Category Archives: Customer Relationships

The JetBlue Brand Index and Putting Some Skin in the Branding Game

Amy_C_-_2_144_188_c1Amy Curtis McIntyre, the founding CMO of JetBlue, and a guest speaker at last week’s Google B to B Summit in New York, unveiled a new barometer to measure the appeal of your brand. I called it the JetBlue Index in the title of the post, but to give credit where credit is due, it should be called the Curtis-McIntyre Index. Basically, this is how it works:

“If people steal your shit, your brand is in good shape”

Amy was talking about some of the things they introduced through her time with JetBlue, like inflight yoga cards and other promotional materials, and how they had to keep ordering new ones because people kept stealing them. After getting a few complaints from other top execs, she said, “Let me get this right. We produce these things to get people’s attention. People like them so much they actually steal them. And you’re telling me this is a bad thing? Give me the damn phone. I’ll order as much of this shit as people can jam in their purse.” (I probably paraphrased, but I think I got the intent right).

Advertising is all about connecting your internal message with an external audience. If you do it well, it might catch some attention. If you do it extraordinarily well, people might talk about it. If you hit it out of the park, people actually want to keep it. JetBlue hit a home run. It means people felt so strongly about the brand and the message resonated so strongly with them, they had to take it. This is the ultimate challenge. Build a brand message that people use as an indentity badge. Give them something with your brand on it that people can hold up and say, “see, this is me. This is what I’m about.”

So, taking that to the next step, as part of the BrandSense Survey conducted by Martin Lindstrom and Millward Brown, they actually asked people the brand they were most likely to get tattooed on them. This is the ultimate alignment with brand, a permanent brand badge. It’s literally putting some skin in the game.

Here were the top “tattoo” brands

Tattoo Brands – Millward Brown Brand Sense Survey

Brand

Percent

Harley Davidson

18.9

Disney

14.8

Coca-Cola

7.7

Google

6.6

Pepsi

6.1

Rolex

5.6

Nike

4.6

Adidas

3.1

Absolut Vodka

2.6

Nintendo

1.5

Okay, Harley I can understand. Even Disney. But Google? I guess it just shows how important search is to our lives. But more importantly, each of these brands says something about the people that choose to become brand advocates. They’re like personality short hand. If I have a Harley tattoo, you probably know more about me just by knowing that. Likewise with Rolex or Absolut Vodka. Personally, I wouldn’t be going out of my way to spend quality time with any of these individuals, but at least they warned my by tattooing a sign saying “I’m a dickhead” where I can see it, saving me the trouble and time of finding out for myself.

I had a friend in college who used to say he could know everything he needed to know about a person just by knowing what their favorite Beatle was (he was a John Lennon himself). Much as we all like to think we’re complex and multi-dimensional, it’s surprising how such big parts of our personalities fall so easily into common “buckets”. The first time I did a Myers-Briggs test I was a little spooked out by the whole process.

So..I asked myself. Is there a brand I feel that strongly about? Not really, but then, I’m a very complex individual. I might need two tattoos.

The Wisdom of Consumer Crowds?

Following up on the theme of the rewiring of our brains, is the internet making us smarter consumers as well? There certainly seems to be evidence pointing in that direction.

A study by ScanAlert  found that the average online shopper in 2005 took 19 hours between first visiting a store and completing a transaction. In 2007, that jumped almost 79% to 34 hours. We’re taking longer to make up our minds. And we’re also doing our homework. Deloitte’s Consumer Products group recently released research saying 62 percent of consumers read consumer written product reviews on the Internet, and of those, more than 8 in 10 are directly influenced by the reviews.

In James Surowiecki’s Wisdom of Crowds, he believes that large groups, thinking independently with access to a diversity of information, will always make a better collective decision than the smartest individual in the group. Isn’t the Internet wiring this wisdom into more and more purchases? When we access these online reviews, we’re in fact coming to collective decisions about a product, built on hundreds or thousands of individual experiences. As the network expands, we benefit from the diversity of all those opinions and probably get a much more accurate picture of the quality of a product than we ever could from vendor supplied information alone. The marketplace votes for their choice, and the best product should theoretically emerge as the winner.

Of course, nothing works perfectly all of the time. As Surowiecki points out, communication can be an inexact and imperfect process, and information cascades based on faulty inputs can spread faster than ever online. But it’s also true that if a cascade leads to rapid adoption of an inferior product, we’ll discover we’ve been “had” faster and this news can also spread quicker. The connections of online make for a much faster dissemination of information based on experience than ever before, ensuring that the self correcting mechanisms of the marketplace kick into gear faster.

There’s a pass along effect happening here as well. For social networking buffs, you’ve probably heard of Granovetter’s “Weak Ties”. Social networks are made up of dense, highly connected clusters, i.e. families, close friends, co-workers. The social ties within these clusters are strong ties. But spanning the clusters are “weak ties” between more distant acquaintances. The ability for word to spread depends on these weak ties. What the internet does is exponentially increase the number of weak ties, wiring thousands of clusters together into much bigger networks than were ever possible before. This allows word of mouth to travel not only in the physical world but also in the virtual. I looked at a fascinating follow up study to Granovetter’s where Jonathan Frenzen and Kent Nakamoto also looked at the value of the information and the self interest of the individual and their “strong ties” within a cluster as a factor in how quickly word of mouth passes through a network.

Deloitte’s study graphically illustrates the weak tie/strong tie effect. 7 out of 10 of the consumers who read reviews share them with friends, family or colleagues, moving the information that comes through the weak ties of the internet into each cluster, where it spreads rapidly thanks to the efficiency of strong ties. This effect pumps up the power of word of mouth by several orders of magnitude.

But are we also becoming more socially aware in our shopping? The research by Deloitte also seems to indicate this. 4 out of 10 consumers said they were swayed by “better for you” ingredients or components, eco-friendly usage and sourcing, and eco-friendly production or packaging. The internet wires us into communities, so it’s not surprising that we become more sensitive to the collective health of those communities in the process.

What all these leads to is a better informed consumer, who’s not reliant on marketing messaging coming from the manufacturer or the retailer. And that should make us all smarter.

Google’s Perfect Marketplace

In my recent conversation with Michael Ferguson, he brought up the book Net Worth and the concept of infomediaries. I hadn’t read the book (an oversight I’m correcting) but I did a little quick online research. First, here was Michael’s comments:

There’s a book that came out in early 1999 called Net Worth, which you might want to read. I almost want to revisit it myself now. It’s a Harvard Business School book that Marc Singer and John Hagel came out with. It talked about infomediaries and it imagined this future where there’d be these trusted brands and companies. They were thinking along the lines of American Express or some other concurrent banking entity at the time, but these infomediaries would have outside vendors come to them and they would entrust all their information, as much as they wanted to, they could control that, both online and offline.  You were talking in your latest blog post about understanding in the consideration phase where somebody is and presenting, potentially, websites that they hadn’t seen yet or ones that they might like at that point in the car purchase behavior. But the way that they were imagining it was that there would be a credit card that might show that someone had been taking trips from the San Francisco Bay area to the Tahoe region at a certain time of year and had maybe met with real estate agents up there and things like that. But these infomediaries, on top of not just web history but even offline stuff, would be a broker for all that information and there would be this nice marketplace where someone could come and say, “I want to pay $250 to talk to this person right now with this specific message”. So it seems that Google is doing a lot of that, especially with the DoubleClick acquisition. But I’m just wondering about the other side of it, keeping the end user aware of and empowered over that information and where it’s at. So Net Worth is a neat book to check out because the way they were describing it, the end user, even to the broker, would seep out exactly what they wanted to seep out at any given time. It wouldn’t be this passive recording device thing that’s silently taping. My experience so far of using the Google Toolbar that’s allowing the collection of history, is that it’s ambiguous to me about how much of my behavior is getting taken up by that system and used.

So, as Michael says, Google seems to be positioning themselves to be this infomediary. Think about the nexus that’s forming between personalization and Google’s acquisition of every available marketing channel. Google is creating the perfect customer acquisition marketplace. And what’s their typical pricing model? Yes, auction based pricing.

So let’s walk down this path a little. Let’s assume that Google is successful in pushing a high degree of personalization on a significant portion of the population. If you capture all the search history and web history, you have a great data set to predict, with a high degree of accuracy, a consumer’s needs at any given time. The math behind this is not that intimidating for the brain trust that Google has assembled.

Then, let’s factor in Semantic Web functionality. Now, through a series of useful apps, Google takes that personalization data and further adds user value by letting them interact with information. It’s Google’s recent announcement of Universal Search, taken to a new and much more functional level. They’ve already warned us that Universal Search is just the beginning. Google powers the web as our personal assistant, so that for any given life or consumer event, Google is determining our intent, either implicitly or explicitly, and providing us with commercial recommendations. In this case, it’s not really advertising, it’s a helpful recommendation.

Finally, through the Google web of properties, both online and offline, you have the opportunity to present these “commercial recommendations” through a number of reinforced touchpoints. The odds of connecting with an engagement consumer and eliciting the desired conversion are almost 100%.

It’s a perfect marketplace, the ideal match between a prospect and a solution.

So now you have the perfect marketplace, complete with a Google console that lets you target the consumer you want in the way you want. Let’s add one more piece of the puzzle, the pricing model. Auction based pricing has worked pretty well for Google in the past. Why should this be any different. There will of course be a quality scoring component to this. Google is way too obsessive about user experience to just open the bidding to anyone. But let’s say that the Google quality scoring mechanism goes deeper than it does right now, determining exactly the best vendor fits with the determined need and intent of the consumer. Let’s say that Google narrows the list down to the top 10, and then from their database of potential advertisers, who have all indicated what they’re willing to pay for an almost guaranteed customer with an already predetermined ROI (remember, we know with a high degree of accuracy what it is that the prospect is likely to buy), they present the advertiser (or perhaps a few options, as we all like to see options) with the combination of the highest bid price and the highest degree of consumer intent relevancy. Once the bid is accepted, a packaged and personalized message goes out to the prospect through the appropriate channels.

Think for a moment what this does to the entire world of advertising. Hmm…some pretty hefty food for thought.

It’s Not about Control – It’s About Connections!

Pete Blackshaw from Nielsen Buzz Metrics wrote an interesting column this week talking about the fact that CMO’s still have control.  He railed against the absolution of responsibility on the part of marketers, using the new buzzwords of consumer empowerment to justify the fact that they can throw more spam at the average user now because, after all, the user is in control.

“First, the overheated rhetoric acts as a deceptive rationalization. Remember the theory of cognitive dissonance, that testy tension emanating from two conflicting thoughts at the same time. I worry all this talk about consumers being in control relieves dissonance. It allows us to absolve ourselves of treating consumers with respect. Hey, if they have control and, hence, the power, what possible harm could our junk mail, spam intrusiveness, and recklessness do?”

Pete touches on a very interesting point that I’ve talked about in the number of columns and post before.  It’s the idea of brand messaging going beyond the carefully manufactured advertising and marketing channels and being baked right into the DNA of the company.  Now, brand messaging is as much about customer experience and customer service as it is about the message we see in the typical 30 second television spot.  It brings up an interesting question about consumer control.  Is it so much about control as it is about the ability to connect with information in a new way?  As Pete rightly points out, marketers still have control over a number of aspects of the relationship.  It’s impossible to have a two-way relationship with one side being in total control.  The fact is that consumers control part of that relationship and marketers control part of that relationship.  The success of the relationship lies in the ability for the two sides to connect in a mutually beneficial way.  It’s not so much the consumers have taken control from marketers as it is that what was typically much more a one-way relationship has evolved into a two-way relationship.

“At the end of the day, we still control the message and the business processes that shape it, but we may need an alterative path to get there. Product quality, customer service, accurate claims, and employee empowerment are all within our control. And these are the input types that really matter, and always have.”

Let’s explore a little bit closer how this has happened.  It really comes down to the number of channels available for messaging to get from the marketer to the consumer.  It used to be that those channels were tightly controlled and there were only a handful of them.  It goes back to the idea of power constructs.  The last hundred years our society has been all about power constructs.  The paths that lead from the manufacturing of products to the consumption of the products were few and were controlled by the powerful.  This was true in virtually any market you could think of.  With consumer packaged goods the ability of those goods to flow from the manufacturer to the consumer is controlled at various points along that channel by a few powerbrokers.  The same has been true in advertising.  The paths from the advertiser to the consumer were generally controlled by a few very powerful corporations.  Look at how the power construct in advertising typically played itself out:

  • At the top we have the advertiser.
  • Below that we have the advertising agency that was responsible for crafting the message.
  • Next you have the media buyer that takes a message created by the advertising agency and determines the channels to reach the target consumer.
  • Below that you have the channels used to reach the consumer, whether they be broadcast TV, newspaper, magazine or radio stations.
  • Finally, at the bottom, you have the consumer themselves.

All the communication in this channel went one way, from the advertiser down through each of the successive layers until it reached the consumer.  There was no corresponding channel to allow communication from the consumer to flow back through all these gates to the advertiser.  In the case where an advertiser did want to get information from an individual consumer, they would employ a market research company to circumvent the entire power structure of communication and go directly to a handful of representative consumers, determine what they were thinking and report back to the advertiser (or perhaps the advertising agency).  Picture a series of locks on a canal, with all the water flowing one way and with each of the gates of the individual locks designed to let water out and not let water back in.  The only way for water to run back was a small pipeline with a pump on it and the switch to that pump was always in the hands of the advertiser.  They chose when they wanted to listen to the consumer and when they chose to ignore the consumer.  The consumer had virtually no power to push their message back to the advertiser.

Now let’s look at what the Internet did.  The Internet took a highly structured, albeit one way, channel and completely blew it apart.  Now water flows freely back and forth between the advertiser and the consumer.  This not so much took control way from the advertiser and gave it to the consumer as it eliminated (or is in the process of eliminating) the existing structure that information flows through.  It democratized connections.  Rather than a man-made channel with restrictive gates and locks that restrict the flow of information from one place to the other, the Internet has turned the landscape into a vast field during a rainstorm.  Water collects in a thousand tiny pools and flows according to the online landscape.  Advertisers can influence where those flows happened as much as consumers can.  The control of flow is now jointly owned by everyone.  Advertisers have not had their power taken away.  They just have to learn how to share it.  They have to live up to the responsibility that goes with a truly two-way relationship.  Because they can no longer control the channel the message goes through, they have to spend more time controlling the very message itself.  They have to make it bulletproof, capable of withstanding the BS test.  And you have to understand that that message can’t be carefully crafted, it has to be lived.  It encompasses everything they do in the day-to-day operation of their business.  It has to include all the touch points that brand has with the outside world.  Because every touch point is a small puddle in that massive field.  If they manage the information correctly it will flow in the desired direction.  If they abdicate their responsibility of meeting the customer halfway in providing a mutually beneficial proposition, then they have to bear the consequences when the flow goes in the direction they don’t want it to.  And if there is enough momentum in the opposite direction, they will get flooded by a tidal wave of consumer dissent.

All in all, it’s a healthier relationship.  One-way relationships tend not to be sustainable in the long term.  But as with any power shift, there’s a pendulum effect that will likely occur here.  As power finds its natural balancing point, it will likely swing too far in the direction of the consumers before it comes back again.

User-centricity is More than Just a Word

Ever since Time Magazine made you and I the person of the year, user experience has been the two words on the tip of everyone’s tongue. We’re all saying that the user is king and that we’re building everything around them. But I fear that user-centricity is quickly becoming one of those corporate clichés that’s easy to say, but much, much harder to do. All too often I see internal fighting in a lot of companies between those that truly get user centricity and have become the internal user champions and those that are continuing to push the corporate agenda, at the expense of the user experience. The tough part of user centricity is seeing things through the users eyes. We can do user testing but if we truly put the user first, it requires tremendous courage and fortitude to make the user the primary stakeholder. All too often, I see user considerations being one of several factors that are being balanced in the overall design. And often, it takes a backseat to other considerations, such as monetization. This is the trap that Yahoo currently finds themselves in. They talk about user experience all the time. But the fact is, over the last two years it’s really been the advertiser whose’s owned their search results page. I’ve recently seen signs of the balance tipping more towards the user’s favor with the rollout of Panama and a more judicious presentation of top sponsored ads. But I’m still not sure the user is winning the battle at Yahoo!

It’s not easy to step inside your user’s head when it comes to designing interfaces. It’s very tought to toggle the user perspective on and off when you’re going through a design cycle. The feedback we get from usability testing tends to be too far removed from the actual implementation of the design. By that time the meat of the findings has been watered down and diluted to the point where the user’s voice is barely heard. That’s why I like personas as a design vehicle. A well formulated persona keeps you on track. It keeps you in the mindset of the user. It gives you a mental framework you can step into quickly and readjust your perspective to that of the user, not the designer.

If you’re truly going to be user centric, be prepared to take a lot of flack from a lot of people. This is not a promise to be made lightly. You have to commit to it and not let anything dissuade you from delivering the best possible end-user experience, defined in the user’s own terms. This can’t be a corporate feel good thing. It has to be a corporate commitment that requires balls the size of Texas. And if you’re going to make a commitment, you better be damn sure that the entire company is also willing to make the same commitment. The user experience group can’t be a lone bastion for the user, fighting a huge sea of corporate momentum going in the opposite direction. This isn’t about balancing the user in the grand scheme of things, it’s about committing wholeheartedly to them and getting everyone else in the organization to make the same commitment. If you can do so, I think the potential wins are huge. There’s a lot of people talking about user centricity but there’s not a lot of people delivering on it consistently and wholeheartedly.

Getting the Brand Point Across, One Touch Point at a Time

First published February 8, 2007 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

One of the great ironies of marketing is that we’re in the communication business, but many of us aren’t that good at it. And I’m not talking about broadcasting to a million people, I’m talking one-to-one, get-your-point-across communication. We tend to hide our real meaning under reams of spun language, taking the core of the message and wrapping it in the cotton batting of “marketspeak.”

We’ve come to believe that to make a brand message successful, you have to create mental pictures that tie the brand to vague and hopefully attractive emotions. But when it comes down to saying why you should buy something, in a way that hits home with a consumer who’s ready to buy, we’re at a loss for words.

Talking the Talk, Not Walking the Walk

Evidence of this was so painfully and clearly pointed out in a recent study by the Louws Management Corporation, where 80% of 711 advertising and marketing professionals surveyed said they are strongly aware of their company’s brand positioning, but only one fourth of them “can clearly articulate (their) company’s brand position to… clients, customers or prospective clients.”

Perhaps those of us in search have a unique perspective on this. After all, there’s not a lot of room in the few dozen words typically found in a search listing to expound on the warm fuzzies. You’d better get the point across, and fast, because the typical searcher is only going to “engage” with your listing for a few seconds at best before exercising his control and clicking through to your site, or not. You become a marketer of few words, nailing the “hot buttons” quickly and precisely. In fact, we’ve gone too far the other way, convinced that everyone who is searching is also buying immediately, an assumption that’s at least 85% wrong, according to past research we’ve done.

Brand = Experience

But I think there’s something more fundamental and troubling in these survey results. Jakob Nielsen once said that on the Web, branding is much more about experience than exposure. This is true to a profound level that escapes many marketers. In the new world of empowered buyers, they engage with a brand at a thousand different touch points, and every one of those touch points builds a brand “mosaic” — an image of the brand that the buyers participate in building because the Web has empowered them to do so.  Every single member of the company that consumers connect with also helps build this collective brand picture.

And that’s why the findings of this study are so deeply troubling. If 75% of the people who are the marketing stewards of the brand message can’t express it in simple language, what hope is there for the customer service person, in a contracted call center, who, for one customer at one particular point of time, is the entire brand? In this new reality, where brand is built on the front lines, through real contact with real customers, rather than in carefully controlled messaging that comes through a handful of advertising channels, crystal-clear communication within an organization becomes an imperative.

Cult-Like Marketing

In this new definition of marketing, cult-like cultures, an obsessive focus on corporate purpose and company-wide alignment are the prerequisites for success. Brand messaging has to be more than marketspeak, it has to be a mantra, the cornerstone of a strategy that is communicated to every member of the company repeatedly, clearly and fervently. It has to be a concept so crystal clear, so absolutely unambiguous, that there can be no questioning what it means. Every single member of the company has to have it on the tip of their tongue – and, infinitely more important, embedded deep within their beliefs. That’s the only way it can be consistently spread through the thousands and millions of interactions and conversations that make up the new brand mosaic.

Digital Voyeurism: The New Reality

I remember the first time I went to my local gym and saw a new sign, hastily hand drawn and posted, announcing that cell phones were no longer allowed in the change rooms. It took me a minute or two to get it, but I finally figured it out. Ahh..they come with cameras now.

There are two dimensions to this that I wanted to briefly explore. First of all, with digital cameras everywhere, businesses have to be more careful about the face they show to the public, because it’s likely that if their bad side is showing, there’ll be someone there to snap a picture. Consider the example of one Kohl’s store in Dallas.

kohls5_2A shopper visited the store in the post Christmas season, found a store that looked like a tornado just ripped through it and just happened to have a cell phone with a camera and a fairly well read blog. It gets worse. His post happened to catch the eye of Seth Godin, who has one of the most read blogs on the Web. The result? A PR nightmare for Kohl’s. And this can happen anywhere. The next time a character at Disneyworld alledgedly sucker punches a guest, you can count on a camera being nearby. It’s enough to make your average PR Director retire to a remote Caribbean isle, one without internet connections.

The second implication has to do with personal privacy. If there are pictures snapped of us, and they get posted to the web without our knowing, or our permission, what will the fall out be? They’re there for the whole world to see, through any one of a number of image search engines. Fellow SearchInsider David Berkowitz explores that in his column today:

“The overarching issue, the one that’s most likely to keep me up at night, is, “Do we have to entirely relinquish our right to privacy?” If the answer is yes, then it simplifies the issue. We press forward with every technological innovation, privacy be damned. We accept that everything we say can be recorded, and it’s not just to improve customer service.”

Smile..you’re on Candid Camera!