The value of one person

Everyone is thinking about Social Media. They can't help it. Social Media is all over the news, preached about at every conference, added to every pitch - it's everywhere. With so much discussion going on within these organization there is very little doing. Roadblocks are everywhere in traditional organizations that keep Social Media as a fringe strategy and not an integrated communications effort. The list is long: budgets, understanding the technology, resources, content, etc. However, there is one big roadblock which will always get in the way, regardless of how you address the other insecurities in the organizations: how we view the consumer.

Acknowledge the value of one person
For any new media, you will not be successful if you make it a numbers game. These strategies do not work with a 'tell the masses' mentality. Beyond the fact that the masses cannot be found in one particular social category or new media, the nature of the media allows us to communicate more individually (which is good, not evil). In fact it is most effective when the communication is more individually focused. This is lost within most organizations who are looking at adding Social Media to their strategy. Those in charge of budgets and marketing decisions have spent the last thirty years trying to find the media that hits the most people at once. Costs are CPM. Reach is so big it's broken down into single number representations. However, the message that went with these communications was broad - a one size fits all shotgun blast. If the people who are in charge of marketing decisions do not value that one person who could be the next customer/fan/evangelist it wouldn't matter if you had Godin, Brogan, Joel or McConnell selling the strategy -the Social Media recommendation will die.

I'm not sure how you can value the masses and not value one person's opinion but that is the case for most companies. For these organizations the opinion of the masses is marketing, the opinion of one person is either a public relations issue or a retention issue. Usually in these organizations you'll find job/position silos (retention, marketing, customer service, PR) that continue to reinforce the value of the mass market over the meaningful market. By fragmenting the consumer experience into job descriptions, there is the possibility for a more individual message - however, the result is usually a mediocre delivery on the consumer promise. Acknowledging the value of one person is a cultural change that requires the same people who have been chasing the masses to focus on the micro level of consumer engagement. A focus on experience delivery over reach.

Pay-What-You-Want

Pay-what-you-want is currently one of my favorite trends to watch. I've posted about it before, and recently came across Agencynil - the pay-what-you want advertising agency. As this is an industry I take a lot of interest in (it keeps me employed) I really looked at this one closely. From a PR perspective it has done a great job of generating buzz. As far as output is concerned, I think the jury may still be out on this one, but according to the site it is a satisfaction guaranteed delivery - so if anything they are confident.

This got me thinking about a few points:

1. When does a company not pay what they want from their ad agency? As with many transactions, when one feels that there is something unfair about the value/price relationship one ends the relationship. Most companies request work for a fee and agencies deliver under that premise. Rarely are agencies in a position to dictate price. Which brings me to my next point...
   
2. This positioning also assumes that ad agencies charge what they want.An agency can only pay its bills when a client is happy. Clients that feel ripped off won't swallow whatever their agency feels it deserves. Likewise, a client rarely pays a premium for work that delivers on a remarkable success. Maybe there's a balance...but that's a different post.
   
3. Client happiness should not to be confused with client success. These two could not be further apart and have no linear correlation. Happier clients do not equal more successful clients. Great agencies can succeed by shifting focus away from happy clients towards helping clients succeed - but this runs deeper than churning out work or jumping on the latest new media bandwagon. It involves serious relationships that don't crumble under conflict and scrutiny of each party. Remarkable success comes from challenging the status quo. This causes friction as it is the status quo (either in work, in a clients culture, or in a agency/client relationship) which creates comfort and mutual happiness - but rarely sustained success. If you are a company, look for an agency that makes you feel uncomfortable, that will tell you where they think you fall and where you can do the same. It will help everyone.

The pay-what-you-want strategy is another great marketing tool. To think that in this case it lies on some deep rooted thought around fairness or market laws may be more marketing than logic. It simply addresses the eternal skepticism that an organizations has against its agency. A grass is greener strategy that may not transfer well to the perception of professional service. I'm sure there is a market for this, but it may compete more with organized online freelancers, online banks of creative work and graphic designers.

If you've experienced the agency or been involved with the work I'd love to hear from you.

Lessons from a crazy dancer

I love this video. It reflects a great lesson in marketing...



I'm sure that at some point, we've all looked like that guy dancing on his own. For whatever reason, we decided to take a step against the standard around us. When this happens it is hard to feel anything but foolish.

For example, let's say we had decided to implement a new media strategy. Something driven by what people enjoy, and something connected by what they like to share. Excited we take the leap and make our strategy a reality. We've flown out of the gate only to realize that we're completely exposed to everyone else. Now we're not quite as comfortable. The worst part about this is that for a while it feels like we'll always be it - that guy dancing alone at a concert. It is at this point that most brands give up. They've been dancing in a new strategy or social media space and the initial momentum has worn off - they're feeling insecure. They're starting to doubt if this whole strategy thing is going to work. Everyone's looking at them but no one is really joining in. For most brands (currently) that's enough. They've made their point. They've proven they weren't afraid to try. Another successful stunt that held the attention of a few thousand eyeballs and 'engaged the audience'.

Meanwhile, a smaller portion of brands (let's call them the Few Brands) will stick it out long enough to reach another level of 'engagement'. The Few Brands will have the reward of being noticed plus have the experience of being mocked. Much like the second guy who joined our wild man dancer in the video, another brand will try to pick-up on the attention the Few Brands are generating. For those copy-cats the visual impact will be less - their intention is misplace. It reflects a strategy based on brand insecurities or laziness.


Then there is the last segment of brands who will realize the most success for their patience and efforts. The Successful Brand sets out knowing it may look foolish, but is equipped with the strategic depth to ignore (or even encourage) those that mock/tag along to the idea. The Successful Brand will finally encourage that third person to join in. That third person represents the key audience the Successful Brand requires to break down the barrier between 'audience engagement' (those who watch) and 'audience participation' (those who join). Soon after that audience joins, the momentum carries itself. No longer needing the original brand presentation, these people define their interaction with each other and their own enjoyment as projections of the Successful Brand's original action. The people no longer notice the awkward foolish looking dancer. Instead they embrace the intention and experience the Successful Brand has initiated. In the end, it is the memory of that experience that will be tied to the brand: The experience being synonymous with what that Successful Brand means to the people it has connected to each other.
Hat Tip: Martin Delaney

UPDATE JUNE 10: Read Seth Godin's take on the video http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2009/06/guy-3.html

Scarcity

Back in March I talked about Montreal's Taverne Crescent, one of the latest to join the pay-what -you-want dining trend. The idea demonstrated by truly allowing people to give you what you are worth. A direct experience/reward strategy.

On the other side of the spectrum, there is Charlie's Burgers in Toronto. This restaurant does not have a fixed location. Customers must apply to eat there. If you happen to be one of the 30 of 250 applicants selected for the culinary experience, you don't actually find out where or what you will be eating until the day of your reservation (invited guests are sent to a public spot - like a phone booth or newspaper stand - to receive the address).

The whole setup leverages our own emotions and social behavior to build the brand. It plays with our heads and our internal sense of ownership over what we consume.

• I can't go even if I want to - I have to be invited
  
• The name of the restaurant has little to know reflection of the food it serves - so what am I getting into?
  
• The restaurant is really only an idea (it doesn't physically exist) up until the point I actually get to eat.

All this plays on another sweet strategy to gain brand fans - scarcity.

Incorporate scarcity into your business/brand
When I say scarcity, most peole jump to the luxury brand market, but it can be an awesome tool to turn satisfied customers into fans for almost any brand. One way is to limit your immediate growth by defining criteria. An example of this is Seth Godin's Triiibes. When you pre-purchased the book, you were invited to a closed (and still closed) social network. This group of people became a tightly knit community and idea of triiibes beyond the footprint of a regular book launch truly driving word-of-mouth and future growth of the Seth Godin brand.

Another way to incorporate scarcity is to take a segment of customers and give them a privilege that no other customer gets - they'll immediately talk about it. I'm talking a remarkable perk - not movies passes to the local theatre (although those too have value for some customer service strategies). You may even have regular customers complain (which will scare your executive team, and you will have to be prepared to deal with both sides of the complaint). That's not really the point though.

Adding a sense of scarcity to your brand experience changes the game.

• It usually eliminates most of the direct competition. Why? Because of the two points below.

• It automatically pulls on peoples ego's (rather than rational thought). Irrational fans are every brands best differentiator.
  

• Makes price secondary in the promise

So what's the problem?
The biggest problem brands have managing scarcity - they want to include everyone. If you have a high revenue customer segment who happens to be Mom's from 30-35, the impact to this segment diminishes for each additional age you stretch the criteria to meet. If I am one of 250 people I probably feel differently than if I am one of 250 million. Marketing scarcity is probably the most difficult tactic to undertake. Usually corporate self control and brand self-esteem, sabotage its implementation. The temptations to lower your standards or change your criteria, to second guess yourself, to think of all the reasons against it, or to gain the quick buck over building long-term immeasurable demand is always there. The minute you fall for this temptation, the investment into your customers is burned.

A final point on scarcity.
Regardless of the economic situation, a brands ability to market scarcity (either as the whole brand, a sub-brand, or segment of customers) provides a sense of control. You define who you want to be part of your club, and you make people work (emotionally, financially, or otherwise) to become a part of that club. In a recession, this usually means that your reputation and market stay relatively stable (remember irrational purchase behavior) - another benefit to this strategy.

Social Media Myth #3: Why Change?

I've talked about two other social media myths here and here. My third Social Media Myth is based on the train of thought that if my brand has been successful for the last 30 years doing advertising the way we do, then why change.

The problem with this logic is that the last 30 years have no relevance whatsoever to what will happen over the next 30 years. It ignores all the factors that can drastically impact your business - like technology, public opinion, common sense, global governments, economics and competition.

In GM's glory days of the 1950's, revolutionary auto designer Harvey Earl warned that people, although still buying behemoth's for cars, were starting to take interest in the smaller cars offered by foreign (not yet established) competitors. The public opinion was shifting. Harvey was ignored - GM had been on a growth blitz for over 20 years dominating the market place selling well over 50% of cars in the U.S. Why change? People were still buying big. They were established. They owned the market. I don't need to finish this story as the downhill slide is a favorite topic in the media. Similar examples can be found in the music/record label business, your regional newspaper mix and the U.S banking industry.

Okay, so those examples are beyond the scale of your organization. Let's try something else.

There is a whole generation of people about to enroll in university who have been online their entire lives. They never used a rotary phone, owned a record/eight track/tape/CD collection, and can text message quicker than they can call a friend. They are currently a low value consumer. Meanwhile, your primary loyal consumer base is aging and shifting their spending to match their fixed income retired lifestyle. You know them well. Their loyalty is social across their generation. Delivering on one good promise set you up for a lifetime of loyal spending. However each subsequent generation of people is less loyal. Less loyal and louder. Delivering on one promise isn't enough. They can be in love with your brand but one bad experience and they are gone. Plus that slip up will be video taped, photographed or transcribed online and archived forever. You don't get credit like you used to. You blame 'that target market'. You focus your money and attention on the dying consumer instead. Meanwhile a competitor realizes that loyalty comes at a higher price. They change their communication model. They shift their culture to embrace the criticism and react. They win.

This social media myth is the most poisonous. Not just because it ignores the opportunity that comes from talking to people who will pay your salary (and make your shareholders happy) but because it reflects a far worse, underlying problem in corporate culture.

Barrier to Social Media: Negative Feedback

A major barrier that keeps many brands from creating an integrated social media strategy is the self conscious worry around what people are actually saying about it. "What if they don't like our service?" "What if there compliant is unresonable?" "Great, now the rest of our customers will see what a few disgruntled customers think of us". The gap between a brand's view of its current strategy and a strategy integrated with social/new media always seems much wider to those making the decision than what reality actually presents. For example, if you ask an executive why they have not looked at a social media strategy you will hear a never ending list of excuses from 'what will our shareholders think' to 'our PR team tries to keep control of that stuff' to 'why would anyone want to talk to us'. On the other hand if you were to go to a customer of this same brand and ask them what they want from that brand, chances are the response will reflect a wish for better service, a different process, or at least that a brand has an awareness of the relationship (beyond man 25-50 bought a new stereo from us). People like to know that their investment in a brand is noticed.

Simplify the barrier - think referrals.
John Jantsch unitentionally frames this up nicely for me in his recent post about increasing the right type of word-of-mouth. "Referrals most naturally happen when two people are talking and one of the parties expresses a pain in the neck. If the other party just had her pain in the neck fixed, she may very well say something like, 'ooh, you just gotta call Bob, he’s the best pain in the neck fixer on the planet.' " Likewise, if manager from a brand is at a function and overhears this conversation about their brand, they will probably react. Maybe not by joining that conversation, but perhaps by addressing the person who spoke favorably (thank you) or the reffered indivual (may we help you). So why do these same managers freeze when it comes to social media?

Whether online or offline most new business naturally comes from a conversation about a problem. Luckily, we now have the ability to see some of these conversations online and react. Not just by listening, but by promoting those conversation to occur. Maybe it's by creating/recognizing a place where customers can talk to each other. Even if its only 50 customers, that's 50 more discussions than you heard yesterday.

The more problems a brand can solve the more people will be available to help that brand through word-of-mouth. Don't ignore the fact that the reason you are in business is that you have a solution for at least one problem people have. Whenever there is a problem, there will be an unhappy person. It's always about them, even when it is inconvenient for your brand.

More personality from a local brand

In February, I commented on the common-sense approach (yet one that is rarely used) that Nova Scotian Crystal used to address consumer confidence in the financial strength of the brand. A well crafted letter written like a friendly conversation - rather than the corporate nonsense we often hear from most brands- went out to customers. It discussed how the downturn in the economy has affected Canada's oldest blown glass company, made a couple of suggestions on how one could help and even made a few guarantees about the future of the company.

Well, it's now May and a follow-up letter has been sent to the same audience. It is written in pretty much the same conversational tone, but tells a story of renewal rather than recession. I've attached a copy below for you to read.

I have not seen any formal press on this yet. I hardly expect a story like this would make it into the newspaper - it just isn't scary enough. Regardless, I don't think it matters. The previous letter came out during a time of bad press for Nova Scotian Crystal. In my post there was a comment left about the importance of balancing consumer communications with the media as both impacted perceptions and ultimately word-of-mouth. However, in this case I think that Nova Scotian Crystal has continued to acknowledge the source of its success and the power in its customer base. We often say that customers will speak with their wallets and, although the newspaper is a trusted source of information, it still does not surpass the referral or reference from a trusted friend.

This letter plays to all the common-sense marketing strategies that are so often forgotten:

1. It recognizes that existing customers are easier and more cost effective to keep, and persuade to repeat purchase, than finding a new customer.
2. It recognizes that existing customers usually have a vested interest in your success (they've given you time and money - which never comes lightly).
3. The letter is about 'you' not 'us'. Although it has to communicate the 'us' story, it puts the attention on the the people that contribute to the success rather than the brand.
4. It has done something that most brands have a lot of trouble doing - recognized that there are people who are passionate about the brand. Most brands are extremely insecure about this. They fail to give their customers credit. Need an example - think of most viral participation campaigns. Even if humor has no place within the brand it is often used because it is generally thought to be an easier sell. In these cases it is just underestimates the way people actually feel about the brand and discredits the intent behind the campaign.
5. NS Crystal makes a remarkable product. This always helps. I know it sounds obvious, but there are a ton of just-good-enough products sitting on the shelves at department stores across the country. None of those manufacturers could establish the customer relationship like this even if they wanted to.
   
6. The brand has a story (that sometimes is not told well enough). To the people that buy into the brand, the remarkable product becomes part of their life. Word-of-mouth spreads easier when your product is a big part of your brand. In this letter, the story continues to be told.

I know there are a pile of other little things I could pull from this, but I think the main points resonate well. Often marketing tactics are just distractions to the truth. However it is truth and common sense which are two foundations of any good relationship.