Do you ever get the feeling that, in our effort to master the tactics of marketing in this ever-changing environment, we lose sight of what we are supposed to be doing in the first place? None of us are completely exempt from the lure of the Next Big Thing. First it was blogs, then mobile advertising and Second Life. Now, we’re wondering how companies can utilize Twitter in the marketing mix.
If we’re to successfully implement these tools, we must first acknowledge that the tactics marketing should never take the place of marketing itself. Marketing is not about merely the effort to match the right people with the right product or service, but it is also about doing it in the right way. Your message, in fact, is strongest when it occurs at the intersection of ethics and the strongest passion you share with your audience, which, assuming a sustainable business model, naturally results in sales of whatever you are peddling.
When we’re passionate, but our audience isn’t
If we promote something we’re passionate about and what we think our audience should be passionate about (but isn’t), we will fail to generate interest. You can’t perpetually dress up objects that foster ambivalence in order to make them appear desirable. The CueCat, by Digital Convergence, is a perfect example of what this would look like. First, it relied on a behavior that was tied solely to the desire of companies to tell their audiences about products or services. It must be noted, that it wasn’t about their audiences’ desire to read about them. This “service” had a price: the consumers’ names and email addresses. Digital Convergence didn’t need that information to provide the service. They simply wanted it.
They could have tied the service into a larger social network, where users could talk to others who scanned the same barcodes. I’m not saying it would have been successful, but at least they could have given an understandable reason for requiring the users’ personal information. Instead, users became wise to the impending merciless spam they would receive, and they developed hacks for de-serializing the device, rendering its data-capturing capabilities effectively useless. The CueCat (predictably) failed.
But let’s not be too hard on poor CueCat. The same flaw that plagued that device affects too many websites to count. Companies still insist on asking for personal information they don’t need, just because they think their customers are so eager to read their marketing spam that they’ll give up their personally identifiable data without a fight. Some will, but don’t let this small success fool you, for — to paraphrase Isaac Newton — as you delight yourself with a few fancy shells you’ve collected from the seashore, an entire ocean of commerce stands undiscovered before you.
When our audience is passionate, but we aren’t
Sometimes we don’t share the same passion as our audience. In those cases, our efforts come across as insincere and generally lack credibility. Once that credibility is lost, it can be difficult to regain. Think of the corporate fat-cat archetype — too self-consumed to be bothered with the needs and wants of the consumers (or his employees). All he’s interested in is making money. He’ll be more than happy to take a $30 million bonus even though his company is hemorrhaging money and can’t even cover promised worker retirement benefits. The consumers, sensing this lack of concern and a need for heart, have no desire to be associated with the brand. Who can blame them?
This is what has me a little worried about the recent purchase of Chrysler by the private equity firm, Cerberus. Is a private equity firm equipped to either fuel the passion for the Chrysler brand or at least hire the right team to do it? We’ll find out soon enough, but Cerberus would do well to remember that if their message comes across as insincere, or if they cannot find a powerful common interest with Chrysler’s intended audience, they will discover they just wasted a good portion of the $7.4 billion they invested in the automaker. Hopefully, that’s not the case, and the marketing department can get on the same page with the engineers and consumers.
And quit being such a sleaze
Common ground does not, by itself, guarantee desirability …. even if it results in short term economic success. Cigarettes, for instance, have long symbolized the rebelliousness of nonconformists. “Smoking in the boys room” was cool because it was against the rules — so it’s little wonder that teenagers picked up the habit. Perhaps they shared a common passion with tobacco companies, and perhaps they felt very strongly about that passion, but that didn’t make the product — or the way it was marketed — right.
In business, we use a lot of terms and acronyms. The terms generally have relevance to our industry, but sometimes I get the sense that we tend to throw them around like Santa throws candy at the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade. We get so caught up in tracing this metric or that trend, and we forget to boil down our offering to its essence: Marketing is about selling the right stuff to the right people in the right way. Checking our tactics against the elements of that equation will not ensure success, but neglecting it will more often than not result in failure.
Tags: basics, effectiveness, Ethics, Marketing, Marketing_Fads, simple, simplicity, Technology, trends, Usability
Your logic and argument are right on target, as far as this old New England guy is concerned.
We spend too much time praising new tools, when we should be thinking about what the right tools are to reach the right audience, whether or not they are old or new. Just because a tool is new doesn’t mean it has value, and I am not about to experiment a tool’s effectiveness with my client’s project.
I would add two ideas to your definition: Marketing is about selling the right stuff to the right people in the right way… at the right place and the right time.
Good stuff Cam, and welcome aboard!
I think the key for marketers, once again, is to speak with the voice of the customer. And I think a good way to do that, is to work with the passions of the customers, and find a way to make them your own. Almost all marketers work backwards, focusing on their goals first, and then finding a way to also attempt to address the wants and needs of the customer. That almost always results in a marketing effort that adequately addresses the wants and needs of the marketer, and that misses the mark with customers.
The tools will come and go, but the main idea of treating the customer with respect by making an honest attempt to market with their best interests in mind, will always produce results.
Regarding Cerebrus, I think they were after the auto finance business. Coupled with GMAC, they will now have a significant share of the global auto financing business. To finance more cars, they will need to focus on producing an outstanding product.
It’s too early to tell if this was a good deal for taxpayers, unions, and Chrysler. We’ll have to wait it out…
Congrats on the first writing.
I hardly ever give accurate personal info on request forms. Why should anyone else? The part that bugs me is that (if address info was requested) any direct mail produced is still going to be printed and returned to sender; instead of thrown out by me, it’ll go in the sender’s trash. Now, how often was that mailing list sold and is there an exponential effect?
My final point is that externalities can reach beyond customer annoyance and bad data.
Regarding Chrysler, I see your point. For that much money (and Daimler picking up all the tabs), I hope they have some tricks up their sleeve.
Cam- I told you you’d end up over here! I’m doin’ a little dance right now.
And, great, great article. i have that same tendency sometimes, to get so wrapped up in the coolness and shininess that it can overshadow what the actual objective is.
It’s one of those things I imagine most of us have to force ourselves to keep in check.
Well done!
Hey Cam — I guess you sent a bottle of Cristal to Ann also. That’s how I got the featured post yesterday. (not really)
Good to read you here. It’s true that it’s easy for us to get caught up with the next big thing and lose sight of basics. As you say, finding that “sweet spot” is a tricky balancing act that’s not easy.
Thanks, all, for the comments.
Lewis – I considered “right place and right time” to be a subset of the “sweet spot,” where messages have the potential to do very well. Alas! That’s a topic for another post.
Mack – While watching the final episode of the first season of “Top Chef” on Bravo, one of the judges asked the (eventual winner) contestant whether he cooked for himself or for his diners. His answer was something along the lines of, “Both. That’s why I became a chef.” I thought that was the right answer.
Paul – That makes a lot of sense from the perspective of Cerebrus. Perhaps they can turn that into something… I can see how people could get excited about the freedom affordable auto lending makes available.
Mario – I hadn’t considered the exponential effect of giving out false information. Their databases, I can tell you from experience, are pretty bad already.
Paul – You’re too smart by half, my friend! I agree that it’s something we have to keep in check, but we should not be so cautious that we never experiment. Keep that curiosity strong!
David – I’m ashamed to admit that I don’t even know what Cristal is. Obviously a drink… Schnapps? Wine? I think they only have beer and whiskey in Texas.
Many people want that home run or great Next Big Thing because they see it as a shortcut to wealth. As I study companies and some of the success stories I find that they were not overnight successes. Often the company was around for years and then hit on the thing. The successful companies were doing the right things the right way and were able to take advantage of a situation when it arrived. Amazon was not just a revelation or dream, it was the result of years of work in other areas by Bezos that positioned him to run with it when it came along. The same for McDonalds, Chick-fil-A and Crayola crayons.
Too many people want to skip the beginners courses and go right to the advanced classes.
Thanks for your observations.
I haven’t been around in a while. I have been so busy at work that any extra-curricular marketing activities have gone by the wayside.
Great blog Cam. I am happy I checked the fix today of all days to find your voice here. Actually I thought you were a writer here. So congrats.
Even though I don’t know you, this was a good post. Provocative thought with good graphics.
So many great ideas die because egos can’t seem to view reality.
Cam, Cristal is a fancy, pricey and “in” vodka.
I just read in “Chasing Cool,” which I plan to review soon (disclosure: I accepted a free review copy) that the fancy vodkas like Grey Goose, Cristal, etc. were blind taste-tested by some experts and cheapo Smirnoff outpolled the fancy ones. Itold this to a friend who swrars by Grey Goose, and he refused to accept it. As shown in the book, it’s 99% in the marketing.
Bottom line, Cam — keep drinking whatever you now drink and don’t get swayed by all the hype of the fancy vodkas. They’ll only cost you more money and I’m sure you’re already cool so you don’t need the ego boost of ordering Cristal or Grey Goose.
Actually, I was thinking of the old champagne…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cristal
… not the new vodka (which I think might have two “l”s….) But that works, too.
; )
What, no one else likes Ketel One but me?
Great post Cam!
Too often we overlook the things that we know that we know … thanks for the reminder.
When you get a chance, check out Matt Dickman’s first peek at Twitter’s Google Ads.
http://technomarketer.typepad.com/technomarketer/2007/05/ads_on_twitter_.html