Excitement

There are many things this time of year to be excited for.

Firstly, it appears that in our little bubble, on the northwest shores of Lake Ontario, completely avoided the worst that winter had to offer.  I am currently sitting on my back deck, basking in 20 degree sunshine (read as: it doesn't get much better than this). 

Seconly, the iPad "3" is out today (I say "3" because Apple has dropped the numbering system for these.   Fair enough: we don't call them MacBook 6s do we?).  People are clamouring to get their hands on one, including lining up all night to be the first.  I'm excited about this, not because I am going to buy one, but rather because I am enjoying the thought of buying one.  I once spoke to a restaurant owner who had two Ferraris.  I asked him "what is the best thing about owning a Ferrari?" and he replied "owning a Ferrari is okay, but waiting until I could afford to buy one and shopping for it was the most exhilarating".  Truer words have seldom been spoken.

But what most excites me today is change.

With the luxury of retrospect, I can look back today over the past 5 months of my life as see where my path has taken me.  And it's good.  I changed careers and I know this change was one of the best decisions I've made.  I've changed as a professional and I've also grown as a person.  I can see the roles that I am responsible for and all the hats I need to wear.  More than that, I can see the things I want to move into, the things I haven't done before, the things that excite me.

Some people see obstacles, but I choose to see it differently: obstacles are the things you see when you lose sight of your goals.  You may not know what your goals are just yet, but if you stop looking forward you might never find out.  No matter what it feels like, no matter what people tell you, change is good.  It's all about how you handle it, how you make the most out of it and how you learn from it.  Change might bring you success.  Change might lead to failure, but if you learn from that experience, that change will always be a success.

Change is exciting.  I think I might now be a change-ist.

Lest We Forget.

Thinking of all those who have served or are currently serving around the world, your efforts and your sacrifices have granted us the freedom and security we have today. 

Let us never take our freedom for granted. 

Let us never stop appreciating all they have given for us. 

Let us never forget.

Disappointment stems from expectations

Fairly, or unfairly, people will create expectations based on the information they gather and process.  These brand expectations can be built from a number of difference sources:  consumer research, advertising, brand communication, first impressions and brand interaction to name  a few.  Expectations build the foundation of consumer impressions and ultimately determine whether the experience the consumer has with your brand is  positive or negative.

Is it possible to eliminate disappointment?  No, I don’t think so: it is unrealistic to try and please everyone all of the time and it’s strategically enviable: strategy is just as much about what you choose to do as what you choose not to do.  However, as a brand manager, you want to try and minimize the amount of disappointment consumers could face and promote positive brand experiences.  With expectations being built throughout the buying and consuming process (including awareness, shopping and post-purchase experiences), you need to control what is being communicated about your brand in a number of key areas.  These key areas include what your brand communicates, how it is advertised and what claims are made, how your product ‘works’ and how well you are able to support your customers and your product post-purchase.

And that’s the key: communication.  Misleading advertising, dishonest brand imaging and poor customer support can all lead to expectations not being met.  And missed expectations will lead to disappointment. 

There are many different industries and situations where this can be applied and it is almost certain you have had an experience with at least one of them: buying and servicing a vehicle, dealing with your Phone Company or ISP or dealing with your bank for your accounts or a loan.  One of the most difficult industries (and one that I’ve had a lot of experience with over the last 5 months in particular) is the airline business.  Largely regarded as one of the most difficult industries for creating and managing customer loyalty and retention, it is also one where controlling communication and managing brand experiences is especially critical.

For the past 5 months, I have been flying back and forth between Toronto and Washington DC regularly.  I’ve been flying with the same airline each time with few exceptions, and even at approximately the same time each flight.  Airlines have limited control over their service: you can maintain a safe aircraft, use state-of-the-art equipment with comfortable cabins and employ courteous and friendly flight directors to serve your passengers, but you have no control over the airport operations, the passengers on the plane and outside factors including airport delays or weather issues.  Flights have a scheduled time of departure, but there are so many outside forces influencing the aircraft’s actual departure that it is difficult to know if your flight will depart on time or not.   The difference between an airline that manages its brand well and one that doesn’t?  How  you communicate with your customer and how  you try to manage and meet their expectations.

It is understood that negative experiences are as much as 10 times more likely to be shared with friends and family than positives ones.  For example, when was the last time someone said to you “so I was flying this one time and my flight was on time…”  Thought so.

What does this mean for an airline?  This reinforces the need to communicate with passengers: are you able to warn your passengers about a delay ahead of time (a smart phone application?  An automated e-mail?).  Is there something you can communicate to your passengers to help them manage their expectations? (Can you keep them informed about recent developments?  Explain why they might be delayed? Not knowing something can be the most stressful part of the experience for a passenger when there is some kind of delay in their travels.)  Is there something you can do to make the situation better for your customers? (A snack or beverage allowance for flight delays? Something complimentary that would be outside of normal expectations?).  Airlines have one of the most volatile and uncontrollable market conditions possible, so a marketer has to determine if there is anything the brand can do to help manage expectations and disappointment.

But this is the nature of the beast.  What it comes down to is communicating.  Meeting expectations is a good starting point, but exceeding them is what you want to achieve.  This does not mean you need to set the bar low, it means you need to consistently strive to find a better way meeting your objectives and exceeding expectations.  

Author's Note: A big thank you to Kayla Kneisel for her extra set of eyes and thoughts!  Kayla may be starting her own blog soon so keep an eye out!

Don't be the 'dead fish'

The handshake can make or break your first impression.

When meeting someone for the first time, more often than not your first interaction with them is a handshake.  It may seem like a small, perhaps insignificant, detail but your handshake can be the difference between a positive first impression and a negative one.  We’ve all had good and bad handshakes: the firm handshake with eye contact versus the ‘dead-fish’.  The cliché isn’t wrong: first impressions cast a mold that once set, is difficult to change.

In marketing, there are few exceptions to this rule.

Let’s look at one of the most basic and simple marketing models we’ve all learned: AIDA.  Attention, Interest, Desire, Action.  On the face of it, it’s a simple model that helps to guide marketers through the stages of consumer interest.  Traditionally, and correctly I might add, marketers have spent the 50 years trying to carve out their 4-P’s in order to grab attention, drive interest, create desire and encourage action.  It’s part of the way marketers do their job, but I feel that things are starting to change.  The change isn’t a revolution, but rather a small modification to the existing model. 

In today’s marketing world, you need to control more than your 4-P’s, you need to control your C’s.

-          It’s not about Place, it’s about Convenience.

-          It’s not about your Price, it’s about the Cost.

-          It’s not about designing your Product, it’s about meeting Customer Needs

-          It’s not about Promotion, it’s about Communication

-          And finally, you need to have all these things and then create a Connection.

Creating and controlling a brand hinges on being able to control your consumer’s brand experience.  This involves all of these C’s: how is the product designed to meet customer needs?  How is it more conveniently designed or available?  Where is it found?  But increasingly, brand experiences are being built in the consumer’s mind even before they have ever touched or tangibly interacted with your product or service.  Consumers are having their first impressions of your brand even before they cross the threshold of your store, and this is why two elements, communication and connection, are fast becoming the most important tools for branding in particular.  With technology becoming faster, more available and its use more prevalent, consumers are looking to the internet and the social networks for their information.  This means that the seed of experience is being sown without it coming from the marketer directly.

I want to expand the AIDA model, more specifically the Attention/Awareness part.  Within Attention, I feel we can create a flow of stages: Awareness -> Experience -> Response.  Based on this first impression with the brand, the consumer will become aware of the brand’s existence, experience and soak in brand information and perceptions and then have a response to those stimuli.  These stages happen almost simultaneously, as these initial perceptions are quickly processed and rebuilt into emotional and rational responses, all before the consumer ever enters the Interest stage of the AIDA model.  A positive response will result from a positive first impression: a relationship is created with the consumer and it is more likely to initiate the movement towards interest.  A negative response will result from a negative first impression: no relationship is created, your brand and your communications will be seen as noise, tuned out and the consumer is more likely to move on.

Once the seeds have been sown, the interest a consumer has in your brand (a product of the relationship created by the brand’s first impression) can be influenced.  However, if there was no relationship created by that impression, you’re going to have to work ten times as hard for any given shift and turn your branding into buying.

Does this mean that marketers are losing control of their brand’s first experience in the mind of the consumer?  Absolutely not, controlling your brand experience is still possible and even more important than ever before.  There are two pieces to the puzzle: 1) you need to ensure your first brand experience is available to the consumer by putting your brand where the consumers are and 2) you need to nurture those relationships.   Forums, consumer reviews, corporate websites and social media have become among the most important tools for creating and enriching brand experiences and as marketers, we need to focus on controlling and monitoring these sources.   Having a presence on the internet is crucial, but being on the internet and having social media doesn’t mean having a mouthpiece for spewing information.  It’s about putting yourself out there, but just as importantly seeing what others are saying about you and responding to consumer questions and concerns.  The beauty of social media is that it encourages two-way communication and allows marketers to speak directly with consumers and engage  them in a conversation.  It’s no longer ‘word of mouth’, it’s ‘word of click’.  You need to monitor the internet for how consumers feel about your product and what kind of experiences they’re having to better craft your brand messaging and respond to any negative impressions.  Respond to the negative just as much (if not more!) than the positive: make sure your best foot is forward and that you’re communicating the information you want to put out there and if you’re not, keep your ear to the ground, listen and respond.

There is a caveat to all of this, but it is a caveat that applies to any decision making process a marketer needs to follow: what does success look like?  Social media is a tool in the tool belt, not a magical elixir.  Simply being on the internet does not mean you are improving your brand experience.  Having a Twitter account does not mean anything unless you know where it fits in your overall strategy for supporting your brand.  As with making any decision, before you go anywhere, you need to ask yourself:

1)      What does success look like?  - What is it exactly that I am trying to accomplish?  Where am I trying to take our brand?  Where do we want to be and when do we need to get there?

2)      How will I know when I am there? – How can you measure your success?  Number of likes on Facebook?  Twitter followers?  These are not good metrics.  Better metrics include an increase in sales due to consumer involvement, or the conversion from prospective to owners from brand involvement.  How many people did you bring into your car dealership through your brand experience?  How many of your consumers are interacting with your brand online?  How many people are becoming brand advocates for your brand?  How much of an influence are these brand advocates having on the neutral consumer?  What pieces of data can you collect to know if you were successful or not?  Are your results going to be measurable?  This is often the most difficult part of the decision process.

3)      What resources do I have at my disposal? – How much time, how many people and how much money are available to support this goal?  Be realistic: it takes a lot of people a lot of time to keep a finger on the pulse of the market, to react and respond and consistently support the brand.

With more consumers interacting with your brand for the first time electronically, you need to make sure you make the right impression.  Get practicing your handshake.

*** Author’s Note:  Happy Easter!  I had an excellent weekend home with family, and that is always time well spent.  I’ve finally managed to get all of these ideas to paper, after many flights of scribbling, diagramming and polishing.  It’s amazing how many ideas can hit you at thirty thousand feet!  Thanks to another great marketer Kayla Kneisel for her keen eyes and help.  I hope everyone had a great weekend and I apologize for the delay!***

Marketing in the Age of Skepticism

There is no need to shout.

A few weeks ago, I had the pleasure of attending the Toronto Auto Show at the Metro Convention Centre in downtown Toronto.  Unlike most of the well-known auto shows around the world, the Toronto show does not feature many concept cars and (as far as I know) has not been the launching pad of any brand-new models or designs.  Sure, there are always a few clever concepts sprinkled around the enormous floor space but more often than not, manufacturers bring their standard models to show.  Arguably, as a result (or perhaps more by design) the Toronto show is better suited to individuals shopping around for their next vehicle rather than to drool over spectacular supercars with galactic speeds and prices.

It’s interesting that the show is still as successful as it is.  Ten years ago, it was difficult to imagine the options for consumers on the internet today: you can see manufacturer models, price lists, options, specifications, ‘Build and Price’ a vehicle, get financing quotes and even get in touch with the dealer nearest you.  With all this information at the consumer’s finger tips, you would be forgiven from thinking that auto shows like the one in Toronto would suffer from smaller audiences.  Maybe it is the fun of going (I regularly attend although I have no plans on purchasing a vehicle any time soon), maybe it is because there is nothing like seeing and feeling a car in the flesh.  Bottom line is, people still go.

However, the consumers attending the Auto Show are not the same consumers as ten years ago.  They are coming armed with more information and more knowledge than before.  At this point in time, consumers are more aware, knowledgeable and skeptical of marketing than ever.   Increasingly, consumers understand what makes a car safer, perform better, be more comfortable can see through marketing attempts to lead them away from these characteristics.  It’s no longer enough to advertize or claim a product attribute because consumers will know when you’re telling the truth and when you’re lying.  Consumers want to hear the truth from you because they’ve done their research.  Many of those shopping for new cars will already know about engine size, trim levels and accessories, and they want to know if you are bringing you’re A-Game.  And this presents a problem for marketers: how do you cater to the skeptical?

There was a time when manufacturers could wow us with “more”: more power, more chrome and more prestige.  A company could put a car up on the podium with a pretty model and the sales would presumably follow.  But I don’t think this is the case any longer.

What works:

Providing relevant information and useful figures is one of the most important things you can do at a show like this.  Consumers are more interested in safety, performance, fuel economy and reliability than ever, so communicate your product's benefits.  There are a multitude of marketing decisions that need to be made before putting your product on sale, including brand perceptions, desired attributes and product development and design, and I won’t elaborate on those crucial strategic decisions here.  Creating the right product is the most important marketing decision in the product development chain for creating the right product, for the right people at the right time.  Assuming you’ve made the right decisions and you’ve designed your product to compete in those areas seen as critical by consumers, communicate that.  Be straight forward and clear with consumers because they will identify fluffy easily and tune you out.  Many consumers will know their stuff with regards to technology and pricing, so treat them accordingly.  

What does not work: ‘Sex’ and ‘Glitz’ no longer sell cars.  

Vehicles are no longer seen as a predominantly ‘male’ decision, so putting a glamour model beside your car is not going to sell cars in the way it could before.   The buying decision for vehicles is more high involvement, with a focus on details, and is made increasingly by couples and women as much as it is by men alone.  In addition, consumers are more interested in the ‘steak’ and not just the ‘sizzle’.  Laser shows, flashing lights and loud music are not effective, at least for the majority of car brands and buyers.  Moreover, it looks and feels dishonest.  A North American manufacturer (who shall remain nameless, but you know who you are!) used dancers, acrobats and stunt artists on their grandstand, who danced, jumped and ran around vehicles as they came up onto the stage.  I was amused and maybe even a little insulted that this company believed that I would stand there slack-jawed as people jumped all around a car to loud music and feel the desire to learn more about their cars.  Even more confusing was the contrast between old and new marketing: far away from the grandstand sat a number of compact cars called the ‘Cruze’ (hint hint), a brand new model to North America.  While the gymnasts flew through the air while somersaulting over models that have been produced for years, many more people were mingling with the new Cruze vehicles.  

Why?  Apart from the fact that the Cruze is a brand new model, I think it’s because the marketing approach to the Cruze was entirely different.  It was about details that consumers care about: airbags, fuel economy, build quality, price, handling…  Here is a car built from the ground up to beat the toughest competition on every level and they understood that consumers are more interested in the ‘steak’ than the ‘sizzle’.  Straightforward product truths are what we want and trying to hide behind glitz and noise will turn potential customers away.

Volkswagen has been the king of automobile marketing for years now, and it’s easy to see why when you know one of their biggest rules when it comes to marketing: “Don’t shout.  Consumers will listen to you, especially if you’re talking sense”.

Wal-Mart: Is anything different?

I'm going to begin this post with a confession.  I do not like Wal-Mart.

There are some arguably good points from a consumer point of view: chances are there is a Wal-Mart in your town or city, and if not, more than likely there is one in a city nearby.  They have low prices (frequently lower than competitors) and a wide variety of brands and products available on their shelves.  I know relatives who go to Wal-Mart specifically for one item knowing they will find it at the lowest price.  This, despite the fact they’d probably rather spend those 15 minutes in a walk-in freezer than in the store’s aisles.  And don’t worry about not finding what you are looking for because the aisles are identically situated in every store it seems.  No matter what Wal-Mart you go to, the total experience is consistent: same store format, same signs, same layout.  

Equally, there are some things I don't like about Wal-Mart.  Everyone knows about how Wal-Mart squeezes their suppliers, pitting them against each other in a war to provide Wal-Mart with the lowest price.  When you have the kind of purchasing power Wal-Mart has, you can do this.  Good business or poor ethics?  It is a tough call, but either way it does not incline me to want to shop there (no matter how low a price they might advertise).  Also, I don't like the consistency of the stores.   The samey-blandness of it all is numbing.  Wal-Mart is not alone in standardizing their stores (look at any big box or electronics giant to see the same type of work) but they somehow feel more numbing than the others.  

However, the biggest problem I have with Wal-Mart is the way it makes me feel.  The way a consumer interacts with your brand, and the experience they have during that interaction, define the way your brand will be perceived and evaluated.  And Wal-Mart makes me feel 'dumbed down'.  The greeters, the over-sized sale stickers and even the way the store is set up... the experience is enough to make me want to leave, preferably as soon as possible.  Sometimes, it feels as though you're being treated like a child and this demeaning tone makes me think twice about even going inside.

Over the last little while, Wal-Mart has been displaying efforts to change their brand: they have a new logo, having gotten rid of that grating, condescending and often bouncing smiley-face.  Their adverts depict young professionals living fun and exciting lives.  They are trying to paint themselves as a friendlier, nicer and 'greener' Wal-mart.  With the news of 40 superstores headed for north of the border, I wanted to know if the re-brand was a success.

In my opinion, it was not.

The stores are the same.  Sure, the signs have changed and the font might be different but the store still feels exactly the same.  The products they sell are the same products they used to sell.  Everything that turned me off the Wal-Mart brand is still there for everyone to see, and my experience walking into the store still left me wishing it would end, and fast: the greeters, the signs, the layout, the blandness and the distinct feeling of 'dumbing down'. Even their business practices do not appear to have changed: NACS reports that Wal-Mart still abides by the same supplier philosophy as before: "Anybody who can deliver opening price point [goods] for us will become a vendor -- anybody who can't, can leave".  I was only in the store for about 15 minutes, but it only took me a fraction of that to realize that this was still the old Wal-Mart we know and questionably love.

I feel that what Wal-Mart has done is a cardinal sin in branding: changing a brand is more than changing your letterhead.  It is not about changing the font of your name or the colour schemes of your signs in the brave hope that the rest of the branding issues will change themselves.  This has lead me two a couple of conclusions: 1) The Re-Brand has failed because they didn’t address the changes that need to take place for a re-brand or 2) They thought that a cuter, cuddlier and friendlier name font and advertizing would be enough to complete the transformation into the brand they wanted to become.

Bottom line then is clear; they both end up in the same result.

You don't change the wallpaper because you're bored of it, or because you want to change things up.  Branding is about crafting an experience for the consumer: what do they think of you, how do they experience your services, what do you mean to them.  It is your company's or product's personality and goes deeper than the colour of the curtains.  Re-branding is part of an overall transformation of your brand strategy, and includes so much more than a logo.  So far as I can tell, Wal-Mart's re-branding has not been intertwined with any new positioning or marketing strategy and their new campaigns have left me with one final experience: disappointment.

***Author’s Note***

Special thanks to Kayla Kneisel for her reviewing help on this posting.  I am going to be trying to get some of her thoughts and ideas here in the form of some guest postings.  She’s a brilliant marketer and I look forward to reading some of her viewpoints!

The Future of Celebrity Endorsements... Is there one?

Are celebrity endorsements dead for 2011?

I wouldn't be surprised.

We all know the power of celebrities and reference groups when it comes to influencing purchasing decisions.  Whether we like it or not, people are influenced by those who they respect, look up to or want to emulate.  I know I am guilty as charged: anyone my age probably remembers wanting one of those silly three-ski sleds, more than likely because Brett Hull was all over their advertisements.  What does Brett Hull have to do with sleds?  Not much, but did it increase sales?  You bet it did.

So clearly there is a case to be made that celebrity endorsements are a great tool for influencing buying decisions.  But there is no such thing as a 'free lunch', and using celebrity star power has it's drawbacks.  It's all about losing control and risk.

Using a celebrity can be beneficial: associating yourself with a successful celebrity means associating your brand with a successful brand.  Finding fit between your brand and that of a celebrity is key.  However, when you decide to use a celebrity to be the face of your product (or in many cases the face of your entire company), you are losing control over some or all of your brand.  The strength, integrity and success of your brand is now intertwined with a brand over which you have zero control.  This loss of control doesn't necessarily mean you're in trouble, but it could if you do not properly assess the risk you're undertaking.  What is the risk that our celebrity will go out and do something stupid?  Get involved in something embarrassing, illegal... etc?

In it's most basic form:  what is the risk we're gonna end up with mud on our faces?  Even the most squeaky clean celebrities have been found fallible (we need only look at Tiger Woods for proof). 

Marketers certainly understand these costs and risks, and yet celebrity endorsements have still made recent successes.  So why do I think the days of the Brett Hull's and Tiger's are over?  Information.  We as consumers have access to more information and news than ever before.  This has led to an increasingly skeptical consumer base; we're skeptical about claims on performance, price and features.  I have discussed this before, but I haven't discussed how consumers are more knowledgeable and skeptical of their celebrities.  I was stunned how quickly the news of a Cadillac hitting a hydrant rocketed around the world, and how quickly an immaculate brand built over years was destroyed in just days.  Stunned how some inappropriate text messages from an NFL superstar became national news.  Even the smallest conflict or issue can explode into a massive smear against someone, growing exponentially and doing irreversible damage to both the individual and the companies they represent.  No one can claim to control the animal that is the Internet, and it's ability to magnify and spread any information.

In today's growing world of cell phone cameras, smart-phones and internet, celebrities are more under the spotlight now then they have ever been.  Given the current amount of information, the speed with which it travels and then saturates an area, how can a marketer take a risk on a celebrity? You'd have to be prepared to take on not only the lost of control and individual risk, but the additional risk of celebrity attention and study.  I'm not say that as of tomorrow, celebrity endorsements will end.  But I am saying that as companies because more risk-adverse and brand-aware, and as the risk of using celebrities increases with it, we'll see a decline in the use of celebrity endorsements.

I don't think we'll see many more "Be a Tiger" slogans in the future, as celebrity endorsement is going to become an "out-of-bounds" for marketers.

Ringing in the New Year

It's amazing to see just how much of the consumer mobile phone market is dominated by the smart phone.  It should come as no surprise that as smart-enabled devices become more available, better serviced and (importantly) less expensive, that more and more people would have them.  A number of years ago, phones like the Blackberry were owned by few: the fortunate, corporate executives and my Dad.  Now, almost every single member of my family has one of some vintage.  We had enough of them that Blackberries alone covered the entire table at the door of the family get-together.  In the past couple months, I caved in and upgraded my mobile device to a Blackerry and I haven't looked backward since.  I am glued to my Bold the same way Christmas stuffing glued to my stomach.  The shift is clear: smart phones are no longer reserved for business-types or the lucky, but are now a tool for a wide-variety of users.  Everyone from high-school (dare I say middle?) to the retired have some kind of smart phone, and use them frequently to update, post, share, like, tweet, comment, poke and upload.

A couple years ago now, my good friend Shaminda introduced me to an up-and-coming marketing tool: the barcode.  It was an application called ScanLife and using your smart phone camera, you could take a picture of a barcode and be instantly directed to web content linked to that barcode.  At the time, I thought this was an incredible tool and to be clear, I still think it is.  The ability to give a consumer all the details and information you want, without using what precious traditional advertising space you have for it, is great.  Even better than using the internet as a supplemental source of information is to use it as a primary source of interaction and information.  For example, Expedia includes a barcode on your itinerary so you can quickly scan your own itinerary to find out if your flights are on time.  Companies are using barcodes as a way of herding consumers towards competitions and ballot forms.  Barcodes are transforming the way marketers can reach consumers, but also how they can interact with consumers.

I am the #1 fan of barcodes.  BUT, I feel there are one too many companies jumping on the bandwagon than perhaps should.  So here is a short (and by no means exhaustive) list of good uses and questionable uses of barcodes:

Good uses

1. More information - You've got a sign/billboard/poster and there are some details you want the consumer to know about.  For example, you're a university and your poster is about a program you're trying to get some interest in.  However, you clearly can't put a prospectus on your poster.  Here's a good place to give a barcode, linking a consumer to the website where a full prospectus is housed.  Another example: you've got a video game or movie you want to advertise, including a trailer.  On traditional, non-television screen media, this is impossible.  However, if you put a barcode-link to the trailer on the internet, you're able to stream this media to the consumer.  In this application, the barcode is essentially an internet link that's more convenient and nothing more. 
2. Interactive information - See my Expedia experience for a solid example.  Here's another great example of this: increasingly, wines are coming with barcodes on their label to direct consumers to a website providing them with food-pairing suggestions for their wine.  Some food products are doing similar things, providing barcodes to recipe or serving ideas.  Brilliant.
3. Contests/Sweepstakes - You've got a promotional contest and you want to direct consumers to the entry page.  Consumers are then going to follow your barcode knowing exactly what they are going to and why.  Good focus for using a barcode.

Questionable uses

1. Too much more information - Don't treat a barcode as an extension of your advertising.  Your message should be clear and concise enough to convey your message without needing a barcode.  By all means, barcode-away for supplemental or extra information, but keep your key message on the traditional media.
2. Don't repeat - The purpose of the barcode, in my view, is to supply additional information which without the barcode, would not be possible.  Some companies, worryingly, are simply using a barcode to direct consumers to another version of the same advert.  Consumers are using your barcode seeking new information, not stuff they've already seen.  If you're seen as just noise, or just using a barcode because you can, consumers will know it and tune you out.
3. Location, Location, Location - Be smart about where you are using your barcodes.  Billboard sign in a downtown or urban area is brilliant.  This includes everything from big-building top signs to posters in bus-shelters.  However, putting a barcode on a subway train may not be so good.  Firstly, being a subway, passengers are going to be spending 99% of their time underground and lack the reception to follow your barcode link.  Secondly, assuming you have reception, taking a picture of a barcode is nearly impossible because you're too busy a) hanging on b) carrying something c) bundled up or d) too crowded to pull out your phone.  Thirdly, assuming you have reception, not doing a) through d) and don't feel silly taking a picture of something just above someone else's head, have you ever tried to take a clear, blur-free image of something with in a moving vehicle?  Subway: bad idea. Another questionable location are the sides of the road on highways.  Drivers have enough to worry about and enough distractions without wanting to try and take a clear picture of a barcode at 100km/h.  That, and it being illegal in many places to have your phone in your hand.  My last example of a bad place to put a barcode is on the internet.  Why?  Why make someone pull out their phone, select the correct application, take a picture and then force them to view your content on a 2 inch screen?  Unless you're directing someone to a mobile-only media, just use a link.  Please.

There is one last use what I am not so sure on: mystery media.  I think that this use is more of a double-edged sword than the others.  Using a barcode on its own could lead to interest due to the mystery of what the barcode is linking too.  This curiosity could lead to some traffic, but it can go the other way too.  Newspapers, such as Metro, seem to like using a barcode to replace putting a story into their newspaper.  I am assuming that these stories are less important than the ones included in actual print, but they still wanted to try and include them in their paper.  I am not so sure this works: I have yet to see someone take a picture of a newspaper barcode to read more of the newspaper and secondly, if it's a fourth-string news story, why would I want to read it anyway?

Barcodes are great, but please use them responsibly.  And stop taking pictures of just above my head, it's awkward and I don't like it. 

Stay tuned....

*** Author's note***

This week's T3 coming to you soon.  Due to work commitments, this Tuesday was not a realistic deadline for creating a piece with the kind of quality and value I want.  But stay tuned!  I'll be posting shortly!

An 'Electric' T3

As according to Mashable, the first 350 Chevrolet Volt vehicles are on their way to their "eagerly awaiting buyers in New York, California, Texas and Washington".  The full national roll out will be taking place in a year and a half from now, but this heralds the first time that the much acclaimed car will be available to consumers in North America.

The Volt comes as a solution to the booming 'green' movement: consumers are demanding more economical and environmentally friendly options (even if it's not them who buy it).  Is the Volt a great eco-car?  Well, it could be.  It has an electric range, and then a combustion engine to charge the car which the electric power runs out.  Some electric cars, such as the Nissan Leaf, run purely on electricity and gain their charge through a plug in unit.  But do you need an eco-car to be eco-friendly?  Absolutely not.

One of the most popular engine choices in Europe is the diesel engine, which is available in practically any model of car.  Diesels burn cleaner, fuel lasts longer and you will save money in the long run.  But they are also environmentally friendly in comparison to petrol models, it terms of economy and efficiency.  But diesels aren't the only environmentally friendly cars: just look at Fiat.  In Europe, you can buy a Fiat 500 (a small car that been out for years and only coming to North American next year) with a two-cylinder engine.  It has got 0.8 litres of capacity!  These engines return excellent fuel economy and environmentally friendly in comparison to other models.

So if there are alternative (and more discrete and anonymous) options, why do we need flash cars with eco-badging? 

As a marketer, I know that the appeal runs deeper than simply wanting to 'pitch in'.  Green products are different by design, not just because of the different materials or processes, but because they want them to be different and unique.  A smart man, by the name of Jay Leno, once said that hybrids and electric cars were bought by people who "want everyone to know the good work they do anonymously".  And I think he is absolutely right.

So what can a marketer take from this, in today's 'Green' climate.

1) If you're green, make sure sure people know it - Especially in North America, consumers want to know that they're 'doing their part'.  But also, they want people to know that too.  Badge it, label it, promote it.  Just look at household cleaners, TV's and cars.  Toyota are huge at this, hence the big 'hybrid' badges and styling cues.  Why does the Prius look like nothing else?  Some would say it's more aerodynamic but it also looks like nothing else. You see it, you think green.

2) If you make the claim, you need to back it up - If you claim to be green, you need to be prepared to back that up with facts.  Branding is about trust, and if your claims can't be trusted, then neither can you.  Don't try and make your product something it isn't: take a reality check and only speak the truth.  Remember that consumers are more sceptical and informed than ever, so make sure you can walk the walk before you talk the talk.  Has the Volt backed it up?  Well, statistics say yes.  But until the car's become properly rolled out, we just won't know.

3) Can 'green' be a USP?  -  No.  Consumers care about the environment, but not at the cost of product performance and price (up to a limit).  If you're product can't do what the consumer wants, then they will look elsewhere to satisfy their need.  Sure, the Volt is environmentally friendly but if it can't take you where you need to go and haul what needs hauling, people will be lining up for their Prius instead.

Brand Loyalty T3

Brand loyalty is a challenge for all marketers, but especially now more than ever.  Consumers have access to ever increasing amounts of data: product specifications, direct comparisons between competitive brands and products, product and consumer reviews, peer reviews, opinion blogs, market research...  Consumers are able to turn this sort of product and brand awareness into superior knowledge about what it is they want and what they want to pay for it.  There are two results from this enormous wealth of information: skepticism and brand loyalty.  Consumers have become much more skeptical about brand promises: it is really the best?  Does it really do what is promised?  To help make better decisions, consumers turn to our research to either refute or support the brand promise and in part, this helps us to make our buying decision.  The other side is brand loyalty, or perhaps more accurately, lack of it.

Many companies has loyalty programs.  Think about any company that you have signed up to.  Chances are you have some sort of Air Miles card or petrol station card (thinking Esso Extra or Petro-Points or some such), if you fly you likely have an Aeroplan card or an equivalent.  You might be receiving e-mails from travel agencies, clothing stores, jewelery retailers and any number of other types of stores, offering you this percent off or coupons for savings.  Some of these work, some don't.  The airline industry is an especially difficult market in which you can create a successful loyalty program.

For example:  you want to fly from New York to London, UK.  You might have an Aeroplan card, that would provide you with reward miles for flying Air Canada or an Star Alliance member.  However, unless you are a frequent enough flier to accumulate the kind of points that translate into meaningful rewards (such as business travellers), most consumers will choose the flight that has the cheapest fare regardless of carrier.  Why?  Because they'll both get you to where you need to go and outside of timing and terminal, offer comparable services.  It comes down to how low can you go, and chances are we'll take the cheapest fare every time.

The airline industry is hardly alone on this.  In Canada at least, the wireless market operates in the same sort of fashion.  I have just switched carriers from one major player to another, and in a large part it was about what can you do for me.  The bills for my old contract were outrageous for the services I was being provided, only brought to my attention when my sister changed her plan.  It was a four-year old plan, well past the maturity of my contract.  No data, nothing fancy and yet my bills were high.  Naturally, my carrier was contacted and asked what they would do to make me a happy camper.  I wanted a new phone, a data plan and whole list of other services that were being sold from other carriers for less than my current bills.  My carrier's plan were complex, add-on heavy and difficult to understand.  Any movement required a significant amount of discussion and negotiation.  At the end of the day, we were hung up on price: my carrier couldn't give me the phone I wanted for the price of the other guy.  So I switched.

So what can a marketer learn from this:

1. Consumers are smart - Consumers know what they want, the features they want and how much they want to pay for it.  Just look at this article to know what I mean (thanks Shaminda and Alan Quarry for this article).  Try not to muddy the waters with complexity, but be clear.  Selling techniques have changed: it is no longer build them and they will be sold, but find out what's needed and make it available.  Everyone has the same phones now, so you need to understand that the consumer knows the phones they like but is looking for the best service.
2. Price is very important, but not everything - Price leadership is important, no question.  But not at the cost of all the other elements of strategy.  My example of the airlines was based on comparable service, and where all elements are the same except price, brand loyalty is almost impossible.  If you are trying to build loyalty, sacrificing all your other strategic elements in the name of price leadership means you're missing the boat.  Price leadership will make short-term sales, but for loyalty it needs to be used along with great customer service and maintaining the best products.  Know what you want to compete on and make your strategic choices: sacrifice is the first step in strategy.  Price is not a strategy on it's own, for sales or loyalty.
3. Brand loyalty is built on service, not price - Just because I switched, doesn't mean I am not loyal or disloyal to any one character.  If you want me to become loyal, that relationship needs to be built on trust and service, not on price.  If I am not given a reason to stay outside of price, I will only go where the best savings will be found.

T3 Thoughts #6

This T3 is going to be a bit of a departure from my normal format.  As product news cools off the heels of Black Friday, I'm going to focus on the issue of creating and nurturing your tribes.  It is on the radio.  And in store windows, city centres and coffee cups.  That's right Christmas is just around the corner, or so they'd have you think.  So is this going to be a season of cheer for consumers and marketers alike?  Maybe, I certainly hope so.  But with high sales expected in the wireless market, some might have more to cheer about than others: Android might have the best season of all.

Does Apple and the iPhone team have something to worry about?  They managed to keep up (and arguably ahead in some aspects) with the likes of Nokia and Blackberry, but there is another threat that Apple needs to be keeping an eye on: Android.

Katherine Noyes in PC world thinks that Apple is feeling the heat now more than ever in her recent article.  According to the article, Apple is hurriedly trying to build their legal team to develop both the "offensive and defensive capabilities" fight the likes of Nokia, HTC and maybe deter Android.  In the third quarter of 2010, Noyes points out that Android powered phones accounted for just over 25% of smartphone sales, while Apples fell slightly based on the third quarter of 2009.  Clearly, Apple sees the threat of the now No. 2 smartphone OS platform and is doing all they can to keep them at bay (including even banning an Android-centric e-magazine from the App Store).

So what is the appeal of Android?  What makes it better or preferable to Apple's iPhone OS?  Noyes believes that the iPhone's "restrictions are too numerous, its approach too condescending, and its choices too few to have the broad appeal it needs to succeed on a grander scale".   And I think there is some merit here: that is an excellent and technical explanation for why consumers might choose Android over iPhone or Blackberry.  But lets explore why consumers might want Android on that branding level.

I think there is an element of "Anti-Apple" going on, and this type of sentiment is an almost cyclical phenomenon.  Brand is new and a bit alternative, then becomes the must-have product, then becomes the mainstream norm for products and soon becomes the big-guy overshadowing the little players who are a bit alternative.  You can't have the light without the dark, there will always be the alternative to the mainstream option.  But I think there is more going on here, and I think it has a lot to do with an idea from Seth Godin: tribes.

Android has created a tribe for their product.  Godin maintains that "what people really want is the ability to connect to each other, not to companies" and that tribes are based on permission.  As opposed to the traditional model of top-down brand management, Godin states that it's about seeking out services and products for your tribe: as a marketer you want "to build people who want to hear from the company because it helps them connect ... [and] it gives them a story to tell and something to talk about".  I think Android understands this.  Apple forces you to choose you Apps from them and only them, meaning you have no control over what you have access too.  You cannot change the OS at all and Apple is okay with that.  Sure, Apple is cutting edge but they aren't building the same kind of tribe that Android is.  Android has an open-source element to help encourage development of the functionality, where as Apple must control every aspect of their operating system.  Android makes hundreds of thousands of applications available on a wide-variety of media, Apple does not.  Android can be run on a multitude of machines, Apple cannot.  In this day and age, where customers want choice and control, consumers want to spend more time personalizing and customizing their brand experiences than having it shoved down their throat.  Is it a problem that Apple doesn't give consumers as many options?  Not necessarily, but for some it's a big deal.  Apple has it's own tribe, but I am not sure that they aren't blurring the lines between consumers connecting with consumers, and consumers lining up to connect with Apple.  Remember, as Godin says, "the challenge is to work for the tribe and make it something even better".

T3 Number 5

One of the coolest things I've heard about this past week was the announcement by YouTube that they were getting ready to debut a new way of advertising.  The current system involves traditional banner ads, featured videos and more recently a video advert that plays before your selection plays.


It is this last feature that 'erked' me the most, both as a consumer of social media and a marketer.  YouTube makes it's money by selling ad space, so it is logical that they would introduce this form of advertising.  However, I feel that it violates one of the most important principles: permission.  Banners and featured videos?  I can choose engage in those forms of marketing, but when it comes to the forced video ads, I have no choice because it is 'interruption marketing', as Godin would have put it.  This is where the new "TrueView" comes into affect: it is what Godin would have called permission marketing.  Sort of.

Irina Slutsky reported on Adage that TrueView is a platformed "designed to give users the choice of which ad they watch - even if that choice is to watch none at all".  This means that YouTube will no longer be interruptive but more permission based.  The idea is that for short movies, a user might get an "in-stream" ad, which [they] can skip if [they] wish".  For longer movies, consumers can have a choice: watch a "video with ad breaks or ad-free after watching one of three ads first", ads which may not be skippable.  As a consumer, I am pleased because now I can enjoy my involvement without being pestered or frustrated.  However, it's a more complex issue when it comes to the marketer in me: how do you attract companies to continue to use you as a medium for advertising when consumers can choose to skip your ad-space?


Slutsky explains that companies wouldn't have to pay for skipped ads, much the same way that pay-per-click works.  Also, and possibly more importantly, Slutsky explains how TrueView will "allow you to reach the opted-in engaged audience at scale", rather than annoying an audience who is not engaged in your message.  And I have to say, it makes sense for all parties: YouTube, companies and the end consumer.


This past week saw the return of Tiger Woods to Twitter.  Why?  I think this is the start of Woods trying to rebuild his image and personal brand, and that's pretty obvious.  However, many people are writing off his attempts to rebuild his brand as a poor attempt with poor timing.  Poor timing because he is starting this attempt near the 1 year anniversary of the car crash that brought the whole scandal to light.  Poor attempt because just having a Twitter feed doesn't a new image make.  But that is where I think they're wrong.


I'm currently reading a book by Mitch Joel called 'Six Pixels of Separation'.  In it, Joel makes it clear that branding isn't an overnight phenomenon.  Creating and strengthening a personal brand (or any brand of that matter) takes trust and loyalty.  These things are earned slowly: months, years or even many years for that matter.  You need to be consistent and create value, and create trust over time.  In Woods' case, might take longer than others but with time, consistency and value, I think it's possible to rebound.  So lets not judge him too quickly: these things take time so judging the attempt now is like calling the winner of the Stanley Cup from the pre-season.


Another big news item, and I have to admit a bit of a disappointment for me, was the announcement from Apple that the iTunes Store would now carry the Beatles.  I know that last week I commented that it was likely that iTunes would announce this, but a little part of me wanted there to be something else.  No, not a Beatles themed iPod like U2 had a while ago (although don't rule it out, anything is possible!).  But I was kind of hoping something else would be announced in conjunction with the Beatles songs.  They've been on such a roll lately, I guess my hopes were a bit high.  But whose fault is that?  If you're constantly hyping, consumers are going to be expecting you to constantly be delivering.  Consistency is king: as Joel says, lean on the side of consistency and don't over promise.  Failing to deliver on a promise is a worse fate then promising less and over delivering.

Does Apple 'over promise'? Well, maybe.  Or maybe it's just that they have been doing so well in the marketing department that our expectations are that much higher.  After all, they really are a 'one-of-a-kind' marketing machine nowadays.

Tuesday Three #4

This week's 'T3' coming up, let's jump in.

How could we ignore the news coming out about Facebook these days.  Earlier this week, Mashable reported that arguably the biggest social media channel of them all could be worth around $41 Billion.  This means that in comparison, Facebook is valued higher that eBay, which is hovering at around $39 Billion.  That is an incredible (and somewhat arbitrary) statistic to think about, especially when you consider where Facebook was just a number of years ago.

However, the biggest news about Facebook was the heating up of their battle against other online service providers, such as Yahoo! or Google.  As Geoffrey Fowler and Amir Efrati reported in the Wall Street Journal, Facebook has "unveiled a messaging service to compete for the loyalty of millions of Internet users".  This new messaging system looks to build upon the large network already existing amongst the Facebook community by introducing many new communication tools, including a facebook.com email address for users.  Facebook is looking to become a one-stop-shop for communications as the more "fun and more valuable" way of keeping in touch.

So is Facebook a 'Gmail Killer'? 

In a word, no.  In many words, it's not meant to replace the function of 'proper' e-mails systems like Gmail or Yahoo.    Mark Zuckerberg admitted during the launch that they don't expect "anybody to wake up tomorrow and say 'OK, I will shut down my Yahoo or Gmail account and switch exclusively to Facebook,'".  Fowler and Efrati point out that while Google and Facebook have different core businesses, they've been set onto a 'collision course' by trying to both secure supremacy over the online activity and user data market, a critical need for the 'future of targeted ads online, already a $26 Billion industry in the U.S." alone.  Both Zuckerberg and Google CEO Eric Schmidt seem to agree that their products are close to each other, but not replacements for each other.  The functionality of Facebooks messaging system is to put traditional e-mail, instant and SMS messaging together in one place, sending messages using whatever method works best.  On the other hand, Google's Gmail is a great platform for receiving formal e-mail correspondence.  Zuckerberg was quoted as saying "Gmail is a really good product", while Schmidt was quoted saying that it "is basically good to have more competition in the space," and that Facebook "appear[s] to be taking a different approach".

So can we take from this?  Facebook is certainly on the way to trying to take a stranglehold on the way consumers interact with the internet.  By putting all of these services together, it's hard to see how consumer's won't slowly shift to using Facebook for all of their casual conversations online.  It might be too early to make any conclusions, but this seems to be a big step forward towards making Facebook a powerhouse in the targeted ad market as well.

To read more, you can find the article here.

Facebook allows you to have limitless numbers of friends and connections, and Twitter also promotes the boosting of followers and the broadening of relationships across their network.  But one social media tool is taking a whole different kind of stand.  As reported by Brennon Slattery in PC World, there is a social media that doesn't seem to be that social.  Launched on November 14th, 'Path' is a social media built on three pillars: "photo-sharing, smartphones and exclusivity".  The purpose of the tool is to allow users to share photographs with friends, but unlike any other media, you can only have up to 50 friends.  Period.  Why is that?  Based on the research of Oxford Professor of Evolutionary Psychology Robin Dunbar, the human brain can only sustain up to 150 relationships at a time.

So what we have is a social media that limits the number of connections and relationships you can make.  You might be thinking, well that doesn't make any sense.  Even Slattery feels that Path "seems a bit underdeveloped".  He goes on to cite the views of many: it has the "utility of a toy poodle", "doesn't see much of a future", some find its "exclusivity obnoxious and far too limiting".  Added to that, Path has gone exclusively with the iPhone as an app, completely ignoring any other smartphone platform including Blackberry and Android.  As if that wasn't limiting enough, there's a list of things you cannot do on Path:

You can't:

• Connect to Facebook, Twitter or.... anything
• Edit after posting
• Like
• Comment

ReadWriteWeb has a whole list of things you can't do.

So why would anyone ever get involved with Path?  BluHalo might have the answer.  According to their article on Path, experts in the field believe that "Path is trying to re-create the social media world by taking a dramatically different approach" with the aim of "building a far more intimate and personal network of close friends".  And I think they have got a point.  We cannot compare the functionality of sites such as Facebook against those of Path because Path was designed to not be like Facebook.  Path is supposed to be minimalist, intimate and ruthlessly simple.  By limiting the number of friends you can have (despite their cited research, which may well be true), Path forces you to spend more time nurturing the relationships you have rather than spreading yourself too thin. 

Take yourself as an example.  You are more than likely on Facebook and Twitter and if so, it's possible to have hundreds of 'friends' or followers.  I know that I have an excess of 600, thanks mainly to networking through high school and university.  Now that's not a huge number, but it certainly more than perhaps I am capable of maintaining.  And the facts are that I don't.  I cannot tell you that I communicate with all 600 people I have on my Facebook account on a regular basis.  Some of them are people I have known briefly, or very old schoolmates or people I grew up with.  Some might even have less substance than that!  The upshot is that whenever I look at what my friends are doing on Facebook, I can often find someone I don't really know doing something I don't care about.  Or they're taking pictures of themselves on a Mac and showing everyone... Including me.... And I don't care at all.

So maybe there is a lot of merit in Path.  It is ruthlessly simple because you friends don't need to 'like' your pictures.  You just want to share them.  But this brings me to a point I am confused about.  The main form of communication on Path is photographic, not text.  While you can add a caption to a picture to tell people where it was taken and who is in it, you cannot say much else.  So if you're trying to force me to nurture these relationships, how can I do that only through the medium of cellphone photography?  I think that as minimalist as Path is, we need a bit more interactivity in order to communicate with others.  So until then, if you really want to limit your connections, just purge your Facebook.

This next bit isn't exactly news, but more an item of speculation.  It surfaced a few days ago that Apple, the masters of build-up and showmanship, hinted at something big coming to iTunes.  We know Apple is a powerhouse of this 'tension marketing', just read Shaminda's post on Apple Press Events, so this kind of hinting might not come as any surprise.  The website simply said: "Tomorrow is just another day. That you'll never forget."  Ian Paul from PC World thinks that this could be a hint to "Paul McCartney's first solo hit, Another Day, which was written while McCartney was still with The Beatles".  Based on sources familiar to the situation who spoke to the Wall Street Journal, the rights holders of The Beatles songs have "finally decided to let it be and sell the Beatles albums on iTunes".

However, we won't know until... about 30 minutes from now.  It'll be worth keeping an eye on.

Lest We Forget

Please observe a moment of silence at 11am, where you are, as a mark of respect for those who risked and gave everything for the freedom of others.

Tuesday Three #3

Let's get rolling.

A big news item I saw on the National Association of Convenience Stores website was something I didn't expect to take this long: Facebook has launched a location-based media service.  Foursquare has been one of the biggest social media channels involving geographic locations, and Facebook needed to introduce a similar to keep up.  Facebook's new addition is called Deals and allows individuals to 'check-in' into stores and locations, and by doing so they make themselves available for rewards by the owners of these stores.


Reggie Bradford, the CEO of Vitrue, a social-media marketing firm, told the NACS website that Deals is “a massive validation of location-based marketing" and that it's “a huge sea change in terms of the way location-based services are going to hit critical mass fast".  Bradford cites that millions of Facebook users already use Facebook's Places tool, and with the widespread use of mobile devices for accessing Facebook, Deals could really take hold in the marketplace.


In terms of reaching consumers, this is a great platform.  Stores can reach their customers in a way they have never seen before, allowing for a connection to be made over the Internet even before the consumer enters the store.  With the growth of Places and of sites like Foursquare, many social media consumers are buying into the idea of sharing their location with friends and supporters: we've seen it used within friends, organizations and even politicians.  I think of a scene in the movie Minority Report.  Do you remember when Tom Cruise is walking through the Mall and all the stores scan his eyes, allowing the store to tailer their posters just for him?  I have no doubt that at some point, marketers will know who we are, what we've bought before and what we'd likely be interested in at some point in the future.  Deals is a step in that direction.  But will it work when consumers have to share it with companies?  I think it might, but it's hard to know.  Clearly, many social media users are not shy to sharing this kind of information but in an age of ever increasing skepticism, it's hard to know how comfortable individuals will be with giving this information to marketers.


It comes to an idea from Seth Godin: Deals is about permission marketing.  Users have to 'check-in' to stores through Deals, so the consumer is choosing to engage with the brand and allow the company to market to them.  As long as Deals remains permission based, I think it has great opportunity for success.

If you want to read the article yourself, you can find it here.

My friend Shaminda has some great thoughts on this very subject in his posting on this past Sunday.  He notes that the Deals platform is an important news item for Facebook, but equally important are their new partnerships "with companies like Loopt, Zynga, Groupon and Yelp, to offer mobile users a 'single-sign on'".  What do these partnerships mean?  To Shaminda, it means two things: if you can't beat them, join them.  And if you're the smaller guy, can you afford not to join with Facebook?

I think there is a lot of merit to both points.  The most interesting debate can be found with the second point: can you afford not to?  There is no arguing that Facebook is absolutely massive, and perhaps a bit more contentious to say they are the premier social networking site.  If the success if your company would be in intertwined with the success of your partner, you want to back the winning horse.  With Facebook being as strong as it is, and there is no major reason to think they will be dethroned soon, can you afford not to bunk up with them?  I don't think so.

Go ahead and read Shaminda's thoughts on this, it's a good read that makes you think.  I'm sure we'd both like to hear what you think.

On an aside, did you hear?  The Queen (and the Monarchy for that matter) are on Facebook now.  With a new group site, fans can now follow the Monarchy, events and news.  Want to be friends with the Queen?  Well, unfortunately you won't be able to be friends with Her Majesty, but this is an interesting example of how relationships and communications are changing with social media.  Read about the Queen and her presence on Facebook here.

The last year has seen the roll out of tens of 3-D TV technologies and models.  With the pile of movies coming out in theatres in 3-D, and the rising demand for 3-D technology at home, it's hardly surprising that manufacturers are looking for other avenues for this technology.  But have you ever looked at your phone and thought, 'yeah, I'd like my phone's screen to be 3-D'.  Well, neither have I but Sharp thinks otherwise.  It was announced this week on Mashable that Sharp will be launching 3-D phones late this year and early next year in Japan.

The phones look pretty pedestrian and from first glance, be easily confused with touch-screen and full-keyboard smart-phones.  However, the screens and technology are very different.  According to the article, the phones will feature 3-D screens that don't require glasses or anything, so you won't need to do anything different to use them then any other phone.  They will also feature top-of-the-line cameras and the platform for the next generation of mobiles games.

To me, this is a logical step for product development.  It might turn into other of those things we don't think we need, but it becomes a basic feature we expect from new products.  Don't think so?  Did you ever think you needed a colour-screen?  How about a built-in radio or MP3 capability?  Touch screen?  High quality camera (or any camera at all)?  Video conferencing?  But when you go to buy a phone now, these are features we look for and demand from our phones.  We've seen all these technological improvements, leaving limited avenues for product developers to go down.  3-D screens seems like the next step for the next generation of phones, but I am not entirely sold.  When I am trying to use my phone, the less glitz and confusion the better.  I don't know if this is a good idea, but it all depends on what the phone will be used for.  For personal use and entertainment, it might be a winner.  But in a business application, maybe not so helpful.  Then again, I never though putting MP3 technology or video conferencing would take off for main stream consumption.  3-D could be the next big thing.  To read the full article, find it here.

Finally, a product hit the news this past week that can protect you... from you.  We've all seen it before: someone has a good time on the town and gets a hold of their Facebook or Twitter account when they get home.  Not being of complete mind, these people usually end up saying things a) not in the words or order of letters they wanted b) they didn't want to really say to someone or c) that make them look and sound like an idiot.  My good friend Shaminda wrote that article not too long ago about being your own brand manager: that you are the gate keeper to creating and maintaining a strong personal brand with those around you.  This means you need to control how you communicate and interact with others, and this also means controlling your presence electronically.

Have no fear though.  If you need something to protect you from you, George Stroumboulopoulos found a product to help you out.  Webroot has created the Social Media Sobriety Test.  This program forces you to pass a sobriety test before allowing you to enter your social media application.  If you're of sound enough mind to pass the test, it will allow you into it to go about your business.  However, failing the test means you can't get into your Facebook and do something stupid.

A good product?  If you're someone who needs to be prevented from getting on Facebook when you've had a few, absolutely.  But maybe the better idea is not to go near social media when you've had a good time and save yourself a few bucks.  Must be said, if you need this, maybe buying a product to stop you from entering your site isn't the real solution.  A 'Breathalyzer' doesn't correct drunk driving, and neither will this.

Still Amazes Me

I know that the way marketers can reach the consumer in today's world is vastly different from 10 or 15 years ago.  I know that, thanks to advances in the availability and depth of technology, marketers are able to communicate with consumers quicker and in a more focused way than ever before.  I know that thanks to social media, brands can now (almost instantly) reach, respond and interact with consumers like we have never seen before.

I know all this.  But I still was in awe of just how far this interaction has come when it happened to me.  Yesterday, I discussed the Chevy Cruze, about consumer skepticism and how this product could be the turning point the American car manufacturer needs to compete with the market leaders.  I wanted the brand to succeed and when I visit the Toronto Auto Show early next year, I wanted Chevy to follow through on the branding promise they've delivered.  Within hours of my blog post, my thoughts were responded to personally by the Chevrolet Cruze Twitter account.  I replied on Twitter and was soon replied back to again.

Now I know I shouldn't be surprised, this is what today's marketing world looks like and Chevrolet is staying on top of managing their new model's brand in social media, just as they should be.  But until it happens to you, you don't really feel the magic behind it.  I understand now, better than ever, that social media is going to be a major tool for any brand wishing to manage, interact and influence their brand experience and value.

Tuesday Three #2

It's another week and another Tuesday, which means it's time for another Tuesday three! 

It has been a busy week in marketing and social media.  One of the biggest news items from the past week was the launch of the new MySpace design.  MySpace, which seems to have played second or third fiddle to Facebook for a number of years now, updated their design to focus more on the entertainment side of social media.  Among the worst things an organization can do is change their look, brand or logo because they are bored of it or feel like it's time for a change.  If you're re-branding, you do so with a purpose or a reason, a reason that is supported by your choose re-branding strategy. Mashable is quick to point out that MySpace is not just changing the wallpaper, that their updates are "the start of a fundamental shift in focus" for the website.  That focus?  According to their coverage of the event, the shift is toward making MySpace a “social entertainment destination".

As according to Mashable, MySpace's new target demographic is Gen Y, the 13 to 35 year-old segment, and is looking to become a premier destination for connecting with entertainment-oriented "fans and curators".  To me, this move takes a lot of sense.  I think that MySpace understands that they are no longer the premier social networking site and that their model needed to be focused on a need that was not being fully satisfied.  Sites, such as Facebook and LinkedIn, are excellent platforms for connecting with friends and colleagues and building on connections.  Twitter is a brilliant idea-sharing and quick messaging platform for meeting industry leaders and like-minded individuals.  However, MySpace realized that there was no platform adequately catering to the sharing of music, videos and entertainment.  Mentally, I have always associated MySpace with music: how many bands have presented themselves there.  Further, how many of had a break there? I think a lot of MySpace's potential success lies in their ability to nourish up and coming artists and giving them the platform they need to get exposure.

There is one thing that still concerns me.  We cannot forget that there is one platform that is already giving many musicians and artists exposure: YouTube.  YouTube doesn't allow for the same networking that is possible through a site like MySpace, but I wouldn't be surprised if this improves in the near future.  Members can subscribe, like and rate other's content.  If MySpace doesn't blow us out of the water, there is a chance their move has come too late.

Another huge piece of news to come to light was that, for the first time ever, Apple overtook RIM and the Blackberry in the heated-battle that is the smart phone market.   According to Michael Babad in the Globe and Mail, citing new research by International Data Corp., reported this past week that Apple's iPhone enjoyed sales that "eclipsed those of RIM's BlackBerry in the third quarter for the first time", with Apple shipping 14.1 million to RIM's 12.4 million.  Both companies enjoyed growth however, with Apple's market share reaching 4.1% in the quarter, up from 2.5%, while RIM enjoyed a quarterly increase of 0.7% market share, up to 3.6%.  This growth was helped by two new products: The Blackberry Torch for RIM and the iPhone 4 for Apple, two products which have brought smart phones to the next level for many consumers.

So what does that mean?  It could mean that Apple is starting to get a stronger foot hold into what has been a predominately been Blackberry territory: the business application.  In recent years, I feel that Apple iPhone and RIM Blackberry have been closing on meeting in the middle.  In 2007, Blackberrys were business machines: efficient, productive but not stylish or particularly attractive.  In 2007, Apple came out with the iPhone: a stylish and attractive phone, but not particularly effective or efficient for business applications.  With the most recent models, the line between business machines and stylish devices is blurred, both products being strong media and business performers.  However, as Apple delves deeper into the business world, Blackberry will need to respond to the Apple threat through marketing and their product development.

Or do they?  A friend and fellow graduate of mine at Laurier, and employee of RIM, informed me that the data cited by Babad may not reflect the truth.  According to my friend, due to the different in quarters-ended, the sales numbers quoted do not include the month of September for RIM, which is traditionally a big sales month for them.  If this is the case (I have his word, but have no found any publicly available information to confirm the numbers independent of each other), then these numbers may not reflect anything at all.  They serve only to remind us that the battle is far from other, and hotter than ever before. (Author's note: if you do know where this information is available, please let me know on Twitter, I'd be most interesting in finding out more! @andrewbasker).

This week also saw our first peek at the new Samsung Galaxy Tab.  However, I am not going to talk about it here.  Not yet at least, not until I have the opportunity to see it in person. More over, I want to be able to experience all three of the big players in this market: the iPad, the Playbook and the Galaxy.  I have experienced the iPad but was not instantly won over.  As I have discussed before here, I am an iPod Touch owner and see no need or desire to have an iPad (apart from the data, something readily available through the iPhone (and it lets you make phone calls), or those who want to access the Internet but lack the knowhow to use a full computer OS). However, I only spent a few fleeting moments with the machine in a Bestbuy.  Why Bestbuy?  Have YOU tried spending any time in an Apple store to see one?  Yeah, exactly.  Watch this space for a review of all three machines, something I am aiming to do as soon as I can.

However, there is something I want to talk about before this post is over.  That is the Chevy Cruze.  For years, Chevrolet has been known for making very affordable but depressingly poorly build vehicles.  I have attended the Toronto Auto Show for the last number of years and every time I go, I always make a point of checking out the GM stands to see how the cars feel and look.  Five years ago, you could sit in a Cadillac and find buttons plucked directly from the Pontiac Sunfire.  Even a couple years ago, their new vehicles like the Traverse were build better, but still suffering from poor build quality and cheap materials.  Chevrolet would like us to think differently about them now though, as they being their new car to Canada and the US: the Cruze.  GM spent a lot of money to make the first genuine 'global car', excluding cars made my Suzuki under the Chevy brand.  'Global' cars refers to having one design sold around the world, something many car companies have been doing for a long time: Audi, Mercedes, BMW, Mazda and starting in 2012 Ford as well.  Chevy is also spending a gigantic sum of money updating their factories and marketing their new product heavily.  Using traditional media, and slowly breaking into social media, Chevy is putting a lot of their future in the success of this new, more technological and quality-driven vehicle.  If you want to learn more, check out this good article from autoobserver.com.

Will it work?  Well, I'd like it to work but I am cynical.  I've seen these promises before from GM, I the skeptical consumer inside me doesn't want to believe everything I see or read.  This is one of the most worrying aspects of being a marketer in today's market: the levels of skepticism are higher than ever before.  You can't simply say you're the best, consumers are looking for you to prove it.

So go on then Chevy.  People want you to fail, and it'd be convenient if you did.  But if you want to slug it out with your competitors, you need to prove you belong.

*** Author's Note: Shortly after this post was published, I got this response from Chevy:

@CruzeMore  - Chevy Cruze

 

@andrewbasker I belong! I belong! You said it yourself: I'm quality-driven :)

 

I sincerely hope 'you' are, because if it's true 'you' could be the turning around point for Chevy as a brand.***

Teaching is a lot like Branding

This morning, Seth Godin had an interesting posting on this blog about 'pushing back on mediocre professors', and that got me thinking.

You hear the cliche a lot: first impressions are important.  I'd like to take that a step further, that all impressions are important and that your first is merely where you start from.  I have always been a firm believer in paying attention to the way you act and present yourself to others, because all impressions are important. The better your first impression, the better your starting position on the grid.  You need to make a good first impression, but maintain it and build upon it.  Now this all sounds very familiar, but in a different context. 

I subscribe to the school of thought that people are brands.  The way we look, the way we act and even the way we talk communicates who we are and what we stand for.  Our first impression becomes our first brand experience and if that experience is poor, then it takes a lot of effort and time to improve your brand image.  Like any brand, we need to work at maintaining the image and experience we want to communicate, all the time focusing on being genuine and creating connections.  Marketers should be among the first to know this and this is why many are self-critical and self-aware about what their personal brand is communicating.

As marketers, one of our goals is to turn a strong brand into strong sales.  By managing a brand, we are trying to encourage consumers to buy into our ideas and our products.  So as individuals, we need to try and encourage other people to buy into our ideas.

Professors are no different.  You need to manage yourself and your brand to encourage students to buy into your thoughts and ideas.  You need to engage them in thought and pull them into a valuable conversation, and this is what Godin is getting at: "perhaps you could assign this as homework and we could have an actual conversation in class...".

We've all had professors who have pulled information directly from texts, read from slides and generally left us somewhere between bored and unconscious.  Why?  Because we weren't buying in.  I've had the privileged of having a number of excellent professors who did engage me, who compelled me to buy into their brand because they had interesting things to say, a tolerance for new and innovative thinking and a desire to promote conversation and debate about concepts.  These are the individuals who understand what it takes to get buy-in and understand the value of maintaining an engaging brand.  As Godin says, these are the people who push us "to solve interesting problems, overcome our fear or learn something that I could learn in no other way", and for that we should all be indebted to them.

Avoiding uninteresting professors is not the take away from this.  Think of Godin's ideas in a wide variety of contexts: purchasing consumer goods, being an employee, making new relationships.  In every case, you need to manage your brand to create buy-in, create engagement and give the other party what they are looking for: value.

--Authors Note: I think personal branding is important, but so does Shaminda Attygalle.  Check out his thoughts on defining your personal brand here. He is right: we are our own brand managers. --