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!

Save the Post Office?

 

Okay, time for some charity work.  I know a number of readers of this blog are clever marketing types, who have probably tackled many challenges over the years.  So let’s set up a doozy of a challenge for you, and see what you recommend.  And we promise that the best ideas will be seen by ‘those who decide’!!!!

Let’s start with the positives:

• Brand with one of the highest brand recalls and awareness scores ever, across b2b and b2c.
• Automatic trustworthiness – most trusted ‘federal government institution’.  Well, that’s got to count for something?
• Brand with history – dating back to Benji Franklin, for goodness sakes!
• Employs a ton of people - nearly 600k, second largest in the civilian workforce to Wal-Mart.  Union, of course.  Not a minor issue to encounter, but you’ve got a lot of households you’re responsible for!

Now let’s deal with a few business realities:

• Does not benefit from companies and consumers going to email, web, social media … it cuts out a revenue source, in a big way
• Does not benefit from companies trying to be ‘enviro-friendly’ and encourage paperless billing
• Has failed to enunciate that paperless billing has, based on research, reduced customer relationship scores
• Has a huge retail estate which it has protected but underutilized for years.
• Can raise stamp prices only via Act of Congress, can shut branches only … via Act of Congress, can do almost anything only … via Act of Congress.  So highly flexible (?) approach to running it’s operational side.
• And the kicker … is due to lose $238 billion (yep, that’s nearly a quarter of a trillion) by 2021 based on current trends.  And you thought GM was a huge bailout cost!

So……………….

Let’s make a couple assumptions:

1.  You’ve been named CMO with vast power to change things, shake it up, etc.

2.  The USPS Board of Governors accept this designation, and promise to ‘butt out’ given the precarious state they’ve allowed the USPS to put itself in.

3.  The US Government isn’t about to foot the bill for anything elaborate, given the increasing loss making situation coupled with a few, minor issues like reducing the Federal deficit, staving off the Chinese from assuming financial control of the US, and preventing back-slip into recession.  So forget, at least for a few years, any “Super Bowl” funding requirements.

What would YOU do??  Let’s assemble the best ideas, and maybe save an institution which, by all accounts, should be consigned to the scrapheap of obscurity within a few years, at the current rate …

Ideas from retail specialists and shipping people particularly welcomed!!!