We expect a two-way, personalized, progressive conversation with every relationship in our lives.  Why would we try to communicate differently with our customers?  Aren’t they a valuable aspect of our success and lives?

he human mind is a remarkable device. Nevertheless, it is not without limits. Recently, a growing body of research has focused on a particular mental limitation, which has to do with our ability to use a mental trait known as executive function. When you focus on a specific task for an extended period of time or choose to eat a salad instead of a piece of cake, you are flexing your executive function muscles. Both thought processes require conscious effort-you have to resist the temptation to let your mind wander or to indulge in the sweet dessert. It turns out, however, that use of executive function—a talent we all rely on throughout the day—draws upon a single resource of limited capacity in the brain....

Here is a link to the rest:http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=tough-choices-how-making

I found via Coolfer a small interesting poll on the website of the mag Stereophile. Of course that`s no academic primary research and you`re reaching just  "music geeks"  on this website, but anyway an interesting question and figures...
Here the results:

• CD player: 34%
• Hi-rez disc player: 11%
• iPod: 4%
• Music Server (computer-based): 36%
• Music Server (dedicated: Sooloos, Sonos, etc.): 10%
• Other: 3%

Well...apparently the hifi-system in the average livingroom is changing...

Maybe there are somewhere serious numbers for a broad user set to a similar question...

This reminds me that customer engagement and tracking of customer behavior constantly walks the fine line between helpful and intrusive.  Privacy has become a huge concern in today’s society, especially online, and needs to be taken seriously and with great care.  The entire backbone of customer engagement and customer interaction is Permission. Seth Godin has written an entire book called Permission Marketing and it still holds true today.  Without permission, any kind of customer engagement becomes scary and intrusive.

Let’s all learn a lesson from the story, even if the allegations turn out to be false, to always remember to gain permission to gather data, utilize information, or engage in any kind of intimate relationship with any customer.

**********
SPURspectives is the blog of Spur Communications, a nationally-recognized, Kansas City-based Interactive Marketing Agency that is leading the industry in customer engagement through individualized, 1:1 multi-channel marketing communications.

del.icio.us, Digg it, Furl, ma.gnolia, Spurl, Yahoo MyWeb, Google, StumbleUpon

This is not to say that I read US Weekly diligently, or watch American Idol.  Only that I know that such things exist; have engaged with them enough to understand them; and appreciate that they and the contents within are massively popular across a broad audience.

Every so often, however, I learn something about my country that really knocks me off my kilter.  Most recently, it was that the show "Big Brother" has been on a major television network for 10 freaking seasons(!!!)

Now, while I've heard of the show, I don't understand its premise, and I've never watched it.  Moreover, I cannot recall ever having a conversation with a single friend who has watched the show.  I have friends who watch pure crap -- Gossip Girl, Tila Tequila, The Hills, The Bachelorette, Bad Girls Club-- I've even known people who watched Survivor well into its dying years (is that still on the air?)  But nowhere within my six degrees of separation do I know a single person who watches Big Brother.

(Note: this is not an exaggeration.  I just did an advanced profile search on facebook and not one of my 358 "friends" has Big Brother listed as a TV show he or she watches.  I'm sure we'd find similar results with The Mole, but that's another post entirely).

My larger point here is that no matter how well I may think I know/understand the people of the country in which I live, the simple truth is that I really don't.

I mean, insofar as I am a student of economics, I implicitly understand that individuals have divergent preferences, and markets emerge to meet these preferences.  And within markets, there are competitors who fight to capture market share by best meeting the majority of consumer preferences, or at a least a segment of the market.

What I don't understand is why anyone would use Hotmail before Yahoo, or Yahoo before Google.  Google is demonstrably better, it offers more space, it crashes less often, it has an embedded chat, it comes with a suite of other products, etc.  In my mind, Google should own 100% of the market in terms of e-mail service, because 100% of consumers should recognize that it's a superior product in an environment where virtually all options are free.  What baffles me is people continue to choose inferior products.  Why?  Why is that?

A few months ago I wrote about how Tide was the preferred detergent of most people, even though detergent seemed like a fairly consistent commodity and Tide was always the most expensive brand.  One consumer researcher stated that the less pricey competitor Gain was "the experiential and fragrance brand, and had strong ethnic performance."

I have two theories here:

1.)  Is a  matter of education.  Education means critical and analytical thinking, including the ability to distinguish and appreciate levels of value.  People who are better educated have "more taste," as it were... or at least know how/when to differentiate between a product that is worthwhile versus one that is cheap/crap.

2.)  The second is consumer behavior.  People who live on a tighter budget instinticively learn to gravitate to the products that inherently seem cheaper.  (Note:  this theory is based on my-friends-who-shall-remain-nameless who squeal with delight over any/alloffers from the following restuarants:  Olive Garden, Taco Bell, Bob Evans.) They are not concerned with value, per se, only attracted to the least costly option... and this mentality carries through even when the product choices are free/no cost to the consumer.

Anyway, my larger point is, again, I don't get it, which I think means I'm not the populist I like to make myself out to be.  I'm still voting for Obama though.

PS...If you like thinking about consumer choice, you'll love this TED Talk by Malcolm Gladwell:

The advances in social media and how it is utilized in marketing strategies have given the consumer a voice and a desire to actually communicate with their favorite or prospective brands in an intimate way.  The consumer needs to have the knowledge and understanding that the particular brand will be the best fit for their lifestyle.  What a better way to show the consumer that you are the better brand, than on this intimate stage.  So, with the tremendous benefits of this type of communication, why are so many companies reluctant to embrace these new technologies?  Is it the lack of metrics? The uncertainty of the outcome? The fear of messing up these intimate relationships?

Social media is here to stay and should be viewed as an ally rather than an enemy.  The Internet is quickly becoming a point of sale platform where customers are researching and molding their purchase decision by engaging with other consumers, brands, and information resources.  Being able to engage the customer on an intimate level at the point of decision is one of the most powerful forms of marketing. Listen, learn, and engage your customer for your brands success.

del.icio.us, Digg it, Furl, ma.gnolia, Spurl, Yahoo MyWeb, Google, StumbleUpon

Let's start off with a generic trade-off curve between Point A and Point B.

Let's say that anything along that curve is considered equally optimal. And to flesh out this example, we'll say we're looking at waffles and the two qualities that people care about in waffles: the amount of syrup on a waffle and how crispy it is. In general people are willing to give up some syrup for more crisp. Point A is a syrup covered waffle, and hence fairly soggy. Point B is a crispy waffle with little syrup.

Now let's say we offer Waffle A and Waffle B for the people to choose between. To make things simple, half of the market chooses Waffle A and half the market chooses Waffle B.

Now here is the interesting part. We can change this without making any changes to Waffle A or Waffle b. Instead we are going to change the context of the decision by adding in Waffle C

Waffle C is inferior in both syrup and crisp to Waffle B, and simply by adding this as an option to choose from, Waffle B now gets more than half of the market. The split is now something like 40% choose Waffle A and 60% choose Waffle B.
Maybe it is because Waffle B is obviously superior to C, makes it more attractive. Perhaps after looking at B and C we don't want to figure out the trade off between A and B. I'm not sure what exactly the cause is, but we do know that context matters.

Walter Landor defined branding as “…a brand is a promise. By identifying and authenticating a product or service it delivers a pledge of satisfaction and quality."

This definition has been a great representation of a brand in the one-way marketing communication of the past.  Now, we have reached the new social world where brands need to engage customers by creating and continuing two-way conversations on an individual basis.  This means that the actual control of the brand has moved from the company to the consumer where the company has become a facilitator of the relationship.  Brands are becoming dynamic, in a sense, where they able to grow with the customer, ever-integrating into the lifestyle of that individual customer.

With the increase in database marketing, social media, and the shift in consumer behavior, consumers are demanding individualization and molding brands into their own personal lifestyle and daily routine.  This transition has created levels of brand loyalty and advocacy once thought to be unattainable.

On the flipside, a company needs to be aware of the power shift and be able to allow for the malleability of the brand with the essence still visible and constant throughout the individual customer relationship.  This dichotomy of the brand will forever change the way marketers look at their company from the social perspective and create awareness of the various conversations surrounding the brand (brand to consumer, consumer to consumer, brand to community, brand to advertising, etc.).

Social Branding is all about creating a dynamic brand that can be molded and changed for the individual customer relationships while still holding true and communicating the brand’s essence.  It’s a wonderful time to create a lifelong brand relationship with the customer.

del.icio.us, Digg it, Furl, ma.gnolia, Spurl, Yahoo MyWeb, Google, StumbleUpon

Eventually it came down to dual objectives.

1) To do work that is in-line with future of starting a business. This means that work with regards to business development, strategy, consulting, marketing, or anything that I may be passionate about maybe even advertising

2) To get certifications in marketing.

Yes I could have achieved 1 with the job. But it left little in the way of the second. And like i reasoned, after a year, i would be pretty much in the same place supposing little changed. No certification, no savings, and still in debt. There are much better options i believed.

And, who knows? This might not turn out to be the best option after all but to have considered all round and choosing to stick to my objectives means that THAT in fact is the decision. Anything that came from that could have been a hit or a miss.

Today's news cast included some nuggets about Freddie and Fannie Mae and how it has affected our stock exchanges and ST index. Yes all the usual. But then, a spokesperson from Fundsupermart starting giving his views on the long-term or short-term outlook and giving encouragement somesort to go into the market. Highly unusual if i may say. Investment advice, to what i remember is not part of the scope of the programme of news. In my opinion, it should stay with Channel newsasia. Why? 1 reason is that alot of the public, some of which do not invest, and worse, some of those who think they know something about investing, watch the news everyday. Leaving the nature of his recommendations aside, which was to look at long-term, albeit taking some risk (what am i saying, there's always risk) to buy in now, its something which the public can easily comprehend differently from the intended. And besides, there's so much things to cover in the short period of half an hour, i really don't think we shud have a problem of filling in the programme schedule.

But then think again, why the sudden inclusion? Could it be a deliberate attempt to salvage the market from panic selling? This could be a propaganda effort to gently manipulate the investors. If so, then i must say they are learning fast.

Research from consumer behaviour journal: Consumers who have a more expansive time-horizon think better of rational approaches to advertisement while those with shorter outlook are swayed more by emotional approaches.

So the question begs, where does your product or service fit into consumer's lives? Between brushing your teeth and breakfast? Between seatbelt and handbrake? Or maybe you are an every 6-months habit. What cues do you provide your consumers to prompt them into a certain routine? (My dentist sends post cards)

The NYTimes article explains how P&G realized that bad smells occurred too infrequently to make Febreze profitable. In fact too often buyers forgot they had Febreze in the house. It was only when they tied Febreze with cleaning a room did a solid habit form. In fact North America alone bought $650 million worth of Febreze this last fiscal year.

When looking through the marketing eyeglass, many companies, such as Budweiser, see the company goal as increasing the number of consumers and consumption to increase the bottom line which will make the shareholders money.  This view is completely outward facing, not giving any thought to the meaning and feeling the shareholders may have about the reason for their investment. 

With that being said, Budweiser could have easily won this battle the moment the word InBev was muttered in the halls in St Louis by taking a global approach with customer engagement.  Every company has many customers (the user, the shareholder, the employee, the community, etc.) that need to be addressed in a specific targeted marketing campaign.  Budweiser should have had a targeted marketing campaign going towards the shareholder engagement for many, many years now creating more than just a monetary investment, but an emotional and behavioral investment that increases the value of the stock to a human level. 

This simple customer engagement turned human attachment to the investment would have given Budweiser the shareholder artillery it needed to fight off the Goliath InBev at the very drop of the name.  Now, the sale has become imminent due to the monetary incentives the shareholders are to gain with no thought or feeling whatsoever to the emotional aspect of what the sale means.

In conclusion, emotions and behaviors are the reasons people do what they do.  If Budweiser would have created shareholder emotional and behavioral attachments to their investments, selling their stock would be like getting rid of a lucky t-shirt or the ever-coveted baseball card collection.  We all need to look at and engage each and every customer increasing the attachment and affliction for our brand.  You never know when InBev will try to buy your company.

del.icio.us, Digg it, Furl, ma.gnolia, Spurl, Yahoo MyWeb, Google, StumbleUpon

Over twenty years later, this profound idea and theory are still being practiced by the best marketers around the world and will be for some time. However, with the advances seen in technology, the dynamics in consumer behavior, and the increases in marketing channels, will Dr. Levitt’s theory continue to grow or peril with other marketing ideas from the past? What would take its place if it were to fall?

With the new communication strategies (ie Social media) that are being utilized by consumers to gather information, aid in decision-making, and enhance the proliferation of word of mouth activities, marketers now need to engage the consumer in a meaningful, lifelong, two-way conversation, continually learning and growing the relationship to a level only dreamed of by our old friend, Dr. Levitt. This theory is called Consumer Engagement.

With Consumer Engagement, the marketer will fulfill the past needs of marketing by creating new customers, keeping current customers, and enhancing the brand to the highest level of loyalty throughout the best customers. But, with Consumer Engagement the marketer will add a level that, not only completes the marketing cycle, but allows for enhanced, dynamic communication throughout the consumer's locus of influence creating brand advocacy where the consumer actually becomes a marketing channel in itself spreading the value of the brand.

Let’s see how Consumer Engagement fulfills these marketing needs:

Create: By gaining permission to start a conversation and build a relationship, a marketer begins to understand the consumer as and individual, drastically increasing its chances of turning the prospect into a customer.

Keep: Continually communicating, learning about the customer, and building a dynamic brand that is molded in the liking of the customer, a marketer will create a level of loyalty that will make it hard for the customer to defect.

Enhance: With this level of intimacy with the customer, the marketer now has the data and permission to integrate the brand into the day-to-day life of the customer, enhancing the relationship to the highest level of brand loyalty, brand saturation.

Advocacy: Complete and utter satisfaction for the customer has been a well played strategy by the marketer, molding the brand more and more into the life of the customer creating a brand advocate. This person will, no doubt, become a marketing channel in itself. As an advocate, they would create a word of mouth in their locus of influence that would allow the marketer to gain the permission to start the cycle over with each and every prospect in the group.

In conclusion, Dr. Levitt was right, marketing is a company’s ability to create, keep, and enhance a customer. But does that encompass everything in today’s environment? Or is Consumer Engagement the New Marketing? That’s for you to decide.

Paul Miser

del.icio.us, Digg it, Furl, ma.gnolia, Spurl, Yahoo MyWeb, Google, StumbleUpon

This past week, in addition to the New York Times story mentioned in yesterday's post, a couple of other articles caught my eye that basically reinforce the theory that, regardless of all the vast and rapid (vapid?) technological changes our society has seen and experienced, we humans fundamentally are the same lemming-like creatures we always were and probably always will be.

The first story is a Wall Street Journal review of the book Buying In, by Rob Walker, who wrote the "Consumed" column for the New York Times Magazine.  Walker makes the point that despite today's tools allowing people to block advertising, to access to more information and to have the opportunity to weigh a diversity of views, the consumer is still sucked into the most basic of advertising hype, blindly and somewhat irrationally going straight for he/she perceives to be popular. It's the power of group dynamics played to a ridiculous level.

The article rightly pointed out that the truth probably lies somewhere in between - that the Internet has spawned many, many more options and made superstars out of some of the offbeat content and personalities who would likely never have had a chance to raise to the level of public consiousness in the old media days, but that when push comes to shove, it's still pretty much one big popularity contest. Just like high school.

I wonder how I'd fare in one of those consumer-lemming studies.  Would I give an enthusiastic thumbs up to the vinegar-laced orange drink just because it has an appealing-sounding brand name?  Would I cave in and buy something I wouldn't ordinarily, just because everyone else is?  I've always prided myself on being independent-minded, but I can only hope that when put to the test I'd pass my own lofty standards.  With all the information and choices available to us, we could probably all afford to be more thoughtful.

And yet...I've heard that ABC's "I Survived a Japanese Game Show" is a total hoot and I need to set my DVR for Tuesday night's episode. Talk about being conflicted...Stay tuned.

"Huh?" I replied.

"You have enough. We're not buying anymore."

Isn't it amazing how "we" and "you" were used interchangeably there? Never mind the fact that this was long before iTunes and downloading of any kind (legal or otherwise). Nope, an executive decision had been made, and I was the executee.

Of course, I broke the law (hers, not the RIAA's). I bought more CDs. And although I now buy my music through iTunes, I have not quit amassing an enormous music collection. All the good songs have not yet been written, and it is my job (OK, desire) to enjoy the good ones that come along in the mean time.

Whether I need new music is quite another thing. I will not deny, though, that I want it. Once I get an ear worm, the only way to satisfy that critter is to buy more music.

Such is life, a never-ending battle of the ear worm and the pocketbook, the devil on one side and an angel on the other. Sales receipts litter the battlefield of Needs and Wants.

The job of the marketer is to help us discover our needs, not create them. And then they have been tasked (oh, doesn't this just sound so noble?) with helping us translate those newfound needs into wants, activated by desire to fix some consumer problem that has popped onto the radar screen.

Oh yeah...and if they cannot help us discover those latent needs, then they'll cut to the chase and try to build desire anyway.

From a marketer's perspective, we are the neediest people to ever roam the planet. And our needs are often based on such high levels of economic activity that our ancestors could never have seen this coming. Who among us would have thought, back in 1997 when WTOnline first went, well, online, that we profs would need desktop and laptop computers, smart phones, and all the cool artifacts of a mobile office?

Excuse me while I wipe the bagel crumbs from my keyboard. Panera is crowded this morning, and I had to hustle just to get a small table.

Abraham Maslow would roll over in his pyramid-shaped grave were he to see how we have leaped beyond his first two levels of needs, and trained our sites on the remaining three. He might argue that our use of products to somehow try to satisfy the highly abstract notions of esteem, interpersonal, and self -attainment needs is superfluous at best, and downright scandalous at worst.

Sure, there are some things that we all need by virtue of living or by decree (car insurance comes to mind). But we live charmed lives these days, and I doubt any of us are at risk of running around naked or hungry. No, we are clothed quite nicely, and dining at the table of economic surplus. The soundtrack of our lives is richly appointed with a full backing band.

And I just can't get that tune out of my mind. My wife is back at her mother's. You wouldn't tell if I downloaded it, would you?

Dr "Bleed For It" Gerlich

I have heard it said that the products and brands a man or woman buys are all part of a personal narrative, with story arcs, plots, twists, turns, and unexpected endings. Which means that what we buy is determined in large part by agendas, motives, drives, and all sorts of intangibles that perhaps even we do not fully understand.

But maybe the story we are trying to tell to others we are simultaneously trying to tell to ourselves. No longer enamored of what we see in the mirror, we try to write a compelling tale not so much for the public, but for an audience of one: Ourself.

So let us think about the products and brands we buy. I won't even approach the subject of whether the item was a need or a want. To borrow a page from the gaming playbook, beauty is in the eye of the Wii holder.

When I purchase a certain brand of trousers or shirts, am I trying to tell myself I am stylish? Oh-so-professional? Is my vehicle an extension of myself, or am I an extension of it? Does my choice of microbrew make me a connoisseur, or a common sewer anyway?

And is anybody else really even watching or listening when I spin this tale for myself?

Probably not.

Even a dog brand can suddenly do a 180 and become hip and cool in spite of the fact that yesterday it lay dying on the beach. Pabst Blue Ribbon (PBR) comes to mind, a historic but long-faded relic of the post-Prohibition era that was rescued by counter-culture youth a few years ago because it was not marketed. And in the process, it became an overnight success. Again. Seventy years later.

So I have to wonder what this says about us all. Are we just a bunch of insecure babes in the woods trying to convince ourselves that we've got it all together? I think this may be truth.

And it may go a long way toward explaining our obsession with MySpace, Facebook, blogging, and even Twitter. It's not the world we're trying to impress, it's US.

So does this mean we all face a term in the loony bin for talking to ourselves?

Dr "Just Don't Answer Your Own Questions" Gerlich

I remember when I was young. My brother and I would always harangue our parents until they tuned in WLS on the car radio. WLS was then Chicago's premier Top 40 radio station, and their music offended our parents to no end. "Can you turn it up a bit?" we nagged.

During last week's road trip, the seeds bore fruit as our daughters implored us to play Jordyn Sparks over and over again. I heard Tattoo more times than I care to remember. Here's a little tip, Jordyn: Use a real drummer next time, not some lame drum machine. Back in my day, artists used humans, not machines.

"Dad, can you turn it up a bit?"

I now know what my parents went through. They deserve a medal, for they weathered a continuous insult to their musical sensibilities. It's not that I dislike modern music, for I actually prefer more 21C material than the tunes with which I grew up. There's just something about Jordyn Sparks that rubs me raw, and makes me want to drive faster just to get the trip over with.

Today we see yet another form of this taking place, that being the prevalence of tattoos and body piercing. Not that these are anything new, mind you. It's just that it seems like I am quickly headed into minority status with my ink-free body. If the folks I saw last week baring it all (well, mostly) at Schlitterbahn are any indication, I should have invested in the tattoo industry.

And I don't mean just subtle little tattoos on the upper arm, or even the ankle wraps or the so-called "tramp stamp" in the small of the back. No, I'm talking about massive pieces of artwork that beg people to turn and gawk. Like I did.

Which is probably the intented reaction anyway.

I have read numerous times that today's youthful obsession with getting inked is really a form of rebellion. And that's OK, because previous generations were no different. I just wonder, though, if harvest time will come back to haunt them.

You see, corporations are still a tad stodgy. And even though a person's artistic masterpiece may be concealed across their shoulders or chest, anything that is visible is simply verboten.

I do not have a problem with tasteful tattoos. but you might be surprised to hear how others react. Not too long ago we had some new pics taken of students in the College of Business, photos that would be used in a variety of promotional ways. One shot showed some students. A young woman in this group had a visible ankle tattoo which showed through her stocking. Even though she was in business attire, the powers that be deemed this just a tad off-center.

So, Photoshop to the rescue.

I pride myself on being open to new ideas, new music (except Jordyn Sparks), and even the creativity of some tattoos. But I have to wonder if a lot of people have been busy planting for an unexpected harvest. That harvest could come about in the form of being shunned by employers, as well as later regret. And never mind the irony of individual expression trying to mask mainstream conformity.

No, I think I will invest in the tattoo-removal industry. I predict legions of people seeking a magic eraser. The thought of this is music to my ears, and it's a tune I can easily listen to.

Can you turn it up a bit?

Dr "And It Has A Real Drummer" Gerlich