Category Archives: Rants

Every so often I have to blow off steam. These are the results

Still Live (But Slightly Bruised) from Park City, Utah

First published December 14, 2007 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

Yesterday at the Search Insider Summit in Park City, I was precariously perched out on a limb. I kicked off the summit by defending my position that big agencies won’t “get” search. Given that the Summit attracts a fair number of attendees from the world of big agencies, I’m wondering if the organizers of the show (thanks, Nick… thanks, Ken) were setting me up for an unfortunate ski jump accident.

My opponent in the debate was Mike Margolin. If you’ll check the comments on the blog from the previous column, you’ll see that Mike and I started the debate there, and have now brought it to the ski hills of Utah.

“Doing” and “Getting” Are Two Different Things

My position is that search is something big agencies will “do” because they have to, but they’ll do so reluctantly. Search is not aligned to the cultural or creative DNA that defines a big agency. So, they’ll never “get” search.

Mike’s position is that big agencies will absolutely “get” search, because they have no choice. The big agency table is where the brand strategies are determined, and search will play an integral role in that. In fact, if you’re not at the table, you’ll be shut out.

What Does History Teach Us?

The argument is a good one. It’s logical and seeming inevitable. But if you look at history, it’s also without much precedent.

When discontinuous innovation happens (and search is definitely a discontinuous innovation) it’s almost never the established power players that adopt it and capitalize on it. I previously used the example of the adoption of electricity by corporate America, another discontinuous innovation. Then, the big, established companies had invested heavily in steam power. It took them 50 years to adopt electricity, even though the advantages of electrical power were obvious. By the time they made the move, younger, smaller, faster-moving and more nimble companies had passed them by. Many of the industrial dinosaurs never recovered and died away.

That’s how evolution works. The succeeding species replaces the previously entrenched one because of a change in DNA — but also because the existing power species underestimates the importance of that change.Why would the dinosaurs change? From their vantage point, towering over the mammals, they were invulnerable. It was inevitable that they would prevail. Or so it seemed at the time.

How’s the View Up There?

From the big agencies’ perspective, high atop their vast media-buying empires, the agency monoliths seem invulnerable. It’s only if you’re scurrying around down here at ground level that you see the cracks in the ground underneath them.

Finally, let’s touch on the fact of just how important search is. Search is just the thin edge of the wedge that’s forever changing the nature of marketing. Mass marketing is gone. Micro marketing is here, but the thing that makes search so fundamentally important is pull versus push. It’s about people (as fellow columnist Kaila Colbin pointed out in Tuesday’s column ), but more than that, it’s about knowing them and meeting them halfway, one person at a time. That’s what search does, and what it will do with increasing effectiveness over the next decade. This market doesn’t lend itself to mass campaigns. Instead, it means millions of micro campaigns.

But here’s the fundamental reason why agencies won’t embrace search and its pull versus push paradigm. Agencies persuade. It’s why they exist. Their jobs are to use everything at their disposal — creativity, cleverness, research, targeting, emotional appeals — whatever it takes to get us to buy something. That fits well with their push mentality. That’s why agencies love TV. At this point, TV is still the most persuasive medium out there.

But you can’t persuade someone in search. Advertisers have tried, and it’s failed miserably. Search is, at best, multiple-choice. Pick from A, B, C or D, based on which you think is the best match for your intent. There’s no room for persuasion. There’s only what’s present, and picking, and the last of these, the fundamental outcome of search, is totally in the user’s control. We spend a few seconds making our decision. We don’t even read the text. We don’t need to be persuaded to learn more. We’ve already made that choice. So we’re immune to persuasion when we’re on a search engine. In fact, we’ll purposely ignore it. By trying to do search, agencies are going against their most fundamental nature.

The Evolving Whiff of Authenticity

I have a theory. Actually, I have several theories, but one in particular at the top of my mind today. I believe we are getting much better at sniffing out BS online.

In face to face encounters, we’re remarkably good at determining if someone’s authentic or not. We pick up cues, consciously and subconsciously, that allow us to make pretty accurate judgements as to the integrity and honesty of an individual. This “gut feel” that seems so vague is actually a sophisticated interplay of activity in various parts of our brain. Although we may not believe it, we’re all pretty good judges of character most of the time. It’s a survival mechanism. It’s not perfect, but it’s pretty good.

But what if we’re not face to face with someone? That is one of the challenges of the Internet. Often, we have to make judgements about information and the validity of opinions when we can’t see the person eye to eye. There is no editor on the internet, making sure everything we read is accurate and verified. It’s up to us to make the call. We have to act as our own editorial filters, reading between the billions of lines of HTML that are available to us.

Which leads us to something that was a little troubling to me that I heard this week. Every morning here at Enquiro, we have a “huddle” where we each share any news that we have heard that may be of interest to the team. Yesterday morning, Kyle Grant, who just returned from PubCon in Vegas, said he met a representative from a company that fakes blog posts. Basically, you feed the story you want spread about your product or service, and they hire a army of bloggers to post about it. It’s manufactured “buzz”.

Now, it’s not really surprising. As another team member mentioned, you can do the same thing with review comments, forum posts and other forms of commercial consumer generated comments. The door is open, so it’s natural that someone will figure out a way to squeeze through it and game the system. That too is part of human nature.

So, that really puts the onus on each of us to judge how authentic the content is we’re relying on online. And that get’s us back to my theory. I think we’re pretty good. I believe, in the relatively short time we’ve been online, we can pick up the “whiff of authenticity” or, conversely, the “whiff of BS” on most sites. We can tell what’s real and what’s manufactured. We can sort out the meat from the Spam. Like our face to face filters, they’re probably not perfect, but they work most of the time. We will be taken (as Lonelygirl15 showed) but sooner or later, we’ll get to the heart of what’s real.

The other thing that’s unique about the web is that we don’t have to rely just on ourselves to do this. For some reason, there’s still an unspoken law online that we will be diligent (in fact, virulent) about uncovering bogus garbage online. We revel in exposing the seedy underbelly of our culture. The internet has let a breath of fresh air into the previously stiffled world of media control. Before, we were expected to believe anything that came to us through the supposedly pre filtered channels that feed us our view of the outside world. The nightly news, the daily newspaper, the weekly news magazine. As was proven when Dan Rather’s journalistic integrity (or lack of same) was exposed online, we’re probably safer trusting the crazy patchwork quilt of information we get online than we are with the carefully spoon-fed news items we’re get every night through the networks.

Ultimately online, right will prevail, and it will do so much quicker than was true in the power controlled world of just one generation ago. We are less trusting and we are developing a much healthier cynical streak. Every time a door is open for all of us to have a voice, we will see parasitic companies scrambling to push through it, trying to capitalize on our collective gullability. And they’ll thrive, for awhile. But it’s a short term game, because I believe strongly that most times, we’re not as stupid as we look.

Brand Live and Die Face to Face

iStock_000004520845XSmallThe more I dig, the more I’m convinced that a big part of a brand’s success is the quality of its customer touch points, specifically, the face to face ones. Consider this overwhelming evidence:

The more emotion there is in an experience, the more vividly we remember it. It’s known as imprinting. So if we have very positive or very negative experiences, we remember them longer and more completely. Let’s say we visit a restaurant. If we have a terrible experience, we’ll remember it forever. If it was an amazing experience, again, we’ll remember it forever. If it’s mediocre and falls in the middle, it will tend to fade away.

Our memories are altered by the context in which we remember them. Let’s go back to our restaurant example. Whatever our experience, we will tend to alter it if we’re talking to a person who also had an experience with the same restaurant. If they had a great experience, but ours was negative, we’ll tend to alter our memory to make it more positive. Alternatively, if we had a positive experience, but someone else’s was terrible, suddenly we’ll alter our memory to make it less positive. This doesn’t tend to swing memories all the way from good to bad, but it alters and reshapes memories to better fit the context of recall. And over time, it can erode a once very good memory, or build up a rather negative one. Memory is not an accurate snapshot of an event, it’s a malleable story. So consistency of experience is important.

We get a much richer channel of communication when we’re face to face with a person. Studies have shown that receive only 7% of our communication from the words that are used. The other 93% is a combination of body language and tone of voice. So no matter how carefully you script your frontline customer encounters, the success will depend on the person delivering the message. We have very finely attuned credibility detectors.

The quality of the face to face interaction is the biggest factor in how satisfied we are in a product experience. Malcolm Gladwell used the example of doctors being sued for malpractice.

“Believe it or not, the risk of being sued for malpractice has very little to do with how many mistakes a doctor makes…. Patients don’t file lawsuits because they’ve been harmed by shoddy medical care. Patients file lawsuits because they’ve been harmed by shoddy medical care and something else happens to them.

“What is that something else? It’s how they were treated, on a personal level, by their doctor. What comes up again and again in malpractice cases is that patients say they were rushed or ignored or treated poorly. ‘People just don’t sue doctors they like,’ is how Alice Burkin, a leading medical malpractice lawyer, puts it. ‘In all the years I’ve been in business, I’ve never had a potential client walk in and say, “I really like this doctor, and I feel terrible about doing it, but I want to sue him.”

Medical researcher Wendy Levinson found that doctors that weren’t sued spent 3 minutes more with patients than those that were (18.3 minutes versus 15). But it wasn’t just time, it was the quality of time. More simply, it was the tone of the doctor’s voice. Recordings of interactions with doctors were recorded and then were played back for study participants, who then put the doctors into two groups, those that would be sued and those that wouldn’t be. The recordings were altered so participants couldn’t hear what was said, all they could judge was the tone of the voice. And even with this, they were able to judge with amazing accuracy which doctors would be sued. It wasn’t what was said, it was how it was said.

When you look at corporate examples, the power of person to person connections are clear in cases like JetBlue and Saturn. In both cases, the extraordinarily high level of customer satisfaction was due primarily to the quality of the face to face encounters. JD Powers rated the Saturn among the highest vehicles in terms of satisfaction not because it was a better car. It was because their dealer network didn’t follow the typical industry model, which was more like a school of piranhas. JetBlue’s employees had a mandate: make flying coach suck less.

Why is this important to remember? Because of the coming workforce crisis. The baby boom is shifting the majority of our workforce to the end of their working lives, and there’s a severe shortage at the entry level, typically the recruitment bed for service based businesses. This means good people are going to get tougher and tougher to find.

Also, there’s a move to cut costs by streamlining and outsourcing those vital customer touch points. Self serve customer service models are becoming more common, and in many cases, they’re backed up by a customer help line that’s been outsourced to an overseas call center. The call center has been provided the appropriate scripts, and, in most cases, adequate training on how to field a complaint. But, as we’ve seen, that’s really only 7% of the problem. The other 93% is connecting with a person who really cares about your problem and is trying to help you. That’s something you can’t script.

Let me give you an example. My wife and I recently flew to Lisbon on British Airways. We had to connect through Heathrow. I booked my flight directly through BA, but my wife flew on points, so that flight was booked through a partner airline. Both flights had less than an hour layover in Heathrow, and we had to change terminals. I didn’t really notice this at the time of booking, but soon, my partner airline notified us that they had moved my wife back to a later flight to allow her to make the connection. As anyone who has connected through Heathrow will tell you, the odds of making a connection with less than one hour is slim to nil.

I called British Airways to get my flight pushed back and was connected to what was obviously an overseas call center. The person on the other end, if they were considering a medical career, would be a sure bet to be nailed with a malpractice suit. The manner was brusque and indifferent. He informed me that they could change the flight, but there would be a $200 change fee, about 1/3 of the total cost of the flight. Plus, I would have to pay any difference in fares. I tried to explain to the person that the layover time wasn’t adequate and that BA screwed up with the initial booking, but to no avail. Finally, I hung up in frustration, to allow myself to cool down a little.

I resigned myself to the fact that I was going to have to cough up the extra $200, and phoned back a week later to make the change. This time, I got a much friendlier person who looked up my reservation and informed me that my flight had automatically been pushed back because an hour wasn’t an adequate connection time. I asked when this had happened and what had triggered the change. They said it was a flag that was automatically put up in the system so many days prior to a flight and had nothing to do with my previous call. It was the system correcting itself.

Everything worked out okay with BA, and the flight was actually one of the best transatlantic flights I had. But the poor quality of one encounter left an overall negative impression rather than a positive one. And, as reinforcement of it, when I was talking to a friend who had recently flown to Spain on British Airways, they had had exactly the same problem. Our respective memory retrievals quickly turned into a BA-bashing spree.

Realize the importance of person to person, and if you have to short cut anywhere, don’t short cut here. It’s the most important part of your business.

What’s Wrong with Market Research

sharingbrainWhen we first started doing research at Enquiro into how people used search, we found very quickly that what people say and what people do are very different things. It just happened that we were doing a survey and a focus group at roughly the same time. In the survey, where we got the results first, we asked if things like the position of a listing was important in whether people read it or not. We asked people to rank a number of factors on their relative importance, including position, relevancy and trust in brands and vendors shown. Almost without exception, in the survey, people indicated that relevancy was the key factor. They also indicated that they read listings pretty carefully and gave a fair amount of thought before selecting one. Finally, many said they would never click on a paid listing.

Then, we invited about 30 people into our labs and actually recorded their interactions with the search engines (before our eye tracking studies) and it quickly became obvious that how they said they used a search engine and how they actually did were two different things. The vast majority of clicks happened in the first few listings. Many who indicated they wouldn’t click on paid listings actually did, and perhaps, most interestingly, the average interaction was around 10 seconds or so. Subsequently, we’ve seen this type of behavior repeated in eye tracking after eye tracking study. Of course, the famous golden triangle study we did with Eyetools and Did It, and subsequent ones conducted by Enquiro, have shown over and over how quickly we interact with a search engine and how much of our scanning activity is “top loaded”. Also, we don’t really skip over sponsored listings, but in some circumstances (research based activity) we’re less likely to click on them. We’ve used this body of research to come up with a fairly consistent model of how people interact with search results. The results belie what people indicated in our very first survey. Well over 60% of the clicks happened in the first 4 or 5 listings, including the top sponsored ones. People generally spent just a few seconds on the page (around 10 to 12 seems to be the average) in which they scan (not read) 4 to 5 listings. There was almost no deliberation. People click quickly, and if they don’t like what they see, they click back. It would take the average person about 2 minutes to actually read all the results on the average search results page. Even if we just read the top 4 or 5, we’d be spending about 30 to 40 seconds on the page. It takes about 7 seconds to read one listing. But we don’t spend much longer than this covering 4 to 5 listings, about 2 seconds per listing. Obviously, we don’t give a lot of thought to the credibility of the search listings.

So, were all 1600 of our original survey respondents liars? Were they intentionally misleading us? No, they were just being human.

What we found was the systemic fault with almost all market research. And there’s a very good explanation for it. We’re generally not aware of 95% of what we do or why we do it. That’s because much or what we do is hidden in our subconscious. I’m currently reading How Customers Think by Gerald Zaltman and he pinpoints the problem with traditional market research. In almost every case, we ask people to tell us, either verbally or through writing, what they’re thinking. Just by doing this, we kick in the cortex, the rational seat of our intellect. But Zaltman tells us that at least 95% of every decision is made subconsciously. There, in the murky depths of our brains, predating the evolution of our cortex by many millions of years, thoughts are created through tremendously complex connections of memories, beliefs, instincts and intuition. In many cases, our decisions are made long before they bubble up to our conscious minds. The conscious mind exists to put a little polish on them and, in most cases, to rationalize a decision that was largely based on primal instincts. We may have done what we did because our flight or fight mechanism kicked in, or because our need to procreate surfaced. That’s why we chose the minivan, or the red convertible. It really had nothing to do with the Consumer Reports rating. But, being highly evolved humans, we convince ourselves that our choices are much more rational than those of a lizard (our basic brain core, which rules many of our decisions, is basically the same as a reptile’s brain).

In our case, our initial respondents indicated that they deliberated over which search result they chose. In actual fact, there was little risk in choosing a wrong link (it’s not like our lives, our family or our money is at stake), so we cut off the amount of deliberation we did and after a quick scan, picked the result that seemed to be most relevant to our intent. The lack of deliberation wasn’t lack of intelligence, it was a survival instinct bred into us by eons of evolutionary refinement. If there’s no immediate risk to us, why should we kick in our brains and spend unnecessary time and cortex processing power to come to the optimal decision. It’s not required. A simple scan and click will suffice. Our brains are simply doing what they’ve been programmed to do. And it’s not that the decisions are bad. As Malcolm Gladwell shows in Blink, often these decisions prove to be better than the ones that we endlessly deliberate over. Our brains, especially the 95% that remains under the surface, are amazingly adept at making good decisions.

But there’s a more fundamental issue here. If what we experienced in search is typical in all market research (which it is) how do we ever find out how people actually make purchase decisions?

This is a significant challenge, the extent of which might not be obvious at first glance. Let me use an analogy to further illustrate. Remember the tale of the shoemaker and the elves? Let me use that and adapt it slightly for my purposes. For those of you unfamiliar with the story, a poor shoemaker only has enough leather left for one pair of shoes. He cuts the leather and lays it out for stitching the next morning. He awakes, amazed to find the shoes made, and meticulously crafted at that. Elves apparently helped out during the night, soon to bring fame and fortune to the shoemaker.

But what if the elves didn’t exist. What if, instead, the shoemaker was actually making the shoes in his sleep? The idea is not so ridiculous. Rumor has it that Coleridge actually wrote Kubla Khan during a dream, and managed to scribble it down before it faded from his consciousness. As any psychiatrist will tell you, we’re closest to our subsconscious when we’re hovering between sleep and wakefulness. It’s about the only time we get a glimpse into those murky depths.

So let’s say our shoemaker actually makes the shoes in some bizarre bout of sleepwalking. He awakes every morning, to find the shoes nearly perfectly finished. All he needs to do is add the laces and a bit of polish. And the shoes are fair more carefully crafted then he could ever accomplish while awake.

The shoemaker really isn’t aware of where the shoes come from. In fact, as time goes on, and as he receives more and more recognition for the quality of his workmanship, he begins to believe that it’s solely due to the little bit of work he does while he’s awake, threading the laces and adding a little polish. He learns to ignore the 95% of the work that’s done while he’s asleep.

Now, imagine someone comes to ask him why his shoes are so exceptionally crafted. Would he admit the truth and say he doesn’t know? No, pride and genuine lack of knowledge would keep him from saying that. He has no idea what he does while he’s asleep. It’s almost as if someone else did the work for him. His conscious brain would kick in and come up with some perfectly rational but completely untrue explanation. Clotaire Rapaille, in his book The Culture Code, cites an example of this:

In a classic study, the nineteenth-century scientist Jean-Martin Charcot hypnotized a female patient, handed her an umbrella, and asked her to open it. After this, he slowly brought the woman out of her hypnotic state. When she came to, she was surprised by the object she held in her hand. Charcot then asked her why she was carrying an open umbrella indoors. The woman was utterly confused by the question. She of course had no idea of what she had been through and no memories of Charcot’s instructions. Baffled, she looked at the ceiling. Then she looked back at Charcot and said, “It was raining.”

This is what happens in almost every instance of market research. Our buying decisions are like the shoemaker’s shoes. They’re usually quite good, but we have little idea how they came into being.

For most of the history of marketing, we’ve been restrained by the limitations of market research. It’s only recently, through advancements in cognitive psychology and brain scanning technologies that we’re beginning to get a glimpse of what might actually be happening. My next post (tomorrow) why it’s important that we keep trying.

Caution Will Kill You in the Search Game

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

A strange thing started happening to me in the last two years or so. As I became more vocal about my opinion, people started seeking it out more often. The more I shared it, the more people nodded their heads. And the more obnoxious I got about it, the more people jumped on my own little opinion bandwagon. It you look at comments to this column as an indicator of striking chords, it seems like I touch cords either when I’m being a total dickhead (increasingly frequent) or introspective and emotionally deep (a much rarer occurrence). But other than a “right-on” post or comment, and the vigorous nodding of heads, I’m not sure it will go much further than that. Inside, we all like to be smarter than our bosses and a little bit revolutionary. But on the surface, where we live and work, we go with the flow. I call it the Cluetrain Conundrum.

The Cluetrain Manifesto was posted in 1999, when the Internet was still new and bold and gritty. Much of the initial grass-roots appeal that tweaked the interest of Messrs. Locke, Weinberger and Searles has since been paved over to make room for commercial storefronts. At the time of publishing, as an in-your-face, spit-in-your-boss’s-coffee and laugh-all-the-way-to-the-corporate-bathroom call to action against the cluelessness of the command and control establishment, it attracted its own rush of “right-ons.”. In fact, since it went online, thousands have signed the Manifesto. It seemed like the world could change. But now, eight years later, we’re still waiting.

You see, it’s one thing to say you’re ready to change. It’s another to convince the rest of the people in all the cubicles in all the offices in all the world that you’re right. You know it, and the person in the next cubicle knows it, but the chowderheads in the X-0 suites seem intent on running the company off the cliff. Why? In a word, caution.

No, Really, Tell Me what You Think…

In the last few months, I’ve been asked for my opinion on how to improve certain search properties. I think the people asking me are hoping for an answer like this: “You see all these ads you’re trying to get people to click on? Well, all you have to do is move them here and put this colored box behind them, and people will sprain a finger trying to buy from your advertisers. It’s that simple!”

Of course, it’s not. It’s understanding all the things that the Cluetrain authors were trying to get across. It’s understanding that markets are conversations, that we’re sick of advertising, that we long for authenticity and transparency, and that we can sniff insincerity and BS a mile away. It’s saying that you have to worry about users first, build up truckloads of trust, and then figure out how to make money. And that’s just not likely to happen when you already have an existing search property.

The problem is that you’re already somewhat successful. There’s existing revenue and advertisers. Generally speaking, although attrition is higher than you’d like, most of the advertisers keep coming back. And as long as they’re doing that, management won’t be very motivated to change. Because the changes required are not simple fixes. They’re stripping things down to the foundations and rebuilding for the user. And that means a lot of money, and almost certainly lost revenue in the short term, against the remote possibility of long-term gain. That’s a ton of risk, and it’s not surprising that someone in the C-level executive wing is unwilling to stake their corporate reputations on this particular roll of the dice. There’s a lot better chance you’ll go down in flames than be crowned a hero.

The Illusion that You Have a Choice

But the irony here is that while it appears you have a choice, you really don’t. Because if you don’t take this chance, someone with a lot less to lose will. And eventually, that someone else will win. They’ll win, and you’ll lose, because Web traffic is a zero-sum game. Just ask every search engine who’s not Google. So while it appears there’s way too much to lose by reinventing your business model, it’s much, much riskier not to. Because as much as you think you’re in control of your business, you’re not. The users are, and you have them now by the simple virtue of there not being a better place to go — yet. In the Internet world, there will always be a better place to go, eventually. Either you build it or someone else will.

Last month, in a hotel lobby, I was having this conversation with somebody who had asked me my opinion. I basically told him what I’m telling you today and asked him if his company had the courage to do this. He wasn’t sure, and asked how important it was. I said it depends on the competition. He was a little reassured, because their competition is even more cautious. The reassurance was short-lived when I replied, “Ah, but that’s the competition you know about. Chances are, this is going to come completely out of the blue and you won’t know what hit you.”

I suspect people are going to stop asking my opinion.

Canadian Car Buyers Calling BS on Higher Prices

The internet is a wonderful thing.

graph120In the last 5 years, and particularly in the last few months, the Canadian dollar has rocketed in value against the US greenback. It doesn’t seem that long ago that a Canadian dollar was worth about 60 cents American. Now, we’re pushing the $1.08 range, and there seems to be no end in site. In the last 120 days alone, our dollar has gained over 16 cents against it’s American counterpart.

Now, as you might imagine, this has a number of implications for Canadians. It’s good for cross border shopping, but terrible for exporters. One area that wasn’t so good was car buying. When the values of our respective dollars were flipped, we could understand why we had to pay 10 to 15 thousand more for the average vehicle. It was a simple exchange rate calculation. But why did the price gap remain when our dollar started to rise?

Just today, I went to Toyota’s Canadian website (toyota.ca) to see what a fully loaded Prius would cost, delivered and ready to drive. The price tag came to just over $41,000. The exact same vehicle, just across the border in Spokane, Washington? $28,000. And remember, that’s $41,000 Canadian. If we calculate at current exchange rates, that’s $44, 300. Everytime we buy a vehicle, Canadian’s are getting screwed, in this case, to the tune of over $16,000.

Now, thanks to the transparency of the web (it took me about 4 minutes to figure out the extent to which Toyota was screwing us) Canadians figured out pretty quickly that we were being had, which lead to a flurry of cross border shopping. Suddenly, vehicles were flying off the lot, headed north for the border. The manufacturer’s answer? Certainly not to consider a pricing change. No, they forbid US dealers to sell to Canadians. Of course, in today’s world, for every wall you put up, a dozen holes are quickly rammed through it. The auto brokership business is thriving, thank you.

Now, as a Canadian, that makes me furious. There’s no excuse for it. The media have started to pick up on this and there is some pressure on the manufacturers, all of which have remained stonily silent. I suspect that if the reverse were true, and American’s were being fleeced out of $16,000 everytime they buy a vehicle, they’d be a little more responsive. I did hear Buzz Hargrove, spokesman for the Canadian Auto Workers Union, say that this wasn’t about pricing, it was about keeping jobs in Canada by supporting the Canadian auto industry. What? Like the Canadian auto industry is supporting us by giving us clear, fair and transparent pricing? Buzz, you have your head up your ass. This is about not treating customers like a bunch of stupid sheep. It’s about doing the right thing and valuing us. And if you can’t do that, you don’t deserve your jobs. I want Canada to be able to compete in a fair and open market place, not by slipping a fast one past your neighbours.

By the way, this is not just about cars. We’re paying more for pretty much everything. If you’re in Canada, pick up a book and see the Canadian price, relative to the American price. We’re paying about 40% more. A friend of mine actually had some US cash with him and tried convincing the seller to give him the US price if he paid in US cash. It didn’t work.

Now, there’s are somethings that will always be more expensive in Canada. We’re a big country, a lot of areas are fairly remote and we have a different tax structure. I’m not expecting parity with the US. I’m expecting fair pricing. I’m expecting a frictionless marketplace that let’s the customer decide.

What the manufacturer’s, like Toyota, don’t seem to understand is that in today’s world, the customer isn’t ignorant. We know when we’re being screwed. And we don’t like it. Why would you expect us to react differently?

Why Do We Keep Buying from Bad Businesses?

There’s an Italian grocery store in the town I live in. In fact, there are two. Most of our family, including my wife, shops at the one. They very seldom go to the other. Yet, I constantly hear how bad the service is at the store they frequent. I’ve heard hair raising stories (I’m not sure how true they are because I don’t personally shop there) of repackaging outdated products so the best before date didn’t show, rancid cheeses, repackaging produce so the rotten ones were out of sight at the bottom of the package and the owner cruising other grocery stores, buying outdated products from them and then selling them in his own store. And if you happen to take something back and complain, you’re immediately questioned as someone who is trying to scam the store. At best, the store takes a “you should know better, buyer beware” attitude. Now, it’s a generational thing as well. The owner ascribes to the “whatever it takes to get ahead” school of business, where his children, who are gradually getting more involved, seem to be a little less clueless about the importance of happy customers and are trying to change things.

But my wife keeps buying there. Why?

The competition doesn’t seem to have the same problems, or at least, not to the same extent. My wife never shops there. Again, I ask, why?

Well, according to my wife and the few other family members I asked, it comes down to three things. Convenience, price and some twisted sense of obligation to the family that runs the offending store. I suspect the last one has a lot to do with Italian culture, so may not be applicable in all circumstances. (Incidentally, they used to know the family that ran the other store but stopped patronizing it when they sold to store to owners they didn’t know).  But the other two, price and convenience, are, I suspect, more universal motivations.

I’ve seen it myself. I hate shopping at Walmart. Most people I know hate shopping at Walmart. It’s too big, too messy, too loud and the service generally sucks. But I shop there. Why? Because of price and convenience. It saves me a stop somewhere else, because it has a little of everything. And the prices are generally lower than the competition’s.

Seth Godin himself, the king of the Purple Cow and remarkable products, regularly blogs about bad experiences he’s had with businesses he’d rather not frequent. Bad airlines, bad theme parks, bad hotels. And I use Seth as an example purposefully. There’s probably no one on the planet more active in exposing bad business, but even he’s still giving them his money, and then bitching about it after. Why? I suspect convenience and price are the culprits.

Now, sometimes, there’s literally no alternative. One of the worst airline experiences I ever had was on United. Try as I might, I just couldn’t find another flight from Chicago to Toronto that got me there anywhere close to the times I needed, so I had to suck it up and fly United. And sure enough, United delivered the experience I was expecting. In fact, they exceeded my expectations, but not in a good way.

We keep crowing about the new control consumers wield. But with that control comes responsibility. We complain about bad advertising and bad businesses, but we continue to patronize them. We absolve ourselves of any blame for the twisted, greedy, profit crazed culture we’ve spawned over the past century. But it wouldn’t be this way if we simply stopped buying from bad businesses. Ultimately, we’re to blame. We might have to pony up 10% more on occasion, or go a little out of our way so we don’t have to worry about getting two rotten tomatoes at the bottom of the package or a bag of rancid pasta. One of the beautiful things about our free market economy is that if people stop buying, companies go out of business. If you’re bitching about a business, remember, it’s you that’s keeping them in business.

Gord’s Weekly Rants: Agency Cluelessness, Measuring Engagement & Selective Perception

I’ve been a little grumpy this week. And you can tell from the two columns I wrote.

First, in MediaPost, I took on big agencies and the continued cluelessness I see around search:

Will Agencies Get Search: Don’t Hold Your Breath

It seems like anytime I have a conversation with anyone who knows search and its effectiveness, we always come back to the same question: “Why don’t more ad agencies and brand advertisers get search?”

Then I decided to take a swipe at the ARF’s ill fated attempt to create a one size all metric around engagement. In this column for Search Engine Land, I dove fairly deep into how we psychologically perceive and cognitize ads. If selective perception, schemas and priming are your bag, check it out.

Taking On ARF, Engagement, Interruptive Advertising… And Whatever Else You’ve Got!

In 2005, The Advertising Research Foundation (ARF), through their MI4 Initiative, decided to embark on the Quixotic quest of defining engagement. The impetus was finding a more appropriate and applicable metric that could stretch across the rapidly expanding number of channels that were exploding through digital delivery. So, the good folks at ARF assembled a bunch of agency people, various publishers and yes, even a few search marketers, to try to thrash out a definition for a standard metric that could apply equally to video, print, digital display, audio and text. I watched the proceedings from the sideline with skepticism.

It’s sounds trite to say there’s a revolution happening in marketing. Everybody, including CMO’s for the big brands and big agency flacks are saying the same thing. Almost everyone is talking the talk. But almost no one is walking the walk. I guess it’s a lot easier to say than to do. And I think that’s the sticking point. More and more, marketing is about delivering on every customer experience opportunity. And that’s not a marketing function. That’s the very DNA of a company. Agencies can’t do that for you. It requires a CEO that tends to get obsessive and dictatorial about the core purpose of the company (Disney and family entertainment, Jobs and design, Neeleman and a better flying experience, Brin, Page and User defined relevancy).

Through my research, I’m finding that an intellectual level, everybody gets that something fundamental is happening here. There are thousand of signatories of the Cluetrain Manifesto, published in 2000, 7 years ago. Every one of them says, “Right on, absolutely, you guys rock!” (I paraphrase). How come, then, I still see some many crappy customer experiences, advertising seems less authentic, more intrusive and louder than ever, and clueless corporations with questionable ethics and continuing control fantasies. Because, it’s one thing to be a silent revolutionary who’s read the subversive manifesto and smirkingly nods their head in agreement. But how do you do something about it? Unless you have X-O level support, you’re doomed to failure.

Example, one of the signatories: – “I’m on the train! Now, can you send this to my CEO?” Holly Harrington, Web Developer, Intel

What’s needed is a true revolution where some corporate monarchs are toppled and the rebels take control. We need more corporate juntas. But those just don’t happen, do they? Because when your Corporation X, with umpteen billions in annual revenue, who’s going to have the guts to say, “Hey, we’re doing it all wrong and we have to change everything” and to do that in full knowledge that it will decimate earnings for at least 5 years. No, we’re not going to see the change for the big corporations. American Airlines or United is never going to say, “God, flying on our planes suck”. It’s going to come from the JetBlues, the Googles and the next generation who get the fact that it’s all about giving people something to talk about.

Will Agencies Get Search? Don’t Hold Your Breath

First published November 1, 2007 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

It seems like anytime I have a conversation with anyone who knows search and its effectiveness, we always come back to the same question: “Why don’t more ad agencies and brand advertisers get search?”

Just this week, I was having this conversation. Twice, in fact. One of my pet peeves is an arbitrary allocation of budget to search, with no regard for the objectives of a cross-channel campaign. “We’ll take this pile and give it to television. We’ll take this slightly smaller pile and give it to print. Here’s a small pile for online, and, oh, make sure you take a little bit of that and set it aside for search, because everyone’s telling us we should be doing search.” I guess I shouldn’t be complaining. At least there’s now a little bit left over for search, which is a vast improvement from where we were just a few years ago.

But what this approach does is force your search campaign to be managed to budget, rather than to overall objectives. So we see more restrictive targeting, movement down the tail into longer and more specific key phrases, day parting and flighting, geo targeting and other ways to slice and dice the campaign to get the best quality clicks from the budget available.

Now, there’s nothing wrong with this. It’s called campaign optimization. But it’s often done to keep within an arbitrary budget cap that has no logical reason to exist. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Search dollars should be the first ones in, not the last. Take as much search inventory as you can get. Judge your costs per acquisition not against your top performing keywords, but against your other channels, both online and offline. If even the marginal search traffic is generating a lower CPA, beg, borrow and steal as much budget as you can and top up search. Only then should you move from “pull” (prospects holding up their hands to purchase through search) to “push” (trying to persuade latent prospects to purchase). Only put restrictions on your search campaign if you’re absolutely certain that another channel can exceed its effectiveness.

The Classic Brand Building Gambit

Sure, you say, but what about ‘branding”? That’s TV’s domain. Well, I disagree. I think there’s no better branding opportunity than deep engagement with a Web site from a qualified prospect. Again, this is someone well down the funnel who is considering his or her purchase options. And search drives these opportunities. Sure, TV, print and other channels can build brands, but I challenge anyone to prove to me that they build brands as cost-effectively as search driving Web site engagement. I’ve yet to see a study that shows that. I’ve seen several that show search blowing away other channels, including the CPG study I wrote about last week. Brand-build with prospects that are ready to buy first, then build with the “maybe, someday” crowd with what’s left over.

So, why is it such a struggle to get search on the horizon of big agencies and advertisers? I’ve come to the conclusion that search is being held back by four things:

Search is small. Advertisers and agencies like to think big. They like big, bold ideas. Killer campaigns. Knock-your-socks-off creative. Search is none of those things. Search is thousands of micro-niche campaigns. Search is granular and gritty. Search is turning a whole bunch of dials and pulling a lot of levers, to squeeze out new customers a few at a time. You can’t “unveil” a new search campaign, like snatching a sheet off a sculpture. Launching a search campaign is more like putting a million grains of sand into a bucket, one spoonful at a time. That’s not a concept that “brilliant” advertising minds can get fired up about.

Search is measurable. You can measure the hell out of search. You can hold everyone accountable. You can demand to know who screwed up the campaign because your ROI dropped 10 points. That can cause a lot of red faces round the ol’ agency conference table.

Search is hard. Because search is granular, search is hard. It takes a lot of work to squeeze out an impressive bottom line. And the harder you work, the more impressive that bottom line will be. You’ll never hit a search home run with one inspired brainstorm. There is no golden concept. You just keep plugging away, tweaking keywords and pulling in prospects. Agencies and big advertisers are looking for that single perfect run down the mountain, with fresh powder and the sun shining. Search is more like cross-country skiing up the mountain.

Search is utilitarian. Search is constantly accused of not being sexy. That drives me nuts. The irony is that in pigeonholing search as being boring and utilitarian, all these brilliant advertising minds are missing the biggest idea of all: search works because it’s the customer driving the process, not the advertiser. All you have to do is a half decent job of meeting them halfway. Some say it’s that lack of control that scares the bejeebers out of agencies and brand marketers. To be fair, I don’t think that’s always true. I just think that search just doesn’t get the juices going in the average marketer. It may not be that they’re scared; it may just be that they’re bored.

And for all these reasons, I don’t think big agencies will ever truly get search. It’s too much of a cultural mismatch for them. They’ll bring search in-house, but they’ll silo it off, in a back room, far from the playground which is really where everyone wants to be, cranking out killer creative for the next TV campaign.

It’s just too bad that those TV ads won’t work very well. At least, not when you compare them to search.

 

A Cautionary Tale about Friedman’s Flat World

the_world_is_flatI’m just plowing my way through Thomas Friedman’s “The World is Flat”. The “plowing through” comment is no reflection on Mr. Friedman’s writing ability, just on the sheer heft of the book. It’s several hundred pages long. Friedman talks about several dirty little secrets that are holding America back from maintaining it’s lead position in the global market, amongst them an education gap and an ambition gap. I tend to agree. I think North America is becoming complacent and is falling victim to an overwhelming sense of entitlement. I’ve always believe we have a rude awakening coming, and all signs are pointing it being just around the corner. One only has to visit China or India to feel the sheer momentum, driven by ambition and capitalist desire, to be struck by the difference in intensity you feel there and here. The immigrant fueled work ethic that made our society the leader is barely an ember now. Up until recently, that drive was fueled by a flood of top level immigrants from China, Korea, and India, but increasingly, those candidates are choosing to stay home, thanks to the connectiveness of Friedman’s Flat World.

But we also have to realize that we do have some tremendous advantages still in North America, thanks to a highly developed and largely transparent market, relatively free from the friction of bureaucracy or corruption. It’s not perfect, but it’s much better than in some other markets. This point was made clear to us with our recent foray into China.

We won a contract to do an eye tracking study in China, but it meant taking our eye tracking equipment with us. Knowing this could cause undue interest on the part of a Chinese customer official, we did our due diligence and spent several minutes on the phone with our local Chinese consulate to make sure this wouldn’t be an issue. We were assured over and over again that this would be a simple case of taking equipment in and out of the country, just like taking a lap top. “No problem” we were told.

So, we sent off our researcher, who luckily is Chinese and who speaks the language, and anticipated no problems. This, of course, was naive on our part. Sure enough, the customs official in China took one look at the large case with the odd looking monitor inside and threw up a red flag. The monitor was impounded. Jess, our researcher, with the help of the client, quickly got a government clearance form with all the appropriate stamps in place indicating that “one eye tracker” was cleared for entry into China. Jess went back to the customs official with paper in hand. She actually had the case in her hands when the official wanted to take another look at the equipment. “Hold it”, he said, “that’s not an eye tracker, that’s a monitor.” Jess tried to explain that the monitor was an eye tracker. It was too no avail. Tears, long explanations, pointing out a brochure, it was all for naught. Once Communist bureacrats make up their mind, there’s precious little wiggle room.

So, the eye tracker is still impounded. The study if 4 days behind schedule. The client is frustrated. We’re frustrated. And it’s all because of a petty bureaucrat and a serpentine system that no one, certainly not a westerner, can figure out. The world may be flat, but that doesn’t make it any less convoluted and complex. In fact, the flattening just brings the ugly mess inside closer to the surface.