Comments

I totally agree Steve! Most people think that to do a marketing campaign means going through a checklist - PR here, Advertise here and there, gimmicks and promos, etc.

Sometimes the whole organization completely forgets about their product / service and how the customer experiences it. And if sales do not happen they think there was something wrong with the ads, when it might be that there was something wrong with their heads.

I call it lazy marketing when people force a positioning for their brand and throw a huge budget.

Posted by Dennis Balajadia at December 12, 2004 6:01 AM

I think the mainstream of bizz slowly get´s the idea of community created organizations and products.

It takes some more time because the Metaprocess of organizational change is not just an issue in the .com! All the .govs, .orgs, .edus, etc. have a shared experience of massive change.

It´s about bringing management, employees and customers "togather" and provide the ground for those Gatherings. .com(mercial) becomes re-imagined into .com(munity) through .org(anizational) change via selfdefinement as an .edu(cational) learning .org.

Especially in politics we need to get the same "strategy" Steve mentions:

To quote and "remix" Dennis:
I call it lazy politics when politicians force a positioning for their .govstyle brand and throw a huge budget.

and Steve:
.gov doesn´t do integrated politics, citizens do

André, Germany

Posted by André Boeing at December 12, 2004 9:04 AM

Hi Steve - I believe the ultimate "marketing" is when a relationship is formed - similar to a family relation - it is all there - the essence of caring, respect, time is money, positive experience, new fun stuff, even the lovemark concept - thanks!!!

Posted by Freeman at December 12, 2004 9:51 AM

The inverse question here could be "Do the customers understand this" ?? i.e Customers have a stake in the process and are joint partners in the relationship. Yet to see a customer/client really immerse themselves into the process. Its "Lip Service" only by most Customers and it appears that the ultimate responsiblity still resides with Marketing !!!

Posted by /pd at December 12, 2004 12:49 PM

Dennis ... you're right to call it lazy marketing. Throwing money at advertising is easy ... orchestraing a total experience for customers is difficult.

Posted by Steve Yastrow at December 12, 2004 2:17 PM

Steve - I have a hypothesis that the reason orchetrating a total experience for customers is difficult is BECAUSE marketers [as consumers themselves]have turned off our own sensory systems, unconsciously, through years of "life." And, because of this very fact cannot implement the very practices we may read about and want to do ... that we must redefine marketing and turn the tables on ourselves, consumers in our own right. You can only take people as far as you can take yourself. Thoughts?

Posted by wendy at December 12, 2004 6:28 PM

Wendy ... I agree. This is what I write about in my book, Brand Harmony, and you can read some of the ideas at www.brandharmony.com.

It's weird that a lot of marketers assume a certain set of "laws of the universe" for marketing and a different set for real life. For example, the main model of marketing we all grew up with was "brute force," i.e., the mindset that the key to winning a customer's love and attention is just to interrupt them as frequently as possible with messages that are as powerful as possible. Where in real life can you persuade people to do what you want them to do just by bugging the crap out of them? Nowhere. So, if it doesn't work in real life, why should it work in business? Brute force branding is dead, but it's still the dominant model.

Or, another example of the disconnect between marketing and real life: Many marketing people got A's on college English papers describing the unique nuances of individual literary characters, and then they go to work for advertising agencies and assume that people's behavior is explained by there membership in some imagined homogenous demographic group.

pd ... explain more ... do customers have an obligation to get involved? I think that customers just naturally integrate all experiences into a composite brand impression, for the small % of products that they even bother to notice.

Posted by Steve Yastrow at December 12, 2004 7:47 PM

Donot underestimate "brute force" and the deep roots it has in our psyche!

As a toddler, kid,and teenager, how did you gain attention and get things done?

Posted by Jayakumar.T.H. at December 13, 2004 4:56 AM

Some great comments here! I would go one stage further. Integrated marketing is the icing on the cake! So many companies don't even get the basics right. Sales fail before even reaching the level of marketing. I am talking about basic distribution and stock here!

An example – Me buying smart casual trousers for work. I will visit 3-5 stores. The kind of marketing I am walking passed is “The new range will make you feel FRESH, ALIVE and truly RELAXED.” With lots of pictures of great looking people being fresh, alive and truly relaxed.

The reality is my purchase decision is based solely finding ONE pair of trousers in ANY shop that fits me. Heck I don’t even get to choose the colour I want! I don’t care about the brand, the marketing, the experience or whether I have “connected” with the brand.

It’s very much like Maslow’s needs hierarchy – It’s difficult to reach self actualisation if the basic physical needs are not met.

I believe that most issues with sales are far more basic than people realise. The problem is that the basics are not the glam end of management thinking!

Posted by PaulH at December 13, 2004 5:12 AM

In my opinion marketing is C&KC, i.e. Catch & Keep Customers.

As a consequence marketing affects everybody in a company. And surely, being on hold for 15 minutes doesn't actually keep me as a customer.

Posted by sjakkmatt at December 13, 2004 7:39 AM

I think what most companies forget is that everything is communication: the invoice, the phone waiting line, order forms, the reception desk, even the stamp their using when mailing snail mail. there are uncountable points of communication marketers do'nt pay attention to.

Posted by Oliver Wuensche at December 13, 2004 8:02 AM

Steve: Customer Expereince Strategies are being designed by marketeers who do not engage the customer base during the design process... IMHO that sucks.. !! The flip side of it is that even when Expereince strategy's are being designed and developed in collobrative mode teh Client/Customer does not always speak the "unvarnished truth" .. the are passive particpants rather then active particpants.. thats what I say is 'lip service' and then when the program fails, it becomes the Marketer/Consulants failure.. and not a joint failure.. To answer your question, yes, Customers are obliged to get involved and its mandatory that the consultant and marketeers take the time to explain to client/customer/test base/review group that the strategy is totally dependant on them.

Let me cite you an e.g.. I was called for a product review (start from the lab to the BoardRoom kinda trip), my role was to review presentation and give candid feedback.. my first cut was the product had not use for the user.. and I for one, would not touch it with a barge pole.. guess what.. there were various opnioins ..but most leaned towards the left, which implied the intial product was kinda deemed not fit for strategy.. Now Guess what... the marketing folks do.. get a bunch of their allies and chums and.. do another presentation and that swings o the right now.. Whewwwwww..way to go guys.. now go burn yourselves .. zats what exactly happened after the product failed on launch.... and was pulled..albiet with a lot of rumbles.. So whos at fault here ?? Markters who did not listen or Consumers/Clients who just want to please the MArketeers/Consultant ??

Posted by /pd at December 13, 2004 10:16 AM

I'd have to agree that every single point of contact with the company shapes my view of who they are. To echo what some others have said - it comes down to every experience I have with the company. And usually it is the small things that usually show if the company sees me as a human being or as a faceless pocketbook. Every aspect is crucial: a phone call, voicemail, website, email, greeting at the store, bathroom (nasty!), literature on the company, associates ready to assist me, etc.

K.I.S.S. I swear that 90% of the companies out there just don't realize that they should hire people that like to serve other people. Throw out the people who won't smile or lend a helping hand...NOW!

Posted by Bradley Spitzer at December 13, 2004 12:19 PM

Steve - I have Brand Harmony and enjoyed it. But, you missed my point. Marketers can't implement the programs, feel the consumers, connect with them because - even you - are telling them to be THE BRAND (?!) tell them to be the consumer. No, we don't change when we go to work, so why are you asking them to? That is where my hypothesis starts...that is where the lovemarks begin. That is where the left and right brain connect. That is why we need to open up our sensory systems again. Marketers libidos are dead! Be the brand, why? Be a human that helps her consumer live her life. ...then the money comes pouring in. Oh, and by the way, while we're teaching the marketers, we will be changing the messaging and making each other grow up and be accountable for our own lifes. and a funny thing will happy, we'll be happy. just a thought.

Posted by wendy at December 13, 2004 12:39 PM

integrated marketing services very nice phrase ,gosh how expensive it sounds. Orchestrating the right resourses needs creativity to understand how and what has to be done, I think Wendy got it, marketing plans have to be built fron outdoors to indoors of the company. A brand is like a person it needs strong personality, so it has to tell you a real or fiction story but with memorables experiences . In the end it all comes to wasting away your shoes walking the streets the brand needs to capture. Use your knowledge to put it simple.There s no magic,there s hard work to be done

Posted by steve at December 13, 2004 3:36 PM

I find the whole marketing realm fascinating. i am not a marketer, but an avid watcher of the stuff that goes in to marketing, and a budding entrpreneur.

I haven't read the books (Brand Harmony), so my question for Steve is: which companies are doing the connectedness piece right? That's the connectedness between marketing and real life??

Posted by Scott Broderick at December 13, 2004 11:52 PM

Awesome comments! Everyone is making great points ... when a customer does the integrating, integrated marketing doesn't stop at traditional marketing communications ... customers can and do consider anything they want to. \

/pd ... did those get fired?

Wendy ... I totally agree that people don't change when they go to work. See my comment above about how marketers assume a completely different world when they do marketing than when they do life. BTW, being the brand is never about asking employees to fake it or not be themselves. On the contrary, my experience doing this has shown me that employees get a lot of personal satisfaction and personal expression when they understand how to be the brand. Keep the comments coming!

Posted by Steve Yastrow at December 14, 2004 3:02 AM

This is exactly what I've been trying to communicate to my company! I find that one of our real issues is that we are hamstrung by our organizational structure. No one owns the customer experience in our company (2 billion+ oil & gas) so each little group (advertising, product marketing, category management, loyalty program, e-business and corp communications) creates their own version of the customer experience (but not the logo .. by golly, we all have the logo specs down pat). Problem is .. the customer doesn't care that the loyalty dept is different from the advertising dept that is different from the people responsible for the store design. Irrelevant to them and their needs.

So it is this revolutionary (and politically painful) process to introduce the idea of a total customer experience and that the brand is not simply adherence to a logotype, or even a well articulated "brand tableau" -- its about creating an integrated experience for a customer, regardless of the touchpoint. Both from a messaging/communication perspective, but also (and this is even more challenging) from a self-service perspective. I can't even describe the inital conversations with IT on how complicated systems integration will be.

Posted by Kate at December 14, 2004 3:50 PM

Steve - How about integrated emotional futures for associates and consumers, because they are one in the same? What about empathy for both? What if the emotional systems were ties together and the organizational hierarchy a vacuum set up to provide the next space for the next in line? What is like Kate’s company, we stopped trying to diagnosis the “experience” and objectivifying the consumer but rather remembered we are all consumers and focused on creating empathetic bonds? What if we did the hardest thing possible…stayed past the infatuation phase and showed our feelings? ...perhaps you can add that to your list of why most marketing programs eventually fail. And, yes I am purposely making the link between the doctor / patient : disease / cure objectification...you don't cure a disease do you? Isn't that Dr. Gawande's point?

Posted by Wendy at December 15, 2004 5:24 AM

Wow, Wendy .. that's a neat idea. We use scorecards as a performance management tool. In the past, they have me "me-only". This year, we're now trying to do "integrated scorecards" -- where myself and say someone in marketing would share common goals and common measurements (and be bonused accordingly).

But what if they were truly integrated .. and I shared elements with my customers. Or they could impact my scorecard. Wow!

Posted by Kate at December 15, 2004 10:28 AM

Steve: Yes, some folks got fired.. .all for the reasons of limited socalled budgets resoources and 'rightsizing' crap.. But guess who took the fall.... the bottom line staff...who actually had nothing to to with the crapola !!

Wendy: On a previous posting, we discoursed your theroy. I was impressed. When is your book coming out ?? Can I have the inside scoop please ?? you have my email addy !! :)-

Kate: Scorecards are a bundle of foo- When did you last measure the 'love of your family' w/scorecards ?? have you ever ?? will you ever ??Think carefully before replaying :)-

Posted by /pd at December 15, 2004 11:00 AM

Back in my agency days, when a client hired us I never wanted to know about what they did, made, or sold. What I wanted to know FIRST was what the marketplace pain was and what they knew about how their hoped-for customers behaved. THEN I'd let them tell me about their products. If they were incapable of giving information in that order, usually they were wasting marketing time and money.

Can't argue with you, Steve. Won't argue with you. You're exactly on point.

cheap viagra in usa

Posted by Mason at December 15, 2004 12:39 PM

Marketers focus on integrated marketing because that is what they have been trained to do. Steve’s right – orchestrating customer experience is hard. I’ve worked deep in product development and environmental design for years. This is detail-oriented work, requiring an understanding of engineering, architecture, and software development cycles.

I’ve had the good fortune of working with marketing leaders who understand how to guide and integrate these projects to fit within a larger strategic imperative for a brand. But these marketers are rare. Most marketers shy away from getting their hands dirty in the implementation work, or keep themselves busy within the comfort zone of media plans and direct mail campaigns and focus groups. Or worse, they get excited about this idea of total customer experience and have no idea how to meaningfully impact the process. As a marketer, go humbly into the work of customer experience and realize that you may have to learn a new trade or two, and will certainly have to cultivate multidisciplinary strategic, technical, and philosophical thinkers in your ranks.

Posted by Jen at December 17, 2004 12:22 PM