Community

I’m getting flooded with sales and marketing e-mails with Spooktacular, or some variation thereof, in their headlines to tout Halloween sales. Please stop.

If that’s as creative as your ad copy writers can be, find some new ones. Imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery but this is getting ridiculous, and ineffective.

It’s a long-time American tradition to pin sales to various holidays (although it’s always difficult for me to consider Halloween a holiday since I work on it and then have to give away candy besides), but let’s be a little creative in holiday tie-ins.

Posted by John at 7:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

If you were a brand, which brand would you be? More importantly for marketers, who do your customers think your brand is?

Those questions occurred to me as I was reading a press release last week from Landor & Associates detailing its 2008 Presidential ImagePower Survey done with research firm Penn, Schoen & Berland. The study asked voters to associate the two presidential candidates with brands.

John Mc Cain was associated with Ford, Walmart and AOL while Barack Obama was associated with BMW, Target and Google. What does that say about the candidates and perhaps more interestingly what does it say about the brands mentioned and how people see them? It all just reminded me of how still inexact a science creating a brand essence can be.

By the way, both candidates and both VP candidates reminded people of Starbucks, so I suppose that means that no matter who wins, people will still be going to Starbucks for coffee.

Posted by John at 6:16 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Having covered the auto industry for seven years, I continue to read anything related to auto marketing. So I’ve been fascinated by stories about General Motors recently. First its GMAC financing arm announces it will only give car loans to people with credit scores of 700 or above, a very high level compared to what auto lenders had been doing before the financial markets collapsed.

Then a few days later, GM announces its going to be starting a new ad campaign to reassure consumers that there is auto financing available. Meanwhile, stories are surfacing of a possible GM takeover of Chrysler, what would that possibly do to strengthen the GM brand or the company? What’s kept Chrysler going in recent years was its Jeep brand and its Hemi engines, neither of which has much appeal in today’s economic climate.

And GM certainly doesn’t need more dealers to car contend with, which it would get by taking on Chrysler products. Most who watch the business think there are too many auto dealerships now, some are being forced out of business by today’s horrible business climate.

I once wrote that turning GM around isn’t like turning a battleship, it’s like turning an entire fleet. The fleet seems a bit scattered to the winds right now, here’s hoping for the sake of the American economy, it can find a sensible new course soon.

Posted by John at 9:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Since 2005 the Lenskold Group has run an annual research study to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of marketing and marketers. The most recent study has just been completed – it’s officially called the 2008 Lenskold Group / Kneebone Marketing ROI and Measurements Study – and I had a chance to talk with Jim Lenskold about the study on Marketing News Radio today. Aside from the startling finding that nearly 91% of marketers do not think they’re really doing an effective and efficient job at measuring marketing ROI, what struck me the most is that 45% of those who said they were highly effective and efficient also noted they were GREATLY OUTGROWING their competitors. This should be a wake up call to any lazy marketers and their lazy companies to get with the program! The show dives into the success factors of those who are leading the way, but there are plenty of obvious ones that won't surprise you including better access to marketing data and systems that support real-time marketing analysis. Clearly, after listening to this show, any marketer that doesn't realize the benefits of what it means to be a highly effective and highly efficient marketer deserves to get left behind by the competition. Every other major business function has already paved the way and done their work to become lean and data-driven; it's about time marketing did the same. -- David Kinard, PCM Host, Marketing News Radio

Posted by David Kinard at 3:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

More business publications have been weighing in on the theme that Marketing News is devoting a series of articles to, beginning in our Oct. 15th issue, Austerity Marketing.

Business Week’s Oct. 20th cover story is “The New Frugality,” with discussion about consumers returning to the savings ways of previous generations.

Advertising Age, it its Oct. 13 issue, features a story called “Ten things you can learn from ‘70s recession.”

That one has some interesting tips, although I’m not sure this economic downturn will be like the one in the ‘70s since that one had rampant inflation. We’re in a deflationary scenario right now, just look at petroleum prices with other commodities sure to follow them lower.

When people find money they thought they had in safe investments suddenly wiped out as is happening now, they spend less and prices have to fall to entice them to buy again. It will be interesting to see how far they fall before spending picks up.

Business Week economist James Cooper notes the recession we’re in now would need to run through April of next year to equal the two longest in post World War II history, those of 1973-75 and 1981-82. “At this point many forecasters think that’s not out of the question,” he writes.

The impact on marketing continues to be seen across the country. Gap Inc. has said publicly that it won’t buy any more TV advertising this year, looking at other media instead.

PepsiCo is reviewing all aspects of its soft drink brand marketing for such icons as Pepsi and Mountain Dew, planning to spend $1.2 billion in three years on new branding efforts. “It is our belief that especially in this economic downturn we should be investing in the category to get consumers to stay with, and some to return to, the packaged liquid refreshment beverage category and to our brands,” said Pepsi Chairman and CEO Indra Nooyi in a recent analysts’ call.

Which path should your company or organization follow? Keep reading our series, the next article appears in our Nov. 15 issue and looks at B-to-B austerity plans, and feel free to comment here or e-mail me at jfrank@ama.org to discuss or detail your plans.

Posted by John at 8:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

It’s difficult to imagine financial market headlines any worse than those we saw last week. And as markets tumbled, the repercussions already were being felt in marketing. Some of the stories I was reading: “UBS Cuts Online Advertising Outlook,” and “Credit Card Companies Cut Ad Spending Amid Crisis, Nielsen Says.”

So how should you cope? I’d suggest looking beyond the daily headlines to discern what long-term trends will emerge out of this mess. Marketing News will be looking at those trends on the b-to-b side in our Nov. 15th issue and next year as we continue our Austerity Marketing series of articles for you.

In the meantime, I found a very insightful Associated Press piece you can read discussing whether the era of easy credit is over for American consumers and what that might mean for future spending habits.

The article chronicles the changes in credit during the past 30 years or so. That basically coincides with my post-college adult life, so I know the article is touching on many facts from that period.

For example, when I finished work on my masters degree in 1976, getting a credit card was almost impossible for a new grad. That certainly hasn’t been the case in recent years as card issuers practically threw credit at former students already burdened with college loans to pay off. After the current credit debacle gets sorted out, we may be going back to that 1976 scenario.

The same will likely be true for mortgages. Applying for a mortgage in those days meant documentation on top of documentation followed by a long waiting period before the approval came through. In recent years, just breathing seemed enough qualification for a mortgage. Those days have got to be over now, thankfully.

How do you market when credit isn’t easy anymore? I would argue you appeal to consumer’s search for value in what they buy, stress durability for products and value propositions for services. On the b-to-b side, the value proposition becomes even more important, I think, given the larger investments that will be made in equipment, software and other business products and services. If you can’t show returns and real value, it’s going to be increasingly difficult being heard. What do you think?

Posted by John at 10:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

In the Sept. 15 issue of Marketing News, columnist Don E. Schultz posed the question, "Is ROI Stuff and Nonsense?"

The question, and Don's thinking on the matter, has inspired active debates between Don and readers who have responded to him directly. Don and readers have agreed to let us post their exchanges here on the MN blog. After reading the article and the exchanges, where do you come down on the debate?

From Reader TJ Eveland:

Professor Schultz:
I really enjoyed your article in the Marketing News (AMA) magazine (9/15/08, P21). Your last paragraph asks for feedback and I thought I would comment. It seems straight forward but may be the reason financial professionals brought up your pursuit a rainbow.

ROI vs. allocation is a classic chicken vs. the egg scenario. ROI should define, and then refine, your allocation and in turn allocation will boost or lower total ROI. The key is breaking down ROI to a cost driver level. When separated into cost drivers (communication mediums, marketing channels etc.) a review of the marketing budget shows more insight into the return of your investment into each driver. Very similar to analyzing a retirement account, adjustments need to be made to boost aggregate returns in successful investments (effective mediums) and cut losses in those not returning your desired benchmark (ineffective mediums).

If these steps were followed, each driver is seen as its own mini-business and the ROI can be objectively calculated and ranked against other drivers. As money moves up the descending chain of drivers (mediums) the weighted average ROI for the overall marketing budget will rise until the point of diminishing marginal return is reached for a specific driver.

Of course, care should be kept to analyze the allocations on a regular basis and a realistic weighted average ROI benchmark should allow for experimental projects that will create a loss from time to time. Common sense will also need to be employed about making drastic changes the first time this is reviewed (dont invest 100% of your budget into the most effective medium, as the proper mix will drive the ROI). Using this method of adjust, analyze, repeat will keep marketing managers in tune with medium effectiveness, true ROI and will allow for allocation to be driven by real data, rather than status quo.

Thanks again for the article!

TJ Eveland, MBA
Manager of Student Recruitment
Ohio University- Chillicothe

Response from Don E. Schultz:

Dear Mr. Eveland:

Thank you for your very thoughtful note on my recent MARKETING NEWS column. You have added much to the discussion.

My point in the column is that one must start with the customer, not the marketer's view. That is, it is what the consumer takes in, processes and uses which matters in marketing communication, i.e., their consumption of the media form. If there is no consumer consumption, i.e., they don't use or view or believe in that medium, it really makes no difference what type of ROI measures the marketer employs. Thus, it is the consumer that drives ROI, not the marketer. Perhaps I didn't make that point clear in the column. That's why I took position I did.

You are right when you argue for a cost driver analysis to understand ROI from an expenditure level. What I am proposing is, however, quite different. I will add more to this discussion in future columns.

Thanks again for your comments and feedback. It is always good to know there are readers who are interested and participating in my attempted dialog.

Response from TJ Eveland:

Thanks for the reply Don, please be sure to let me know of any future publications.

If I understand correctly, your argument is that a calculation could show unjustifiedROI as the consumer would have purchased the item (or not) given any level of marketing investment. The ROI could show a return not truly caused by the investment. Does this sound correct?

You will have to excuse my first interpretation. Along with recruiting and marketing, I teach accounting and am still breaking my mold of everything can be calculated and facts are facts. This is why I am so interested in your critique of the ROI (it seems to be an easy sell to budget managers!).

Thanks for any input.

Response from Don E. Schultz:

Mr. Eveland:

I apparently did not make myself clear in my response to your inquiry.

My basic premise is that presently, we don't know what marketing or promotional forms target customers use. We know what we send out but we don't know if they receive, access or even pay any attention to them. We assume that sending them out is the same thing as the consumer taking them in. It's not.

Thus, the work that needs to be done is on the promotional consumption end of the approach. If we know what promotional activities consumers access, take in and use, we could do a much better job of allocating our resources, i.e., send them things they use or consumer or access. If we did that, ROI would almost have to improve.

Hope this helps.

Posted by Allison at 12:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

If you’re like me, you hate to wait in lines at the store, or too long for service at a restaurant. These long check out lines, or not enough employees available to answer your questions, it seems like we as customers are often getting the short end of the stick. What impact does that have on a business – when customers are asked to wait? Will a long wait time even cost you business? And if so, how long is too long to wait? We talked about this and more in today's Marketing News Radio broadcast. On the program today to look into this issue of how long customers expect to wait for service was Tom Krause – he’s the director of strategic consulting for Martiz Research Retail Group. His team just completed a study of more than 1400 American consumers to see what their expectations and limits are when it comes to waiting around. I'll admit I was surprised by what I heard. For the most part, Americans aren't that bothered by having to wait in lines. Perhaps we accept it as part of the cost of doing business someplace. And, to our credit, we are rather forgiving when wait times are too long if the employee is courteous, genuinely sorry for the inconvenience, and smiles. But there is a dark side to an extended wait time. Fully 80% of the respondants walked out of a restaurant, 40% left a bank, and 50% walked out of a convenience store because the wait was too long. And for those who walked out -- 30% of them never went back. Sure, long waits are inevitable. An unexpected rush of customers can easily overwhelm a manager's best attempts at staffing. Krause offered up a list of NO COST things an employee can do to minimize negative impacts of long wait times and even some suggestions for what retailers might do this holiday season to preclude frustrations before they happen. Experts from Maritz Research are regular guests on this show and today was no exception to the interesting topics and practical value they bring. Be sure to check the show archives for other radio programs with Martiz covering customer experience and customer engagement practices. -- David Kinard, PCM Host, Marketing News Radio

Posted by David Kinard at 3:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

While I’m on my media kick, let me relate a wonderful experience I had last week. CBS News icon Bob Schieffer was at a luncheon here in Chicago, talking about his book, Bob Schieffer’s America.

Schieffer is one of the last of the old-school journalists who I grew up admiring and wanting to be like. He discussed how he takes great pride in not telling the world what his political leanings are. He goes as far as not even telling his wife how he votes in presidential elections – something he says they agreed to years ago.

That reminded me that his school of journalism stressed objective reporting, getting all sides of a debate or disagreement into a story and letting readers/listeners/viewers draw their own conclusions about the truth of a situation.

The idea that journalists can be objective seems to have gotten lost these days and I think that’s a tremendous loss for the country. Democracy needs a free flow of ideas and information to function properly. I don’t see a lot of what we’re getting today fitting that bill.

I’m really tired of watching TV types passing themselves off as journalists while they scream at me with their political leanings out in the open for all the world to see. Everyone knows that Fox News personalities will be espousing conservative views while MSNBC on-air types are screaming liberal diatribes. I find it all a bit insulting. I really don’t need them to brow-beat me into taking a position.

I hope this wave passes someday and we go back to an era of Bob Schieffers across the TV spectrum, but I fear that may not happen, especially given the vitriol the Internet projects into the public arena. A pity. Subjective journalism is serving to further divide this already divided country.

A final personal note, I was able to have Schieffer sign my copy of his book. I felt like a little kid again, telling him how I used to instruct my mother to call me in from play every night so I could watch him and all his colleagues, along with Walter Cronkite, on the evening news. To quote the old song, “those were the days, my friend, we thought they’d never end…”

Posted by John at 8:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

To a life-long journalist like me, it seems that everyone likes to pick on “the media.” Any bad news is the messenger’s fault, people seem to believe. And if the messenger should mess up the news, even more’s the shame. Wouldn’t we all be better off without the pesky media reporting on the world we live in?

Well, maybe not. For proof, look to a recent story in Ad Age about how studios are worried that movie attendance for some films is declining because there aren’t as many big-city newspaper movie critics as there once were to review them and let potential movie goers know if they’re worth seeing or not.

A spat of formerly big-name critics have left papers in cities such as Chicago, New York, San Diego, Atlanta and elsewhere. Without critics they trust, moviegoers are passing up movies that might be called specialized, or perhaps more artsy than the masses tend to see.

Careful what you wish for, is my first reaction to that. More thoughtfully, the situation also should serve as a reminder to marketers that the media plays a central role in any consumer-facing, and in some business-facing, campaigns so don’t scoff so quickly the next time you have a tough go-round with a reporter. And, on a personal note, please stop talking about the media like we were all part of a giant collective, something akin to the Borg. It’s old, tired and beyond cliché, you’re capable of better.

Posted by John at 8:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

There are precious few opportunities to advance in today’s organizations. Promotions are fiercely competed for and if you think that doing your best work is going to be good enough – you are sorely wrong. And, according to author and executive Keith Wyche, if you happen to be a minority the bar you have to clear is simply that much higher. Once again on Marketing News Radio we had a great show targeted to anyone who wants to move up the corporate ladder. Though my guest brought the perspective of what his journey has been like as a minority, the lessons learned are for anyone -- regardless of background, race, creed, or color. Joining me on the program was Keith Wyche, president of US Operations for Pitney Bowes Management Services and author of Good is Not Enough: And Other Unwritten Rules for Minority Professionals. We spoke about what it takes to advance in your career, and what minorities need to pay attention to. What I found remarkable was the spirit in which Keith shared his thoughts. Though he was able to provide research highlighting the continuing inequality of pay and advancement for minority professionals and women, he really emphasized the progress that's been made over the years. He is hopeful and full of energy, not someone embittered by past injustices or disappointments. In addition to highlighting the results from a survey of senior leadership of what they look for in "promotable employees" (listen to segment three for this discussion) Keith offered up a simple and powerful model for all professionals to consider. Most professionals, says Wyche, focus on performance as a means to get ahead. After all, that's what we're told: Working hard is the key to success. But Wyche suggests that performance is only 50% of the equation. The other half is split between Exposure and Perception. His PEP model has practical application for anyone looking to increase their chances of career advancement. A highly engaging book filled with stories of real people who were able to adjust their game plan and succeed, and a few sprinkles of those who didn't. After reading the book to prep for the show, I immediately sat one of my staff down (who happens to be a minority), reviewed the PEP model, and gave him my copy of the book. I went out and bought another copy for my reference -- it's that good. Click here for a free exerpt. -- David Kinard, PCM Host, Marketing News Radio

Posted by David Kinard at 6:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

If you’ve ever doubted how ubiquitous the FedEx brand is in modern business life, just try this exercise.

Steve Pacheco, managing director, advertising at FedEx, told a Thursday luncheon held by the Business Marketing Association’s Chicago chapter that he likes to walk the streets of New York to see how far he can go without seeing a FedEx logo somewhere – on a truck, a storefront, a package, someone’s T-shirt. His record – eight blocks.

“The ubiquity of that brand is no accident,” he told the BMA gathering. He then went on to show a video demonstrating FedEx’s vast ad reach across all media from print to events to TV to online. The shipping giant celebrated its 35th anniversary this year. It’s full-court advertising and marketing push will continue as it looks ahead to future birthdays, he noted.

And the brand is expanding as FedEx eliminates the Kinko’s name it inherited when it bought that chain of copy centers back in 2003. The images of the two brands never quit meshed, Pacheco said. FedEx Kinko’s, the name that was slapped on combined FedEx and Kinko’s locations after the takeover, is being replaced by FedEx Office, a new name that will facilitate taking the concept of stores that do shipping, copying, et. al to an international audience, he said. Expect a big marketing push for that new name.

I’d guess some of the marketing folks in the audience who work for smaller companies might have been wondering what FedEx does that they could emulate with marketing budgets that are puny compared to FedEx’s.

Pacheco gave an answer when he described how FedEx watches every contact point it has with customers --- from the local FedEx delivery person to its sponsorship of major sporting events like the FedEx Orange Bowl. They all matter when it comes to image building.

That’s a message smaller companies often forget in their search for marketing magic bullets. Anyone who interacts with your customers is part of your marketing message, often the most important part, since they are what customers experience and remember about your brand. Don’t ignore how they fit into your brand strategy.

Posted by John at 3:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)