Today I moved from my lonely one-man office in the industrial park to a spiffy new suite downtown that I will be sharing with 3 colleagues. Here’s my new view with an arrow showing where my house is.
There’s a breaking story in Moncton today about a street preacher who was mildly assaulted by a municipal employee at the city’s farmers’ market on the weekend. Here is the newspaper account, but more importantly, here is a video of the event that was posted on YouTube. If it weren’t for the online video, there wouldn’t even be a story.
[UPDATE: The video has been taken down by the poster, perhaps because it is potential evidence in a potential lawsuit he may or may not be pursuing against the city. Since you can no longer view the “assault,” I’ll describe it as a belly bump just enough to knock the recipient back about half a meter.]
It used to be that for the public to see a controversial video, it had to be Rodney King-esque in its atrocity. Only then would a network run it. Now, everyone is a network, and can broadcast any video they want with a couple of mouse clicks. Everyone is also a videographer, now that most people carry video cameras (disguised as phones) with them wherever they go. Because of those converging phenomena, this dude in red will probably lose his job over a belly-bump.
What does this tell us as marketers? That you can’t screw up and sweep it under the rug anymore. We are entering an age when any action might be recorded and retold to the world. So we have to act as if every action IS being recorded, and may be retold to the world.
I think this is a good development, because it should nudge us further along the deception <–> integrity continuum, and make marketing less about fooling people and more about helping them.
Derek’s comment on the post about some spam I received reminded me of my experience with the Bank of Montréal.
I have been a BMO customer since I was a boy. I still remember going into the grey stone edifice in downtown Fredericton and having the teller write (!) the new balance in my bank book. In the years since, Cindy and I have had savings accounts, chequing accounts, car loans, RRSP (retirement savings) loans, investments, securities trading accounts, and mortgages with them. We have been relatively happy with them most of the time.
At one point, about 10 years ago, we got to the point where we thought we should start using a financial advisor. We met a very nice lady who agreed to look after our retirement planning, so I withdrew all the RRSP investments we had with BMO and transferred them over to her control. The very next day, a stranger from BMO called me and introduced himself as my “personal banking representative.” He asked me why I had taken all my RRSP business from the Bank. “Because,” I replied, “this is the first time, in 27 years of being a customer, that anyone from the Bank of Montréal has ever called me.”
It’s easy to forget to take care of your non-complaining customers, but it sure makes sense to pay some attention to them – especially if you believe the oft-cited figure that it’s 7 times more expensive to sell to stranger than it is to existing clients.
My friend and former colleague Clayton sent me a note yesterday which read in part, “You need one about how ridiculous it is to pay for a product with a prominent logo on it so you can advertise for them. While this advertising is free, the company has no control over the person sporting the logo and the image they project. It’s lose/lose. […] I predict that eventually high end products won’t have logos of any kind.”
Logos started out as trademarks. The Bass Ale triangle logo is famously the first registered trademark, but there are many contenders for ones that predate Bass. Manufacturers wanted people to know who made something, so they would know where to go if they wanted more. The idea was that if you put your name (or your mark) on something, you must be proud of it. So a trademark had a positive connotation – its job was to spread the word about something.
This is different from “brands,” which were originally conferred on something to show who owned it (think of branding cattle). Unlike a trademark, which aims to make something more widespread, a brand limits the usefulness of an item to only one owner. If you “brand” your shirt with your monogram, then only you can use it. Well I suppose someone with the same initials as yours could, but you get my drift.
So what are modern logos prominently displayed, like the Nike swoosh on Tiger’s hat or the Microsoft Windows emblem on my Start button, trying to be? Are they trademarks that are proudly proclaiming, “We made this for you!” Or brands that are truculently saying, “This is ours; we’re just letting you use it.” I think too many marketers believe the latter. I know one VP Marketing who was so protective of her brand that she paid much more than she had to for a couple of hundred golf shirts, just so that the exact Pantone shade of thread would be used to embroider her company’s logo on them. That is not spreading your brand, it’s constraining it.
Anyway, what about Clayton’s prediction? Will high-end products eventually be logo-free? I don’t think so. I think the majority of people are less noble than Clayton, and will always want their neighbours to see that they bought expensive stuff. Regardless of whether you think of the logo as a brand or a trademark, in the open market, most people have a good idea of the cost associated with that logo. That’s why fake Rolexes exist – their owners are declaring, “I’m wealthy enough to pay $5,000 for a watch that keeps time exactly as well as a $20 Timex.” There’s nothing wrong with that, mind you – I’ll mull it over this evening sipping on my Grey Goose vodka.
My friend and former colleague Bernie Hadley-Beauregard is doing some amazing things with good, old fashioned branding. He has made a career over the past 6 or 7 years of rebranding wines (or doing the initial branding for new vintners). He does some other products, too, but his work with wine labels is what gets all the attention. His concepts are clever and result in highly sellable products without any of my fancy Web 2.0 mumbo-jumbo. Here is the link to his company, Brandever.
So why am I willing to get down off my high horse and admit that there are other ways to market successfully than 1 to 1, permission-based, two-way conversation? Because there are other ways. The only problem is that you have to be a freakin’ genius like Bernie to make them work. I’d like to believe that anyone can be successful using the techniques that I talk about. Even me.
I received this semi-spam today. (I blanked out the name of the offering to protect the guilty.) I call it semi-spam because I do want to receive some stuff from this sender, but not these salesy messages; and I can’t end the spam without ending the stuff I want to get as well. That’s problem number 1.
Problem number 2 is that there’s a punctuation error that actually makes the copy read like it’s questioning the value of SaaS, instead of touting it as an application delivery platform. Sorry, spellcheck doesn’t catch everything, which is why, as I’ve said before, always get someone ELSE to proofread your marcomm.
But the biggest issue that I have with this is the special offer to new customers only. This firm is telling its existing customers, the ones who eagerly jumped on board the fastest, the ones who are already sending in money, that they’re chumps and should have waited until now. This kind of offer is insulting (and lame, because it’s so easy to get around). And not only is it demeaning to existing customers, it’s telling potential new customers that this is the kind of treatment they have to look forward to if they come on board.
There’s nothing wrong with a time-limited special offer, but this could have been done better in so many ways. How about:
* new customers only. Our pack-leading, smart and good-looking existing customers receive 30% off if they sign up for another year within the same time period.