The Quisenblog

Evidently a lot of folks out there think creative briefs are a waste of time.

That’s the conclusion you could draw from the response to this article over at AdAge.com. Why would so many feel creative briefs have become irrelevant, and who is to blame? Some blame clients for cramming too much information in them, or for being too “boilerplate.” Others blame agencies for not being creative enough in their approach to briefs. Others say briefs don’t take into concern the prospect’s point of view. One commenter even went so far as to argue “The brief is dead.”

It’s true the “traditional” brief leaves much to be desired in these days when marketers are pushing more and more initiatives, talking to more different audiences and being involved in a variety of Social Media platforms that require creative decisions to be made on the fly. The tightly-defined “packaged-goods-era” creative brief (that spelled out everything from the exact size of an ad to what “mandatories” need to be addressed) is way too confining when it comes to developing integrated multi-platform campaigns and programs. What if, for instance, the creative team determines the best solution to a client’s problem isn’t necessarily a print ad, but a web video series? Will the brief let them consider it?

Yet without a brief, how will agencies and clients stay on the same page?

For an industry that supposedly embraces “change” and “bold moves,” it’s interesting how a lot of us have gotten locked into approaching problems the same old way, even when we have evidence that way is no longer working. It’s time agencies and clients reconsidered the brief to once again to make it a useful tool in these days of multi-channel dialogue.

Is there a prescription out there to make the creative brief relevant once again?

Our view is that the traditional agency creative brief is a throw-back to a time when it was assumed that we could manipulate consumer behavior by crafting the “right” message. The overriding question behind every brief was “What do we have to say to make you buy from us?”

Today, the consumer has access to many sources of information (not just the marketer) and in general, she puts less weight on what a marketer says than what she hears from friends, family and her community. As a result, successful marketing is not primarily about communication anymore; it is about transparently demonstrating an understanding of a consumer’s problems and concerns and addressing them in a unique, meaningful way. The question for marketers today is “Who do we have to BE in order to attract you as a customer.” It involves operations as well as marketing, as well as an on-going communication stream. In order to lead to success, any iteration of a creative brief must acknowledge this truth.

The next generation creative brief should start with the organization’s Brand Vision, which answers the question “What’s the one thing we want people to feel (and think of) when our name is mentioned, that is unique, meaningful and true.” Putting this thought at the forefront of every brief, whether for a branding ad campaign, a social media promotion or a price-and-item ad, assures that whatever the communication, it will be crafted with the intention that receivers will walk away with the same emotional take away. The brief itself needs to be acknowledged as a flexible document that serves as the “starting point” for both agency and client.

Yesterday’s “campaigns” have given way to today’s “content platforms.” As conditions on the ground change, and as new opportunities or obstacles surface, so, too does the nature of communication.

Posted by Mickey

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Mickey Creative, Media, New Media, On Clients, On Customers, Ramblings, Social Media, strategy Ad Age, brand vision, content platform, creative brief, multi-channel dialogue

The marketing spoils often don’t go to the marketer with the best product. Or to the marketer with the biggest name. Or the most money. Or the widest distribution. Or even the most loyal customers.

Many times the marketplace winner is the marketer who does the best job understanding and meaningfully addressing its customers’ pain points.

One present-day marketer who has done an exemplary job of crafting its offerings to directly address customers’ true needs is the automaker Hyundai.

Hyundai has always been an underdog in the U.S. auto market. It was a latecomer with a hard-to-pronounce name and the baggage of coming from a place (South Korea) that’s not especially known for producing top-notch automobiles. The logical play for Hyundai would have been to stand first and foremost for “value,” and hang its hat on a position of “being a cheap version of a Nissan.”

To its credit, the automaker knew it had to do something different. “Value” is a nebulous concept that can mean different things to different audiences, so Hyundai had to find a way to connect with car buyers to assuage both their spoken and (most importantly) unspoken concerns. The marketer wisely settled on the concept of “assurance.”

Initially, the automaker manifested this position by offering what was at the time the most comprehensive warranty in the industry: ten years or 100,000 miles. This gave the automaker automatic cred in the marketplace.

But here’s where Hyundai hit a homerun. It understood that “assurance” wasn’t restricted to just a warranty; it was essentially a commitment to take all the risk out of buying a new car.

This was really exemplified in 2008, when the U.S. economy tanked. Financial insecurity ran rampant. Sales of big ticket items plummeted. Well-established auto brands like Toyota, Honda and Ford each saw sales drop well over 30%. It was during this period that Hyundai expanded its “assurance” positioning by offering to let buyers return their Hyundais to the dealer in the event that they should lose their paychecks, with no negative credit ramifications. Immediately, sales jumped 14% (see more about the story in the following video), and before long the other major automakers went to market with their own version of “assurance.”

Most recently, Hyundai again found a creative way to manifest “assurance,” this time guaranteeing a trade-in value for buyers.

Suddenly, this odd-ball Korean car maker has surpassed many well-known marques here in America. And I would wager to say the reason isn’t that the car-buying public fell in love with design and performance of the Santa Fe. It has everything to do with understanding the needs and anxieties of the car buyer and getting to work to build initiatives that might scare the bean-counters, but that emotionally connect with car buyers.

One of the beautiful things about the “assurance” Brand Vision is that it has nothing whatsoever to do with functionality. It’s not a claim for better gas mileage, better performance, more cargo room or even a lower sticker price. Those things are fluid, and can change. Hyundai succeeded in tapping into authentic customer anxieties that will always be around.

Consumers have real needs, real fears, real anxieties, many of them unspoken. The marketer who does the best job of understanding and addressing these “real needs” stands the best chance of emotionally connecting with the consumer.

Posted by Mickey

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Mickey Creative, On Clients, On Customers, strategy assurance, brand vision, customer anxiety, Hyundai

I had the pleasure of hosting a Content Development Workshop through Greater Spokane Inc.’s BizStreet this week. Thought I’d share the PowerPoint deck with you all. Covers things like developing a content strategy, where to source quality content and includes some content best practices (which I pretty much learned the hard way).

I look forward to your comments.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Mickey Creative, New Media, On Clients, On Customers, Research, Social Media, customer experience, strategy blu berry, brand vision, content strategy, curated content, huppins, reimagined content, social media content

Social Media naysayers have been having a field day these past few weeks. Last month, after Beverage Digest reported that Pepsi’s flagship brand slipped into third place (behind Coca Cola’s Diet Coke brand) in the cola wars, a meme started making its rounds that money spent in Social Media was a waste, at least as far as major brands are concerned.

As proof, Social Media detractors point to two prominent marketers who cast their lot in Social Media and (apparently) came up losers—Pepsi and Burger King.

Some background: this past year, Pepsi opted not to advertise in the Super Bowl, instead embarking on the ambitious “Pepsi Refresh” project in Social Media. And Burger King, in lieu of matching McDonald’s dollar-for-dollar in paid media, instead leaned heavily on such noted Social Media campaigns as the Whopper Sacrifice and the Subservient Chicken.

And here we are, with Pepsi sales down 5% year/year, and the brand mired in third place. And Burger King having just experienced its sixth consecutive quarter of declining sales.

Some of the loudest voices in the room would have you believe it’s all Social Media’s fault.

If only things were that cause-and-effect.

The truth is, looking at the situations from the 10,000 foot level, just as you’d suspect, both marketers have challenges that go well beyond the decision of whether or not to tweet regularly or start a Facebook page. Both entered the recession #2 in a market with a strong dominant leader (in dicey economic times, market leaders can be expected to outperform the category to everyone else’s detriment). Both marketers suffered unsettling turnover in marketing and management. And most telling, both have made questionable marketing moves beyond the scope of Social Media. Pepsi, once the choice of the “new generation,” lost that mantle to emerging products such as Mountain Dew, Gatorade and the assorted energy drinks, then compounded matters by going through its much-lambasted multi-million dollar Peter Arnell logo redesign (exemplified by the much-mocked memo which infamously equated the new design with “the Earth’s magnetic fields and the sun’s radiation”). And Burger King? The marketer used nearly 60% of its ad budget in late 2010 in an ill-fated attempt to unseat McDonald’s dominance in the breakfast daypart. That fiasco made Gallipoli look like a stand-off.

And interestingly enough, at the current time, both marketers are operating without a Chief Marketing Officer. I’d wager that the lack of a strong visionary marketing leader has more to do with the brands’ struggles than decisions as to where it spends its marketing bucks.

Not to totally absolve Pepsi and Burger King’s Social media efforts of all blame. For starters, Social Media proponents were way too ebullient about the efforts, and heaped much praise on them before they ever generated an inkling of a result. And the strategies of both (if you can call them that) were questionable, in my opinion.

Regarding the Pepsi Refresh Project, the marketer seemed way more interested in the “crowdsourcing” part of the project than the actual good works being done. It seemed more like a marketing ploy than an authentic “cause marketing” campaign. Pepsi didn’t focus on a single unifying cause, like safe drinking water to the world or shoes for kids in developing nations. The emphasis on the crowdsourcing element proved controversial as well. There were well-publicized allegations of cheating. The projects touted by well-organized and well-connected non-profits benefited at the expense of average grass-roots consumers. Nowhere was this more evident that in the Gulf Refresh Project launched just after the BP oil spill. You can read about the issues we found with that project here.

And for Burger King? While its Social Media efforts were entertaining, product-focused and well-integrated into its media advertising, it all had a very tactical feel to it. Burger King has long lacked a cohesive strategic platform. What does the brand stand for? I’d bet if you asked 10 consumers, you might get 10 different answers.

Sorry, but “If only they’d have been in the Super Bowl” is not a grown-up response to the ails of Pepsi and Burger King. Marketers who think in terms of “either/or” when it comes to paid media versus Social Media are embarrassingly out of touch. Social Media, when used correctly and integrated into offline efforts, add depth to and amplify a winning strategy. (Great examples of this include the recent Evian “Rollerskaing Babies” and Old Spice “Man on a Horse” campaigns). Conversely, without a winning strategy, Social Media (as with any other media) are reduced to a series of “throw-it-against-the-wall” tactics. Just like an aimless logo redesign or a tagline-du-jour.

And speaking of Content Strategy (how’s that for a segue?), that will be what I’m covering in the upcoming intensive Social Media workshop through GSI’s BizStreet on April 28. If you’re interested, find out more and register here. Hope to see you there.

Posted by Mickey

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Mickey Creative, Media, New Media, On Clients, Ramblings, Social Media, strategy burger king, Pepsi refresh, peter arnell, social media detractors, social media integration, whopper sacrifice

Hey you. Yeah, you. The family with four kids, two dogs and the load from Home Depot. Have you ever considered a Porsche?

Silly as it seems, this is apparently the takeaway from an upcoming Porsche North America advertising campaign.

According to an article in Marketing Daily, Porsche’s North American marketing manager, Scott Baker, is concerned that Porsche owners aren’t driving their Porsches enough. He commissioned research to ask the question “why,” and found (surprise, surprise) that by and large, Porsche owners (and perspective buyers) don’t see their Boxsters and 928’s as ”primary family vehicles” (their term).

It wasn’t that these folks were dissatisfied with their Porsches, or that they regretted buying them. It’s just that there are times when the old Dodge Caravan might be a bit more handy.

So far, this little research foray sounds like a frivolous, yet harmless adventure.

But then (as “research driven” companies are wont to do), Baker & Co. decided that this is one “problem” that can be solved with advertising. Just advertise Porsche as a family car. Soon, moms will leave the minivan in the driveway and haul the kids to soccer practice and fluffy to the groomer in the 911.

Has this guy been at the company more than ten minutes? Porsche is James Dean. Porsche is “Risky Business.” Porsche is not “Eight is Enough.”

Will this foray into silliness damage the brand that began with Dr. Ferdinand Porsche more than 60 years ago? I doubt it. Porsche’s image is so strong and universal that even a lame campaign won’t banish it to Cadillac Cimmaron territory.

A smarter move for Porsche would be to take the totally opposite tact. Ditch the back seat all together. Put a subwoofer where the boot storage now is. Acknowlege that Porsche is not for everyone. Make it even more exclusive. That exclusivity is what adds value. You don’t buy $90,000 worth of parts. You buy a Porsche, for crying out loud.

And as Tom Cruise famously says in the aforementioned “Risky Business,” there is no substitute.

Posted by Mickey

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Mickey Creative, On Clients, On Customers, Ramblings, Research james dean, minivan, mismarketing, porsche, risky business, tom cruise

You gotta love all those end-of-year lists. They’re neat, tidy and timely.

That being said, I thought this might be a great opportunity to unveil our own end-of-year list. But rather than focus on the highs or lows of the past year, I thought, why not revisit campaigns that, quite literally, changed everything.

These are campaigns that gave us not just great ads, but forced us to rethink the very possibilities of persuasive communication. They’re presented in more-or-less sequential order.

1. Volkswagen “Think Small” (Doyle Dane Bernbach, 1962)

The now-famous Beetle campaign from DDB demonstrated how a marketer could succeed by creating a personality for his/her product, not by talking about the product, but by making the campaign more about the buyer. Volkswagen ads were like a dialogue with customers. Buyers could see themselves as part of the Volkswagen community. Looking at the DDB campaign en toto, one would surmise the Volkswagen buyer to be smart, frugal, no-nonsense and possessing an understated sense of humor. Truthfully, who wouldn’t want to be seen like that?

2. Xerox “Brother Dominic” (Needham, Harper Steers, 1976)

Until this famous TV Benedictine monk came along, business-to-business advertising was dull as dirt, pretty much confined to cold, boring sell sheets that reps would leave with their business cards. Business people don’t have time to be entertained, so the thinking went, so advertising to them as we would consumers is a waste of time. Kudos to Needham for remembering that business people are consumers, too. And that the best way to demonstrate a product’s true benefits are through storytelling, not bland bullet points.

3. FedEx “Sedelmaier campaign” (Ally Gargano, 1978)

In the 1970s and 80s, Chicago Director Joe Sedelmaier directed some of the funniest commercials ever aired, whether for FedEx, Wendy’s (“Where’s the Beef”), Alaska Airlines, Sprint (where I got the chance to work with him) and many others. His unique style of visual humor helped expand the definition of “what’s funny” in commercials. Until Joe, humor was pretty much restricted to quippy one-liners. Suddenly, sight gags were funny, characters were funny, ridiculous storytelling was funny. But the key thing was, with Joe, the needle moved. While many in the business derided him for “making fun” of the customer, results showed that “the customer” liked it, remembered it and acted on it.

4. Miller Lite “Ex-Jocks” (Backer-Spielvogel, 1976)

The use of jocks in advertising has become somewhat ubiquitous these days. And many of the spots are quite entertaining. But before the original Miller Lite spots, athlete advertising was pretty much of the hold-up-the-product-and-smile variety…not much in the way of capturing the personality of the jocks. Then Miller Lite came along. And Backer-Spielvogel was tasked with making a lite beer acceptable to the largest segment of beer drinkers—men. This campaign did it in spades. It not only propelled Miller Lite from a niche brand to the best selling brand of beer in America, it solidified jocks’ place in advertising lore.

5. Nike “Michael Jordan” (Wieden & Kennedy, 1986)

Nike did dozens of great ad campaigns prior to signing a rookie basketball player named Michael Jordan as a spokesperson in 1985. But Jordan became the brand, and the brand be came Jordan. The two represented the same values, and became inseparable, so far as Nike’s audience was concerned. The spots were so well crafted, they felt as if they were coming directly from Jordan, not scripted for him. Even these earliest spots featuring Spike Lee as Mars Blackman gave a hint at what was to come.

6. Apple MacIntosh “1984” (Chiat/Day, 1983)

Okay, so this is the low-hanging fruit. Yes, it ushered in the era of the bigger-than-life Superbowl commercial. But more importantly, it demonstrated how cinematic production values and flawless storytelling, when combined with a legitimate product promise, can move mountains.

7. National Milk Processors Board “Got Milk” (Goodby, Silverstein & Partners, 1994)

A great campaign to be sure, in every sense of the word. But “game changing?” I struggled with this at first, then decided to include it, for much the same reason Volkswagon and Xerox were included. For years, the Milk Board ran a campaign called “Milk Does a Body Good” that did a pretty good job of highlighting all the reasons a consumer should WANT to buy milk. Despite all those millions spent, growth was non-existent. Then Got Milk captured America’s fancy. And it did it by acknowledging HOW people used the product and WHY they wanted it. In short, folks didn’t buy milk because it was loaded with protein and Vitamin D; they bought it because somehow, nothing goes better with those monster chocolate chip cookies you love. Not just storytelling, but honest storytelling.

BONUS – 8. Old Spice “The Man Your Man Could Smell Like” (Wieden & Kennedy, 2010)

Maybe this one is too recent to be included as a campaign of seismic proportions. But to my mind, it is the first campaign that successfully integrated traditional media with community-building Social Media to create unprecedented buzz (more than 1.4 BILLION views and mentions) and sales response (sales up over 100% in the two months following the campaign’s launch). And that doesn’t include the “updating-the-stodgy-brand” factor. From this day forward, I doubt there will be a “big idea” in this business that doesn’t include a strong Social Media component.

Can you think of any other campaigns you felt “changed everything?” Let us know, we’d love to hear from you.

Posted by Mickey

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Mickey Creative, Media, Ramblings 1984, ad list, Apple, FedEx, Great ad campaigns, Milk, Miller, Nike, old spice, Volkswagen, Xerox

“New” has long been THE buzzword in marketing. Nothing gets our attention like “new.” “New” implies all sorts of goodness: “improved,” “better” and “hipper.” “New” is the propellant a product needs to break through with fussy consumers.

Or is it?

The problem with so many “new” products and brands is that while they may be “new” they aren’t really “different.” They are just mash-ups of what we’ve seen before, with a bunch of marketing hype thrown in for good measure. It is amazing how many “new” products soon blend blandly into the great morass of choices customers face. In many ways, we’ve become immune to claims of “new.”

“Different” products, on the other hand, scream for attention.

Such is the story of Vibram’s Five Fingers running shoes. The first time you see someone running in them, you can’t help but do a double take. They look nothing like any “running shoes” you’ve ever seen. They look more like over-sized gloves that goes on your feet.

Not just “new,” but “different.”

Dyson vacuums are another case in point. Bagless suction, ball maneuvering, and distinctive candy-colored looks. Not just new, different.

The great opportunity that comes with being different is the invitation it gives you to start a conversation on your terms. “Why’d they design it like that?” is an obvious first question (and conversation starter). Suddenly, if you’re Vibram, or Dyson or Apple, you have an engaged participant anxious to hear your story.

Mind you, while “different” may start a conversation, it’s up to your product’s performance to deliver on it. “Different” without a product pay off is no more than borrowed interest. Think Alpha Romeo. Or (this is suddenly dating me) Olivetti typewriters. Both were head-turningly different. And both were notorious for being crappy products.

In these days when there are so many “me-too” kind of products out there, see if you can come up with a way to be not just new, but truly, meaningfully different. It’s not easy, but it could possibly propel you to the top.

Posted by Mickey

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Mickey Creative, On Clients, On Customers, Ramblings Apple, brand vision, different, Dyson, meaningful difference, new and improved, Vibram

There’s a fine line between listening to your audience and caving to it. Just ask The Gap.

On Oct. 6th, the retailer unveiled a new logo that was intended to reflect the brand’s “evolution” of an updated product line and associations with respected cutting-edge designers. But within hours of “leaking” the new logo to its Facebook fans, Gap started to backpedal. By that afternoon, it was asking fans to submit their own designs, saying the new logo wasn’t set in stone. And by Oct. 11—just five days after the first announcement—the new logo was DOA, and Gap announced it was retaining its classic logo.

So what happened? The short answer is that the brand’s followers in Social Media (as well as some Social Media heavy hitters) were quite vocal in their opinion that the new logo sucked. Not only did the blogosphere and the Twitterati pillory the new design, they spawned a host of Social Media profiles and applications to make their point (the most entertaining of these is www.craplogo.me, where you can turn your own logo, name or whatever, into a new Gap-like logo). The new logo and its creators, Laird & Partners of New York, were the latest casualties of “crowd sourcing.”

This is not a blog post about the design of the logo. Everyone I’m sure has an opinion one way or another on that one. What I really want to delve into is this: was Gap right to eat a little crow and kill the new logo in favor of the old one? Or was the marketer merely caving to appease the loudest voices in the room?

First, a reality check. People hate change. They will almost always pick the status quo over something new. That’s just how folks are wired. So when a marketer updates or changes any of its brand assets, there is going to be resistance, and it will probably come from some of the folks who know the brand best. Research shows consumers most committed to a brand will have stronger and more negative reactions to redesign efforts.

So does this mean that if you want to please your most loyal customers, you should just forget about ever changing your logo? Or anything else for that matter?

Sorry, this is just silly. The Gap project aside, once there’s a commitment to update or revise your logo (or any other brand asset), assuming you have a justifiable business reason to do so, stick to your guns. Understand people hate change and there’s always going to be some measure of push back. This stuff blows over.

Social Media is terrific for getting a real time read on what’s going on with your audience. Part of that territory, however, is handing a megaphone to the whiners out there. The key is to be able to fit this all into context and not be reactionary to each and every comment.

Whatever you do, don’t be frozen into inactivity for fear you might tick a few vocal people off.

Was The Gap right, then, in going back to its classic logo? I happen to like the old one better. But I’m sure if it had changed, within six months, I probably wouldn’t have given it any thought, as long as it reflected the more “contemporary” promise of the brand.

It’s always a good idea for marketers to get input from their customers. But be sure you’re prepared for what they have to say.

Posted by Mickey

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Mickey Creative, New Media, On Clients, On Customers, Ramblings, Social Media brand evolution, crap logo, crowdsourcing, Gap, gap logo

This year, more people will visit the California Wine Country than will visit Disneyland.

How a 20-mile stretch along Napa Valley’s Highway 29 went from being a non-descript region of 25 wineries, a few dozen vineyards and a handful of sleepy agricultural towns 40 years ago to become California’s #1 tourist draw today is truly amazing.  Even more amazing when you consider the products sold there are available at just about any major supermarket in the country. No $15 sandwiches or two-hour crawls on an over-crowded highway required.

But the success of the Wine Country isn’t about the wine. It’s about the story behind the wine. When you stop at a winery visitor’s center, you’re treated to more than a few sips of the latest petite syrah release. You get a story to take home with you. You get to see where the wine is made. You get to touch the vines that give life to the grapes. You get the sights, smells and views of the tasting room. You hear the stories of how the wines are made, where the grapes are sourced, and if you’re fortunate enough, might even get a chance to shake hands with the winemaker. And when you head home with that case of Grgich Hills late harvest Chardonnay, you have more to share with your friends and family than wine. You have a complete story.

Try getting that at your neighborhood Safeway.

Developing a complete story around your product is the best way to build a community of fans.

A company that was totally built around a story was the retailer Banana Republic. Mel and Patricia Ziegler started the retailer as a mail order company of military surplus items back in 1978. Mel, a writer, and Patricia, an artist, self-published their own catalogues, and pioneered the concept of “armchair adventure,” creating stories around every item they sold. These extreme tales of adventure from the Amazon rain forest or the desolate Australian outback added life to the military jackets, crew socks and pith helmets they had for sale. The hand-illustrated catalog, stapled together on the Zieglers’ kitchen table in Mill Valley, California, soon drew scores of followers, and by 1983 the business had grown so large, the Zieglers sold out to The Gap.

Is there a story to be told about your product or service? One that people would be interested in, that is relevant to what they are looking for, one that would give them a reason to pass it on? Stories are the way to break through the veneer of resistance and to get to the feeling level.

As the saying goes, your customer may forget what you say, he may forget what you did, but he’ll never forget what you made him feel.

Posted by Mickey

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Mickey Creative, On Clients, On Customers, Ramblings armchair adventure, Banana Republic, brand stories, customer stories, Mel Ziegler, wine country

One company’s customer base is another company’s database.

Just because consumers happen to be in your tent at the present time, that doesn’t mean they’re taking up permanent residence. At some point, they liked the offer youpresented them, bought into your value proposition and pulled the trigger on a sale. That’s it. Next time they’re in the market, maybe they’ll buy from you without comparison, and maybe you’ll have to compete for them all over again. One thing’s for sure: the next sale is not going to be uncontested. The competition is gunning for you.

So what can you do to improve your odds of solidifying your relationship with existing customers and move them up the loyalty ladder? Here are a few things you can try.

• Treat new customers as “trial customers.” One of the most important jobs a marketer has is to help her customers get the most value out of her product. Rare is the product where all the reasons for its superiority are self-evident. More often there is a discovery period that allows customers to discover on their own why their purchase decision was a good one. The marketer can help. By guiding the new customer through the early phases of learning about and using a product, the more likely it is that the new customer will recognize the true value and return in the future.
• Find out more about them. Why did they choose your product in the first place? Was it the way it looked, the way it smelled, the colors it came in? Did it do (or appear to do) something its competitors couldn’t? Finding out why the customer made the initial purchase will give you great insights into how the product needs to perform in order to attract that customer again. Find out why they buy, then engineer more of that into your product.
• Talk to customers according to where they are in the usage cycle. There are two ways to approach earning the sale from an established customer, and unfortunately, most organizations do it the wrong way. Instead of acknowledging that customer is in a different situation than the customer they’re trying to win over for the first time, they go about treating that customer the same they would as they would a “prospect.” They use the same arguments. Show the same ads. No acknowledgment at all that the customer actually has some experience with the product. Once a customer has some experience with your product, take advantage of that experience. Could he use more information at this point? Would a price incentive help close the deal?
• Use long-term customers as a product development resource. This is something where Social Media can play an important role with many marketers. It’s not so hard to find customers who have been buying your products for some time. Once you find them, use them as a resource for improving and marketing your products. With their permission, simple tools like Survey Monkey can help you glean all sorts of insights from them that will help market not only to returning customers, but also to the much-sought-after new customer.

People who use your products are different than the ones who haven’t. They deserve to be treated differently than the person who’s never done business with you before. Give them offers and invitations that you can’t (or wouldn’t want) to give to just anybody. Ask them about their preferences, share news about your company with them in advance, engage with them the way you would if they were standing in front of you at the point of purchase.

It will pay off big time.

Posted by Mickey

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Mickey Creative, New Media, On Clients, Ramblings, Social Media comparative shopping, competition, loyalty, loyalty ladder, trial customers