I don't mind telemarketers. 

There. I said it. 

As a marketer I understand why it happens. In fact, there have been some telemarketing calls that have actually worked on me. I opted to receive an information package (from Direct Buy) once and ended up becoming a member. I have also been known to donate to the occasional charity over the phone. Mostly, though, I don't mind them because I know how to deal with them. Clearly unsolicited calls can be easily dismissed by insisting they remove your name from their call list. I'm better at this than my wife, and now she gets more calls than I.

However, prerecorded telemarketing calls piss me off to no end. They tell me that you really don't care about me as a potential customer. They tell me you're employing a shotgun approach to telemarketing (calling everybody, and hoping someone responds). They tell me you're sinister. The worst part, though, is that I can't ask you to remove my name from the call list. To me, that's entirely unethical and borderline illegal.

It's telemarketing spam. Isn't that the worst of two worlds?

Telemarketing can work if you properly segment, show some compassion, act politely and adhere to some basic best practices. Prerecorded telemarketing messages meet NONE of those standards.

It just pisses everyone off. 

You may get 1 of 10,000 people to respond, and that may make the economics work for you. But you're creating far more brand disenchantment which is far more damaging. 

If, after considering a marketing tactic, you're not sure you can look at yourself in the mirror, don't do it. Please. Spare us. Save yourself.

YOUR TURN:

Give me your telemarketing horror stories. Better yet, what are your telemarketing success stories?

The owner of a small bakery in London, England describes her recent Groupon experience as "without doubt, my worst ever business decision".

I respectfully and earnestly disagree.  But I'll get to that.

Rachel Brown, through Groupon, decided to offer $40 worth of cupcakes for $10.  8,500 people took her up on the offer!  In a very short period of time, she needed to bake over 100,000 cupcakes, forcing her to hire extra staff which resulted in a $20,000 "loss" on the Groupon experience.  She went on to say "we had thousands of orders pouring in that really we hadn't expected to have".  And she described that as a bad thing.

Excuse me?!

That has to be the first time in history that someone complained about thousands of unexpected orders.

Now, I get that for small businesses, an unexpected $20,000 expense can be overwhelming and difficult to accomodate financially.  But I think she's missing the bigger picture.  She just sold 100,000 cupcakes!

Let's remove Groupon from the picture for a moment.  Imagine someone approached her and a month ago and guaranteed her 8,500 new customers for $20,000.  "Where do I sign?" would most certainly have been the response.  But because it all happened so quickly and because she wasn't prepared for it, she is portraying the experience as negative, as is the media.  I also think that because Groupon was involved, the temptation is to lay blame there.  Groupon is tremendously successful (and powerful as a result) which I think makes them a target.  But that's not my main point here.

Mostly, I want Ms. Brown (and other business owners) to consider the other outcomes of this experience:
- 8,500 people now know of a local bakery that sells great cupcakes, sometimes at a discount.
- The bakery has received immeasurable media exposure (which is surely worth $20,000 on its own).
- The word-of-mouth exposure has surely been significant ("You should see the deal I got at Need a Cake...")

Add all that up and you get business value that far exceeds what $20,000 can buy.

That's the point.  If you think of this as an investment in the marketing of the bakery, it's an overwhelming success.

What I really hope is that they somehow captured the contact information of the 8,500 new customers (I really, really hope they captured email addresses).  If so, imagine the potential for future business from an audience that has clearly demonstrated a willingness to purchase baked goods with the right offer.  If not, well, that would be the real failure in all of this. 

YOUR TURN:

I am really interesting in your opinion on this.  Do you agree?  Am I missing something?
   
   

For the most part, dentistry is a commodity.  They all fix mouths.  That's it. 

The marketing of individual practices can be very similar too.  Generic newsletters, standard emails, the occasional snail-mail campaign, and the occasional free clinic to drum up leads.  All good ideas, but nothing exceptional, and nothing unique to any particular practice.

Then along came Michael Zuk, a dentist from Red Deer, Alberta, who changed it all!

He paid $31,000 for a tooth that was once in John Lennon's mouth.  Why, you ask, would someone do that, especially given that it can't even be verified as authentic?

In my opinion, it was genius!

Consider this: from this point forward, he's Alberta's most famous dentist.  Everyone is talking about him.  Some opinions may be negative, but they're still talking about him.  More importantly, any time anyone in Red Deer decides they need a new dentist, Dr. Zuk will at least be mentioned or considered, if not recommended as a result of that fame.  "You should check out the guy that bought Lennon's tooth!", they'll say.

Not a bad for $31,000.  

Imagine an ad agency claiming that for a mere $31,000, an ad campaign will be conceived, developed and deployed, and it's guaranteed to result in the undisputed top brand awareness ranking in your category for as long as you're in business.  Talk about blowing smoke!  Dr. Zuk achieved that very thing in a matter of minutes. 

Genius.

If you're in a commodity business - or any business for that matter - stop marketing just like everyone else does.  Do something unique.  Something memorable.  Something outrageous.  It just might put you on the map for good.

YOUR TURN:   

- Do you agree?  Or is he just nuts?
- What are some of the most outrageous, yet successful marketing stunts you can recall?

Today it was announced that Ford enjoyed its 10th straight quarterly profit. 

Here's what I love about that (from a marketing standpoint):

Back when the auto industry was getting absolutely destroyed by an economic meltdown and skyrocketing gas prices, North American auto manufacturers were clamouring for government bailout money to stay afloat. Ford said "No thank you. We're righting this ship on our own". And they did (obviously), by focusing on marketing. They shed superfluous and strategically misaligned products (some models, but also some brands including the atrocious Land Rover and Jaguar brands). They invested in advertising (with fairly high production values, I might add). They examined the wants and needs of their primary audience and designed products accordingly (the $16K, fuel-efficient Focus, as an example). From a marketing perspective, a pure focus on fundamentals and execution. 

All that being said, I still hate them.

I've done my share of Ford-bashing over the years and they still haven't fixed their fundamental issue: poor quality. They're just not telling anyone about it. Read any worthwhile product quality review source (Consumer Reports is my favourite), and you'll find that Fords, quite simply, break down all the time. To combat this, they are simply preying on the ignorance of the uninformed through deceitful and arguably unethical advertising. First, they state repeatedly in advertising that "quality is now equal with Honda and Toyota". Well, if you actually read the fine print in those ads (yep, I'm that guy!), you discover that they're referencing "initial quality survey results". Essentially, they ask new Ford owners if they are happy. Of course they are - they just bought it! They also ask new Honda and Toyota purchasers the same question and get the same answer, leading to their claim of "equal" quality ratings. That's not even scratching the surface of the overall product quality issue. Second, they've started claiming a fuel-efficiency advantage with ads featuring Ford owners (actors) proudly (and repeatedly) stating that they "haven't bought gas in over a month". Well, as any informed viewer/purchaser can understand: if you don't drive, you don't need gas! Even my 8 year-old son chastised them about that (I'm not even making that up)! Ford, don't insult us by trying to deceive us. I am sad for the uninformed, who presumably didn't see through the advertising trickery and went ahead with their purchase.  

You see why I am vexed so? I can't decide if I am impressed by their relentless focus on the fundamentals of marketing, or disgusted by their advertising deception and manipulation.  

YOUR TURN:

Thoughts? 

Blasphemy! How could I even suggest such a thing, right?

Hear me out.

I don't have a problem with fiscal responsibility. The problem is the math.

For years, business managers and marketers have been calculating Marketing ROI as a way to justify spending, staffing and other 'investments'. They've been creating metrics to measure such as calls to a dedicated phone number, coupon redemptions, new leads and more. Then, after comparing those metrics to the cost of the corresponding campaigns, they get a tidy ROI calculation that is used to evaluate marketing efforts and justify campaigns going forward. 

Enter social media. The emergence of social media as a mission-critical marketing tactic (and investment) has given ROI heightened importance. And rightly so. Business owners want to be able to justify spending more time and money on a new (supplemental) marketing discipline, marketers are better able to measure 'return' (since most response can at least be observed, in the form of Retweets, Likes, and so on), and managers that don't quite yet see the value or importance of social media for business can at least see that it has a positive ROI. 

So, we agree that the concept of validating effort and investment is worthwhile. My problem is assigning a mathematical calculation to marketing. It can't be measured. I should clarify: it's difficult if not impossible to measure response, let alone attribute that response to a specific, measurable investment. 

Let me use some examples to illustrate my thought process.  

Many marketers measure web traffic (and even online sales) against investment in email development for an email ROI calculation. Seems logical, right? Sure, but maybe some of those browsers / purchasers were more influenced by something like a friend's recommendation, and were merely inspired to buy by the email? That visit / purchase may not be directly attributable to the email alone. How is the investment in word-of-mouth, which happened much earlier, factored into the equation?

Another example: Many marketers measure Twitter Followers against the time invested in Twitter engagement for a Twitter ROI. Logical again. But there is also a correlation between the value of the content being tweeted and the number of Followers. How do you factor the genius of the person writing the tweets into the equation?  

Another example: How do you even measure the return of a billboard campaign?

There are many other examples of ROI calculations that are first of all based on metrics that are hard to measure, and second of all not necessarily directly attributable to the tactic being measured. In legal circles it's comparable to circumstantial evidence.

So what's my solution?

Don't get me wrong, you should continue to care about ROI, but stop trying to calculate it mathematically. Instead think of it this way: "To what extent will this marketing tactic help me reach my objectives?" That's your 'return'. That thought process allows you to assign a grade or rating to the tactics accordingly. For example, if one of your objectives is to better manage your brand reputation, social media helps you achieve that objective to a great extent. Then, assign a measure of 'investment' to that tactic. Keeping with social media as the example, the monetary investment is $0, but the investment of time is considerable. So in this case, the 'return' is great, and the investment is 'considerable'. That's about the best you can do. The challenge then becomes comparing that tactic (social media) against other tactics to determine where you will direct your (presumably limited) resources (time and/or money). Are there tactics that help you achieve your objective(s) to a greater extent, with a less considerable investment of time and/or money? If so, do that first.

All of this is designed to help you understand where you should dedicate resources.  That's the key to marketing management. There are lots of marketing tactics - all of them worthwhile.  But for those businesses that don't have unlimited resources, you need to be choosy. You need to, as best you can, determine which marketing tactics deserve your investment. That's where this new way of thinking comes in. 

Instead of ROI, I call it ETWTAOAITM:  Extent To Which the Tactic Achieves the Objectives Against the Investment in Time and/or Money.  The acronym sucks, I know.  Hopefully the concept helps you make better marketing decisions!

YOUR TURN:

Defend the ROI! Let me know why you still calculate an ROI for your marketing, other than because your boss makes you. 

Facebook just rolled out a fairly significant change to users' home pages today.  

This isn't the first time this has happened, nor will it be the last.  However, this one feels different.  It feels worse.

The primary difference in the redesign is the 'featured stories' emphasis.  The prime real estate of the page is occupied by 'Recent Stories' and stories 'From Earlier Today".  These 'stories' are posts from my friends and the Pages I Like that Facebook deems to be most interesting to me.  Gone... or should I say pushed to the side... is the simple chronological feed of updates.   

In the past I haven't made much of a deal about Facebook redesigns - there's a period of resistance and opposition, but eventually people get used to it and move on.  But in this case things are different.  Facebook has decided that it will decide what's important to me.  

I'm not sure I like that.  

How do they know what's important to me?  And what gives them the right to show me just that?  I'm sure they know a lot about what's important to me based on the Pages I Like, the comments I post, and other clues.  But every once in a while I like to look at random things or read about topics that are new.  

Before this redesign it was quite clear that Facebook was collecting these 'Top Stories' as they were called, but I had the choice to toggle between 'Top Stories' or 'Most Recent', and each was given the same amount of attention.  Now, if I want the most recent, I have to scroll through the small, cramped window that's been dismissed to the corner.

Facebook, I don't agree with the liberties you have taken, nor with the implication that you know what I like.  

I only wish there was something I could do about it.

YOUR TURN:

What do you think?  Am I overreacting?  Will I just get used to the change like every one before this?
 

I am a marketing advisor.  I spend most of my working hours helping businesses understand the marketing tools available to them and the relative cost (in terms of time and money) of each.  I also talk to them about prioritizing the best ideas ahead of the good ideas, because no one has unlimited resources.  

This one got my head shaking. 

I have, on many occasions, endorsed the creation of hard-copy, offline (gasp!) catalogues that capture the power of photography, paper finishes and tangibility.  It works.  Especially for companies that offer high-end products.

What I don't get is using 615 pages (oversized no less) to do so.  Granted, they sell a lot of products.  615 at least!  But here are the issues that cause some concern:

• Has it not long been established that this much tree-killing causes real corporate brand damage?
  
• Can the same outcomes not be achieved with, say, 200 pages?
  
• They are clearly pandering to the abundantly wealthy, which I am not.  Could they not do a better job of customer segmentation?  They sent me TWO of the same catalogues, 3 weeks apart.  Think of the savings in postage alone!
  

THE LESSON FOR BUSINESS:

• Catalogues work.  They can be an important component of you marketing mix.
  
• Shorter catalogues work better.  There is no harm done to your brand by creating a, say, 32 page catalogue that highlights the product categories and some featured items, then clearly points readers to a corresponding web page for more products.  You earn positive brand association by saving trees, and you gain valuable customer buying behaviour data by encouraging them to browse online.  Everyone wins.  
  

YOUR TURN:
Tell me what I'm missing?  The good people at Restoration Hardware are clearly doing most things right.  Why, in your opinion, is this part of their marketing strategy?

Advertising, especially online advertising, is a constant struggle to stand out from the noise.  Branding is a constant struggle to associate your business with attributes that truly reflect who you are.

Rolex pulled of some advertising and branding magic with this simple, yet exceedingly effective online ad.  

Rolex is clearly trying to establish themselves as the world's greatest timepiece.  I also know that the golfing community is a target audience of theirs.  So, you can see the creative genius of this small ad - it's on a golfing web site and tied directly to the concept of time (tee times in this case).

Simple. Targeted. Genius.  

LESSONS FOR BUSINESS:
1) Understand exactly who your target audience is (in this case, golf fans).
2) Understand where they spend time online (in this case, PGATour.com).
3) Decide what brand attributes you want connected to your brand (in this case, timekeeping excellence).
4) Create an ad that stands out from the noise and establishes your brand attribute. 
5) Creativity counts (in this case, advertising a timepiece next to the tee TIMES).

YOUR TURN:
- Are you as impressed?
- Do you know of other examples? 
- Anything you don't like about the ad?  (for example, there's no call to action)