Community

What are you supposed to do when Forbes ranks your city as the most miserable in America? Rally city supporters and create a tongue-in-cheek marketing campaign.

That's what Positively Cleveland, the Ohio city's convention and visitors bureau, has done after Forbes proclaimed the city as the country's most miserable last Thursday. Tami Brown, Positively Cleveland's vice president of marketing, says the day the article came out, the bureau commissioned a local improv troupe to put together a video poking holes in the miserable title. In the video, actors gripe that there are too many sports and live entertainment options in town, and that commutes are so short they don't have time to do their make-up in the car. There's also a funny bit where upon hearing that Cleveland has been called the most miserable city, a group of Cleveland people jump up and cheer - which of course, doesn't make them seem all that miserable.

The video is one component to a happy Cleveland campaign hosted on a new micro site, WhatTheForbes.com. Cleveland citizens are encouraged to post why they love the city, or to submit photos and videos professing their love to the site, for a chance to win one of three prize pacakges featuring gift cards and free access to Cleveland restaurants, attractions, hotels and services.

This sort of strategy worked once before for Positively Cleveland. Last year, a local comedian made two scatching, popular faux-promotional videos about the city.

Positively Cleveland responded in turn with a video contest that spawned amusing, pro-Cleveland videos such as this one, turning what could have been a negative image setback into a positive outreach and awareness opportunity.

Personally, I think these are great examples of smart, entertaining ways to get the last laugh when someone else is laughing at your brand's expense. It's also a chance to not only regain control of the message, but to better ensure that with a little self-deprecating humor and candidness people will listen to what you have to say. But what do you think? As always, we welcome your thoughts in the comment section below.

You can also find out more about this campaign in the Feb. 25 edition of our e-newsletter Marketing News Exclusives.

Posted by Piet at 9:48 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

I want to take a look at two performance brands this week. Without further ado:

Winner

The pundits can dissect every line and pause of Tiger Woods’ statement Friday, but they’re wrong.

The media didn’t like it because they were cut out of the picture… but this wasn’t a press conference; it was a marketing conference. This wasn’t about the media; it was about Tiger’s fans, his clients and his customers.

Tiger went directly to his Target Market, and from everything I’ve heard, people accepted what he said.

Public relations as we knew it is over (i.e., catering first and foremost to the demands of the journalists and trying to shape their message). Marketing has taken its place. In Tiger’s own case, he has followed a four-point crisis marketing strategy:

1. Don’t Panic. Tiger did not panic, even though there were cries by media and media handlers to make impulsive remarks.

2. Consider the core value of your product. For Tiger Woods, it’s years of winning golf tournaments and the respect he has received from his fans and customers;

3. Assess what hasn’t changed. Tiger Woods has been great for golf and is a great golfer. It was his silly behavior that got him in trouble; it wasn’t that he had cheated at the game. Because of this, as long as he addresses the current problem, he can get back to golf, continue winning and restore his brand.

4. Reach out to your Target Market. Tiger did this on Friday. Something that’s being lost in all the chatter is the fact that one of the enduring and consistent characteristics of the Tiger Woods’ brand is his commitment to practice. The fact that he stuck to his therapy and waited until he was ready to speak reminds us of these champion-like qualities that he possesses and shows that they are still intact. In other words, getting this part of his “game” right, too, is classic Tiger and works to reinforce his brand in a very positive way. In other words, he’s handling this crisis —as ugly as it is— like he would handle a really bad situation on the green.

Above all, everyone needs to remember that Tiger Woods is a performance brand. That means that ultimately, even if a segment of the population cannot forgive him, if he stays true to his brand of golfing excellence and goes on to win, the Tiger brand will continue to be strong. No matter what the journalists say. End of story.

The Loser

Johnny Weir could take a page from the Tiger playbook.

He seems to have forgotten that it is his performance on the ice rather than his performance on the screen that will ultimately determine the success or failure of his brand.

Sure, he is a bright, creative, intelligent guy who seems to attract a lot of attention, but the reason he attracts this attention is because he is a champion athlete.

Critics can say that Weir has a deep groundswell of supporters who don’t care that he has had —at least recently, and the Olympics confirms it— a middle skating career.

The problem is that Weir’s popularity has all the appearances of a fad. As I’ve discussed before at length, fads can be a terrific marketing launching pad for a brand or product, but ultimately there needs to be substance behind the fad, or the fad will never mature into a solid, long-term brand.

In the case of Weir, the question is this: in the absence of champion skating, what will keep his brand going? He seems to sense this question and has been branching out into other areas, even most recently suggesting that he is going into fashion.

But it probably would have made more sense to spend a bit more time on the ice over the past two years so that he could have established something better than a 6th place finish at the Olympics. The performance aspect of the sports brand would have meant that he could count on more durability over the near term (i.e., regular media attention over the next four years). Now that part of the equation is probably gone, and he will have to move quickly to build on what brand equity he does have —or risk
fading away, as so many fads do.

And, remember, things are always easier when you keep marketing and branding in mind.

TODAY'S TANTILLO TAKEAWAY -

Go directly to your Target Market and avoid the media filter whenever possible.

John Tantillo is a marketing and branding expert and the founder and president of Marketing Department of America. His book, “People Buy Brands Not Companies”, is available on Amazon.com

Posted by John at 9:22 AM | Permalink

This week, the Marketing Doctor wades into controversial waters, but anything to show that the marketing lens even works in the murkiest of waters.

The Winner

John Mayer.

He said some incredibly vulgar and awful things in that now infamous Playboy interview… So, how could he possibly be this week’s winner?

Simple. Did he do irreparable harm to his relationship with his Target Market?

Answer Yes, and you’ve got a loser. Answer No, and it’s no harm, no foul.

This week the Marketing Doctor wades into controversial waters, but anything to show that the marketing lens even works in the murkiest of waters.

And the answer is No.

Here’s why.

John Mayer has built his career on “real” music that is supposed to convey real emotions and observations on life as his demographic lives it. The interview with Playboy, while reprehensible, can simply not be judged by the same yard stick you would use to judge a politician or a business person. Mayer is an entertainment/celebrity brand, and one that is expected to say things that aren’t palatable and might even be offensive. His yardstick, like so many (but not all) entertainment brands, is “being real.”

If he overshoots, he needs to apologize in a credible way (breaking down in tears on stage, surrounded by his fans, is credible, and he did this). Fact is, entertainment has long been filled with the personal disaster and bad behavior that is forgiven by the Target Market. (Rat Pack, anyone?)

An entertainment/celebrity brand is like a sports performance brand in that as long as good music/performance keeps being produced, the brand will stay strong. In fact, an entertainment brand has even more resiliency than a personal sports brand because someone like Mayer doesn’t really do corporate sponsorships.

Bottom line, Mayer’s first concern in this world of music piracy is filling big venues with devoted fans. He did this after the Playboy interview (the same night he delivered that tearful apology). Forget the general polls on whether Mayer’s brand is hurt: the crowd at the arena cheered and screamed his apology on.

That’s his Target Market, and they buy the tickets. John Mayer is going to do just fine.

The Loser

I’m not someone who thinks former Vice President Dick Cheney was the villain many in the press have painted him as. In fact, I think history may very well vindicate many of the things that the Bush administration did in fighting a very difficult enemy.

But I’m not here to talk history. I’m here to talk marketing and, specifically, why it’s a very bad idea for Dick Cheney to keep putting himself in the spotlight if the Republicans want a chance to regain power anytime soon.

To put it bluntly and with all due respect, Vice President Cheney needs to let someone else do the talking. He needs to get off the stage. Certain brands will never make a comeback.

President Bush seems to understand the importance of exiting the stage and then staying off of it. He knows that, fairly or unfairly, his brand’s time has passed and does not add value to the quest to restore the Republicans to power.

History and reevaluation might change people’s opinions in the long run, but the only opinions that count right now are the voters’ opinions, and anyone being honest about that market knows that the Bush-Cheney legacy is widely perceived as toxic. This legacy alienates wide swathes of the electorate, which is just no good for a party that needs those numbers to stand a chance.

One anecdotal “test” that shows just how deep these feelings run is that even those who are centrist and right-leaning often feel uncomfortable speaking up for the former administration in mixed political company. The Bush-Cheney legacy is just not socially defensible.

Every time Vice President Cheney opens his mouth, he gets the inevitable headline. In terms of drawing the nation’s attention to gaps in our defense, this may be good —but it also draws the nation’s attention away from the kind of promising Republican, pro-defense figures who should be rising in stature for a future presidential run.

Every time Dick Cheney takes a strong policy position, it has the effect of anchoring the Republican party to the previous administration, which is a negative.

The Republicans cannot simply be the party of the negative opposition now (i.e., saying they were right all along and that rejecting all Obama initiatives is the right thing to do). For the Republicans to win, they need to embrace a positive, forward-looking and ultimately hopeful platform that rebuts President Obama and the Democrats without being merely rejectionist.

With a wagon load of negative brand baggage, Vice President Cheney will not be able to achieve this. In a way, Cheney has found himself in the Kissinger, post-Vietnam dilemma. He is an exceptional man with perhaps more foreign policy experience than almost anyone —but also a man whose public performance poisons his party’s nationwide agenda. Kissinger skillfully navigated these waters until he could once again be publicly tapped for his gifts (and it took a long time.)

If the Republicans want to move forward and the former vice president wants this too, he should take a page from Kissinger’s playbook. Cheney can begin working behind the scenes to help ensure that our defense is secure and that the best candidate to lead the Republican party can emerge without a shadow. He can still lend his wisdom and tactical brilliance to the cause, but he must step away from the podium now.

It’s natural for the party faithful to want to honor and support the former vice president, but they must being to recognize that his public actions are hurting the party. For the Republican party to be successful nationwide, it needs to expand its Target Market (i.e. beyond those people for whom Cheney is not necessarily a negative) by reaching out to independents and even moderate Democrats, for whom Cheney and Bush are old and bad news.

And, remember, things are always easier when you keep marketing and branding in mind.

TODAY'S TANTILLO TAKEAWAY -

Rather than trying to evaluate if a brand did well generally, always ask: Did it succeed or fail with its Target Market? Because in the end, that's all that matters for a brand.

John Tantillo is a marketing and branding expert and the founder and president of Marketing Department of America. His book, “People Buy Brands Not Companies”, is being published in February.

Posted by John at 9:03 AM | Permalink

By Eric Herrenkohl, author and consultant

In a recent talk to senior executives, I explained how to build a “farm team” of strong potential employees. Farm team is a baseball term. Every major league baseball team has multiple minor league teams made up of players ready to be called up to the big leagues with little notice. In business, a farm team is your active list of strong performers who currently work for someone else but could be enticed to work for you if the offer is right. By taking the initiative to find and interview these people now, you build your own farm team of strong potential employees.

After the talk, a banker came up to me and said, “I am going to implement this farm team idea immediately. I get phone calls every day from job hunters, and I have been telling them that we are not hiring. Now I am going to tell them that we are not hiring right now, but I want to interview them anyway.”

Performance Principle: A bad economy is a great time to build your own farm team. In the midst of short-term pressures, take the time to interview and network. Here are some specific payoffs from building your own farm team right now:

1. Good people are available in bad times. Great performers shake loose in times like these. Now is the time to make connections with these people even if you don’t hire them immediately. Joel Spolsky in his book Smart & Gets Things Done estimates that one truly gifted computer programmer is worth at least five times as much as a competent programmer. The ratios may be slightly different in your business, but the principle holds fast across all companies and industries. If your interviewing yields just one terrific person, it is worth it.

2. Interviewing does not necessarily mean hiring. You are not making a commitment to hire anyone; you are simply meeting with them for an initial interview. The only cost to you is your time, and the investment of time is worth it.

3. Build your own network. Every person you interview today is someone that you add to your own network. If you treat people with respect and stay in touch, that relationship may well be valuable whether or not you hire the person.

4. Market intelligence. Having a regular schedule of interviews keeps you apprised of what is going on in the marketplace. Building your farm team makes you more intelligent about your marketplace and better connected within it.

5. Confidence to deal with poor performers. One of the primary reasons that managers don’t confront poor performers is that they do not have anyone to take their place. If your executives and managers have active candidates who can fill positions in their departments, they will be more willing and able to deal quickly and directly with sub-par performance.

Eric Herrenkohl is the author of the upcoming book How to Hire A-Players: Finding the Top People for Your Team – Even if You Don’t Have a Recruiting Department, now available everywhere for preorder. You can receive Eric’s free monthly e-letter Performance Principles by subscribing at www.herrenkohlconsulting.com

Posted by John at 9:13 AM | Permalink

Web gossip’s ablaze about the ads that played during the most watched program in television history – Sunday night’s Super Bowl. (That’s right, it beat the ratings record held by the series finale of “M-A-S-H” back in 1983). And while it remains to be seen which, if any, of this year’s ads may be remembered as one of history’s best Super Bowl spots, that isn’t stopping people from choosing favorites. And it isn't stopping me from asking an oft-debated question in marketing: when is the expense of a Super Bowl campaign worth it? It's about the sales, right? And if so, how is the sight of seeing Betty White getting sacked going to sell more Snickers bars?

From a creative standpoint, one of my favorite spots from the Big Game was Google’s surprising splash into TV, a sweet little fable dubbed "Parisian Love," told strictly through images of Google searches. But I doubt the ad itself will increase Google's revenue - the company didn't need an ad to further dominate the search sector. The only way sales would have increased, I'd argue, was some strong creative for a new company product or service, such as Google's Nexus One smartphone or the just-announced Facebook-like Google Buzz. So aside from creating some buzz among consumers and marketers, why did Google bother? What does it stand to gain?

The verdict's still out on that one, and on another strategy that's into its second year - Denny's Super Bowl-promoted Grand Slam giveaways. Last year, Denny's used a funny Super Bowl spot to promote a breakfast giveaway the Tuesday after the Big Game. Talk about a way to drive trial and talk - about 2 million meals were handed out and millions more in media impressions were made. (Not coincidentally, Marketing News has given plenty of ink/air to Denny's. Click here to see a story and here to listen to a podcast).

But the Super Bowl campaign didn't reverse sales declines in 2009, and by year's end, CMO Mark Chmiel, the mastermind behind one of the biggest marketing bonanzas of the year, was forced to leave the company. (Click here to read my Marketing News Exclusives e-newsletter interview with Chmiel about his departure.)

Nevertheless, Denny's was at it again Sunday - this year, it had three Super Bowl spots promoting the Grand Slam giveaway. And the creative, featuring a chorus of screaming chickens, was quite funny.

But how will doing the same thing again ultimately help the company, not just in buzz for the week, but in sales for the year and beyond? That remains to be seen. Furthermore, I'm puzzled as to why Denny's decided to give away Grand Slams yet again. A giveaway of its new enhanced burger line would have garnered more media impressions compared with this déjà vu story - not to mention the opportunity it would provide in introducing customers to the meals Denny's serves in other day parts. Then again, screaming cows wouldn't have been so cute.

This debate over the value of the Super Bowl ad will likely never end, but Marketing News is exploring this fascinating marketing phenomenon through two other channels this week - in an episode of the Marketing Power podcast series and in a story in this week's Marketing News Exclusives e-newsletter.

The latest MN-sponsored podcast episode, "Dockers' and Audi's Super Bowl Game Plans," is available now on iTunes, at MarketingPower.com, or by clicking here. I spoke to the marketing leaders behind these brands about their Super Bowl strategy this year and how they hoped to maximize their investments. One major element connecting their two strategies - online integration.

Dockers, which had the "guys singing in a field in their underwear" spot (not the "people in their underwear in the office" spot that coincidentally preceded it), directed viewers to enter a giveaway promotion on its Web site. The ad was also supposed to promote a shout-out to Shazam users to identify the song in the spot; from there the mobile app users would be directed to a designated Dockers brand site. The call-out didn't happen during the game (since amended on YouTube), and I've had no reply yet from the brand on why that was the case. Is it possible Shazam couldn't support the huge influx in traffic?

Audi also had a creative hit with its "Green Police" Super Bowl ad, featuring eco-enforcers busting down environmentally unfriendly practices (don't use plastic bags or you're gonna get it). In the spot, Audi's A3 TDI gets a pass from the police, having been awarded Green Car Journal's Green Car of the Year prize. But Audi also decided to feature the Green Police characters in humorous public service announcements on their own YouTube channel -- to keep the buzz, and hopefully sales potential, alive well past this week.

"If you just have the spot … it’s sort of a dead-end street,” Audi of America CMO Scott Keogh is quoted as saying in the Marketing News Exclusives article "Beyond the Bowl: Social Media and Promos Prolong Super Bowl Ads' Impact." “If you have an idea and a cause around the thing … then you have a conversation, and that’s going to lift you far beyond, ‘I liked the ad, I didn’t like the ad.’”

Click here to access the Marketing News Exclusives page where you can subscribe to our bi-weekly e-newsletter and see the article yourself beginning Feb. 11. And please sound off by posting a comment below. What are your thoughts on the effectiveness or worth of a Super Bowl ad? Did any of this year's spots make you more inclined to consider or spend on a product or service? If so, why? If not, why not?

Posted by Piet at 12:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Without further ado

Winner

I’ll keep the winner short.

Ford and General Motors get the crown for re-organizing themselves, getting on the track to recovery and not throwing their brands out with the bathwater.

The very fact that Ford and General Motors have remained brand companies has insulated them from the kind of mass destruction that Toyota is currently experiencing.

As I wrote last week about Toyota:

With the exception of their branding master-stroke of Lexus, Toyota cross-labels every one of its car brands with its corporate brand.

The problem with this kind of corporate brand strategy? Well, when one product in the corporate line-up has a problem, so does the entire corporate brand and all of the individual brands under the corporate umbrella.

In this case: If one of Toyota’s car brands has a problem, it infects all of Toyota’s cars and its corporate image. This won’t happen —or be as grave— if Chevy has a recall (i.e., the Cadillac brand won’t be touched).

Bottom line: Ford and GM now are in a perfect position to reassert themselves in the market and underscore the quality of each of their brands. (Ford needs to apply the GM brand approach even more and better distinguish its brands from its company, lest it have a Toyota problem down the track.)

The marketing lesson here is to never give up just because your competition seems to be winning. Fundamental marketing problems —like Toyota’s over-reliance on company image over brand— can bite your competition. As long as you’ve been running your race, this means you will find yourself in an excellent position to kick your business into an even higher gear.

Oh, and a brand winner that deserves a mention: well done, New Orleans Saints! Talk about bringing back a team and a city!

The Loser

The United States Government is this week’s loser for deciding to spend $2.5 million to buy a 30-second ad for the Census in this year’s Super Bowl.

In my new book, People Buy Brands, Not Companies, due out in less than two weeks, I devote a whole chapter to the preposterous waste of Super Bowl ads. Talk about dumb marketing.

With the exception of a few cases and strategies, Super Bowl advertisements make little marketing sense and are merely ways to burnish the creative reputation of a Madison Avenue ad agency.

Sadly, it is no big surprise that the U.S. government has decided to waste some of our hard earned cash.

Five reasons why this was a bad idea:

1. It doesn’t look like the people behind the U.S. Census did their research. Otherwise, they would have learned from the dot-comers who spent oodles on Super Bowl advertising and didn’t see much of a return.

2. Multiple impressions are critical. Some argue at least 20 are needed to generate a response from a viewer. The U.S. Census just spent $2.5 million on a single one.

3. Not everybody watches the Super Bowl. Advertising on the channels that aren’t carrying the big game could reach up to twice the number of viewers.

4. The message that Super Bowl marketing might not be the golden ticket has begun to sink in. This year, rates have fallen from $3 million to $2.5 million dollars for a 30-second spot, and Fortune 500s like Fed Ex, GM and Pepsi are either sitting this one out or reducing their exposure.

5. The amount spent on this one ad could buy up to 600 30-second TV ads in the New York market, or 800 in L.A.

Nope, it’s not a surprise, but maybe it’s confirmation of just where Super Bowl advertising is headed. Sure, people will keep talking about the ads the day after, and they’ll get a lot of hits on YouTube. But if the same government that can spend hundreds of dollars on a wrench or thousands on a toilet is buying Super Bowl ads, it seems to this old marketer that’s pretty good evidence in and of itself that these ad buys are wildly over-priced..

And, remember, things are always easier when you keep marketing and branding in mind.

TODAY'S TANTILLO TAKEAWAY -

Just because a certain marketing tactic generates hype does not mean it is helpful for the short- or long-term success of your brand. Unless hype generates sales, it’s just entertainment.

John Tantillo is a marketing and branding expert and president of the Marketing Department of America who markets his own services as The Marketing Doctor. His book, People Buy Brands Not Companies, is being published shortly.

Posted by John at 12:11 PM | Permalink

Kathy Button Bell, CMO and vice president at Emerson, had some useful tips for B-to-B marketers when she spoke last week at a Business Marketing Association Chicago chapter luncheon.

Fair disclosure here, I’ve written about Kathy and marketing she’s done going back to the 1990s when she was in Chicago, so I’m a long-time fan. She joined St. Louis-based Emerson in 1999 and has been transforming the engineer-centric company into one that knows how to do B-to-B marketing. Part of what she discussed was a new Emerson campaign that started in 2009, “It’s Never Been Done Before…Consider it Solved”

As a B-to-B marketer, you “have to be a better pied piper than a marketing person,” she says, meaning you have to be able to lead senior management to the marketing world you want them to embrace.

When Button Bell arrived at Emerson, for example, its advertising centered on product and looked something like a hardware catalogue, she recalled. She has since gotten the company to focus on end customers in its marketers rather than products, an approach similar to what IBM is doing with its Smarter Planet campaign (for more on that, see the next issue of AMA’s Marketing Management which will feature an exclusive interview with IBM CMO Jon Iwata).

Other tips from Button Bell:
• Talking about solutions still works, the term has not been overused in B-to-B marketing.
• Marketing should serve as an intelligence source for sales, keeping sales staff up-to-date on what the competition is doing

And my favorite, if you need to film your CEO for a marketing piece, never say it will only take five minutes, you need time to get a B-to-B CEO relaxed in front of a camera.

Also in the interest of full disclosure, Kathy is running for the AMA board, you can read her bio in the February issue of Marketing News.

Posted by John at 12:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Maybe it’s mid-winter blues, but I’ve decided to accentuate the negative by pulling a first: two losers. And, frankly, these two were such obvious marketing victims I simply had to do it. They say that with pride there is a fall and these two companies’ most recent debacles seem to prove the adage.

Loser Number One:

Toyota.

This car company was on the cusp of becoming the biggest and, arguably, the best worldwide.

But now Toyota’s on the hook for one of the biggest recalls in automotive history and their reputation for great quality at a great price is in tatters.

How did this happen? Well, I’ll leave the engineering post-mortem to the technical folks, but in my mind this disaster underscores how marketing should never be seen as an after-the-fact part of business. Marketing is business. End of story.

The Toyota recall is a great example of how you can have a great brand (or brands), then make one mistake and watch it all go down the tubes.

Harry Truman used to say something along these lines: the President should be habitually uneasy. His point? Much responsibility rested on a President’s shoulders and it would be wrong if a President didn’t sweat about these massive responsibilities and the possibility that a single slip-up could ruin everything.

Toyota, and any business for that matter, needs to remember Truman.

The design and production process must be scrutinized. Errors or potential errors must be minimized and, especially for a global company, the scope of any mishap must be compartmentalized (i.e., ten thousand recalls maybe, but not multi-continent million plus recalls; a foot pedal problem in one car brand not half of them).

People buy brands, they don’t buy companies…. But in Toyota’s case, things are not so clear cut. With the exception of their branding master-stroke of Lexus, Toyota cross-labels every one of its car brands with its corporate brand.

The problem with this kind of corporate brand strategy? Well, when one product in the corporate line-up has a problem, so does the entire corporate brand and all of the individual brands under the corporate umbrella.

In this case: If one of Toyota’s car brands has a problem, it infects all of Toyota’s cars and its corporate image –this won’t happen –or be as grave-- if Chevy has a recall (i.e., the Cadillac brand won’t be touched).

So what now?

Well, it’s crisis management time and after they work their way through the recall, they need to look ahead with marketing in mind.

First, they ought to start unwinding this connection between their corporate brand and their individual car brands. Part of this will be to emphasize the car brands that don’t have the foot pedal problem (i.e., Sienna, Solara, Yaris, 4Runner, FJ Cruiser, Land Cruiser, and the 2010 Prius).

To counter the Toyota contamination? They need to create something like a Toyota Safety Program. For example, every car can come with a card with the car purchaser’s name on it and a booklet that outlines what Toyota will do for the safety of the driver and his/her family. There should be a 24-hour safety hotline that the new purchaser can call and what about a free loaner car to be used by the owner during regular maintenance checkups?

In the face of all the negative, they need to emphasize the positive and remember that marketing begins with fundamental things like separating the individual car brands and putting quality control first.

Toyota must show that it is all about putting its customers first.

Loser Number Two:

What in the name of Newton is going on here?

Naming Apple as this week’s second loser is sad for me after I have trumpeted the virtues of this brand-based company so many times, but I have no choice…

I detect arrogance moving in and arrogance is marketing poison. Arrogance leads to the kinds of mistakes that can only come from thinking that you know your customers better than they know themselves.

What do I mean by this?

Well, first, let’s get through the obvious iPad deficiencies like its awkward (and possibly copyright-infringing) name and its lack of a camera (how could they forget this with 500 million Skype subscribers worldwide and cameras in virtually everything from cell phones to toasters?)…

What I’m really concerned about is Flash video. Turns out that Apple has not made the iPad capable of supporting Adobe Flash video which accounts for over 70% of all video content on the web.

Even Microsoft wouldn’t make this kind of mistake.

Obviously, the Apple consumer has told Apple simply by dint of the percentage of video on the web in Flash that he or she wants a device to be Flash enabled. Not making it so won’t make people abandon Flash, it will make them abandon iPad.

Build-it-and-they-will-come has never worked for any product. Real marketing dictates: build-what-they-ask-for-and-they-will-come.

Still, I won’t sell Apple short. Hopefully, this is only a glitch and the arrogance displayed isn’t a permanent part of their corporate personality.

Next step for Apple? In the weeks ahead, Apple must listen to the consumer and quickly march out updated versions of this product to meet the needs that are so clearly there.

Stay tuned.

John Tantillo “The Marketing Doctor” president of The Marketing Department Of America, and behavioral research psychologist, has worked in marketing industry for more than 20years.

Posted by John at 4:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)