marketing | Paul Wallbank - Communications Professional

Selling old rope

Sometimes rebranding an old concept works in the favour of customers.

“Big Data is a fad” announced a speaker at a technology conference. “We’ve had Big Data for years. We used to call it business analytics.”

He’s right. The IT industry is very good at rebadging technology and the term ‘Big Data’ is just the latest of many examples — the best of which is how ‘cloud computing’ which is largely a rebadging of SaaS, Application Service Providers or client-server.

While it’s easy to be cynical about this IT industry habit, there is a valid underlying point to this repainting old rope — that the refurbished old string is cheaper and more useful than what came before it.

The problem for innovators creating accessible, cheaper and faster ways to do things is they risk that their product will be likened to the old, expensive and inaccessible methods. No cloud computing provider wants to be associated with IBM’s expensive client-server products or the flaky Application Service Provider of the dot com era.

Most innovations aren’t revolutionary, they have evolved out of an older way of doing things. So saying “it’s being done before” when seeing an innovative product may be missing the point.

In the case of Big Data the principles aren’t new but we’re collecting more data than ever before and the old tools — even if they could manage with the volume of information— are far more expensive than the new services.

So repainting old rope isn’t always done for purely marketing purposes, sometimes there’s a real benefit to the customers.

Fleeing the group buying market

The air deflates from the group buying bubble

As Apple becomes the highest capitalised stock in US market history, former daily deals site and market darling Groupon continues to sink into misery.

Groupon led the group buying mania of 2011 and its stock market float in November of that year valued the business at 13 billion dollars, ten months later the business has a capitalisation of three billion, wiping out three quarters of its IPO shareholders’ investment.

To make matters worse for the daily deals site the New York Times features a story looking at deal fatigue, where customers tire of the daily emails offering discounted cafe meals or personal training while businesses find the deals just aren’t worth the trouble.

“I pretty much had to take a loan out to cover the loss, or we would have probably had to close,” the Times quotes Dyer Price, owner of Muddy’s Coffehouse in Portland, Oregon. “We will never, ever do it again”

In a straw poll, the Times correspondent visited neighbouring businesses who had similar stories.

The common factor with all the business horror stories surrounding group buying or deal of the day sites is high pressure sales tactics that blind the merchant to the downsides of these offers.

For these services, it’s essential to move through as many deals as possible so salespeople are driven to sign up as many merchants as possible. When you put pressure on sales teams, they tend to behave in ways that aren’t always good for customers.

Most of the customers Groupon attracts – or those of other deal of the day sites – are price sensitive and fussy. Having demanded their deal, most of these customers are not coming back so it may well be that daily deals are the most expensive, disruptive and pointless marketing channel ever invented.

The results of the high pressure tactics are shown in a Venture Beat story which claims Groupon is now threatening to sue unhappy merchants as payments slow and the daily deals struggle to attract customers.

What was always misunderstood during the group buying mania was that Deal Of The Day sites weren’t really technology plays – they were reliant on good sales teams driving deals. The technology being used was incidental to the core business concept.

In this respect, services like Groupon had more in common with the Yellow Pages or multi-level marketing schemes. It was about salespeople delivering orders and taking a percentage off the top. To compare Groupon with Google, Facebook or any tech start up was really missing the point.

This isn’t to say that group buying or deals of the day services don’t have a role in business. For retailers clearing inventory, hotels working around quiet periods or new businesses wanting to get attention in a crowded marketplace, there’s an argument for offering a deal on one of these sites.

For most though it was an expensive and pointless exercise that attracted the picky, price sensitive customers that most business would avoid rather than encourage. That’s the harsh lesson learned by many of the businesses who fell Groupon’s fast talking salesteams.

Losing the hospitality battle

Are smaller hospitality businesses falling behind big hotel chains?

Travel review site Tripadvisor released its 2012 Industry Index examining the 25,000 responses from hotels around the world and 1,000 Australian hospitality businesses who took part in the survey.

The index covers a wide range of areas of how the hospitality industry is dealing with connected customers, the web and how hotels are dealing with the relative performances of markets in Europe, North America and Asia.

A disturbing part of the survey was how many smaller businesses are falling behind their bigger competitors with less than half of Australian Bed & Breakfasts agreeing the statement that an “ability to book via my property’s website on a mobile device is ‘very important,” while 70% of hotels agreed.

The failure of smaller properties to engage online is borne out anecdotally as well, at a recent business breakfast a B&B owner – whose main business was furniture retailing – moaned about the negative TripAdvisor reviews his place had.

When it was suggested he might want to engage with the unhappy customers, the proprietor threw his hands up and said “our solicitor told us that it was too expensive to sue.” He wouldn’t accept that the dissatisfied guests might have a legitimate complaint that should be addressed.

At the same time larger hotel chains have full time teams monitoring comments on Tripadvisor, Facebook and other online forums, fixing problems that are being mentioned and then telling the world they have resolved the issue.

There’s a good reason for this. Ask someone planning a major holiday and you’ll find almost all of them are reading reviews on sites like Tripadvisor, Fodors or Lonely Planet’s Thorn Tree before booking accommodation or flights.

While many of the hotel management responses are boilerplate – repeated replies like “Thank you for your review and we appreciate you taking the time to share with us your experience as we are always pleased to receive feedback from our valued guests” is not what social media or customer service is – at least there is a perception that senior management is listening.

At many establishments senior management really is listening, a country manager of one of the world’s biggest chains describes how his three person team sends him a report each day of any complaints being listed online. These are checked out and any systemic problems they find such as surly front of house staff, poor housekeeping or incorrect billings are addressed immediately.

Having a direct line to happy or dissatisfied customers is one of the major benefits social media offers businesses. That smaller hotels aren’t doing this while their multinational competitors indicates the independent sectors of the hospitality industry are falling behind the majors.

The furniture shop owner with a B&B investment illustrated the problem, not only was he not engaging with dissatisfied customers on TripAdvisor, he had no idea whether his businesses were listed on Google Places, Facebook or any other online listing service – “my wife does that” was his dismissive answer.

Possibly the most overused quote in modern business is ice hockey star Wayne Gretzky’s “skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been”. Those smaller hospitality businesses not taking the mobile web, review sites or social media seriously aren’t even in the skating rink in today’s game.

There’s a lot more interesting ideas in the TripAdvisor report that should have any hospitality thinking about how customer service and marketing are evolving in a connected society. It’s worth a read.

Reliving the Hong Kong Handover syndrome

Scaring customers away is rarely a good idea

After Margaret Thatcher 1984 agreement to hand Hong Kong over the People’s Republic of China, the hoteliers of the British Colony sent out the message “book now, or pay dearly for rooms at the time of the handover.”

It became perceived wisdom that the territory would be booked out for years in advance and any rooms available would cost a fortune. So people made other plans.

As a result, Hong Kong’s hotel occupancy rate during the handover was only 45%. The “buy now or you’ll miss out” message backfired as people decided they’d rather miss out.

In the second week of the London 2012 Olympics the same thing is happening – the regular tourist trade has been scared away and even the locals who haven’t left town are staying home to avoid the transport and other hassles.

For London, the Olympics have backfired.

This is what is always missed when cities or governments make bids for big events, they displace existing trade and the benefits, if any, are short lived.

At least the Olympics do attract millions of visitors and the eyes of the world are on the host city for two weeks.

Far worst are the pointless heads of government meetings that pop up with monotonous regularity, for a few days of fleeting notoriety a city is locked down and its citizen corralled as Presidents and Prime Ministers meet to discuss something that will be forgotten in weeks.

The Sydney APEC meeting of 2007 was case in point, nothing was achieved for the weeks of disruption to normal business except for the spectacle of the so called leaders of the Asia Pacific region scuttling between hotels like frightened cockroaches in their armour plated motorcades.

Governments around the world keep falling for the myth that these major events generate some sort of economic benefits when it’s clear to the population who aren’t invited to the VIP cocktails parties that their money isn’t being well spent.

For businesses, the lesson is not to make too many “buy now or miss out” claims. If customers take you at your word then you may find your shop is half empty, just as Hong Kong did in 1997.

The Olympian quest for control

The control freakery of the Olympics marks an organisation struggling with threats.

“Blogs or tweets must be in a first-person, diary-type format and should not be in the role of a journalist,” state the International Olympic Committee’s social media guidelines.

The London Olympics Committee betrays how their ignorance of how the Internet works with an unrealistic and unenforceable linking policy.

More worryingly, an army of ‘brand police’ are scouring Britain for renegade cake decorators or knitting clubs breaching Olympic copyrights. Council trading inspectors have been redeployed from their main role of protecting the community to guarding the sponsorship values of the IOC and the world’s biggest corporations.

All of this is about control – a country that bids to host the Olympics agrees to draconian rules and regulations on free speech and commerce. Athletes too find themselves subject to harsh, and sometimes arbitrary, controls.

The purpose of these controls is to enhance the commercial value of sponsorships – this is why only McDonalds can serve fries, except with fish, at Olympic venues and only Visa credit cards can be used to buy a souvenir t-shirt.

Like all major sporting organizations, the value of Olympic rights exploded with the growth of advertising and broadcasting rights from the 1960s onwards.

We’ve reached the logical end of that growth as broadcasters struggle under the load of funding massive rights payments and advertisers find campaigns based on what worked in the 1960s or 1980s have less resonance with the debt addled consumers of the 2010s.

None of this will stop the IOC and other sports administrators from enacting iron fisted controls on participants, sponsors, spectators and any one else they can bully, but their power is waning.

Just like the Soviet Union tried to control fax machines as their economy crumbled around them, the same thing is happening with the Olympics and other big ticket sports.

Top level sports administrators are very good at currying favours from the corporate Bourbons and political princelings who love to spend other people’s money to build their own egos which will allow the facade to continue for a few more years.

Eventually though the money will run out as shareholders question the value of billion dollar sponsorships coupled with executive gold passes to the VIP marquee and taxpayers will ask why governments have money to spend on stadiums or elite sports programs when their local school, hospital and police stations are being closed.

History shows that threatened leaders tighten controls when they are threatened. We can expect the next couple of Olympics to have even more draconian rules than London’s.

The Free Myth

Free services often come at a cost of your time.

One of the biggest dangers to businesses is the belief that something is “free”.

As we all know, there is no such thing as a free lunch. When another business gives you something for free it’s safe to say there is a cost somewhere.

One of the speakers at the City of Sydney’s Let’s Talk Business social media event stated this when talking about social media saying “I can’t believe all businesses aren’t on Facebook – it’s free.”

Social media isn’t free. We all know the value services like Facebook are mining are the tastes, habits and opinions of their users.

For businesses, engaging heavily in Facebook or any other social media service hands over far more information about their customers to a third party than they themselves would be able to collect.

All of that information handed over to a service like Google or Facebook can come back to bite the business, particularly if a well cashed up competitor decides to advertise at the demographic the business caters to.

The core fallacy though is that these service are “free”. They aren’t.

Every single service comes with a time cost. Every social media expert advises the same thing, businesses have to post to their preferred service of choice at least three times a week and those posts should be strategically thought out.

That advice is right, but it costs time.

For a business owner, freelancer or entrepreneur time is their scarcest asset. You can always rebuild your bank account but you can never recover time.

Big businesses face the same problem, but they overcome this with money by hiring people for their time. In smaller businesses, this time comes out of the proprietor’s twenty-four crowded hours each day.

The computer and internet industries are good at giving away stuff for free, in doing so they burn investors’ money and the time of their users. The social media business model hopes to pay a return to investors by trading the data users contribute in their time.

While businesses can benefit from using social media services, they have to be careful they aren’t wasting too much of their valuable time while giving away their customers to a third party.

Often when somebody looks back on their life they say “I wish I had more time.” They’ve learned too late that asset has been wasted.

Wasting that unreplaceable asset on building someone else’s database would be a tragedy.

Killing credibility

One dumb campaign can hurt a brand

Microsoft’s Smoked by Windows Phone Challenge aims to show their mobile phones are the fastest on the market.

Unfortunately if you beat them, it appears you might not win the prize as Sahas Katta discovered.

Going back on a prize in a competition that already looks somewhat biased doesn’t just hurt Windows Phone’s credibility but it hurts the whole company’s – it looks cheap, lame and petty.

Realising the damage this does Microsoft’s brand, evangelist Ben Randolph offered Sahas a laptop and phone, although already the botched promotion has probably already hurt the product.

Windows Phone is a “must succeed” for Microsoft and that company would stage poorly thought out stunts with high chance of backfiring is disappointing given what is at stake for them.

Trust and reputation and the hardest things to earn and the easiest to squander, Microsoft’s management needs to be careful with this.

Hopefully Microsoft will show us some compelling reasons to buy an alternative to an iPhone or Android handset beyond dodgy marketing stunts.

A website can’t save a dying business

Online tools can’t fix an organisation’s structural problems

The last week has seen some interesting changes in the local online business community.

Embattled department store David Jones’ announced they are following Harvey Norman into an “omni channel strategy”.

Harvey Norman chief executive in turn appeared on national television to state the “internet drives no sales.”

In the political field, it was reported the Australian Labor Party are looking at using Blue State Digital tools to counter voter and member apathy.

Each one in it’s own way illustrates how organisations can be distracted by shiny new technology while ignoring much deeper problems.

In the case of David Jones, the department store ignored their core competencies and tried to ape their down market competitors in milking the financial services cow.

This worked fine while they could offer 24 and 36 month interest free deals and as soon as their partners American Express started charging a monthly “Administration Fee” that business evaporated.

One of DJ’s down market competitors is Harvey Norman, co-founder Gerry Harvey has spent his life building a fortune based upon providing cheap credit to consumers.

It was always going to be a mistake for DJs to compete with Harvey’s as Gerry is far better at the business than the well connected, genteel board of David Jones and their snappily dressed friends in the store’s executive suite.

Worse for DJs, the whole strategy alienated their core markets and while management focused on financial services customers went elsewhere to find the quality goods and services that the upmarket department store should be providing.

For both though, the financial services business model is now fading as the 20th Century debt supercycle comes to an end; consumers no longer want to load up on “buy now, pay later” schemes.

So all the talk of “omni-channel strategies” really doesn’t address the underlying weaknesses in both business.

This disconnect with reality is true in politics as well where the ALP is reported to be considering using the Red State Digital tools that Barak Obama used so well in his 2008 US Presidential campaign.

While the tools are impressive, they don’t address the problem that the electorate – and the member bases of the major political parties – have become rightly disillusioned and disconnected from the political processes that exclude everyone except an increasingly smaller circle of cronies and insiders.

The only good thing that will come of using US political communications tools in the spectacular eruption the first time one of the ALP’s factional warlords encounters a grass roots online campaign like The Great Schlep.

Heck, the resulting furore might even see some of the apparatchiks distracted from partying and whoring on their union credit cards for a day or two.

All the frivolity aside, the reality for the Australian Labor Party, David Jones and Harvey Norman is their problems are far deeper than a well designed website and impeccably executed social media strategy can fix. These organisations need major rethinks about how and why they exist.

It doesn’t matter how much money you throw at the web or how effective your social media strategy is – if the foundations of a business are shaky then a nice “omni-channel strategy” aren’t going to fix things.

For some of organisations, a failure to embrace the online world may be one of the causes for their problems, for many though there are far more basic issues they need to address.

Overselling technology

Do technologists promise too much?

“We’d like to allow remote band members – say a violinist in the Australian outback – be able to participate in an orchestra as if they were there. We hope the NBN will be able to do this.”

When the band organiser said this at a business roundtable all the technologists, myself included, choked.

There are many things the Australian National Broadband Network will deliver but the ability to teleport a violinist from the outback to downtown Sydney or Melbourne isn’t one of them.

One of the problems with technology is we tend to oversell the immediate effects; as Bill Gates famously said “The impact of all new technologies is overestimated in the short term but under estimated in the long term.”

Because we tend to sell the immediate sizzle, customers are disappointed when our promises don’t eventuate. In the decade it takes to win them back, those initial benefits we didn’t deliver in six months have become commonplace.

This is probably one of the reasons why businesses are reluctant to invest in new technology or online services; they’ve heard the promises before and they don’t trust what they can hear.

In the late 1990s businesses spent tens of thousands – sometimes millions – establishing websites that didn’t work. Those financial scars still hurt when they hear talk, some of them are still paying off those sites. So it’s barely surprising they are reluctant to return to a sector that has now matured.

Perhaps it’s best to underpromise; instead of cloud computer vendors committing themselves to 80% savings and social media experts promising millions of customers from their new viral video, it may be better to be more realistic with the expectations.

Customers have become deaf to wonderful promises, they are expecting us to deliver. Promising the world is no longer a business strategy.

The limits of SEO

Having a nice web site is only part of a winning business

On their busiest day of the year, the florist site Ready Flowers had a shocker. With dozens of customers upset their Valentines Day flowers didn’t arrive.

Their reaction was to stop answering their calls, as one Ready Flowers angry customer on the Whirlpoool website said;

Calling through to their 24/7 hotline was no good, all it told me (after 30 mins on hold) was a automated message saying it was valentine’s day (duh), that they were busy and that I should leave a message.

So on their one key day of the year, they didn’t have enough staff to meet demand.

Ready Flowers has been a success story expanding to 17 countries since being founded in 2005. The service is a modern version of the Interflora model where the company takes the order which they pass onto a local florist who creates the flower arrangement to Ready Flowers’ or Interflora’s specifications.

The risk for Ready Flowers is that the local florist isn’t very good and that’s where customer support and tight supplier management comes into place.

Which is clearly where they fell over on Valentines Day.

In a 2009 interview with the Financial Review that’s quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald, Ready Flowers’ founder Thomas Hegarty claimed his success was due to good search-engine optimisation, online advertising, and landing pages for every delivery location.

Missing is the term “customer service” – in that interview Thomas went onto say, “We saw that we could add value by applying more efficient technology without needing a large number of people to run the business”.

This is the flaw in the web 2.0 business model. In the real world, businesses don’t run on remote control – mistakes are made, deadline missed and people do dumb things which the algorithm can’t handle.

Over the last thirty years, customer service has been seen as an unnecessary cost centre. This was fine in a world where automated, low margin and fast moving goods were seen as the business model to emulate.

If you can’t compete on price, it’s service that matters and this is where you’ll need more than a lost cost call centre and a well optimised website.

Exposure exposed

Giving away freebies in return for exposure rarely works

A few years back a client of mine was delighted to receive a phone call from a television producer offering exposure for his business on a national TV program.

The offer was Jeff, who is a builder, would donate his company’s work to a television home improvement show and in return Jeff’s business would get a mention in the credits as well as some coverage in the program.

Jeff agreed, had new t-shirts for his labourers printed and they did three days work helping celebrity gardeners refurbish a backyard.

The guys had a ball, the labourers chatted up the presenter and the pretty production assistants and for a day or so Jeff felt like he was in Hollywood.

A few weeks later the show went to air – there were a couple of glimpses of Jeff’s guys doing stuff and if you were quick with the freeze button you could pick out part of Jeff’s business name and phone number.

When the show finished, Jeff’s business appeared for a split second which was difficult to read if you were lightning fast with the remote control. Not a great return for several thousand dollars of labour and materials.

That was an expensive lesson for Jeff.

Recently I heard of a business that was asked to contribute some of products to a newspaper – they wanted an ongoing commitment that would cost the business quite a bit of money.

For the newspaper this is a great deal – they tie in a promotion for their readers that costs them nothing. The business is left out of pocket with little upside except for some “exposure” of dubious value.

We see this repeated every day by dozens of businesses being seduced into offering fat discounts for group buying sites. The salesman’s spiel is that a prominent offer will get exposure on their email that goes out to thousands of people.

Most of these promises are nonsense; giving away your time or work for free is the most expensive thing a business can do and if it’s going to work it has to be part of a strategic plan.

It’s been said all publicity is good publicity, but that’s not really true if there’s no return on a substantial effort.

Blindly giving things away in the hope of getting some free publicity isn’t a good business practice and those who urge you to do so aren’t acting your best interests as Jeff learned.