Archives for the month of: June, 2012

There are several types of learners: visual, auditory, reading, and kinesthetic. White papers appeal to reading learners.

But what is a white paper, and what is its purpose? First and foremost it is an educational tool. The author analyzes and synthesizes data and information objectively, and then draws a mind-blowing conclusion that is hard to refute. In theory; but really not that infrequently.

Once the white paper exists it can be given away freely to establish or cement thought leadership. Beyond that, reader data can be collected and leveraged for lead generation. A typical example is to ask for an exchange of data: I give you the white paper for “free,” if you give me your contact information. People who sign up for white papers know that they will get marketed to, but that is a fair exchange if the white paper actually delivers value.

So, white papers do a good job of educating and generating goodwill (make sure your white paper delivers value, or all you will have managed to do is generate a lot of ill will), help with lead generation and even search engine ranking, but they appeal to only a subset of your audience because they are [relatively] difficult to consume.

A new trend in education is blended learning, a combination of self-paced, face-to-face, and online collaborative learning. More importantly, however, blended learning isn’t about the delivery platforms, it’s about stimulating the brain in multiple ways on the same subject matter via traditional and e-learning methods, and in that process addressing all types of learners. A more holistic approach.

Webinars combine all three aspects. (1) They are online by default and can be consumed from anywhere. They are collaborative because they often include a meaningful Q&A session at the end, during which additional teachings and comprehension are delivered. (2) They aren’t truly face-to-face, but since they are often live and provide the ability to ask questions and get answers, they make you feel like you are part of a live information exchange. And (3) they can be self-paced because you can re-watch them, and frequently the host will make the presentation materials available for download and later review.

eTrigue is a provider of marketing automation and sales acceleration software (in the cloud), and an excellent example of how to educate using a blended approach. Its “Friday Coffee with eTrigue” webinar series is an educational series for novice and expert marketers alike to educate us on issues and solutions relevant to our profession.

Of critical importance is that eTrigue doesn’t use the webinar to promote itself, but that the company features expert industry thought leaders to present on relevant topics. About half the time eTrigue’s platform could be part of the solution, but that is not the reason to for hosting the webinar. Presenters have included Barry Castle (Skype), and Christine Crandell, the best marketing philosopher of recent times (personal blog; Forbes blog).

Once the event is over the company makes the recorded webinar and presentation available to anyone for later viewing and download, not just pre-registered attendees.

eTrigue still also makes white papers available on its website—white papers do provide value. But webinars can actually engage the audience. The fact that eTrigue recognizes the importance of nurturing and nourishing the community is very telling of modern marketing memes.

Marketers need to participate in the community they are trying to sell in to. eTrigue has learned how to lead the conversation.

For those of you keeping score at home regarding my iPad purchasing saga (see post about Apple), based on Apple’s advice I switched from Apple’s online store to Best Buy. So that you don’t have to read the whole previous post, I ordered too many iPads from Apple and was subsequently banned from buying more.

Today I received a cancellation email from Best Buy because they were “…unable to verify my information.” So I called to verify my information.

First I was asked for my phone number so that they could look up my name. My question about why they didn’t just ask for my name went unanswered. After finally locating my order—once I gave them the order number (why didn’t they just ask for that in the first place?)—I learned that once more I’ve ordered too many iPads, and this order will not get filled.

I’ve seen this movie before.

No one in customer service was able to tell me what the order limit is, but I was told with absolute certainty that not a single person at Best Buy would be able to override it.

Since I’m decent at math I figured out the order limit myself. This was my third order (the very first one I placed was the one that Apple had canceled on me about ten days ago), and therefore the purchase limit has to be 2.

That could make gift-giving very tricky for some people.

It certainly puts a damper on my ability to stimulate the economy. Carole Inman (marketer extraordinaire) put it this way to me:

I think we have identified part of the reason the US economy is lagging – self-inflicted injury! 😦

It also goes against every marketer’s mantra of not over-promising and under-delivering, which is beginning to affect my efforts. Since I have a supply chain problem, it’s time to either seek alternate sources (not working) or substitutes. I feel a Five Forces blog post coming on . . .

Definitely time to reach out to Amazon.com to see how they feel about gifting the Kindle Fire.

Fact #1: Bankers work on behalf of their clients.

Fact #2: Bankers work on behalf of themselves.

Keeping the above in mind, why are we surprised that the Facebook IPO (NASDAQ: FB) was executed to the benefit of Facebook, the company, and the underwriting banks, rather than the retail investor?

Henry Blodget, CEO/Editor-in-Chief of Business Insider—who in his time put more lipstick on pigs than most of his peers, and is permanently barred by the SEC from working in the securities industry—is positively outraged by the bankers’ behavior. Blodget makes very valid points (article/video), but is he really permitted to be “shocked” by insiders giving themselves an advantage, legal or not?

Next, Paul Graham makes the point that valuations on startups could be going down because of the Facebook IPO and the lack of value it delivers to IPO investors (institutional and retail alike).

Shouldn’t they? I mean, not across the board, but for unproven business models? LinkedIn, in comparison to Facebook, actually has a proven business model: it’s an HR solution.

By definition, the bankers did great. They got Facebook and themselves the most money possible. I agree, in the long-term Facebook should not be underperforming its IPO price—that would be very bad for Facebook (and, of course, investors). But in the short-term, Facebook got the most money for giving up the least.

I am not arguing that deceit is an honorable practice, but I’ll go with this cliché: Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

What ought to happen is that more real due diligence is being done. Perhaps less investment, but not fewer investments. Yes, companies once more will have to prove that they can make money, not just aggregate content. Thank you, Facebook, for the lesson.

The lesson to marketers? Deliver value to your stakeholders, not just your shareholders. (I really need to make that an axiom.)

Change management must include all stakeholders, and customers are stakeholders, too.

J.C. Penney Is the New Sears: Ron Johnson Has Done “Incalculable Damage,” Davidowitz Says is a fantastic article (and video) about JC Penney’s massive misstep in going to an everyday-low-prices model in this economy.

Anyone with a clue could have forecast this, and many did (my wife and I chortled at the original announcement, predicting failure on the spot). Apparently, Ron Johnson, JC Penney’s CEO, needs to get out more, or did the entire JC Penney board miss all the popular extreme-couponing TV shows?

Howard Davidowitz correctly asserts that limited in-store testing would have been advisable over betting the whole company on a hunch.

Better yet, leveraging JC Penney’s customer insights team should have been the first step before performing any in-store testing. These brand protectors and profit maximizers know how to perform a conjoint analysis survey and interpret its results.

A conjoint analysis is often misinterpreted or pigeon-holed as helping a company figure out its pricing, which is why it might not seem the right tool for JC Penney (since the company was very clear about how it wants to price). Instead, a conjoint analysis survey helps a company figure out what trade-offs a customer is willing to make–meaning, without being asked directly, the customer will inform the company of what is truly important to him/her. Typically clusters of choices will emerge, and a company can then build its go-to-market strategy from there.

In JC Penney’s case the conjoint analysis survey could have been leveraged to learn what’s important to customers today. Yes, customers always want the most for the least. Luckily, a well-designed conjoint analysis survey lets you actually sidestep that issue, and instead learn about customer price elasticity, shopping preferences, and motivators.

JC Penney could have leveraged many channels, including focus groups, but more importantly social media and public communities to get real meaningful feedback on its proposed pricing change.

Thus, even prior to any real-world testing, meaningful insights could have been collected. Then a limited roll-out should have been used to complete the testing phase.

A conjoint analysis is not a change management tool, but it can be used to measure the impact of a proposed change. As Ron Johnson said, “…the customer ignored us 99% of the time.” With proper foresight he could have made sure not to have pushed that to 100%.

Luckily, as CEO he can blame others:

Our marketing isn’t doing the work . . . We’ve got to get our pricing across. Coupons were a drug, they really drove traffic. [Customers] need to understand the value we’re offering.

Sheesh!

This blog is not about customer service, it is about marketing and branding. Marketing and innovation are the only two functions of a company (thank you, Peter Drucker, written in 1954!). Successful execution of both creates a brand.

Marketing is the process of getting your product into the market: that includes sales, promotions, advertising, distribution, etc. But it doesn’t stop there, because you have to close the loop—you need to nurture your customers and provide a continuously satisfying relationship, in both B2B and B2C. You need great customer service because the customer owns your brand!

Back to Salesforce (see previous post).

It was time to renew our Jigsaw subscription (Data.com, owned by Salesforce.com), so I sat through a demo of new features (there weren’t any as yet). The first strange thing—but not the point of this post—was my Jigsaw account manager was giving the demo, but a renewal manager was handling the renewal. Why do I need a Salesforce.com account rep, a Jigsaw rep, a renewal rep, and soon a Radian6 rep (more on that below), when they’re all working for the same company? It makes for a crappy customer experience, and Salesforce.com clearly doesn’t grasp the “Merger” part of M&A.

At the end of the demo I was asked if there’s anything else I would like to know or would like help with. As a matter of fact there was. I would very much like to see how Radian6 integrates into Salesforce; I would like to see a demo.

The renewal manager assigned herself the “action item” to alert the right person and get that set up for me. The next day I received the following email (the Radian6 rep was cc’ed):

Hi Marc,

I wanted to follow up form our call yesterday and put you in touch with your Radian6 Account Executive, [Name].
She will be able to answer any questions and basically take it from here.

Thanks,
[Name]

Customer satisfaction opportunity missed!

The renewal rep made follow up my responsibility—something I could have initiated on my own with better results. What really happened was that expectations were set by Salesforce staff, then not acted upon.

I was told to satisfy myself.

What should have happened was the renewal rep call the Radian6 rep and hand me off as an opportunity (as an existing customer). Then the Radian6 rep should have called or emailed me with relevant information and set up a demo. Result: happy customer.

I took the bait and responded to the Radian6 rep, not bothering to wait for her to make the first move. Worse still, now 24h later, she still hasn’t responded.

Salesforce.com is well on its way to becoming a mainstay on this blog for how to fail in marketing and brand protection.