But, before my sentencing ...

I do an insane amount of shopping on the Web (I'd bet I go online 30-50 times a day if I'm not speechifying), so does my wife, for any damn thing-category you can name, from clothes to food to books-DVDs-song downloads to trips to used stoves, etc, etc. Moreover, her home furnishings company does 50% of its sales on the Web, and the share is growing. For me, tompeters.com, ad-free incidentally (I'll explain if you'd like), has become my best marketing tool ever, ever, ever.

But neither my wife nor I is a banner-ad user, and I admit to harboring suspicions that Google is over-priced. I am at work on a Japanese garden at home (or will be when the weather allows, a jillion Vermont days from now). Among other things, I-we want a little bridge over a wee stream, the sort I saw a picture of somewhere, Web, mag, whatever. Now what? Susan's and my "now what" is 100% Web, but 0% banner ad. And, indeed, God bless Google. I simply typed in the search box "build or buy little bridge to traverse narrow stream," or some such. As I recall I had 87,000 choices, a surprise, but no surprise, given the # of words I used. Obviously, most were useless-unrelated. But after 15 minutes, and digging waaaaaaaaaaaay down beneath the top 10 or 20 (I always look for stuff deep down just to see what's there), I had a nice starter list of perhaps 20 leads; better yet, my mind, re possibilities, had been stretched beyond recognition. Now to me (old, 65) and my wife (none of your business), that was truly wondrous—100% use of the Web, circa 2008. But not banner ads.

With examples such as the FedEx "Dean, I need you to continue not living up to your résumé" ad, which you might have seen, author Richard Rapaport shows how pervasive this trend is. "Take the culture's most facile minds, challenge them to pry cash from an increasingly tapped-out audience, and what do you get?" Rapaport asks. "Commercials built on sadism, on derision, on one-upsmanship—in a word, 'snide.'"

Rapaport is right. This trend is bad for business. So why does it happen?

First of all, let's not credit ad agency creatives with being "the culture's most facile minds." The advertising that major agencies practice is still based on the flawed notion that "brute force" wins the hearts, minds, and wallets of consumers. Snide is used because agency creatives (and their complicit clients) mistakenly believe that their goal is to "cut through the clutter." No, the goal is to create ads that blend with all other contacts the customer has with the company doing the advertising, in order to create a connection that encourages the customer to be more involved with that company and its products.

If these minds were so facile, they wouldn't miss, so completely, the point of what they are doing. Or, in a more cynical vein, we could say they know what they are doing, but are more interested in creating clever advertising than in helping their clients' businesses.

Advertising is a sick business. And it isn't just for the oft-mentioned reason that "consumers are using so many more media outlets—the Internet, hundreds of TV stations, thousands of publications."

It is because people just don't buy this way anymore. Customers—your customers—are scrutinizing, savvy, discerning, and self-reliant. They look beyond your promises, and consider every interaction with your company as a chance to evaluate you.

Snide advertising isn't only snide. It is anachronistic.

I disagree with just about all of this news. In this post I will answer the seven most common reasons people think Super Bowl advertising is a great marketing opportunity:

• It's the only time you can reach so many people at one time.
• A Super Bowl advertiser gets extra value because people are interested in being entertained by the commercials.
• But it worked for (insert company name here).
• They must know what they are doing if they are spending so much money.
• You have to be there if your competitors are.
• It's ok if you're a big enough brand and can afford it.
• It burnishes a company's image, and can even increase a stock price.

If you've purchase a 30-second spot for this year's game, prepare to be upset with me.

Continued reading Super Bowl Rant...

TrackBack (0) | Posted by Steve Yastrow | Comments?

"By the early 21st century companies won't need to deal directly with customers anymore. Robotic computers, called CRMs, will handle all customer relationships. And, in fact, two companies will be able to create relationships with each other without any human contact, as their computers court each other to build a lasting friendship."

In 1973, delegating customer relationships to computers would have seemed ludicrous. 1973 was also the year Woody Allen introduced us to the "Orgasmatron" in his movie Sleeper. The idea that computers would some day substitute for human interaction was the stuff of satire.

But ...

Continued reading The Future Is Now...

TrackBack (0) | Posted by Steve Yastrow | Comments?

As I left home in the north suburbs for day one of a two-day conference, I threw a change of clothes into the car. A late-afternoon snowstorm was forecast, and I wanted the option to opt out of a hellish commute home. At about 4:30 p.m., I exercised that option and booked the Palmer House on Hotwire.com for $93. That's a really low price for a great hotel. Unfortunately, they felt the need to remind me what a low price I paid.

Continued reading Transaction vs. Relationship...

TrackBack (0) | Posted by Steve Yastrow | Comments?

Here's the rest of the suggested definition:

A relationship is an ongoing conversation with a customer, in which the customer never thinks of you without thinking of the two of you.

Comments?

What is a customer relationship? I will suggest a two-part definition, but I would like to offer it one part at a time. Here's the first part:

A customer relationship is an ongoing conversation with your customer ...

Comments?

In an age of interchangeable products and easily duplicated services, customer relationships have become one of the most powerful competitive advantages available to a business. Do you agree?

Continued reading Relationships: A Competitive Advantage...

TrackBack (2) | Posted by Steve Yastrow | Comments?

Sentence #1: "The Wal*Mart Era, the retailer's time of overwhelming business and social influence in America, is drawing to a close."

(You know my biases ... I'm not surprised. "Lasting" is a chimera.)

In a retail service business (store, hotel, restaurant, hair salon, etc.) it is always "better" when the customer learns the service employee's first name, either from a personal introduction or a name tag.

Is this true? Always?

If so, what can "better" mean?

Then I realized that the Aflac duck is actually a Black Swan.

Continued reading The Aflac Duck Is a Black Swan...

Posted by Steve Yastrow | Comments?

While reading this article, I came face to face with this problem as I tried to order toast.

Continued reading Efficient Toast...

Posted by Steve Yastrow | Comments?

One participant commented: "We are now allowed to talk about things beyond business, to ask about our customers' personal lives, so we can get to know them as people."

I loved how she articulated that. Her belief—which I share—is that we have arrived at a point in time where genuine human encounter in business is more valued than ever. It is accepted and expected to go beyond the strict bounds of business to create meaningful business relationships.

And, of course, this means that it is not only appropriate to seek to know a customer as a real person, it is important for the person who is selling to reveal his or her humanity. Salespeople playing the role of salespeople is out. Salespeople being themselves is in.

1. Genuine dialogue

2. Technical dialogue (explanations of things)

3. Monologue disguised as dialogue

I loved that description of "monologue disguised as dialogue," where conversation is only a pretense for making one's self heard.

Buber writes that monologue disguised as dialogue is where "two or more men, meeting in space, speak each with himself in strangely tortuous and circuitous ways." In other words, they are really only talking to themselves, and not with each other.

Bad sales pitches, bosses who pretend to listen but only talk, most marketing copy writing ... all of this can be called monologue disguised as dialogue. Have you spotted any of this lately?

In companies where front-line employees have direct customer contact, it's common for there to be a "12-step process" or "19-point customer service checklist" that tells employees what they have to do when they meet a customer. Often, these companies hire people to pose as customers and rate employee compliance on these steps. I heard a story of a hotel front desk clerk who received an apology at check-out from one of these hired "blind" shoppers who said, "You were one of the best people I've seen in this company, but I'm going to have to give you a bad grade because you skipped a lot of steps."

Ugh. Not surprisingly, when I work with front-line employees at companies like this they tell me how silly the scripted processes are. One company I worked with had a 38-step process. Luckily, none of the employees I interviewed knew what the 38 steps were.

The good news ... I'm starting to see companies realize the folly of this rigid employee scripting. Recent comment from the operations V.P. of a client company: "We don't need a 16-step process. We need one step: Connect with the customer."

Is this a trend that is really happening? If so, is it all good, or am I missing something?

(The Onion must have a thing for Jeter these days. A headline in the same issue: "Expert: Derek Jeter probably didn't need to jump to throw that guy out.")

The causes? The implications? I have my thoughts, which I'll share in the comments. Your thoughts?

This all came up in a presentation yesterday. I championed my Client's cause—the more intense and focused use of databases and analytics associated therewith in marketing. I said, fine—as long as you'll substitute the word "sales" for "marketing." I claimed—and I'm faithful to it in practice—that my two favorite "businessman's terms" are: Sales. Revenue. (Good stuff.) (Very good stuff.)

I also cautioned about the use of "integrated marketing." I said, "Fine, as long as we fully comprehend that said 'integrated marketing' is in service to 'selling more stuff.'" On a roll, I suggested that the extended use of data did not mean, as some said, that "marketing" was going "left brained" (more analytic). Data and analysis, by the front-end-loader-full? Fine! But ... all sales-marketing is in the end about the "Two Es"—Emotion and Experiences. And this is as true for commercial sales as for consumer transactions. The increasingly sophisticated and intense use of data and analytics is effective only to the extent that it supports emotion, experience, sales, and revenue. Period.

I'd acknowledge that's a little strong—but my point, as usual, is to correct what I see as incorrect biases.