October 26, 2004
John Moore over at Brand Autopsy discusses an interesting book called "Hip: the History," and its implications on the product life cycle.
Traditional marketing suggests that products move through the marketplace in a predictable fashion - first attracting innovators and early adopters, then moving to the majority, and finally being snatched up by the laggards while the innovators have moved onto something new.
One of my mentors back in school came up with a different model to describe product movement through the teenage market. He identified six or seven "influence" groups (such as goth, punk, hip-hop, country, etc.) and suggested that these fringe groups decided what was cool or "in." The majority of kids paid attention to what these outsiders were buying and eventually made the products a part of the mainstream. Of course, once the mass did this the influencers didn't find these product cool anymore and latched onto something else.
The book appears to have identified the same phenomenon in the population as a whole. It's not necessarily a new idea - Seth Godin has talked for some time now about the benefits of marketing to a niche of influencers. But the idea of "hipness" as a main component of the product life cycle puzzle is interesting nonetheless.
File this under more evidence for avoiding the big blob of people in the middle. They're too busy watching what the influencers are buying to pay any attention to you.
October 18, 2004
This weekend, my buddy Ben got married. A pretty surreal experience.
It was great to see everybody. Great to hear how their lives are going, what they're doing, where they're headed.
I saw in Ben, for perhaps the first time, a grown man. I saw someone who wasn't unlike the guy I grew up with, but who had recently picked up something new.
You could see it in the way he carried himself, in the way he acted towards us, in the way he related towards his new wife.
When we get together as a group, we generally act at least five years younger than we really are. These past few days were no different. But in the midst of the chaos and the stupid inside jokes and the consistent shots taken at each other, there was Ben. And he carried himself with a certain dignity, a certain grace.
When he dropped me off at the airport on Saturday, he gave me a hug and said he was glad to see me. The words and the hug held no trace of sarcasm, not a hint of silliness. They were real.
Ben had become a man. He guy who could never be serious now has a wife, a job, a house and a car. He entertained a large number of people for three days, and if he were stressed out it didn't show. His vows were laced with a sincerity that made everyone in the room get teary-eyed.
I said it during the reception, and I meant it - it's truly fitting that Ben is the first of us to get married. He's an amazing guy, and found an amazing girl. And when the time comes for us to tell a woman that we want to spend our lives with them, I can only hope that we live our days with the grace that Ben appears to now possess.
I love you, buddy. Congrats.
October 08, 2004
Spoke with one of my mentors last night. He's the head of business economic development for the state of Missouri. Wake Forest MBA, Harvard PhD. Crazy smart. Wished him happy birthday. Sent him a book.
He told me what he and every mentor I've had tells me. He told me I belong in New York. But this time was a bit different.
He told me that he knows how I see the world. He said he knows that I want to have a life that's about more than sitting in a cube. He knows that I want a life full of meaning and purpose.
And he still thinks that the best place for me to pursue that is in New York. He said I'm the best salesperson he's ever met (which I found hilarious given the past few weeks but which also woke me up a bit.) He said that I can do anything I want to do, and he means it.
He said that anyone reading "Globalization and its Discontents" while sitting on the can belongs in a place where the stakes are ridiculously high and the opportunities for professional and personal growth are infinite.
He said the past year with all its diversity and experience makes me more marketable, not less. He said that anyone who has an interest in the success of their business should jump at the chance to hire me and watch me grow.
It wasn't the best conversation for keeping my ego in check, but it did make me think. I've collected a slew of mentors, creating what amounts to a "personal university." I've done so because they are older and wiser than I am, and have all attained levels of success that I can only hope to someday reach.
And yet, whenever they give me this particular piece of advice, I've historically shut it out. Maybe I am an idiot after all. Maybe they're right. Maybe there is a big important reason why the girlfriend lives there and is way too talented to even consider going somewhere else. Maybe God's been pushing me there for years and I've been too stubborn to listen. Who knows.
I'm talking with people out there. There are a couple of opportunities on the table to think about. There are a couple more that, if offered, would be ridiculously cool to be a part of.
Maybe, for once, I'll allow myself to be pushed where everyone (including, it appears, my Creator) thinks I should go.
We'll see what happens.
October 07, 2004
As a tribute to a decade of democracy in South Africa, BMW has produced 10 special edition cars to be auctioned off, the proceeds of which are going to Nelson Mandela's Childrens Fund.
A fantastic example of a company leveraging its brand to support a cause. BMW didn't have to do this - their position as one of the premier car companies in the world is firmly cemented. They appear to have done this simply because they wanted to celebrate a historic moment in the history of democracy. Even cooler, their employees loved the idea as well, donating over 1500 hours of their time to manufacture the 10 vehicles.
How can you not love this company?
October 06, 2004
Last month's Fast Company article on Gap's Social Responsibility efforts was pretty interesting. The company has decided to go "fully transparent," keeping investors and anyone interested in the loop on working conditions in their overseas factories. The results of their first report, released earlier this year, weren't good - some factories were reported to have engaged in physical and psychological abuse.
This isn't surprising to many people, in a world where corporate distrust is at an all-time high. But what's cool is that the company decided to publish these results themselves, in an honest and open way. More importantly, by committing to publishing these reports on a regular basis, the company implicitly has charged itself with the responsibility of making serious changes.
What's most interesting to me is how forgiving people can be. You can tell people about some pretty horrible things you've done, and people will praise you for being honest. People will give you the benefit of the doubt, offer you second and third and fourth chances - all you have to do is say, "I screwed up."
I wonder why more companies haven't realized this.
October 04, 2004
As the stakes continue to get higher and the impact of mass media continues to dwindle, the concept of "viral marketing" has become more prevalent. And - as always - there are companies that do it an an effective and ethical manner, as well as companies that ignore ethics all together.
But what about that ubiquitous "gray area?" In no marketing medium is this more of an issue.
Two companies spring to mind immediately. The first is a Boston-based firm called BzzAgent. BzzAgent is a brilliant company that recruits people to spread the word about their clients' products. People sign up online for a particular campaign, receive the product in the mail, and are then charged with the task of telling friends, co-workers and strangers about it. They then submit "bzzreports" about what they said or did to spread the word, which they receive points for submitting. The points can be traded in for prizes (which are very cool, by the way.)
I've been a BzzAgent for a little over a year (they push a lot of books, which I talk about all the time anyway.) They seem pretty picky about who they work with, which means that the products and services they market are usually cool. And the people spreading the word are doing so consciously. In fact, BzzAgent doesn't give you a spiel - they ask you to try out the product and make up your own mind.
In short, they approach viral and word-of-mouth marketing from a very responsible, ethical standpoint.
Compare this with another word-of-mouth company, the "Girls Intelligence Agency." They, too, have agents who have consciously signed up to participate. But does a 10-year old girl have the intuition necessary to understand that the "slumber party" they are hosting with their friends represents a marketing ploy?
I'm not a 10-year old girl, so I can't comment on their behalf. But I do remember how easily I could be influenced as a child from mass media - and this appears to be much more subversive than a television advertisement.
Are they right or wrong? Who knows - it makes for an interesting dialogue. But in situations like this, I think a good rule of thumb is "if you're not sure whether it's wrong but it makes you feel a little guilty, you probably shouldn't be doing it."
Looks like I learned something from my parents after all.
October 03, 2004
To successfully market a product or service, it has long been considered essential that you know something about your market's demographics and psychographics. But how well do companies really know their consumers?
Tom Peters wrote again today about marketing to the boomers, one of his big talking points the past few years. And he's right - though they represent the majority of the buying power in this country, we continue to construct massive advertising campaigns that are "hip" and "edgy" and geared towards a younger audience.
But at least we're reaching the coveted 18-34 year old demographic effectively, right?
Perhaps not.
"Recent findings published by the American Sociological Association and based on U.S. Census data show a sharp decline in the percentage of young adults who have finished school, left home, gotten married, had a child and reached financial independence, considered typical standards of adulthood. In 2000, 46% of women and 31% of men had reached those markers by age 30, vs. 77% of women and 65% of men at the same age in 1960. "
Young people are taking more time to grow up, get hitched and settle down. Which means that their purchasing behavior is likely changing as well.
I know a lot of young folks who live very zen-like existences. They keep their crappy car and live in a small place with few possessions. This is partially because they don't have much money to spend, but more importantly (according to them) is because they don't want their lives to be tied down with "stuff." They want to be able to pursue that new opportunity across the country or take that trip through Europe for three months. They want to keep their options open.
So, less buying power plus a lifestyle that is not centered around the accumulation of more things. Why in the world are we still constructing marketing plans around reaching this demographic when there are more profitable markets waiting for a smart company to impress them?
It's crazy to think that the simple act of marketing to the people with the most money might require a premarketing mindset.
October 02, 2004
I was talking with my business partner this morning about sales (what else.)
He made a very interesting observation. People view sales with disdain, and for good reason. Sales, for too many companies, has been reduced to using tricks and tactics in attempts to strong-arm or dupe people into buying your stuff. It's approached from the premise that you're selling someone something they don't need for more than what the product or service is actually worth.
My biz partner lives in a small community. In a small community, salesmanship of this kind is a one-way ticket to doom. Word spreads too quickly - you'll get skewered long before you become successful.
Perhaps the reason why salesmanship has become so sleazy is because we have the shelter of living in larger communities. We can avoid anyone we're cruel to, anyone we try to take advantage of. We have to create Better Business Bureaus so that we can keep track of companies who are shady or disreputable.
What an opportunity, if one were to approach their sales process differently. Imagine a company that didn't approach each call or meeting as a battle between adversaries. Imagine a company that genuinely, truly wanted to help out this person. A company that wasn't concerned as much with making sales as they were with making the right kind of sale - one where the client truly needs what you have to offer. Imagine if sales wasn't a number game, but an attempt to create positive relationships that improve their businesses and lives.
What would your company have to look like in order to accomplish that? It would probably have to be built differently than most companies. Most companies adhere to a doctrine where growth is priority number one. Companies get into a cycle where they take on as much work as they can handle, then hire more employees who need to be fully occupied, which results in the need for more work, more people, more work, more people..... and so it goes.
For a company built this way, there must be an obsessive focus on numbers. You must meet your revenue goals, and as the pressure builds, this means you must often resort to strong-arm tactics. The business isn't as enjoyable as it once was, but it's growing. You're hiring more people, making sales, and it's what you need to do.
But what if you approached the business from a different standpoint? What if the goal was to make a living for yourself and do fantastic work for people? Or, to build a business that ran without you, gave a small group of employees a decent wage (and more importantly, meaning in their lives,) and in every interaction with others tried to be as human as possible?
What would you do differently? Would you get rid of the clients who are rude or difficult or don't pay you on time? Would you get rid of employees who were inconsiderate to their teammates or didn't care about your vision for the company?
What would a company with less overhead be able to do? They'd be able to spend their time doing great work, with clients that they respect and appreciate (and who return the favor.) They'd have more time to enjoy their families or friends. And they could approach each business meeting or sales call from a relaxed state of mind - it would no longer be about closing the sale but about improving the life of the person sitting across from you.
More life. For you, for your employees, for your clients. That's a not a bad way to approach business.
And it can all start with your next sales call.
October 01, 2004
I wish we had a candidate like Tony Blair:
"If you take [this]view, you don't believe the terrorists are in Iraq to liberate it. They're not protesting about the rights of women - what, the same people who stopped Afghan girls going to school, made women wear the Burka and beat them in the streets of Kabul, who now assassinate women just for daring to register to vote in Afghanistan's first ever democratic ballot, though four million have done so? They are not provoked by our actions; but by our existence. They are in Iraq for the very reason we should be. They have chosen this battleground because they know success for us in Iraq is not success for America or Britain or even Iraq itself but for the values and way of life that democracy represents. They know that. That's why they are there. That is why we should be there and whatever disagreements we have had, should unite in our determination to stand by the Iraqi people until the job is done."
And again:
"When I hear people say: "I want the old Tony Blair back, the one who cares", I tell you something. I don't think as a human being, as a family man, I've changed at all. But I have changed as a leader. I have come to realise that caring in politics isn't really about "caring". It's about doing what you think is right and sticking to it. So I do not minimise whatever differences some of you have with me over Iraq and the only healing can come from understanding that the decision, whether agreed with or not, was taken because I believe, genuinely, Britain's future security depends on it. There has been no third way, this time. Believe me, I've looked for it.
