Wild Onion Musings

Wild Onion Musings

The Scientific Method for Marketing … and Neutrinos

I woke up this morning to hear that a neutrino had been caught for speeding.  Specifically, it allegedly exceeded the speed of light, although attorneys for the neutrino deny the charge.  Now I do not claim quantum physics expertise, but I gather this is big news.  As in, upending Einstein’s special theory of relativity news.  Granted, it will not impact the way we go about our lives like a surge in oil prices, drop in tax rates, or invasion of Cuba might.  No one apart from a few geeks at MIT or Uof C will lose much sleep over this one. 

But what is interesting is what the scientists in Europe did once they discovered this phenomenon:  they expressed disbelieve in their own findings, and opened up the research methodology and results to the wider scientific community for evaluate.  In effect, they exposed themselves to disrobing on an international scale and having their three years of work torn apart by other scientists.

Within the scientific community, this is not uncommon.  Some scientists during Newton’s time often jealously guarded their mathematical and scientific discoveries, for fear of having a pretender stake a claim on their findings.  Today, the notion of sharing and questioning across the community is well established and part of the linear scientific method:

1. Define a question
2. Observe
3. Form a hypothesis
4. Test
5. Analyze the data
6. Interpret and draw conclusions
7. Publish the results
8. Retest, usually by others outside the initial researchers.

The community seeks to validate or refute the assertion, as it no doubt will in scrutinizing the little neutrino’s behavior.

 

Putting a marketing hat on, does the scientific method apply to the development of brands, campaigns, programs?  For the most part, it does, but often in a flawed fashion.

1. Define a question – this happens a lot, such as ‘who are our best customers’, ‘why are sales declining’, ‘which subject line pulls best response and conversion rates’, or myriads of other questions which marketers and their agencies/consultants seek to resolve.
2. Observe – sometimes this step is what leads to the question in the first place.  Declines in sales, response rates, conversion percentages, or whatever other metric is used typically lead to the questions, rather than the other way around. 
3. Form a hypothesis – here is where it sometimes goes astray in marketing, and where subjective beliefs in what should be the reason are often fed into the mix, and further steps in the method aligned to prove the erroneous hypothesis.  This is usually self-preservation (or job protection, more accurately).  For example, a decline is sales is best viewed as a sales force problem than a failure of marketing to effectively manage their brand’s perceptions or provide timely leads or give good customer service.
4. Test – with many companies, the notion of testing and refining is well established.  Perhaps the foremost experts are financial services marketers like American Express, who over the years honed the ‘test, learn, refine’ method for direct marketing and applied it to their digital and social marketing efforts.  But for many companies, ‘test’ is a dirty word which is translated as ‘we don’t know what will work, can’t make a decision, and will have delayed impact on our overall results’.  Companies often don’t think medium term, especially when the CEO is demanding results NOW.  Testing just doesn’t fit within that mindset.
5. Analyze – if you’re looking for a career in marketing, brush up on your mathematical/statistical skills.  Analysis and interpretation of data is a vital component of any campaign.  As long as it is done correctly, that is!
6. Interpret and draw conclusions – here is where shrewd marketers can warp or skew the analysis to suit their hypothesis.  A client I know once had incontrovertible proof from customer research that their loyalty scheme was ineffectual.  Yet the millions invested in developing, launching, and promoting the scheme was far too much (aka heads would have rolled) to allow this facet of the analysis to come to the surface.  The interpretation was skewed, other results highlighted, and the loyalty scheme continued.
7. Publish the results – typically publishing is internally, and within marketing it falls into one of two categories:  a.  “yay, we’re great”; or b. move on to the next campaign.  Unless the campaign serves the career purposes of the marketing team and is successful, the final results are often either ignored or explained away.  Yet my experience is that clever marketing people can take a ‘bad’ campaign and through judicious spin make it sound like a success for the company.  Occasionally the publishing of findings is external at a conference or seminar.  But when was the last time you saw a ‘failure’ campaign as a case study, unless it was swiftly offset by a success in the presentation? Practically, opening up hypothesis and results to the wider marketing community is not practical unless well after the event in question, lest competitors and critics have a field day.
8. Retest – sometimes, retesting is done.  Not by the same marketing team, unless they’re opting for the ‘control’ and ‘best performing pack/email’ methodology of refinement.  ‘Retest’ in marketing circles is typically done by a new CMO or Marketing leader, usually under the guise of claiming the previous person screwed it up but ‘I’ll get it right this time’.

Yet what would be refreshing would be a marketing team who are NEVER satisfied with the status quo.  Who look for new ideas constantly, no matter the source.    That failing but learning on a program or campaign is sometimes as important as success.  And that refining, testing, retesting should be a way of life – not an anathema. 

Unfortunately, with the CEO/CFO demanding speed of light results, it’s pretty unlikely.

A trip back to 1965

If you’re in the marketing business (or the business of marketing), you ought to occasionally look at the past to see a reflection of the future.  I happen to own a copy of Life magazine, May 28 1965.  Can’t remember why I got it – I would have been a toddler at the time it was originally printed.  I suspect it was acquired from one of those funny little shops you find in most towns that stock old books, vintage magazines, and old Coca Cola bottles on the shelves, complete with a layer of dust and a smell of Grandma’s sitting room.

As you leaf through the pages, you pass stories of the newly dedicated JFK memorial at Runnymeade in England, John Lindsay running for Mayor of NYC, and a photo of Ringo Starr on the set of Help!.  Given the advertising: editorial ratio (about 3:1), you invariably are drawn to the various ads and promotions.  Kellogg’s cereals offering the princely sum of 25 cents back as a mail in for two proofs of purchase.  If ever there was a demonstration of the impact of inflation, that shows it!  There’s also double page spreads for Kodak film, the cost of which then would probably equate to today’s global sales of all non-digital cameras and films.  Chrysler offering the unheard of “5-year, 50,000 miles warranty on engines and drive trains”.  And Parker pens with a new product designed for “girl-size hands” which “writes as long as our man-size Jotter”.  Gloria Steinem would have had a field day with that one, except she was still trying to get work following her ‘journalist posing as a Playboy bunny’ days.

Yet what is particularly interesting when you look at old magazines are the brands that survived … and those that didn’t.  From this issue, our survivor list includes Hanes, Contac cold relief, Clairol, Mobil (albeit now Exxon Mobil), Prudential, Carnation instant breakfast (did we, and do we, still buy the notion that one glass equates to two eggs, two strips of bacon, two slices toast and fresh orange juice?), and Canada Dry Ginger Ale.  Many brands featured - Libbie’s sloppy joe sauce, Heublein cocktails, Champale ale - were over time swallowed up by other companies.  And many have disappeared from the US, only to reappear today, like Fiat … albeit at a bit more than $1262 list price for the 600D. 

What separates those that are still with us and afforded national marketing support, and those which fell down and fell prey to acquisition, merger, second tier brand status, and/or discontinuation?  Each brand has a story to tell, a history rich with triumphs and failures, which no doubt someone somewhere may still know.  For example, what befell the Gibson refrigerator company?  In Life,  Gibson had a tip in promotion called the “Frost Clear Sweepstakes” offering 5000 prizes valued at over $1,000,000.  Nice job of working a product benefit into a theme, by the way.  It’s now owned by Electrolux, and doesn’t seem to have much marketing support despite a heritage dating back to 1877.  Did some distributor pull the plug, leading to the Electrolux acquisition?  Did a brand manager push a product innovation which failed?  Did the Marketing Director stick with the turd brown color when lime green became the rage?  Or did one of the winners of 100 VIP jet vacations on Pan Am to Puerto Rico get sunburn and sue the company who had failed to take out insurance against such promotional mishaps?

Yet what is also fascinating about this edition is an ad for Encyclopedia Americana.  This brand is still with us today, owned by Scholastic and moved more on-line for its sales rather than strictly print.  What caught my eye was the body copy in the ad for their encyclopedias, which is about as future proof as you can get:

“The question is, how to make those facts interesting and meaningful and memorable – and worth staying awake for.  We do it by hiring a whole faculty of writer-teachers who are not only experts on their subjects but who know how to tell a good story, too.” 

Remember, this is 1965 we’re talking about here.  Yet in that simple line of copy we see what today many 1000’s of digital agencies, content producers, social media experts, and brands are all saying over and over again, as if it were something innovative.  Americana understood then that to sell an encyclopedia, people had a desire to further their knowledge (or their kids knowledge), but wanted to be engaged while doing so.  Facts by themselves are in the short term interesting, but quickly lose their saliency unless weaved into a broader story.

Like I said, you can learn a lot by looking backwards to look forwards. 

 

Almost makes me want to buy the Marlin by Rambler (part of AMC), with it’s 327 cu.-in. V-8, power disc brakes, and, hold onto your hats, adjustable reclining front seats as standard.  This was the car from his youth which Mitt Romney bemoaned during his gubernatorial campaign in 2002 as being “kinda awful” and his wife described as “goofy looking”.  Interesting that Romney didn’t mention his father’s occupation at the time he had the Marlin:  Chairman and CEO of AMC.

Man vs. Nature

 

Isn't it interesting how some people feel the need to exhibit bravado in the face of an impending natural disaster?  In a case of human race machismo, storekeepers and homeowners in seaside locations board up windows and then write on the boards:  ‘c’mon Irene’, ‘give it to me’, and ‘take a shot, big girl’ along with the requisite bulls eye image.   Like they're smack talking a person, instead of an unstable and violent weather system.  Which naturally raises the question:  why?

It could be a case of demonstrating that the human spirit will not be broken by nature’s wrath.  Laughing in the face of danger, and all that.  Or perhaps a perverse sense of humor, knowing that there’s a chance that the sign, and the building, will be 10 miles out in the Atlantic by the time the owner returns. 

However in our reality obsessed, socially connected culture, maybe it’s an attempt on the part of a few owners to get their :15 seconds of newsworthy coverage.  Perhaps a photo in Google images.  Or a slide on CNN’s website.  Even the Oscar of disaster:  feature on TWC’s broadcast storm coverage.

But why stop there?  If owners are going to board up, why not go the whole hog and get some sponsorship money in return for branded slogans. 

“We’re in good hands” - Allstate

“We’re going to DisneyWorld” - Disney

“Built for the road ahead” - Ford

“There’s an app for this” – Apple

“Like it never even happened” - ServPro

Or how about discounted or free building materials, overprinted with ‘plywood sponsored by (insert Home Depot, Lowes, Ace logo)’? 

Maybe put a QR code on the plywood, with a link to branded content, promotional sweepstakes.  Heck, the QR code could hyperlink to a YouTube site with the next Rebecca Black single.

Wait a minute … can’t do that.  It’s enough to have to cope with natural disasters. 

Never mind man-made.


PS:  Sorry for delay in posting this - Irene not only knocked out our power, but dropped a 40' tree on our house.  No injuries, just a mess to clear up.  "We beat Irene, YEAH" about to be painted on plywood.

Google Plus ... or Minus?

After a week of playing with Google+, along with 20m other visitors, I’ve liked a number of features including:

1.  Some nifty little functionality, like the ‘circles’ which allow you to segment your social network more easily than Facebook or LinkedIn.

2.  It works seamlessly across platforms within GGE (Great Google Empire), meaning I can switch straight to my gmail account from it with a single click.  And it’s always accessible on the top bar.

3.  It offers Skype quality video/audio chat, and easy access without Skype’s annoying ‘buy minutes today’ advertisements.

Yet after posting a couple items and photos, I’m not sure I’m ready to scrap either Facebook or LinkedIn.  Part of the challenge is I’m not sure what niche or area it is fulfilling that warrants giving it more time in my ‘laptop day’.  It could replace Facebook, which I use mainly as a ‘mass broadcast’ to friends, with a more ‘refined’ and segmented approach.  I like that, but do I really have the time to re-connect with all those on Facebook and bring their details over to Google+?  Funny enough, there isn’t a feature on Google+ to allow importing of Facebook or LinkedIn contacts – I’m sure the GGE would have hit a big ‘+1’ on that idea, and had no ‘like’ from the folks at Facebook.  Similarly it could replace LinkedIn and the business use of Skype, but the hassle factor weighs heavily again – is the reward worth the effort, especially if few of my existing contacts are into Google+ in these early days?

The challenge for any social network, particularly one like Google+ which arrives probably a couple years too late to give Facebook or LinkedIn serious runs for their money, is the same problem brands have faced for many years:  first mover status usually wins out over late arriving ‘me toos’.  Think of all the brands Coke and Pepsi have seen off over the years.  How Tide dominates laundry care.  Admittedly, challenger brands can take on the early-to-rise gang successfully – especially when innovation can be a huge differentiator and allow sectors to redefine themselves rapidly.  But what we may be witnessing with Google+ is similar to the online only banks from the late 1990’s/early 2000’s:  simple idea, which on the surface sounds good, but which may not be worth it to change behavior and switch.  In the case of online only banks, few survived once the established banking brands got their acts together … and that little old financial crisis of a couple years ago! 

For Google+, Facebook, and LinkedIn, the battle is clearly set over one asset:  your time.  At this stage, I’m skeptical GGE can pull it off, but I’m certainly not prepared to write them off!  After all, GGE came to the market with an outrageously high share price of $85 per share in 2004.  Current value $618.  They must have done something right in the last seven years.

Stupid Size Me

It appears that the “Supersize Me” trend is fading.  Sellers of the 48 oz. killer cola and 1 lb. burger belly buster are coming under intense pressure from health professionals and anyone with common sense to either withdraw or post prominently their caloric and nutritional components.  The extra long cigarette is going the way of the 8 track tape, a recognition that too much of a bad thing is … too much.  And now we see that some of the supersized big box stores are struggling a bit, and actively looking for smaller format stores or alternative approaches to increase revenue/customer and reduce costs.  Ironic, really:  what made these brands so successful was the ability to drive down costs, and provide one stop shopping, by developing huge temples to retail shopping.  Now they need to increase revenue by going smaller.

What’s interesting about the ‘sub-size me’ retail movement is how it seems to have brought full circle the battle of local merchants vs. big retailers attempts to build superstores in the first place.   Another irony:  instead of superstores annihilating small local merchants, it now appears the big box stores are trying to replicate them … albeit with significantly stronger marketing, operations, and purchasing power. 

But here’s the trick we suspect the ‘stores formerly known as big box stores’ are likely to be missing:  the shopping experience.  In the face of ever increasing options for cheap on-line shopping, the task of bricks and mortar retailers is to ENHANCE the shopping experience.  Provide personal advice and guidance.  Give access to fun or interesting events.  Encourage sense of discovery and exploration.  Immediate gratification, not just without hassle but with an enhanced outcome.  Shoppers need to exit the store having spent the time being enticed, entertained, informed, or engaged – enough so that they’ll come back, and look forward to the experience.

So the real question is how will big box retailers provide this enhanced shopping experience?  Most wouldn’t know decent in-store customer service if it hit them.  In fact, they’re not geared for it – the mantra of “pile it high sell it cheap” demands keeping staff costs under control.  Hire teenagers, minimum wagers, lots of part timers, retirees.  Think the small format Target clerk can compete against a local merchant in terms of knowledge, personality, flexibility, attitude?  I’d put money on the local merchant winning that battle.

What we’re seeing in this retail revolution towards different formats is a slight capitulation by the big box stores, an acceptance that maybe having a degree of specialism and convenience and service actually matter.  What we suspect is their quest for new formats is a knee jerk reaction to Wall Street pressure:  same old stuff, just less of it in a smaller space.  It’s unlikely to work – just ask the big box retailer Tesco, and their much ballyhooed attempt to break into the US market with small format stores. 

And the big winners?  Independent merchants who bring passion and knowledge to their efforts.  Those who remember that their customers are unique and have many other options.  Above all, those who ‘service and sell’ … rather than stock and smirk.

Less’ Law

Let's talk about downsizing.  It’s a word I’ve been using a lot lately as it relates to moving from NC to VA.  Indeed, used in the context of moving, it suggests that the home you’re in is too much for the size of your family.  Or that you’re trying to cut costs a bit, and get somewhere a little less expensive.  In either case, it’s seen as a logical move – either you’ve got too much home to look after, or you’re paying too much for it.  If anything, it’s applauded as a smart move; after all, our parents downsized when the kids left home, and now we’re doing the same.

But apply the term to companies, and you have a different reaction – largely depending on the size of company and the prevailing company culture.  The emotion charged in the word ‘downsizing’ in the corporate world is no doubt due to the general understanding that it means reducing people, rather than square footage.  The images conjured are of displaced breadwinners and stressed-out families, of people emptying their desks and leaving like zombies, with tension and fear permeating the halls before, during and after the downsizing event.  These images haunt most people who hear about their company deciding to ‘downsize’, even if they’re confident that ‘it’s not me’ this time.

We know the monetary impact, but not necessarily the psychological impact.  Downsizing does impact the bottom line in usually a positive way by reducing the wage bill, even if that reduction is not immediate due to the associated one off costs in making the downsizing event happen.  What is tricky to determine is the net impact of downsizing on the corporate psychology.  Some companies actually find increased productivity during the period when the clouds are darkening, in part as a response to the threat of job loss.  Vacations are delayed, working hours increased, responsiveness to requests quickened, and multiple cc’s on emails, to influence perceptions that the employee is a not a viable downsize candidate.  Yet in other cases, mistrust of the company increases, people take less risks (“keep your head down, so it’s not shot off” was what one manager once advised), and the negative gossip and atmosphere make work truly a chore.  Where trust was once in place between employee and company, now there is an ‘atmosphere’.

It’s a fact of life that as technology improves, and markets change, more work can be done with less hands.  Downsizing, or right sizing, or streamlining, or tightening belts, or being fiscally responsible, or reducing headcount:  whatever you call it, it’s a fact of life for any corporation over time.  Just as Moore’s Law  dictates that computing speed increases exponentially, so too does it impact the number of people needed to do a fixed set of tasks in most industries.  Call it “Less’ Law” – you can do more with less.  With technology increasingly being seen as the answer to a company's issues - whether it's having web-based self-service that streamlines operations, or building marketing strategies around social media investment in new technology – it is worth remembering that everything has a cost.  The flipside of this investment is usually a human one. Why pay for customer service staff when you can get the customer to service themselves? Why pay rent for stores and salespeople when you can sell online?  Clearly for most corporations it's a positive story to tell shareholders and the media – a mixed story for employees and contractors. 

However, if you're talking to (or marketing to) SMB owners, it's a different story. They don't automatically see a bright, shiny technology future as a good thing. Their first reaction isn't to look at the productivity gain, but at how much they need to change their business processes and, above all, what that means for the people who work for them. These people aren't just boxes on an org chart but people they know personally, often for many years:  the loyal employee/friend who is suddenly obsolete.  So for many SMBs downsizing is not necessarily a positive story but a painful one – even if necessitated for the entity’s survival.

So like it or loathe it, downsizing is a constant, even in an expanding economy.  Companies no longer want to be accused of being complacent or ‘overweight’.  Managers need to show growth, even if the top line is flat.  Many SMB owners will wrestle with the emotional and rational consequences of making tech investments.  And employees will continue to have to deal with the real or imagined consequences of downsizing.

BTW, if there’s anyone looking to ‘upsize’ in NC … have I got a housing deal for you!

Like this post?  Tell someone!  Hate it?  Tell me!

Quotable Notable

The success of the mission to capture/kill bin Laden gave rise to great celebrations and a feeling of justice being served by many Americans and others abroad.  Images of 9/11, images which scarred the national conscience, came back to our screens earlier than expected – I anticipated seeing images of the Twin Towers in September, not May.

But just as quickly as patriotic tweets and postings were hitting the social space, so too were quotes from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.  Ah, yes, the famous MLK quote:  “I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy.”  Yes it seemed like everyone was passing along that quote on Facebook, trying to temper the masses and remind ourselves of the need to have a sense of humanity.  The message:  retribution is fine, vengeance is out of order.

One problem:  it wasn’t MLK who said the quote.  In fact, for a while it was believed to have been a made up quote.  This was pointed out by Megan McCardle in The Atlantic.  Then we heard it may have been a Jefferson quote.

So do we allow so many tweets and postings to become ‘fact’ so quickly?

Rather than tackle the ‘why’ of social disinformation, I’d rather have more fun and contribute to it … by making up quotes in the hopes that someday they’ll be taken as truthful.  Feel free to make up some apt quotes yourself, and attribute them, in the comment section.  (Please be aware that as far as we know, none of these quotes are in any way attributable to the source).

“A fool and his honey are soon parted” (D. Trump)

“Look after your investors, and they’ll look after you” (B. Madoff)

“I did not have sexual relations with that woman … or man … or animal” (M. de Sade)

“We’re planning on a quiet elopement” (Prince William)

“18 foot walls, barbed wire, armed guards, located under the noses of the Pakistani military instead of where everyone thinks I am.  Why worry?” (O. bin Laden)

“The only way to build a brand is through TV advertising.  Period.” (M. Zuckerberg)

“Begging your pardon, and I hope I’m not seen as being rude, but I think this dish might be just a tad underdone.  But no big deal, I’m sure it’s just fine, and sorry I even said anything.  Really, it’s fine.  Lovely, in fact.” (G. Ramsey)

“Let’s launch a new product by just quietly slipping into our retail channels.  No fanfare or anything, we don’t need the media, for goodness sakes” (S. Jobs … or R. Branson)

“Burgers?  Rubbish!  What America wants are pita wraps” (R. Kroc)




Like this post?  Pass it on!