Customers don't want it!

I just saw this heading and had to write a quick piece about what could easily be a crime against marketing- this is the sub-heading of an article in Autocar magazine this week which discusses hybrid powertrains for Rolls Royce cars, but it is the wording of the sub-heading which caught my attention. Why would anyone want to do something which their customers wouldn't like? It is an attitude I have heard from a few people and organisations - this is the way we are going to do this whether our customers like it or not. What a strange attitude - find out if customers like it, and if not, don't do it but if they do, do it! It should be pretty simple really. 

As a brief explanation of the article, Rolls Royce build a prototype electric car and customers didn't like it because of the limited range provided. Rolls Royce dropped the idea but with increasing regulatory pressure it is very likely that to drive in some cities in the future it will be essential to have electric power so the solution is hybrid - electric for short range and petrol elsewhere. It may not be what customers want, but if it is the only way they can use their cars they will probably realise they need it!

Cold calling by phone

Whilst at home this morning I received a phone call which started with a recorded message telling me about refunds I was due. I am sure most people have received similar calls, you are invited to press 9 to remove your number from the list or 5 for more details and to discuss your "refund". I chose to press 5 so I could speak to someone and explain why I wanted my number removed and to ask them to pass it back through any chain which might exist of databases. As is often the case, once I said I wasn't prepared to give my name but I did want my number removed the person hung up immediately. How incredibly rude is that! As there was actually a number on caller display from them I decided to call back, only to receive another recorded message. The reason for mentioning all of this on this blog - the message said that I had been called for sales and marketing purposes and no action was required, they would call back if necessary. Obviously another organisation who have no idea what marketing actually is, and are bringing the profession into disrepute. No true marketing organisation would operate in such a way, they are simply very, very poor sales organisations who have more in common with con-artists than professional organisations as far as I am concerned. And as a final point, there was an option to press 9 again to have my number taken off their list so I did and the call immediately hung up - why no simple confirmation that it had happened?

Marketing is Dead - or is it?

Somewhat belatedly I have just read this blog - Marketing is Dead - on the Harvard Business Review (HBR) website. As a marketer, obviously I wondered on seeing the title if my career was doomed but reading the blog I guess it isn't, it just needs to change in ways which I have already been doing. As is so often the case, the word "marketing" has been mis-used here, it should say  be titled "Advertising is Dead". The copy points out that traditional communication methods - those which Seth Godin refers to as interrupt marketing - are no longer effective. I sort of agree and disagree with that, it is certainly the case that customers of all types are using recommendations from others as a major part of their purchase decision, but I do think there is a place for good, traditional advertising, to make people aware of a new product or service - the only people who will recommend at that stage are those who have been paid to do so, directly or indirectly. 

A customer needs to be made aware of a product before they will investigate if it is what they want, and good advertising, online or offline, can create that awareness. Take the traditional purchase decision model:

Need recognition and problem awareness

¦

Information search

¦

Evaluation of alternatives

¦

Purchase

¦

Post purchase evaluation

The basic process still applies, but now rather than talking to the supplier or their representative at the information search stage we may ask for solutions to the problem online, and then evaluate the alternatives through recommendations. But if something is new and different, solving a problem people don't know they have, the awareness has to be generated somehow and that is where traditional marketing still has a role to play, but it may need to be much more creative than was previously the case.

What do you think?

"Marketing Company" - really?

I have just heard a report on national radio that the directors of a "marketing company" has been fined £440,000 for sending millions of spam text messages to the public. 

My view is that there is no way this company - Tetrus Telecoms - was involved in anything I would think of as marketing. The fact that they are called "telecoms" surely means they are a telecoms company, but that aside I can't see how what they did could be classed as marketing. It could almost be referred to as selling, but even then it is not selling in a professional way.

There is a place for cold calling/contacting people who could be customers, but having received a number of texts of the type these directors have been fined for sending, when there is no contact details beyond a mobile phone number I cannot see how this could be called marketing. If marketing is about creating creating competitive advantage through understanding customer requirements (or any one of the definitions of marketing) then sending unsolicited messages where people have not opted to get them cannot be marketing.

This is the sort of reference to marketing which frustrates me, it leads to a general impression that this is marketing and that all actions of marketers are similarly evil. It is a shame that those who report such stories do not understand what real marketing is and disassociate the word with this.

Details of the fine can be found here and here

As an aside, if you receive messages such as the ones sent out by this company you can forward them to your phone service provider on the number 7726 (87726 from Vodafone) and this will report the sender as spam.

The Men Who Made Us Fat

I watched the final episode of the programme "The Men Who Made Us Fat" on BBC2 last night and did get very frustrated about the continual criticism of marketing throughout it. Whilst in principle I can agree with the contention that the food industry is concerned with making money for shareholders (it is their primary responsibility, after all), I do not entirely agree that is all down to marketing that people buy the high fat foods, and as ever that is using the word marketing for promotion rather than the broader aspects it should cover.

It does seem potentially short sighted of the food companies to produce products which can cause obesity and therefore reduce the life of their customers, however. Surely they should want to help the customers to live longer and therefore make more money from them over a long period of time. But is it really the fault of marketing that people want to buy quick and simple to prepare, tasty food at low prices even if it is very processed? Isn't the marketing response one of providing that to meet the lifestyles people lead rather than convincing people it is what they need?


The problem comes with the potentially misleading labelling which suggest things may be healthy when they are not particularly so, but again, if people want to see that something has fruit in it and it does why not state that? If everything else is on the label is it not the customer's fault for not reading it and seeing the reality? I am a believer in freedom of choice provided the customer is well informed rather than the regulation which was being suggested by the programme, but that does rely on educating customers as to what things really mean and that is where I do think the food producers and retailers are failing. 


But it isn't all the fault of marketing!


For the moment the programme can be viewed here - BBC iPlayer

No such thing as bad publicity?

There is a regularly used phrase that there is no such thing as bad publicity. However, that is not always the case (just ask Gerald Ratner!) and example I heard about via a discussion on LinkedIn emphasises the point. Apparently a UK based supplier of data for direct marketing recently sent the following message via email:

"Subject: Accurate data killed Osama bin Laden (helped by US Special Forces)

The US 'Most Wanted List' has seen a bit of a shake-up.

Accurate information enabled the US to target their attention on a walled compound in Abbottabad. As a direct result, the small group of people called US Navy Seal Team Six have changed the shape of the international terrorist threat. It may yet prove to be an illusion, but many people will feel safer as a result. Yet despite their evident skill and years of experience, the troops would have been powerless to act without good information.

But Al-Qaeda is still in business, and you need to be too!

Accurate information is just as vital for your marketing. You need to target the
* right people with the
* right authority in the
* right organisations

xxxxx xxxx offers you the most accurate B2B marketing data in the UK, that's a fact!
With average data age of just 94 days, and 13 decision makers at each site, you can target the correct decision maker for your campaign.

To ensure your marketing is as effective as US Navy Seal Team Six

We would like to keep you informed of our latest promotions and offers, however, if you no longer wish to receive emails from us, please unsubscribe"

Would you buy data from this organisation? From the comments I have seen in various places it would seem that, for obvious reasons, many people would not despite having previously done so and received just what is being offered - accurately targeted data.

Whilst using topical subjects can be a good hook in many instances, this demonstrates that some thought should be applied to the way you message will probably be viewed!

Vodafone

I was quite surprised, and disappointed, to see this advert for Vodafone in The Sunday Times Business section yesterday (November 1st, 2009). It is disappointing as it is another example which could perpetuate the myth that marketing is just sales, but also very disappointing because it misses the point about what strategy is. Not only that, it must have been approved by someone within Vodafone who is connected to their Marketing function - what a missed opportunity from that person to promote their own profession. In reality they have done themselves and their profession down, whilst demonstrating a lack of strategic knowledge.

Having said all of that, it has to be appreciated that this is just an advert which is meant to be fairly light hearted, which I do understand. However, in terms of reputation I think it is a poor reflection on those involved in the creation and approval. And generally, Vodafone are pretty good at marketing in my view, so not sure what went wrong here.