ChaosScenario

Your Only Two Options

When making a decision on a project that is going to impact your business, you have only two options:

1. Pay for it.
2. Pay for it.

Cost-cutting spendthrifts may eschew meaningful research in favor of their own dead reckoning for the presumed savings in time and money, but the results they engender will almost certainly reflect the shortcuts they took.

To be clear, not all answers can be derived from any old type of research, and sometimes the cost of performing the right research outweighs the benefits that can be expected from it.

But good, relevant research generally gives us something to test against -- a means to identify and challenge our assumptions.

You might think you're saving money by refusing such research, but it's often the only thing that can provide the basis for both not only creating a solution to a problem, but also identifying the right problem in the first place.

Don't skip it. - Cam Beck

Know When to Say When

I have no desire to jump on the dogpile that has landed on The Arnell Group and Pepsico for their handling of the redesign of the Tropicana packaging. It's always easy to be clever retrospectively. It's more difficult, in the face of a request from the client to "freshen up" a design, to question the assumption that it needs freshening in the first place. I'm going to critique it anyway -- but with the caveat that it's using hindsight wisdom.

In the AdAge podcast explaining the changes, Arnell states a few goals that, on their face, are perfectly reasonable.

First, they wanted to show "the product" in place of the orange. This, I think, underestimated the value of Tropicana's original design. With an orange, the design is iconic. It doesn't need much interpretation. An orange is an orange. And a straw implies drinking. Not only is "the product" implied, so is the idea of freshness: You can't get juice more fresh than directly from the orange.

A glass of yellow-orangish liquid, on the other hand, could be a number of things, and it takes the form of whatever glass it's in, which may or may not (and probably doesn't) represent what each family has in their home.

The second thing that Arnell did was to replace the cap with something that resembled an orange.  If I interpreted his comments correctly, the orange even has a little "give" in it to imply squeezing. In a subtle way, this ergonomically innovation served to remind buyers that the juice comes fresh from oranges.

So why didn't they just stop there?

I can only guess that the reason relates to a lot of problems we seen in a number of different fields:

Why do incoming CMOs need to fire the agency his company has been using for years? Why do they need to change an ad campaign when the old one seems to be working? Why do new managers come in to "shake things up" declaring a new sherrif in town? Why do politicians like allocating funds for building new bridges that they can name after themselves rather than fixing old ones that can't?

They want to leave their marks. They want to make an impact and say that they were responsible for it.

The new cap, while (in my humble opinion) brilliant, it's also very subtle, which means it would be difficult for anyone to take ownership in a design that represents an evolutionary -- not a revolutionary -- change.

Take into account the amount of expertise, time and effort it takes to even consider a complete redesign, it would be difficult for those who invested any of those things in the effort to take a step back, say "you know, it's really not necessary" and settle on a small change.

They would consider their investment "wasted," because the change would not have enough "Pow."

Once we acknowledge the limitations of our cleverness, we can feel comfortable challenging our assumptions. We don't need to prowl around like dogs looking for territory to mark. Some other dog is always going to come to cover up our handiwork, anyway.

If our goal in branding is to develop icons that people recognize and love, we have to set aside our own egos and truly investigate the root cause of the problem that is motivating the instructions to change what is already being done. Otherwise, our efforts may not only be useless, but actually harmful, as  a doctor treating a patient for cancer when his only problem is that he has the common cold.

 - Cam Beck

Who Spins for the PR Agencies?

Is bribery still considered unethical?

When the UK tabloid, News of the World broke the story that Michael Phelps was photographed using a bong, two things immediately came to mind that confirmed, rather than shocked, my worldview. First, despite all of the hype and hero worship that typically surrounds sports superstars, this marvelous swimming specimen is still a young, immature kid in a world of highly permissive morality. Second, as is often the case in such an environment, this guy needs to find better friends and advisers.

I wasn't quite prepared, though, when I read the article that broke the "story," to hear that the agency that represents Phelps, Octagon, was accused of trying to bribe News of the World to keep them from publishing the photos.

From News of the World:
Phelps’ aides went into a panic over our story and offered us a raft of extraordinary incentives not to run the bong picture. … Phelps is represented by marketing giant Octagon, which works with huge brands such as Mastercard and HSBC. They admitted proven cannabis use would be “a major taint” on Phelps’ character.

Spokesman Clifford Bloxham offered us an extraordinary deal not to publish our story, saying Phelps would become our columnist for three years, host events and get his sponsors to advertise with us.

In return, he asked that we kill Phelps’ bong picture. Bloxham said: “It’s seeing if something potentially very negative for Michael could turn into something very positive for the News of the World.

Is it true? In a prepared statement that really took some chutzpah, Octagon denied the allegations, claiming News of the World, who broke the story that proved true, is a tabloid, and that tabloids are not to be believed.

Not only that, but Octagon wouldn't address the issue further, claiming:

"[W]e have no intention of getting into a shouting match with a tabloid."

No one is asking for a shouting match. Just an explanation. I want to know if the PR world thinks this sort of statement, in light of such accusations in a story that otherwise proved accurate, is sufficient. So far, I've only read one story on it, from a New York Times blog, "Notes on the News."

Obviously Octagon thought enough of the tabloid story to issue a statement on behalf of Phelps and to contact the publication respecting the story. Yet, when they became a part of the story, they claim they don't respond to tabloid stories, and that at least strains their credibility.

I'm not a PR professional, so I'd love to get your feedback.

What do you think? Should Octagon ignore News of the World, or does this situation require a more complete response? - Cam Beck

Ambivalence is the price of innovation

At a recent professional gathering, our speaker disparaged the "best practices" argument because, as professionals, we should advise to aim for something better than what everyone else is doing. "Best practices" is the entry fee. Innovation is the goal. I understand her point, but there are instances (particularly amidst the group of interface and application designers and developers she was speaking to), when "best practices" do indeed have an important role in building a company's brand.

When a Best Practice Isn't Enough

(Excerpted from an email to Cece Solomon-Lee)
In the late 19th century, Alexander Graham Bell offered to sell his telephone patent to Western Union for $100,000. They refused, believing the telephone to be a novelty — a kids toy — and focused on more "practical" pursuits such as multiplexing telegraph lines. Two  years later, they would have paid $25 million for Bell’s patent.

At the time, Western Union — and everyone else for that matter — knew so completely that the infrastructure did not support everyone having a telephone line run to their home, that they could not imagine the potential for Bell's device.

Buying into such unproven technology was not a "best practice," and as a result, they missed out on a huge opportunity -- perhaps THE opportunity of the century.

When a Best Practice Is a Best Practice

Graphical user interfaces built for the public — in websites or applications — present a challenge not unlike Western Union's, because of the need for differentiation, each one has unique properties.

Since normally the user is seeking the content he hopes to get on your site and because he visits a lot of sites, he doesn't want to learn a brand new interface each time. That would take too long to be useful.

The challenge, then, is to give each user something that is familiar without being ordinary. That is where "best practices" prove their utility and how good interface designers earn their money.

Many times decision-makers at companies charged with shepherding the website redesign process favor glitz and pizazz in the interface in order to differentiate themselves from their competitors. However, their efforts would often be better spent developing either a useful, usable utility or unique and useful content within an interface that makes the content easy to access, transport, and share. - Cam Beck

The Thing About Hope

Seth Godin claims that marketers sell hope. I suppose it's true, in a way, but we should make the distinct point that the only thing worse than not selling hope at all is selling hope and not delivering the results the hope demands.

Usability: An opportunity to promise hope and deliver the expected result

Marketers aren't the only ones who sell hope, by the way. This should remind us of another of Godin's maxims: Marketing is too important to be left to the professional marketers.

Periodically I must explain to people -- clients and managers alike -- how a usable website improves their brand. Almost all of them politely listen, often they believe it, but occasionally someone in authority will laugh at the concept and insist replacing that usability with marketing fluff that no one will read anyway.

They call it "branding."

I've read enough by now that I can cite chapter and verse of several usability experts who have demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that this is most often useless and frustrating. But, to these few, such objections are futile, and they are quick to dismiss the studies carried out by "usability experts" because, hey, after all, they're the "brand experts."

But if we're to take Godin's advice to heart, then we'll realize that no qualified individual comes to a website without purpose -- a hope in finding value in the form of information, entertainment, a little of both -- any number of things.

We have it in our power to make it easy on those people to find an answer they have every right to expect to find easily.

Or we can make it hard.

If we make it hard, they'll either muddle through it for as long as their hope reservoirs still contain enough goodwill to continue, or they'll deplete their supply of goodwill, leave the site, and never come back (or at least think twice about sticking around for as long as they did the first time, if they do).

So by all means, whatever it is you do for a living, sell hope. But make sure you understand what people really hope for, rather than what you hope to do in order to justify to yourself that you're providing real value. - Cam Beck

What is a killer-app?

Just when you thought you have things figured out, life has a way of redefining the way you look at things.

Lately I've been hearing clients ask for a "killer app," and we've been working like crazy to satisfy their decision-makers, but more importantly their needs. However, to understand what they're really asking for, we have to look beyond the Wikipedia definition of "killer application."

"...an application so compelling that someone will buy the hardware or software components necessary to run it."

We're pretty certain our clients haven't communicated to us and relationship between the success of their website and the success of any singular platform. In fact, our shop does an outstanding job creating standards-compliant websites that is viewable on every major platform -- and even some minor ones.

A killer app, a lot of times, boils down to developing an effective strategy that they can work within their budget and manpower limitations.

Thus, when timeframes are limited (which they always are), a killer app is just something that allows them to improve and manage compelling content effectively and efficiently -- to provide unique and hard-to-duplicate value to their audience while still working within their means.

At least, that's what I thought. Then I read this:

Sniper Rifle Software Launched for iPod Touch.

From Telegraph.co.uk:

A new application has been launched for the iPod touch to help gun users line up a clean shot at their target.

The BulletFlight app, which costs £6.99 to download from the iTunes store, has been developed by Runaway App to turn the iPod touch into a ballistics computer which the company says can provide “quick solutions in the field”.

If that's not a killer app, then language means nothing. - Cam Beck

A Tale of Two Teams

Troy Polamalu is one of the most versatile safeties in pro football. A deeply humble and religious man, he's just as likely to pray for his opponent's health as he is to knock the snot out of them or return an interception for a touchdown -- and attribute it to "luck." Historically, he has played more like a linebacker with the range of a safety, but this year, he's played more like a safety who can hit like a linebacker. When asked if he prefers playing this way more than he enjoys playing as he did in previous seasons, in what can only be described as vintage Polamalu, the Pittsburgh Steelers all-pro safety said, "I prefer winning."

The result? Partly as a result of Polamalu's 40-yard interception return for a touchdown in the AFC Championship game against the stout Baltimore Ravens, the 14-4 AFC north and conference champion Pittsburgh Steelers are heading for their 7th Super Bowl, and their 2nd in 4 years.

A Texas Ranger throws a tantrum

Michael Young is a gifted baseball player for the Texas Rangers. He's also well-paid. He makes over $6 million per year.

I don't watch baseball, but I've heard on ESPN Radio that he was a phenomenal 2nd baseman who acquiesced to being moved to shortstop, where he also played very well.

But when the Rangers asked he move to 3rd base, to make room for an up-and-coming shortstop team management might help the team win, Young had enough. He asked to be traded rather than move to a position he didn't think he could thrive in.

In what I doubt is a coincidence, the Rangers finished the 2008 season with more losses than wins. Young reluctantly agreed to move, but reports say he isn't happy about it.

Are you Michael Young or Troy Polamalu?

Are you married to your tactics, or would you rather you (or your clients) simply win? 

There is no panacea of marketing. A lot of marketers in this space -- who read this and other blogs in our blogroll -- believe in what they do. They look at the landscape of traditional marketing and witness  account executives and brand creatives who go on exotic "business" trips on the client's dime and put out tv ads (sometimes even entertaining, award-winning work) that simply don't solve the client's problems.

They resist pushing the client over to another tactic or medium because that's not what they do. That is handled by a different department, and pushing it off will mean fewer exotic business trips, or less money for their team's expense account.

Maybe the right solution is being handled by a different agency altogether, and they're too worried about their own survival to countenance the loss of revenue to a rival agency.

The same can be said of more "progressive" marketers, too -- those who so fanatically believe in Internet advertising or social media and modern Internet technologies that they eschew all traditional methods of communication.

The right solution is the one that helps your company and your clients succeed. If you haven't considered alternatives to the tactics you offer simply because you don't offer them, then hire someone who can. You can decide what to do about it later.

Your clients will appreciate (and reward) your dedication to their well-being. - Cam Beck

How Will You Stay Relevant?

Yesterday I discussed some problems that might occur when those recognized as experts are either wrong on fundamental issues (on which they may or may not have any expertise) or become obsolete altogether in front of an audience that doesn't realize it. Today I was going to write about what it would take for experts to remain sharp and for nonexperts to become experts, and why it's important to do so -- particularly in an uncertain economy and higher unemployment.

As the market fluctuates, neither marketers in general nor agencies in particular are immune from its  effects. When this happens, oftentimes good, competent people lose their jobs for reasons that are not their fault. This can create a labor surplus, which is all unemployment really is.

When a surplus exists in a free-market economy (a relative term these days, I know), it tends to depress prices, or in the case of labor, wages. Many times, however, companies won't bother to reduce wages outright, but rather they will rid themselves of the people in their employ and hire new employees at a lower cost.

This is true insomuch as your expertise is only categorical, and you do not distinguish yourself in other ways that provide value to either your clients or your employers. Your best defense, I believe, is in providing value beyond your category of expertise.

Guy Kawasaki points us to a very good article by Kendra Van Wagner on About.com that tells us 10 techniques to become a more effective learner.

Recognizing the importance of delivering business intelligence to our clients, today I set myself on a course to learn more effective database modeling techniques. It's a fascinating subject, but I know I have my work cut out for me. I know I can learn it, but it is a risk, because it may not be the very best use of my time. All I can do is make a decision and follow through.

Knowing this, I wondered if anyone else was embarking on a similar journey -- not necessarily on the same subject, but in resolving to learn something new that will help you serve your clients and/or your employer better.

How will you stay relevant in 2009? - Cam Beck

4 On-Demand Ads That Can Change the World

Although if asked, a lot of people will say differently, ads are not universally despised. Most of the time, people not only don't seek them, they actively avoid them. As it turns out, though, they're just despised when they get in the way. When they're relevant to a specific task at hand, ads are not only tolerated, but welcome.

Consider the following examples:

• Christmas Gifts - The day before Thanksgiving, at 2 p.m., at the request of my wife, I went scouring the area for a newspaper. I ran into a lot of people who, like me, were store-hopping to find a newspaper so that they (or their wives) could find the sales that were going on the day after Thanksgiving.
  
  I stopped by 3 grocery stores and 2 drugstores and one convenience store. The last place I stopped was Walgreens, where the cashier told a group of us looking that all newspapers in the area had sold out by noon.
  
  None of us knew we could view the ads online (though I later found out). Knowing I could have just booted up the computer to show my wife the ads at the time could have saved me an hour of driving in the futile hopes that I could find a recent newspaper. Think of all the gas we could have saved.
  
  
• Electronics - Every Friday, particularly among the programmers and techno-mavens, is "Fry's Day," when we all flock to the coffee room to huddle around thefull 4 page broadsheet ad placed in the Dallas Morning News by Fry's Electronics store.
  
  There's typically only one of these available for viewing at a time, so at times we're practically throwing elbows for a little room.
  
  It's possible to find the ad online, just like the Christmas ads, but it's impossible to spontaneously buy online directly from the ad.
  
  Failing to deliver this useful feature simply encourages comparison shopping and undoubtedly costs them sales.
   
• Groceries - Every Sunday, thousands and thousands of thrifty shoppers get their local paper (often two) to find the best deals and coupons, hoping to save money at the grocery store.
  
  The process of clipping coupons and organizing them effectively can take hours each week.
  
  Wouldn't it be cool if you could just subscribe to (and even pay for) access to an online coupon retriever, set up preferences so that you can download, print, or send to your mobile phone the coupons you want each week?
  
  Now, there are accounting rules to consider with this solution, and the rules that govern coupons' impact on balance sheets almost certainly should be updated in order to meet the demands of customers and make the entire process more efficient. Doing so may marginally increase productivity and would be less wasteful.
  
  
  
• Movie Trailers - Imagine you're sitting at home on Friday evening with your spouse, flipping through the 329 channels on your DVR-enabled satellite receiver only to discover there's nothing good on.
  
  "Hey, honey, why don't we see a movie? Twilight is playing."
  
  "Twilight? What's that again?"
  
  "Let me show you."
  
  You then choose the menu item that displays the latest movie trailers. Choose "Now Playing" and select your trailer.
  
  Distributors could pay to have their trailers listed and/or based on how many households view them.

These things are not necessarily logistically easy, but for most of them the individual pieces exist independently somewhere. All it will take is the willingness of category experts (as well as their financiers) to expend the effort to make it happen. - Cam Beck

What "Joe the Plumber" Can Teach Us About Internet Marketing

In last night's debate between Senators Barrack Obama and John McCain, the "undecided voters" were introduced to a person some of us political junkies had known about for several days. Joe Wurzelbacher, a plumber and hopeful entrepreneur, confronted Obama at a campaign stop in Ohio about the higher taxes he'd pay if the Senator from Illinois had his way.

Joe felt cheated. As if he were being punished for having some success in life.

After all, he'd been working about 15 years to get to the point that he could afford to buy a business and improve his family's quality of life only to have someone come in, under threat of penalty and imprisonment, to take away what he earned through his hard work and effort -- not to mention the capital he put at risk.

Obama responded, (paraphrasing) "Well, you'd be taxed more now, but for the 15 years leading up to this point, you'd have been taxed less under my plan. I just wanna spread the wealth."

(Or, as Joe heard it, Obama wants to spread Joe's wealth.)

Now, before you run away, this isn't about Joe's, Obama's, or McCain's politics.

It's about Joe's desire to be free from someone telling him that they're restricting his freedom for his own good. 

It's about the audacity of anyone to suggest that people perched high in their offices (political or corporate), know better than the Joes of the world how their time or the fruits of their labor should be spent.

Sadly, in spite of a wealth of information that should discourage the practice of such tactics, companies still fall victim to the same, navel-gazing mindset -- particularly on the Internet.

• They hide critical information (such as price) because they're afraid the customer might get "sticker shock."
• They force users to complete a form that requires more information than is really needed.
• They bloat a website with marketing fluff instead of clear, concise content germane to the user's task.

The intent of the marketers is not to "punish" their visitors. Quite to the contrary. They covet and need these people as customers. So why do they insist on getting in their way? Don't they know that damages their brand?

They just don't understand what's required of them with respect to visitors who have plenty of options to get their questions answered.

Hint: It usually starts with a Google or Yahoo search.

But the marketplace doesn't succeed or fail on intentions. Its success rests on the the participants' ability to deliver. Since Web users are absolutely ruthless in pursuit of their goals, companies need to check their egos and their fears long enough to get out of their customers' way -- or else they'll be gone before the company even knows what happened. 

And once gone, it will be terribly expensive to get them back. - Cam Beck