If you grew up in the 1980s, you'd know that double glazing was all the rage. The double glazing gold rush was pursued vigorously and competitively by an army of double glazing sales people who used each and every technique in the book to win those sales.
As their market started to contract, their sales tactics got stronger and more erratic. The consumer affairs programme Watchdog was awash with complaints about strong arm sales tactics, calling on vulnerable people unawares, and generally becoming a nuisance to society.
This kind of sales pest behaviour is well documented, and broadly disliked. But despite that, some organisations and industries persist in maintaining this sales approach.
Take my job, for instance. I'm one of those strange people who spend their life developing and delivering marketing plans. This means I spend time looking at the market, identifying key messages, setting marketing objectives, finding suitable communication mediums, setting budgets, spending them, and delivering against that plan.
I find this delivers results.
Advertising sales people, clearly, assume that I do something completely different.
Judging by their bizarre behaviour, they must think I sit at my desk with a big pot of money waiting on the last minute, must buy advertising opportunity to plonk right into my lap. Relevant or not.
This baffles me.
Some advertising sales people have got it right. Every January I have meeting after meeting with sales reps from outdoor advertising companies and radio stations. They ask what we have coming up for the year, I tell them. They show me the range of their products, they share their pricing mechanisms with me. They give me data on their media and its effectiveness. Occasionally they bring goodies - nothing ostentatious - but my spoils from these meetings have included packets of biscuits, boxes of chocolates, post-it notes and mugs.
They see their job to assist me in the all important planning and budgeting stages. The outcome of this clever and well thought out sales process is very simple: they have a higher likelihood of being included in my marketing plans.
Print advertising sales people (in the main, and there are a few exceptions) seem to respond to seeing other media or adverts and call me. Daily. Incessantly.
And the truth is, they haven't got a hope in hell of placing a sale - because the budget and media plan is already set. They have missed the proverbial boat. And not just by minutes. It sailed weeks ago.
I am not alone in being caught in the grip of the onslaught of advertising sales. Our clients are sick to death of it. As a result, we offer them this promise as part of our service: Let us deal with them.
And we do.
We route all our calls through a call answering service so it's easy to analyse the impact of advertising sales calls on our business.
Last week 61% of the incoming calls we received were from advertising sales people. Each and every single one of them believed they were the only advertising sales person to call me that day.
Only one of those calls was from a sales person from whom I was actively trying to purchase. One person called 5 times. In one day. And refused to leave a message. She will assume I don't know that she called that many times, however our system tells me everything I need to know. Imagine the negative impact on that publication's brand before she even gets through to me.
This erratic and seemingly desperate behaviour is indicative of an industry in turmoil. Readership figures are dropping, prices are increasing and their sales teams are panicking. If they see a poster in a train station on their way to work, they call that company that very day to see if they want to buy advertising. Their not so very clever assumption is that because we have already spent money on advertising, we must have money for advertising.
I know this to be true as, in our plan, we have the "in charge" dates of outdoor advertising sites I've booked, and every time we have a billboard or a poster go up in the outdoors, we brace ourselves for a flurry of advertising sales calls from daily newspapers. It's almost laughable. But it's really not that funny.
Print publications need to sort their advertising teams out and get back to the basics of selling. Know their market, know their needs and meet them. Otherwise they are in grave danger of becoming the double glazing sales people of the business world.
You have been warned.
Sunday 21 August 2011
Saturday 20 August 2011
Don't Say you Can if you Can't
My husband recently ordered a room divider for his new office. The website said it would be delivered within 2 weeks.
Almost 6 weeks down the line he is still waiting.
In a fit of growing irritation he's called the company daily for the last 8 days. Various excuses have ensued: the factory is closed for two weeks, it's waiting to be despatched, it'll be with you tomorrow, it'll be with you next week, we're not sure where we are with that order.
That company is now in big trouble:
You can't legislate for intelligence in business. So let's try to keep it really simple:
Don't say you can do it, if you really, really can't.
Almost 6 weeks down the line he is still waiting.
In a fit of growing irritation he's called the company daily for the last 8 days. Various excuses have ensued: the factory is closed for two weeks, it's waiting to be despatched, it'll be with you tomorrow, it'll be with you next week, we're not sure where we are with that order.
That company is now in big trouble:
- It's in breach of the UK's Distance Selling Regulations
- It has also breached the Advertising Standards Authority's rules and regulations with making false claims on their website
- And it's clearly in breach of Contract
You can't legislate for intelligence in business. So let's try to keep it really simple:
Don't say you can do it, if you really, really can't.
Sunday 14 August 2011
Teach a Man to Fish
Marketing has always been, for me, a fascinating subject. Drawing on many academic disciplines from psychology to maths, from art to economics.
At its heart, marketing is very simply the process of buying customers. It's both an art and a science. And much of its motivation is based on a simple theory: Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.
Maslow was a psychologist whose 1943 paper, A Theory of Human Motivation, suggested that individuals had a simple progression of needs starting with the physiological and ranging to the self-actualizing. The premise was that until one need was fulfilled, the individual had little or no desire to move onto their next priority.
Marketers have traditionally used the hierarchy as a means to communicating product benefits (slimmer, prettier, faster, better) and driving lifestyle choices (fulfilled, happy).
The recent London riots would perhaps suggest that, some 60 years later, Maslow's pyramid may no longer be as relevant.
Just one week ago London, and a number of other English cities, were gripped in a series of so called "consumer riots" which saw thousands of, mainly young people, take to the streets to thieve and loot.
The spoils of their efforts? 42" plasma TVs, shoes, DVD players, trainers, bicycles, alcohol, designer jeans..... the exhausting list of fast moving consumer goods goes on and on.
This was society's poor, we are all being led to believe. Neglected, unemployed, gang-ravaged communities. Their riotous efforts could be, depressingly, understood within that context, even justified.
But this was no modern re-make of Victor Hugo's Les Miserables. These rioters weren't starving to death. It wasn't bread and water they were looting for, it was plasma TVs and games consoles. So much for Maslow's hierarchy.
These people have put self actualization at the very top of their needs list. Everything else? Seemingly secondary. The Bishop of Manchester agrees.
But perhaps marketers are partly to blame for this overt, all consuming consumerism? Maybe this is the culmination of all that is fundamentally wrong with capitalism? But can businesses play a part in helping society to change?
When I think about the corporate obsession with perfection, it leaves little room for mistakes and therefore learning. How do these young people get a genuine start in life if no-one is willing to teach them, or give them the opportunities to learn?
I've always felt that businesses have a role in education. I am extremely grateful to those companies and managers who took me on with little or no experience and taught me the skills of their trade. I may not have followed a career in some of their lines of work, but they were willing to take the risk. Now we are so obsessed with perfection in service delivery and efficiency in operations that it's our young people who are genuinely missing out.
So, for all those business owners out there who employ people, this is your broom. This is your opportunity to help clean up our community and make a tangible difference. This is not someone else's problem. And it's certainly not just the responsibility of government. It's our problem to solve. Each and every single one of us.
Give a man a fish and you'll feed him for one day. Teach a man to fish and you'll feed him for a lifetime.
Let's get back to basics.
At its heart, marketing is very simply the process of buying customers. It's both an art and a science. And much of its motivation is based on a simple theory: Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.
Maslow was a psychologist whose 1943 paper, A Theory of Human Motivation, suggested that individuals had a simple progression of needs starting with the physiological and ranging to the self-actualizing. The premise was that until one need was fulfilled, the individual had little or no desire to move onto their next priority.
Marketers have traditionally used the hierarchy as a means to communicating product benefits (slimmer, prettier, faster, better) and driving lifestyle choices (fulfilled, happy).
The recent London riots would perhaps suggest that, some 60 years later, Maslow's pyramid may no longer be as relevant.
Just one week ago London, and a number of other English cities, were gripped in a series of so called "consumer riots" which saw thousands of, mainly young people, take to the streets to thieve and loot.
The spoils of their efforts? 42" plasma TVs, shoes, DVD players, trainers, bicycles, alcohol, designer jeans..... the exhausting list of fast moving consumer goods goes on and on.
This was society's poor, we are all being led to believe. Neglected, unemployed, gang-ravaged communities. Their riotous efforts could be, depressingly, understood within that context, even justified.
But this was no modern re-make of Victor Hugo's Les Miserables. These rioters weren't starving to death. It wasn't bread and water they were looting for, it was plasma TVs and games consoles. So much for Maslow's hierarchy.
These people have put self actualization at the very top of their needs list. Everything else? Seemingly secondary. The Bishop of Manchester agrees.
But perhaps marketers are partly to blame for this overt, all consuming consumerism? Maybe this is the culmination of all that is fundamentally wrong with capitalism? But can businesses play a part in helping society to change?
When I think about the corporate obsession with perfection, it leaves little room for mistakes and therefore learning. How do these young people get a genuine start in life if no-one is willing to teach them, or give them the opportunities to learn?
I've always felt that businesses have a role in education. I am extremely grateful to those companies and managers who took me on with little or no experience and taught me the skills of their trade. I may not have followed a career in some of their lines of work, but they were willing to take the risk. Now we are so obsessed with perfection in service delivery and efficiency in operations that it's our young people who are genuinely missing out.
So, for all those business owners out there who employ people, this is your broom. This is your opportunity to help clean up our community and make a tangible difference. This is not someone else's problem. And it's certainly not just the responsibility of government. It's our problem to solve. Each and every single one of us.
Give a man a fish and you'll feed him for one day. Teach a man to fish and you'll feed him for a lifetime.
Let's get back to basics.
Monday 8 August 2011
Word of Mouth Marketing: The Holy Grail
We’re often led to believe that word of mouth marketing is the very best kind. Reliable, effectives and free, it spreads like wildfire and costs the company nothing. But marketers often miss out on two vital components of word of mouth marketing: it must first be believable, and everyone needs to be saying it.
We live in a cynical age, where integrity appears to be lacking and even the most well meaning claims are subject to scrutiny.
Several months ago I switched supermarkets. I ditched the weekly Tesco shop in favour of “luxury” food market Marks & Spencer. In one simple move I saved time, money and improved the quality of the food we eat.
But, and here’s the interesting part, everyone I’ve told about this amazing money and time saving move hasn’t believed me. They’re just not convinced. It’s not just any food, it’s Marks and Spencer food. Surely it must be more expensive.
The cost of my weekly shop has dropped by almost 40%. The time I have to spend shopping has been halved. I can’t argue much with figures like that. But everyone seems doubtful that my information is correct.
“Try it for yourself!” I suggest.
My suggestions fall on deaf ears. I’m the only crazy woman I know making these claims. Remember: word of mouth only works if everyone else is saying it too. This is one of the indisputable laws of marketing. A demand curve that first demands that there is a slow burn of early adopters.
This is true for almost every product or service ever launched. Unless you are Google+ that is.
When I consider the number Facebook or Dropbox requests I suspiciously ignored before I finally gave in (mainly to the sheer volume) then I guess it’s reasonable to assume I’m not one of the world’s early, early adopters.
In the early adoption stakes, Google+ has played a blinder launching as an “invitation only” – there’s nothing more alluring to word of mouth early adopters than something they can’t get access to. Claiming the fastest social network launch in history, and well on its way to 20 million members, the sheer volume of people talking about Google+ is enough to guarantee initial success.
By jumping the demand curve, and putting early adoption above everything else, Google+ may have missed one crucial thing: if all the early adopters abandon the network after failing to find anything interesting in it, they’ll have to work twice as hard to continue to grow. After all, who wants 20million early adopters saying it’s not worth it? Better to have a smaller number of early adopters giving you useful feedback on how to improve. and develop. That’s what’s behind the success of Facebook. And Marks & Spencer.
We live in a cynical age, where integrity appears to be lacking and even the most well meaning claims are subject to scrutiny.
Several months ago I switched supermarkets. I ditched the weekly Tesco shop in favour of “luxury” food market Marks & Spencer. In one simple move I saved time, money and improved the quality of the food we eat.
But, and here’s the interesting part, everyone I’ve told about this amazing money and time saving move hasn’t believed me. They’re just not convinced. It’s not just any food, it’s Marks and Spencer food. Surely it must be more expensive.
The cost of my weekly shop has dropped by almost 40%. The time I have to spend shopping has been halved. I can’t argue much with figures like that. But everyone seems doubtful that my information is correct.
“Try it for yourself!” I suggest.
My suggestions fall on deaf ears. I’m the only crazy woman I know making these claims. Remember: word of mouth only works if everyone else is saying it too. This is one of the indisputable laws of marketing. A demand curve that first demands that there is a slow burn of early adopters.
This is true for almost every product or service ever launched. Unless you are Google+ that is.
When I consider the number Facebook or Dropbox requests I suspiciously ignored before I finally gave in (mainly to the sheer volume) then I guess it’s reasonable to assume I’m not one of the world’s early, early adopters.
In the early adoption stakes, Google+ has played a blinder launching as an “invitation only” – there’s nothing more alluring to word of mouth early adopters than something they can’t get access to. Claiming the fastest social network launch in history, and well on its way to 20 million members, the sheer volume of people talking about Google+ is enough to guarantee initial success.
By jumping the demand curve, and putting early adoption above everything else, Google+ may have missed one crucial thing: if all the early adopters abandon the network after failing to find anything interesting in it, they’ll have to work twice as hard to continue to grow. After all, who wants 20million early adopters saying it’s not worth it? Better to have a smaller number of early adopters giving you useful feedback on how to improve. and develop. That’s what’s behind the success of Facebook. And Marks & Spencer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)