Viewpoints

Icon

Random thoughts

Sears Canada names Unitas as new AOR | Has the world gone barking mad

Sears Canada names Unitas as new AOR | Marketing Magazine.

Nobody, really, had ever heard of Unitas Reputation Management/Services/Communication/Agency (their online SEA doesn’t seem to include focus), except presumably the wise men at Sears. But it’s nice and it’s a start-up and their “context” is, of course, brilliant (who would have thought of trying to get enthusiasm for the clients among “all the people who influence their success – customers, employees, allies* and investors?) Of course, it’s entirely possible that searching for these search experts will lead to another Unitas Communication Reputation Management agency, altogether, but that’s probably an intentional oversight.

Try to guess which Unitas is the Unitas Sears are hooking up with. It’s hard to believe that these guys did not Google the name to see how many other companies by the name of Unitas co-opted the “Reputation Management” discipline (from its original PR application and it’s down market cousin, “Online Reputation Management”).

Actually, there can be no doubt that Unitas Communication (US) Unitas Reputation (Canada — see, I got it finally, communication versus reputation, not confusing at all) are excellent at managing reputation and creating enthusiasm (although, to be honest, again, I thoroughly doubt the Canadian version has any clue how to change the culture of an organization as culturally entrenched as Sears, but, hey, it’s worth a try).

But, whatever happened to retail marketing! What makes great retailers great? It starts with unique, relevant merchandise. Ask the Sears hardware and automotive merchandisers. If you don’t sell it, they won’t buy it, no-matter how enthusiastic you or anybody else is. Then, it’s useful to be where the customer is, location, both real and virtual. Then, it’s important to tell the potential customers that you have the stuff they want (and stuff they don’t want — remember surprise and delight) where they want to buy it. this is an old-fashioned idea, called advertising (call it whatever you want, but it’s advertising and without it you’re fxcked). Then, you need to manage the relative value proposition: is the sticker price they pay right taking into account the quality of the merchandise, the satisfaction (may I say it, enjoyment) of the experience, the after-sales promise and all of this relative to the competition.

Brand is the degree to whether this entire experience is positively imbeded as an expectation — if it is, you will be heard and believed, if not, you will be ignored or, worse, disbelieved, disdained and dismissed. Enthusiastically, probably.

Internal branding — not a new idea at all — is critical at all phases, because of the importance of the experience. But so is advertising, brand and tactical. Or, perhaps none of them — take Costco as an example, they do neither and they’re not doing too badly.

My point? It’s just plain weird for a retailer whose business is falling through the floor (or not — Sears business falls and rises like a yo-yo) to hire an agency that prides itself on the po-mo fad of “reputation” management, and to do this over the phone without benefit of a review!!

I might agree with the man from Sears that they can’t advertise their way out of the hole (or not-hole). But they can’t reputationise themselves out of it either. A real review, based on a real brief resulting from deep and honest soul-searching, among the leading experts in retail turnaround (and, if they aren’t in Canada, then wherever they are) would have been the right thing to do: right by the people who work for them who (in addition to being enthusiastic) want to be employed; right by the shareholders who have some legitimate concerns that they are expressing in radical ways (and if this is about a LBO, then they are even more in the wrong direction — think “fill the till”); right by the communities they are in (that can really do without losing more jobs and stores); right by the country (we really don’t need to see another brand bite the dust); and, of course, right by their customers (who, let’s face facts, in the end don’t give a damn because they can always get exactly the same stuff elsewhere – except maybe with less enthusiasm).

In honour of the time-honoured tradition of go and see what the people who are winning are doing, Sears might wander over to The Bay and see what they’re doing. I doubt Bonnie Brooks or Richard Baker (Lord and Taylor and HBC) will be turning over their marketing communications and consumer strategy to a “reputation agency” on the basis of a phone call. But then, perhaps the enthusiasm for success at the management level is such that they are fixated with getting it right the first time.

One other point of free advice: if this is about Target, then forget about high-minded meaningless “reputation management” crap and get back to basics with a new, exciting and revolutionary twist. Ask yourself: how many people who have been to Target start off by saying “I was in a store that was so amazing, you have to go there, it has incredibly enthusiastic people” [actually, if anything, the Target people are its weak point]. The answer is NONE, ZIP, NADA. But how many people say: “I was in Target and they had the most incredible selection of exactly what I was looking for. And the prices were really great. And then I saw this outfit, wow, I was amazed, didn’t think they had it. And have you seen their ads.”

*By the way, what’s with this “Allies” silliness in the “context”?

Filed under: Are they stupid or just mean: design idiocy in action, Uncategorized, , , , , , , , , ,

Silly me: I thought only gay or straight could be determined by the length of index fingers

Obama vs Romney: Their Hormonal Quotient® Makes The Difference | DervalResearch.

I have heard much about the influence of testosterone and estrogen in the mother’s womb on characteristics (physical and emotional). Specifically whether somebody is gay or straight (oddly enough I never thought this was all that outlandish, but then I tend to believe most of what I hear). But this is the first window into a world of “applied prenatal hormonization (my name, sorry).” And fascinating it is!

In fact, based on my own index finger and ring finger (ringless probably because of the relationship between the two) I learned the following about myself: my HQ is “estrogen” and I share this trait with Brad Pitt, Mel Gibson and Clint Eastwood. I am a trend setter, I am diplomatic. I am meticulous. I am also cheap, as I did not order the full $29, 15 page Hormonal Quotient® Estrogen Report.

The link above will take you to an analysis of the presidential contenders based on their assumed finger lengths (I doubt either volunteered the exact measurements of their index and ring fingers).

The applications of this marketing are obvious. I can see grand segmentation plans based on the length of index fingers, and I am quite excited at the prospect of conducting focus groups among very testosterone Hormonal Quotient® persons (which would include, apparently, most US Presidents, Angela Merkel and of course, Margaret Thatcher. While there is nothing on the site to confirm this, I would imagine that most Canadian Prime Ministers fall on the estrogen side of the Hormonal Quotient®.

Click on the picture to take your own Hormonal Quotient Test.

Filed under: Behavioral Economics, Uncategorized, , , ,

Killing good ideas can harm your future – YouTube

https://www.youtube.com/v/D3c9YSrNRgY?version=3&hl=en_US

via Killing good ideas can harm your future – YouTube.

Filed under: Uncategorized

Everything You’ve Ever Wanted to Know About SM

48 Significant Social Media Facts, Figures and Statistics Plus 7 Infographics

Including such gems as:  …there are 600 million more people that own a mobile phone compared to those who own a toothbrush!

  • ARE YOU ONE OF THEM?

…Jeff Bullas, author of this article and one of Forbes Top 50 Social Media Power Influencers follows 4,561 people on Twitter

  • ARE YOU ONE OF THEM? and WHY NOT?
  • What happens if all 4,561 people tweet on the same day? What happens if only 500 people tweet on the same day? How does he keep up with it? How do you keep up with it? How do I keep up with it?

http://www.jeffbullas.com/2012/04/23/48-significant-social-media-facts-figures-and-statistics-plus-7-infographics/?goback=%2Egde_4258603_member_112355122

Filed under: Uncategorized

“Candid Call Centre” raises the questions: what is connecting and what is conversation?

Angel Chen has started a call centre where people can call in and discuss issues of importance to them — the kind of serious, economy, type stuff that we have become familiar with in blogs and tweets and forums. It’s an 1-888 number that people from all over North America can, and apparently do, call to discuss in a conversation with other people, live, in real-time, their opinions on stuff. I think this is brilliant. But more than that, it makes me wonder whether the explosion of opinion that the digital world has fostered, has anything to do with honesty, connectivity or conversation.

While I write this, or any blog, or any tweet or any comment on any forum, I am alone, expressing my viewpoint with no fear of actually being confronted by another opinion. Sure, I expect some response, in some cases a lot of response. But it’s not the same as the reaction that occurs when I say something to somebody live, especially in person, but also very much on the phone.

There’s something about the raw reality of being interrupted that makes conversation entirely different from anything that happens online. Even messaging is entirely different. It’s more immediate than blogging or commenting, or even tweeting, but I can still ignore the comments that I want to ignore. I don’t have to truly face the question: how am I going to respond here and now; what am I going to do if I am entirely wrong and the other person catches me out? (online I simply write off their critical comments as coming from misunderstanding my point, or I make a feeble attempt to explain my position and then become bored and do something else.

This is not conversation. This is not connecting. I’m not sure what it is, and I obviously can’t condemn it too strongly by way of this blog. But I can raise the point and in doing so, express my admiration for Angel. For the past few years social heroes have by definition had to make change through the power of the internet and social media. But, Angel shows that this has been short-sighted, and because of it I think we have lost the real meaning of conversation.

I would say get involved, call the Candid Call Centre and have a conversation, but I don’t know the number…the Star in their coverage of Angel and her breakthrough contribution, did not publish the number. Which is as telling as anything else…if it had been a website, you can bet they would have published the URL.

Filed under: Uncategorized, , , ,

Luxury Marketing: How to Sell Ham at $500/kg ($225/lb). Twenty Seven Times More Expensive than Loblaws

Easy. The same way you would any other grocery product: list three or four functional benefits and put it on sale.

So, here’s a sign from Pusateri’s in Yorkville. Notice that the ham promises that it is rich in Proteans  (oops, sorry, Proteins), Calcium, Phospherous, Iron and Vitamins B1 and B12.  Considering that Loblaws was offering (March 27 flyer) San Daniele prosciutto silver, deli sliced for  $1.79/100g or $17.90/kg, the Pusetteri’s ham should contain around 27 times as much Protein, iron, calcium, vitamins, etc. Or no rational person would pay the equivalent of $50 per gram for something that cannot be snorted no matter how hard and fast you chopped it.

But, of course, no rational person would pay this, so Pusateris has DISCOUNTED the stuff. For a limited time (presumably limited to this life-time) you can buy the ham not for $500/kg, but for $440/kg a savings of $60/kg.

Pusateris Super Discount on Prosciuto

Managed to fight the crowds to get a clear shot of this in-store merchandising device. Note that there is no mention of better taste, cleaner pigs, or any unrational reason to pay a premium of 2700% for prosciutto.

Who says the stupid rich aren’t suckers for a good deal. But, as any retailer knows, they should have included this in the weekly flyer.

Filed under: Are they stupid or just mean: design idiocy in action, Behavioral Economics, , , , , , , ,

Surely We’ve Figured Social Media Out by Now

I have just returned from a really serious, important Branding Roundtable. The smartest branders (or, as the English roundtablers called them, Marketeers) discussed hospitality marketing in the most serious, sometimes academic terms (it was, after all, hosted at Cornell University, by the Center for Hospitality Research). We learned many things, and we taught many things. All in all, time very well spent.

But, this is the second year in a row I have attended this, and I have attended myriad similar conferences and round tables and symposia in this and other categories, in the US< Canada and  other countries, over the past four years. maybe five. And there is one constant. One conversation that has not changed in content, tone, volume, intensity, or anything. And that is: Social Media and “we know this is changing the world, but we don’t understand it and how to do it.” Every time, every where, we hear the same mantra: we don’t understand Social Media but it is very important and we need to understand it. A subtext: we need to use it more, but not like everybody else is using it. we need to be “strategic” (unlike everybody else). And yet, when asked what being strategic means, we hear , “we don’t understand it yet….”

Okay. I get it. But I don’t.

"According to a research done by AAL, there are a billion social media experts on the internet. Do you know what do they do on a daily basis? After “interviewing” more than 20 (actually none) experts, this is what I found out."
This comes from a brilliant blog by Aaron Lee -- click on the image to link to her post.

We do understand it. Many companies are strategic. Many companies do utilize the various SM options tactically to generate sales. Many companies think of Twitter as a wonderful way of finding our what people are thinking about them; spreading news, etc.

So, let’s all make a deal: we will never say the following words in our out loud voice: “we don’t understand social media.” Let’s also make a pact to stop saying that everybody else is not using Social Media strategically. If we think this, then we’re not paying attention to what other companies are doing!

On another, but similar point, we can now stop patronizing youth. We say — and I am referring to “marketeers” — that we need to get a a handle on “young people” who have grown up completely digitally and live completely differently from anything we have experienced. And we need to listen to them about their “new world,” etc. Yes, people growing up these days used technology forma younger age than people growing up before them. But, and they will be the first to agree (I know, I personally called every young person and asked them) that this digital difference does not define them. They do not spend all their waking moments doing incomprehensible “digitalism’ on Facebook and

Twitter. They do “digitalistic” things, like texting, when they are with friends or in class. But, they also talk to friends in person, go to movies, watch TV, read books (okay, okay, they do it on ipads, except they don’t really if you look at the penetration of digital readers compared to the total number of people who read). They laugh, cry and wonder about the world around them. they have no greater comprehension of the qwerty keyboard than anybody else; and their thumbs are still roughly the same size as anybody else’s in spite of texting on tiny keyboards. They don’t really expect everything to happen instantly, even if some things, like texting somebody, can indeed happen quickly. They shop. They buy stuff that makes them happy and they buy stuff that they hate and that they think is crap and return it to the store. They listen to their friends’ advice on what to buy and then make their own decisions. They are exposed to advertising and remember clever tag lines and jingles (yes, jingles!).  They also smoke, drink and do drugs, which is about as analog as you can get!

Mostly, they are tired of being patronized by a generation of marketeers that has too much time on its collective hands!

One final plea: please don’t turn “today’s patronized youth” into a sociological/marketing insight.

There…now you know. And if you are seriously interested in who does this right, look at stores like Canadian Tire or their sister brand Sport Check.

Filed under: Are they stupid or just mean: design idiocy in action, Uncategorized, , , , , , , ,

Is Behavioral Economics Really a Game Changer for Marketers?

Much has been written, and said, lately about the impact of behavioral economics on marketing. Some pay no attention to it, some fear it and some adapt it to their own particular cause. But, in reality, does behavioral economics really change anything?

Read more about this at the CMA Blog. Click here (or anywhere, actually)

Filed under: Behavioral Economics, , , , , , , , , ,

A Model Race Car 1/1000th the Width of a Human Hair

Clipped from Metro Newspaper in Toronto -- thanks!

 

This car is a replica of a high speed racing car that is smaller than a grain of sand. It was made using high speed 3d printing, a subject I have raved about previously on this blog. But the news is not that a 3D printer could print a three dimensional replica of a race car — that’s old hat, yesterday’s technology, if you’re not up on 3D printing you’re spending too much time on Facebook and too little time paying attention to the world around you. The news is also not that a 3D printer could print something that is made of only a few molecules, at a nano-level — that, too is old hat and if it surprises you, you’ve probably been spending too much time reading Vanity Fair. The news is that the 3D nano printer using the two-photon lithography process, can print five meters of this stuff per second. This is, apparently, much faster than ever before. It took about 5 minutes to print this car, and you can watch it in all it’s amazing detail by clicking here — however, given the car is constructed pretty much at a molecular level, it is not particularly entertaining to watch (for the first 2 minutes nothing much happens at all).

So why do we care? Because they can, and if they can, they will, and if they do they can, and will, change the world we live in: molecule by molecule, photon by photon. These are the real change agents that we should be paying attention to.

 

Filed under: Uncategorized, , , ,

The Secret of Life Revealed

“When we think about it, nothing is as important as we think it is when we think about it.”

This delightful sophism is an extension of the original quoted by Ogilvy UK Vice Chair Rory Sutherland in a discussion published last August in Research (Questioning the Nature of Research). The quote is attributed to a certain Paul Dolan who is identified as “the government’s well-being advisor” (presumably the UK government as no North American government in power is particularly interested in well-being unless it is of the financial kind.  To be fair to the good Mr. Dolan, I added the first “when you think about it” in order to create a certain mind-fuckness about the thought.

Actually, the Sutherland piece came to our attention via a LinkedIn post that posed the question posted by Edward Appleton: “What’s market research’s response to behavioural economics?“.  Also worth reading.

Filed under: Behavioral Economics, , , , , , , , , , ,

Twitter Updates

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 108 other followers

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 108 other followers