual universe of consumer choice versus the resources I invest selling to consumers who are actively shopping my category? Heck, do I have what it takes to create the process trigger in the first place? I think that's the ultimate shot at creating new customers streams, and defining the rules of engagement in the purchase process. But in doing that we step out into the real marketplace, the world outside of our competitive set where consumers make daily trade-offs among products and services of all stripes.

Let's go back to my category. As a restaurateur, who am I competing with at the top of the funnel? A hair appointment? Savings to be applied to a future family vacation? The electric bill? A car wash? Dry cleaning? Isn't that what real people are debating when they think about whether to go out and eat?? Makes sense to me. Yet with the possible exception of fine dining you rarely see restaurant companies engaging consumers at the higher levels, where they are still sorting out their needs-- as in, why should a person dine at my restaurant now rather than divert those resources to these other things? What need can I tap into? Perhaps...

• Time away
• Romance
• Stress relief
• Awakening of the senses
• Laughter and frivolity
• Conversation
• Family bonding
• Social status

None of these necessarily involves a deal, and it gives me an opportunity to offer a trigger that can steer the purchase process into areas where my restaurant holds a competitive advantage, allowing my natural brand strengths to be aligned with the needs I have identified. They allow me to steer the fat part of the pie into a mini purchase funnel of my own creation, so perhaps it ends up looking like this:

Crude drawing aside, the idea here is this trigger of my own creation, invented by tapping into a need against a broader world of consumer choice, has the potential to circumvent the bloody purchase process of my competition, and accelerate a consumer to my restaurant because they have entered the purchase process on my terms. I think no matter the economy, a company with designs on superior growth tracks must put resources against this type of activity.

So for example, a Mexican restaurant can certainly run ads in places showcasing a new combo meal or outdoor fire pit or something, but why not invite a consumer with dreams of traveling to Mexico to experience the next best thing?










T.G.I. Friday's can certainly fight it out for cash-strapped casual dining consumers with its "Right Portion, Right Price" campaign, but why not also a call out to the woman who hasn't had a rejuvenating girls-night-out in months because the bar scene is so disappointing?

Or I just loved this guy drinking what looks to be Sonic float-- grabbed it from a Jet Blue online promotion actually, but it could have been a premise for a great ad. So many things in life are beyond our control, including the lot you draw in the coach section. So grab something in life that you can control, like the happiness that is the always enterprising Sonic menu.

In a recession, I think the middle/bottom funnel "sellers" win at most companies, hands down-- those wishing to allocate at least some marketing resources towards tapping into core consumer needs, with the goal of creating purchase triggers leading to new streams of customers, are on defense. We hear, marketing needs to "work harder" these days, which is code for making deals and direct, brass tacks selling points. Additionally, the discussion is generally dominated by reactions to the behavior and activity of direct competitors. I really believe this is a zero sum game that too many companies play, and causes the entire category to move like sheep. What insiders see as major lines of distinction... "but we offer fries at $1.99, and ours come with ketchup AND ranch!" ...to consumers it all looks ordinary and forgettable.

So my point? My point is I think we need to spend appropriate time thinking about our indirect competitors at the top of the funnel, addressing the questions that customers pose at this stage of the purchase process. I think we need to exit the myopia of our direct competitive set from time to time and look at our offering with the fresh eyes of our consumers-- not only does this avoid engaging in category groupthink, but it allows us some respite from the margin-crunching world of throwing discounts at a finite group of shoppers. I believe these will be the companies poised to leave the pack of sheep in the dust when this great recession finally subsides.

Steve Jobs, a.k.a. The Natural

I'm one of those people that loves studying the naturals-- the select few who marry hard work with a dash of genius and tremendous charisma to set themselves apart from the rest of us. I love trying to extract the magnetic tendencies that make them special, like a scientist in search of the Higgs boson. Who's on my list? I think of people like the late Carl Sagan, who popularized the modern understanding of the universe and earth's relation to the cosmos. Or Tiger Woods, child prodigy at the age of 2, winner of 14 majors, who combines effortless power with pure unflappability to both dominate and elevate a sport. Or even somebody like Rick Warren, author of the über-bestselling devotional, The Purpose Driven Life, a book that launched a new wave of spiritual awakening by flipping the old self-actualization movement on its head.

There are others (and not all guys, of course... J.K. Rowling, Oprah Winfrey, etc.). They're the game changers-- not just because they're smart and talented (there are many smart people), or because they're visionaries (we all stumble upon a unique insight now and then) with larger than life egos-- but because they seem to be almost hardwired with the ability to connect with and inspire people, both inside and outside of their profession. This gives them that coveted crossover appeal, the ability to transcend a category. Put Steve Jobs on this list. The guy is a marketing natural, someone who sees simplicity in the complex, and instinctively understands how humans prefer to interface and collaborate with machines and one another.

Jobs is also a master presenter, and a communications coach by the name of Carmine Gallo recently wrote an entire book on the supposed secrets of his trademark style, summarized in this recent Business Week article. So needless to say I was pretty interested. And as I read it, the broader marketing and branding lessons were obvious-- no surprise, since a presentation is, after all, just promotion, one of the 4 Ps. So... I give you, Gallo's 5 secrets for presenting and promoting like a marketing natural, followed by a few comments and observations:

-- 1. A headline. Steve Jobs positions every product with a headline that fits well within a 140-character Twitter post. For example, Jobs described the MacBook Air as "the world's thinnest notebook." That phrase appeared on his presentation slides, the Apple Web site, and Apple's press releases at the same time. What is the one thing you want people to know about your product? This headline must be consistent in all of your marketing and presentation material.

People relate to narratives, and brand building is, really, just telling an ongoing story about your brand's purpose in the universe. And that story needs chapters with headlines-- which are often your products and services. And just like you wouldn't bring something to market without a sound business case, so also should you have a succinct consumer case that summarizes its core benefits, competitive differentiation and link to your brand's... raison d'etre. Summarizing a complex idea in a few words is one of the most value-added things a marketer can do because it sets the table for alignment, giving teams from marketing communications, training, operations (among others) a common language and understanding, which makes a company vastly more fleet footed and competitive.

--2. A villain. In every classic story, the hero fights the villain. In 1984, the villain, according to Apple, was IBM (IBM). Before Jobs introduced the famous 1984 television ad to the Apple sales team for the first time, he told a story of how IBM was bent on dominating the computer industry. "IBM wants it all and is aiming its guns on its last obstacle to industry control: Apple." Today, the "villain" in Apple's narrative is played by Microsoft (MSFT). One can argue that the popular "I'm a Mac" television ads are hero/villain vignettes. This idea of conquering a shared enemy is a powerful motivator and turns customers into evangelists.

There's a little more to the story here I think. You can only position a competitor as a villain or a bogeyman if the case can be made they that they are both powerful and a menace to consumers-- otherwise it just looks like nerdy Coke/Pepsi-type bickering. And you have to simultaneously position yourself as the white knight. In other words, you have to behave like a classic challenger brand to pull this off, the pageantry of David taking on Goliath. If consumers see your cause as authentic and honorable, and your competitor(s) as disingenuous or disreputable, you'll engage them at a far higher, more emotional level, which is usually a good thing. And I believe even mega-sized corporations can effectively position themselves as challengers so long as they pick the right villain-- which could be a competitor in an unsustainable position (think McDonald's/Dunkin vs. Starbucks) or a befuddled establishment (Southwest vs. The Airlines) or a rigged status quo (Ross Perot vs. 2 Party Rule). America loves a populist.

--3. A simple slide. Apple products are easy to use because of the elimination of clutter. The same approach applies to the slides in a Steve Jobs presentation. They are strikingly simple, visual, and yes, devoid of bullet points. Pictures are dominant. When Jobs introduced the MacBook Air, no words could replace a photo of a hand pulling the notebook computer out of an interoffice manila envelope. Think about it this way—the average PowerPoint slide has 40 words. In some presentations, Steve Jobs has a total of seven words in 10 slides. And why are you cluttering up your slides with too many words?

Most of us learn this rule of presentation early in our careers-- less is usually more. We see others bomb with cluttered powerpoint slides, print ads, television spots and the like, and we chuckle... "that'll never be ME, hardy har har." And yet, for whatever reason, we'll turn right around and commit the same cardinal sin ourselves. I think it's because, in the moment, we have soooo many pieces to the puzzle in our minds that we're dying to communicate, so many selling points and lines of rationale that we're aching to get off our chests, that we just can't help ourselves. It takes discipline and contemplation to whittle it down to the fundamental building blocks. At the end of the day, most people aren't as close to it as you and won't stomach 25% of what's in your brain, they have their own lives to reconcile-- so lead with your best material and let the Q&A, leave-behind or website clean up the details.

--4. A demo. Neuroscientists have discovered that the brain gets bored easily. Steve Jobs doesn't give you time to lose interest. Ten minutes into a presentation he's often demonstrating a new product or feature and having fun doing it. When he introduced the iPhone at Macworld 2007, Jobs demonstrated how Google Maps (GOOG) worked on the device. He pulled up a list of Starbucks (SBUX) stores in the local area and said, "Let's call one." When someone answered, Jobs said: "I'd like to order 4,000 lattes to go, please. No, just kidding."

This is related to point #3. People just don't have much of any attention span anymore. We are essentially ADD Nation at this point (no offense to folks who suffer from actual ADD). Yet in order to be memorable, you have to be retained-- and to be retained, you have to entertain. And I believe you cannot entertain without taking some risks and mixing it up in communications-- many times of the unscripted variety, which allow people to get to know you. Jobs likes the hands-on show & tell... sure, something could go wrong, so what? Reel them in. Or maybe it's allowing consumers to post content on your website, which might be negative ((gasp!!)). We are in the era of open-source innovation... iPhone applications, Mozilla software, Wikipedia-- consumers want to feel like participants, not passersby. It's amazing how many companies still want to do highly controlled, one-way conversations these days, as if it's the 1950s and we're all newbies to commercialization.

--5. A holy smokes moment. Every Steve Jobs presentation has one moment that neuroscientists call an "emotionally charged event." The emotionally charged event is the equivalent of a mental post-it note that tells the brain, Remember this! For example, at Macworld 2007, Jobs could have opened the presentation by telling the audience that Apple was unveiling a new mobile phone that also played music, games, and video. Instead he built up the drama. "Today, we are introducing three revolutionary products. The first one is a widescreen iPod with touch controls. The second is a revolutionary mobile phone. And the third is a breakthrough Internet communications device…an iPod, a phone, an Internet communicator…an iPod, a phone, are you getting it? These are not three devices. This is one device!" The audience erupted in cheers because it was so unexpected, and very entertaining..

This is where the dash of genius comes into play. It's more than a provocative headline or creative premise or nifty animation. It's master showmanship, the great reveal of the big idea in a completely unexpected and refreshing way. Great promotion leads the consumer to the emotional crescendo that carries the key takeaway. This becomes, as Gallo characterizes it, the proverbial mental post-it note that the audience retains.

Gallo closes by stating that Jobs always couches his pitches in dreams and experiences. This is just a matter of evolving rational brand benefits to higher level emotional needs or meaning. DeBeers says "A diamond is forever"...Olive Garden says "When you're here, you're family"...Walmart says "Save money. Live better." Compete on the highest playing field possible, and it becomes a rallying cry for your employees and customers alike, and allows you to define your space in the marketplace.

So there you have it... narrative, pageantry, single-mindedness, engagement, emotional crescendo of the big idea. Steve Jobs. We can't become naturals, but we can fake it by taking good notes and self-assessing our own practices.

Michael Jackson, and lessons for brand building

If the Michael Jackson brand were a stock traded on an exchange, can you imagine the volume of buy orders on the night of June 25th? Here was a guy that had long since moved past train wreck status-- past radioactive ... he literally couldn't purchase relevance unless it came in the form of an open window into his bizzare existence. So deep was the chasm between Michael Jackson, the entertainer who once left us spellbound, and Michael Jackson, the creepy pauper, that only his actual death could bridge the gap. If this past weekend's box office was any indication, consider the chasm officially bridged. In fact the New York Times reported last August that his estate had already earned $100 million from the film deal and other merchandising contracts, with another $100 million anticipated by year end.

Of course this isn't all that unusual in the world of arts and entertainment-- an artist's death, particularly one of unnatural causes, can often drive his or her popularity to unprecedented heights. After all, the original king, Elvis Presley, is still alive and well as a cash machine over 30 years after his death. He and John Lennon both sold more songs after their deaths than they ever did alive. Artists like Van Gogh, Basquiat and Gauguin all saw the value of their works soar posthumously. Author and naturalist Henry David Thoreau and poet Emily Dickinson, both obscure and reclusive in their day, achieved critical and popular acclaim in the years proceeding their deaths. This is well worn pattern spanning generations of Western civilization.

So I guess we know the "what," but the "why" is more interesting to ponder-- as in, why is something worth more dead than alive? Certainly, basic supply and demand is a factor here, namely, death = scarcity. A finite supply of an artist's work should trigger a jump in price, all things being equal. And then there's the matter of simple differentiation-- a death obviously creates separation and uniqueness for an artist in the public's consciousness, allowing them to catapolt above the pack of the living. Maybe nostalgia for a bygone era? That could be part of it too.

But scarcity, differentiation and nostalgia still don't explain it all away for me. I mean in the case of Elvis we're not just talking records, it's Graceland, t-shirts, key chains, impersonators in Vegas, the whole 9 yards. Elvis was lampooned in his final years, now he's revered as an American icon. Before I get too morbid here, I guess the question I'm getting at is what exactly causes this change--besides the obvious-- and what does it tell us about brands?

I think the key is need. When an artist is dead, they don't need us anymore. When we perceive something as needy, we want to know why-- and in our cranial shorthand we infer that they must not be in demand. This applies to anything -- including friends and colleagues. That guy always hanging out in your office, doesn't he have anything to do? Doesn't anyone need him? He must not be very good. Or that girl with the crush on you for a million years, why hasn't she found anybody yet? What's wrong with her? Dead artists and entertainers don't need us anymore, and that suddenly makes them irresistible.

Comparing brands to people is very instructive to me because, well, that's what we try to do in marketing-- create desirable brand personalities, which is equity on your balance sheet-- it's what allows us to charge more than the sum of raw materials for a product or service. Great brands have a soul, a lifeforce. And we relate to them much like we relate to people, which is, of course, why we all work so hard on branding ourselves professionally.

Take President Clinton for example. His first 2 years in office were, by all accounts, a political failure. He suffered from the sharpest plunge in popularity among elected presidents-- down 11 points between the 1st and 2nd quarters of 1993. From the teasing he endured for the McDonald's runs and the $200 hair cut, to the more serious policy stumbles, he made plenty of beginner's mistakes. But more than anything, the guy was simply in our face too much. He was too damned needy. After seeing his party suffer a humiliating defeat in the 1994 midterm elections, one of the keenest bits of advice he received by advisers was to simply go away more often, be seen less, get off peoples' TV sets and leave them wanting more. I believe this went a long way toward restoring his brand esteem in the eyes of public as he easily won re-election 2 years later. Sure it was about being more Presidential and the whole "triangulation" thing, but it was also simple branding fundamentals-- sometimes less is more.

Time to bring this baby home... My point is, the Michael Jackson phenomenon underscores some important lessons for brand builders, namely, that it's important for a brand to avoid coming off as overly needy to consumers. Neediness makes people question a brand's worth. To put it another way, a great brand projects confidence and success. A great brand is comfortable with who they are, where they came from, and what they value.

Let's try to be more specific... how might this manifest itself in real-world marketing behavior? A few of my examples (among dozens, no doubt):

-- A confident brand doesn't cram 17 selling points on an advertisement, particularly on a B to C communication. Look, nobody's going to read all of that crap anyway, and it comes off as a prosecutor's brief rather than overture to consumers. Just pick a central narrative, perhaps a few key supporting statements, and let the copywriter go home for crying out loud. Like this ad for instance-- it's not about vanity, it's about freedom of expression. Well done, BOTOX geniuses.

-- A confident brand doesn't seek every and any opportunity to discount itself. Yes, I know the economy blows and you need the traffic, but you give away a little piece of your equity every time you sell yourself short. If you must discount, try to disguise them-- bundle several items together, add a bonus service or upgrade or a free gift, offer a reward for loyalty-- whatever, but confident brands don't repeatedly undercut their value perception by slashing prices.

-- A confident brand does spend the majority of its marketing resources on its core users, and has faith that they will, in turn, spread the gospel to secondary and tertiary targets, which we all know is the best advertising money can buy anyway. In the case of Trader Joes, those resources are directed right into their own stores, where easy-going, Hawaiian shirt-wearing staff troll the aisles, engaging customers in all manner of conversation about their private label offerings... want to know what something tastes like? No problem dude, let's crack open the product and try it! And another thing, I've always maintained that people look to advertising even after a purchase for affirmation, which, of course, also fuels word of mouth and repeat purchase-- if they see a disconnect with your placement or presentation, it runs the risk of confusing and alienating them, which makes you just another sellout.

-- A confident brand does seek opportunities to connect with its core consumers in ways that don't necessarily involve a direct sales pitch. Embrace their lifestyle. Be with them, enjoy what they enjoy, and demonstrate how your brand strengths connect with their values and interests. One of my favorite examples of this is the famous Red Bull Flugtag, a traveling event where people compete for distance as they launch themselves off a pier on their own self-powered flying machines. Talk about an event that projects the spirit of the brand "that gives you wings."

-- A confident brand does avoid copying its competitors. While there are certain benchmark criteria in any category-- basic product and service offerings or procedures that are essential for credibility as a player-- a confident brand also recognizes a pack of sheep moving in one direction and smells an opportunity to make a provocative statement. Just look at the fun Southwest Airlines is having at the expense of its competitors and their gotcha bag fees. Is there any wonder why Southwest has been one of the gold standards in the airline business for at least 15 years?

Now don't misunderstand me here, we're not talking about snobbery-- unless that's an intentional element of your brand's DNA. You don't want to go so far as to present your brand as aloof, as if your customers are practically unworthy of your products and services, and your obligation to them almost beside the point. That's obviously the wrong lesson. But you do want to project confidence and success, and you do want to try and leave them wanting more-- a feat that doesn't always require a near-death experience to pull off.

Here's tweeting at you, kid

Fads dominate marketing as they do general society. But while societal fads tend to be mere lane markers on the road of life, I think marketing fads are different in that they usually represent solid breakthroughs that are layered in a lot of hype and misdirection. In fact-- before writing this I sat back and tried to think about the marketing fads from, say the last 15 years, that turned out to be unabashed wastes of time, and I had a hard time coming up with a lot of examples.

Okay let me refine my criteria here -- I'm not talking about linguistic fads related to all things "extreme," "world wide web" or ((cough cough)) "green." I mean new methods or channels with which to connect with consumers. Things like so-called viral marketing, multicultural marketing, influential marketing a la Gladwell/Tipping Point, gamer marketing, marketing via blog, marketing via personalization or customization-- heck even the advent of the damn website was fad-like initially, shrowded in mystery and runaway euphoria. All of these things burst on the scene in varying degrees, awash with countless articles and books and PDF'd encyclicals, but when the dust settled found (or are finding) their proper places in the marketer's playbook.

I'm reminded of the old Conan O'Brien skit, "In The Year 2000," where Andy Richter, dressed up in a futuristic robe holding a flashlight to his face, set up Conan's humorously far fetched predictions for the future. Like... "In the Year 2000: Male doctors will no longer be allowed to become gynecologists when a group of them are caught high-fiving at a convention." Okay, you had to have watched the skit to get it, but trust me it was gold because it poked fun at the mystique people attach to the events and advances of the future. And this-- this is the thing that ravages the marketing industry, every time one of these movements come down the pike in such predictable fashion that cause so many of us to drop everything and chase our tails. Cue lame graph:




From frenzied birth, articles begin clogging up our inboxes, followed by ample name dropping of said trend at every meeting and cocktail party attended by marketing types. Soon the buzz trickles up to the CEO, who begins forwarding them to the CMO with dubious notations, like:

"We need to be doing this now, brief me on your plan soon. Thx!"

The CMO assembles the marketing team, who then calls in the agency, and inevitably it's the youngest kid on the account team who becomes a rockstar for bringing everyone up to speed on the subject. Reluctantly the CMO signs off on the obligatory "check the box" initiatives, naturally reallocating the necessary resources to pay for it. Meetings take place with fly-by-night specialty shops, with weird sounding names like Monkey Flatulence Posse, who've suddenly positioned themselves as the new authorities on the movement. Meanwhile the PR folks busy themselves with press releases depicting the company as enjoying wild success by way of the new trend. What a show!

All of this, of course, sets up the inevitable backlash. A couple blogs start appearing online, "Is X a fad?" Then the journalists start piling on, and a brand new wave of email flings in all directions, except these are prefaced with notations, like:

"Dude, this guy took the words right out of my mouth! I've been saying the same thing for months, where's the profit model in this idea? Waste of time, hello?!? LMFAO"

The backlash shoves the marketing trend and its disciples into the background, and for a brief time there is almost a return to the old way of doing things. The CMO breathes a deep sigh of relief. And that's roughly the moment that common sense starts driving the practical application of the former marketing fad.

We can see evidence of this today. Think about the trends beginning to face a measure of backlash. Email marketing for example, which seems sensible enough. Consumers sign up to receive email messages from some company they patronize or admire, lured by the promise of special offers and inside information. Email marketing shops dutifully spring up to fill the need. Everybody piles in. Only consumers begin to suffer from subscription overload as their inboxes clutter up. Most don't take the time to unsubscribe, but merely delete or ignore them. Often an advertiser isn't even afforded the chance to win a last second reprieve because the #%!&@ spam filter delivers their message like this:




Of course the companies paying for these messages have rightly questioned the ROI on their investments. Email marketing companies are beginning to lose clients as resources shift into other mediums. There's an idea here, but it needs sharpening. Number one, the technical hurdle of spam filters need to be overcome. But more importantly, the content of the emails, themselves, need to be more valuable to the consumer to survive the delete button. The medium is undergoing the necessary pruning as sex appeal is replaced by practical strategic and technical thinking, and what will emerge from this period is a potent arm for companies to dialogue with their most promising customers.

Is mobile marketing poised to suffer the same backlash soon? All signs point to yes. Like email, it is supposed to be an opt-in medium. And the open rates right now are high because most consumers haven't yet overloaded themselves with a lot of hasty subscriptions. But how intrusive will this get when the same thing occurs-- people sifting through promotional garbage as they try to find critical texts and emails? What kinds of messages are people really receptive to on their phones? Sales? Coupons? Insider tips? What's its worth to an advertiser compared to a message delivered by way of a print ad, or a billboard or a street team? Is it more appropriate for certain products or audiences? There's a lot of heavy lifting to be done on the subject. Should you be there right now, or is it better to merely collect mobile numbers and wait for your competitors to spend their money making the mistakes?

Or how about the mother of all fads right now, social networking? Talk about a feeding frenzy... no marketer wishing to remain relevant wants to be seen sitting on the sidelines of this trend, and thus companies have poured into the "Big 3" (Twitter, Facebook, YouTube) with a vengeance-- open accounts now, ask question later! I mean, after all-- it's FREE right? A FREE chance to interact with potential consumers on their turf, why... it's just like ... well, any advertising come to think of it. Important yes, but what's your plan and how do you cut through the clutter? I mean who really cares that you have a Facebook site, so does everyone else including my grandmother and my dog, so what's cool about just being there? What now, man? Companies are starting to realize that what it takes to be relevant in social media certainly isn't FREE-- unless the countless hours your marketing staff spends developing posts and polls and tweets and videos is inconsequential to your bottom line? What else could they be doing with that time, and how much is enough, and how are 100,000 "fans" going to impact sales this year? In 2 years are you going to look like a jackass for your preoccupation with social media, particularly if it's perceived to have come at the expense of other critical fundamentals?

Alright, alright, time for a point... my point is, most marketing fads aren't really fads, they're actually solid breakthroughs masked by predictable hype-- which takes a few years to subside before its true merits and practical applications begin to surface. Therefore I think it's prudent to ask yourself-- do I so want to be the cool guy at the cocktail party by being a pioneer, or am I going to take the time understand what I'm getting into and proceed with grounded, strategic purpose? Are there trade offs associated with plunging in today (or, conversely, with waiting)? In an era of shrinking marketing staffs and resources is it really antiquated to measure a fad against other proven techniques for driving profitable revenue? Don't misunderstand me on this -- if you know what you're doing, and why you're doing it, and what you hope to accomplish, and whether it's appropriate for your brand, by all means go for it. Sometimes it's important to wing it, to improvise-- it's part of our world, and why we love what we do. But so also should a healthy dose of perspective and skepticism be part of what you do, less you spend your career chasing your tail each time a fad reaches your inbox.

A value is a discount, except when it isn't

The recession hath wreaked thunder and lightning on marketers across the land, but like cockroaches we scattered to adapt to the new playbook, surviving to fight another day. Earlier in the decade we were all experts on premiums and exclusivity... pushing them into any and every category, be it bringing cachet to formally pedestrian purchases like coffee and toothpaste, or pushing the limits of prestige in arenas like automotive and new home construction. Everybody had to be premium, or dabble in it anyway.

And now? Well, prestige is passe. Today's mantra is value... delivering reliable value to the consumer in ways that don't implode your profit margin. Value value value! And what is value? I don't know, just slash prices man! Cut cut cut. I want to see prices crashing to the earth like so many pieces of lint from an overly laundered t-shirt! Now let's see some slashin'!

It's time for a definition: What exactly is this value of which I speak? Greenwood's definition: Overdelivering at a given price point. Now I know what you're thinking... thank you, Captain Obvious! But seriously, it's broad precisely because value is such a wide playing field, encompassing ... well, just about all of commerce actually. Think of value as a line in the sand, separating treasure from garbage in nearly every category at every price point. And slashing your price is sometimes the most inefficient means of delivering it to your consumers.

I'll use a competitor of mine to make my point, since they're in the news lately -- we'll just call them Anonymous. Now Anonymous mass markets an affordable food product with fair-to-good quality, so one would think they'd be well-positioned to succeed in a horrendous economy. But Anonymous decided to double down in recent months by introducing -- heck, showcasing -- a discount menu of sorts, with pricing starting at as little as $5.

Now I don't have access to Anonymous' marketing research, but if you put a gun to my head and forced me to guess what their consumers were left thinking, I'd say they walked away thinking that their food was worth about 5 bucks -- meaning, it wasn't very good. And I'd also guess that their quality and value scores have fallen through the floor as a result. And given their recent announcement that Q3 comparable store sales plummeted a staggering 13% versus a year ago, I'm guessing they now suspect this was a bad strategy. If so, they're right.

Slashing prices is sometimes the worst way to communicate value. It might drive a short-term sales spike, but much like a sugar high it'll probably leave you in the end with little more than a headache.

Now don't get me wrong, price is a critical component of value -- fundamental to the consumer equation actually. In fact if Einstein, himself, were here and into marketing he might even draw up an equation like this:


Ok, no he wouldn't. But I'm no Einstein, so it's ok for me to do it. The idea here is you can go after the numerator ("stuff") or denominator ("price") -- the problem with the latter route is that most consumers use price as a tool for determining value, so, generally speaking, not only are you actually undermining your fundamental value equation by slashing prices, in most cases you'll lower your revenue by taking in fewer dollars per transaction. Furthermore, what happens when the economy improves? Think customers will conveniently forget what you charged them prior to the recovery? It will take years of brand building to earn back your pricing power.

And while I'm at it, hasn't value always basically been in style? Has there ever been a period of time where consumers will willingly throw their money down a rathole without a reasonable return on their dollars? Oh sure, what consumers seek and prioritize does indeed change with the times -- but whether it's exclusivity or quality or experience or authenticity, consumers are always looking for a great value equation. Ritz Carlton is a great value brand. So is Trader Joes, H&M, McDonalds, Hertz, you can go down the list, but these are all brands that overdeliver on the dollar, and that is relevant in any economy.

Alright, so my point? Well I have 2 points.

Point #1: Value is always in style. A great brand delivers great value, always and forever. They're almost the same thing. Maybe they are the same thing actually. You should always strive to be a value brand regardless of the macroeconomic environment.

Point #2: If you want to be known for delivering great value, focus on the top of the equation. Deliver more stuff for the dollar. And this is where you marketers have to earn your salaries... the focus needs to be squarely on the intersection between the things your organization does well and the things consumers care about. Again, channeling my best Einstein:


Now I know this is a tad simplistic, but the fact is a well-positioned brand should provide a straight-forward roadmap for finding your right stuff in any climate. On the other hand a poorly positioned brand with little in the way of credible and desirable differentiation will handcuff a marketer attempting this exercise, and like any good commodity leave little outside of price with which to compete. But wasn't that plain ol' Branding 101 in the era before value became the latest buzz word?

It's the execution, dummy

Companies pay handsomely to hire gurus to deliver the next big strategy, or, occasionally research that their high paid gurus will then turn into the next big strategy. Organizations will literally devote months, sometimes years, in this quest for the holy grail, as if there is only one true path to success, one right way to beat their P&L targets. And all too often there are marketing charlatans waiting around every corner acting like the smartest people on earth, claiming to hold the secrets to success, the knowledge of the right way forward. If only they would move the current crop of marketing bozos out of the way and tap them for the real answers.

Now don't get me wrong, it's important to know -- to internalize -- your strategic roadmap. How are you going to make the most money today, and how are you going to set up your organization to make even more money tomorrow? Core strengths, consumer mindsets, marketplace positioning, competitive battlegrounds -- indeed, vital stuff, without which an organization would drift directionless into a sea of irrelevance and failure. This post isn't trying to diminish the importance of these things.

But one of the primary observations I have made in my career thus far is the following: there is an abundance of smart strategies in the marketplace today, but a dearth of people with the ability to properly execute them. In other words, far too often there is no longstanding connection between the strategy or brand positioning they slaved over for 6 months and the actions they take in the marketplace ...creative development, pricing plan, media mix, communications approach, customer experience -- something gets mangled or disconnected in the end. Why? Because too many organizations are enamored with superior strategies instead of superior execution. The day in and day out focus -- the coordination -- the commitment of seeing it through to nitty gritty perfection, as if your next meal depended on it, isn't there.

Let's face it, organizations are just like people. You can take your life in a number of directions, and strive to be anything you want to be. But ask yourself this: How many friends or associates or family members do you know that go through life declaring goals, priorities, missions, plans, yet never end up doing jack to follow up on them in any meaningful, sustaining way? They talk the talk, and you love them, but you just know, dollars to doughnuts, they'll eventually be distracted by the grind of their lives and forget all about it. Now let me ask you, how many folks do you know that lay down a goal or mission or priority and actually see it through, with 100% effort and focus, whether people are paying attention or not, to it's most successful, sustained implementation? Yep, we all know both types of people, but it's the latter group, the shining, distinguished minority, that set themselves apart from the gaggle of dreamers.

Alright, so my point? My point is, there are several paths most companies can take to success, so go ahead and pick one already and spend the rest of your time -- your blood, sweat and tears -- outworking your competition with superior execution. Make everything you do sharper, more consistent, highly coordinated... in a way, almost more predictable in this one sense -- in its relentless cohesion with your organization's strategy for making more money today, tomorrow and forever. Get everybody on board with the direction (and for everyone "not on board," get them far out the way), and play out every gritty detail to synchronic perfection... and it will almost be impossible to lose, because your competition will be too focused on laying the groundwork for their next big strategy.