Comments

Thanks, Steve, for a great post and a thought-provoking link. How about considering the sequence differently? What if employees--ie frontline warriors--determined what it would take to engage hearts and minds of customers--and themselves, for that matter? And what if the marketing strategy was spawned from their keen insights and recommendations? No doubt they would vote for great service, for five-star service that would earn them the respect and recognition from customers that would then fuel their passion and pride and continued all-out effort to get it done and to do it well? A vicious systems circle would be set in place--great stellar service leading to great customer reviews and referrals--feeding a marketing campaign that would really walk-the-talk because it was based on the talk of those who were going to walk it! Now that's the basis of a great consulting process and a winning strategy...WoW! them with Brand You People pursuing Excellence in a Dilbert World!

Posted by Pam Brill at January 24, 2005 1:21 AM

Steve, agreed. A further thought,

Great marketing is achieved by creating a positive emotional connection with your audience as a result of the memorable delivery of a really fantastic product.

No amount of advertising will make-up for a poor product and service. Cash may slow the dying process. But, the end is inevitable.

Posted by Michael Chaffin at January 24, 2005 2:06 AM

Steve writes: "Great marketing can't be bought by your marketing department. Great marketing is something that your entire company does."

Oh, how I agree. I have always said that marketing is about Catching & Keeping Customers, and by that definition marketing involves everybody in the company, or as Steve says (once again); "Great marketing is something that your entire company does."

Posted by Roy at January 24, 2005 6:12 AM

What a truth! I think this is one very important problem many many companies share. And it becomes a vicious circle, for the more budget you get, more you need.

I always liked Seth Godin´s approach to marketing for two reasons: 1- his human consideration of the customer as someone who thinks, is free and feels.

2- his consideration that good marketing has to be cheap marketing, or something close to it.

I always think, before taking a decision, that if a marketing project needs high resources, it is rarely a good project.

This goes side by side with the way you learn about your marketing´s success. The more expensive a campaign is, the more difficult it is to know if it has achieved it´s goals.

Posted by felix gerena at January 24, 2005 7:33 AM

Great article

The problem as I see it is money – not so much what it costs but how it is accounted for. Companies don't have a problem spending money but they have HUGE problems dealing with tangible costs and INTANGIBLE benefits.

Getting superb service across the organisation is going to cost real money out of individual departments real budgets. You can have motivated WOW! People in all your customer facing functions and it won’t do an iota of good if their objectives (budgets) are not in line with what they want to do (e.g. call centre WOW employee wants to personally own a customer issue but is rewarded only on qty of calls).

By putting cost of marketing into a neat budget called marketing it’s easy to say “we got so many leads per pound spent” Doesn’t mean anything to the customer base but it is quasi accountable and measurable.

This is why, I believe, smaller companies are better at this than larger. They haven’t got too “sophisticated” at measuring tangible ROI. Managers are more in touch with customer reality and don’t rely on measurement only to run the company.

Don’t get me wrong I believe in rigorous accounting practices but we have to find a better way of figuring the intangible benefit part – one that the accountants will trust (their thinking and methodologies wield so much power).

So to take this thought to a logical conclusion all you have to do is over turn the entire accounting industry and the way that public companies respond to shareholders…… and it’s sorted!

Posted by PaulH at January 24, 2005 7:54 AM

The biggest misconception in marketing is that your product or service gives life to your consumer. The promise of marketing is to enhance their life, the emotional future of your consumer; you do not fill an emotional gap, you enable your consumers to feel alive, you are not their corporate Wellbutrin, but their advocate to do it on their own.

Steve you ask the question, "...as opposed to a series of interactions with customers that encourage customers to fall in love with them?" Why isnt' it "to fall in love with themselves?" This is my problem with Lovemarks. Why are we telling consumers to fall in love with brands? Brands and marketing are conduits to falling in love with yourself that is where the true money is going to be made, the true empathetic bonds. That's why you don't have to spend a lot to connect ... "Hey, that brand sees ME!" ...ahh...love. "I am a person who can .... with the support of .... "

Posted by Wendy at January 24, 2005 8:13 AM

Paul,
I agree. Would you ever see a point where parts of marketing would be outsourced?

Posted by Wendy at January 24, 2005 8:15 AM

Paul, let me be more specific. What if brand management, brand identity were left internal and relationship management or consumer relationships were outsourced?

Posted by Wendy at January 24, 2005 8:19 AM

One need look no further than the wonderful world of sports which reinforces this notion and leads to, yet another, tip of the cap to the New England Patriots.

Just a quick glance at the bloated budget lines of the New York Rangers, Knicks, Baltimore Orioles and LA Dodgers from a few years back to demonstrate theat $$$ don't necessarily buy success. Inversely, look at the Florida Marlins who pulled off small budget miracles twice in the last decade.

And, the ultimate nod to doing IT right goes to Bill Belechik and the Pats who time and time again, in an era me-first, highlight reel dominated sports has molded a group of savvy professionals to forgoe there personal accomplishments in lieu of the team, leave the me outside of the stadium and execute to perfection.

When free agency has supposedly stripped the possibilities of building dynasties out of the system, Belechik has proven many of us wrong.

Posted by Doug at January 24, 2005 9:03 AM

Wendy - outsourcing is a prime example of what I am talking about - you get organisational efficiency (when done well with good service level agreements etc). Accountants like it because you see a tangible service (with metrics on lots of brightly coloured power point graphs) for a tangible cost. Snr. management love it because they have acted decisively and cut costs.

But your company has no soul.

I think for true brands to be loved the company must first love itself. Each employee actually cares about the company – and I am not talking about fake management speak here. Get that right and the rest of it will take care of itself. This is where your master craftsman (good example was the bespoke tailor in a previous blog entry) have it right – they are real. They love what they do .

At the end of the day this is the problem and this is why I think a lot of the debate around Lovemarks is flawed. Lovemarks happen – they are not created deliberately. The problem I see is that thinking in this area is trying to work out how to emulate the success of those companies where it has happened naturally.

By the act of trying you will fail because you are fake.

I am beginning to wonder if this is not incompatible with Brand You. You turn up and do WOW! Work as a successful Brand you – but it’s not enough – where is the love for the Brand you are working for? - Real love – the kind that you only get years down the line. How can you have this in the Job hopping projects are my life reality of Brand you?

Posted by PaulH at January 24, 2005 10:59 AM

Great post, Steve. I liked this: "Why do most companies think of marketing as a budget line item, as opposed to a series of interactions with customers that encourage customers to fall in love with them?"

I understand what Wendy is saying. For the more enlightened consumer, I think they'd be right there with her. But for many other consumers (most? maybe?) they simply want reliable service and a predictable quality product that will allow them to know they're hard-earned money wasn't wasted. Some go for the experience, which is why I believe it's becoming more of a hot commodity.

Going back to my Starbuck's days - this company hasn't done TV ads, at least not to my knowledge. They have done print. But the bottom line is this: the frontline people are the stars. Much of the budget goes into training them and then recognizing them. There's even an internal peer recognition program called "The Cup Award." It's given by an employee to another when that person goes above and beyond regular duty. The first time I received one, I was stunned. Now you know what's going on when you see a line of those pins on a barista's apron. ;-)

Imagine what this does for the morale and level of service these employees give. A happier employee will give better service. One who understands clearly the mission of the company and; has a hand in developing that service, will again be a better employee than someone who was thrown a copy of the employee handbook and told to take it home to read.

I'm all for customer evangelists. That's where I think the most powerful marketing is done. I'm one. Once I find an awesome (and by that, it usually means stellar customer service) company, I tell at least ten people about it. I rave about Trader Joe's, for instance. And our local pizza place has a "lovemark," for sure. Not only do we always get a great, reliably delicious pizza, we get friendly service and customer appreciation coupons and gifts. We're noticed. Perhaps that is the power of marketing. Notice the employees and tell them to notice the customer. I don't think that would require a huge budget for TV ad campaigns, eh?

Posted by M. R. Maguire at January 24, 2005 11:03 AM

Amen brother. It's the story you tell, not necessarily the amount of money you spend promoting it. Unfortunately, for a lot of the "idiot CEO's" (per Tom's earlier post) who came out of non-marketing fields they only see the "value" in terms of dollars and cents and not hearts and minds. Some get it, most don't in my recent experience.

Posted by Andrew Hayden at January 24, 2005 11:13 AM

Great article Steve and some very deep replies but as an accountant (sorry!) working with small firms may I move it on a step further.

Customer experience etc is VITAL but so is the referral. The most difficult part is getting the referral especially in small business which doesn't have the resources to create the well-known brand.

Pam knows it is about referrals.

The next step which needs focusing on is making sure we get the referrals and knowing what we did to get them. Establishing this will, as Paul says, "overturn the entire accounting industry".

Speaking as an accountant to the marketers "Give us something to focus on (measure) and you will get the money.

So how do we make sure we get the referrals given that we are delivering first rate service?

Posted by Stuart jones at January 24, 2005 2:02 PM

Paul...I belived lovemarks is flawed logic. I also believe marketing is an emotional contract while brand management is a business agreement. I'm trying to figure out how two incongruent goals can REALLY exist and a CMO can keep her job longer than the average 23 months. Do we just pull the CMO and call her the COO? Do we outsource the marketing piece and let an advocate manage the relationships, have a consumer agent? It's a bit out there, but I just meant to stir the pot.

Posted by Wendy at January 24, 2005 2:53 PM

Been on the road all day, didn't see your comments until 5PM ... thanks for all the great thoughts. The comments are especially inspiring as I'm going to speak to a company that embodies this principle, Scott Insurance of Virginia. They have built an incredible business by doing great marketing, not by buying it. We get to share amazing research results with the entire company that show how much impact each and every person who works at Scott has had on creating a great brand.

Posted by Steve Yastrow at January 24, 2005 6:04 PM

I remember the first time I read that asking (in in thought), "How then comes love?"

Love first?

But how can a love company be viable in a capitalist system so fortified against unselfishness?

Then after you conceive it (can we even start?) how do you teach a company, a business, an institution to love? Now, there's a fight!

PS Win-win isn't exactly the same as love. Sounds more like a thin mask for prostitution. Mutual benefit? Ok. What are you selling?

Posted by Jason Kerr at January 25, 2005 5:05 AM

Hi Jason, happy to know from you again. I think Steve´s post referred to the love a company provides to customers, rather than to their employees.

I think there are few possibilities today for most people to make an enjoyable activity out of their work but you can always try as a free agent or search for some odd company that can make you happy.

Posted by felix gerena at January 25, 2005 10:04 AM

Spending large sums of money is typically a sign of missing creativity, lack of research, or unwillingness to perform cheap, active prototyping work.

Posted by Ray Schraff at January 25, 2005 5:10 PM

Ah Felix, but I don't concede the dichotomy of customer and employee (any more readily than you would accept rescue from a self-proclaimed hero).

And I first took Steve's perspective as the love of customers for a brand (which can't be bought with advertising money).
But as you have well noted, the coin has two faces here, also.

NOW see the contrast:

While a Company cannot buy loyal customers,
*****still it blindly tries.
And sells its soul for loyalty (?)

Yet a Customer,
who also cannot build commercial love
*****by throwing money at a cheap-hearted brand,
wastes not effort nor expense.

Should not a business think more like a customer? And could the AdWorld Pimps hustle what is not a whore already?

Posted by Jason Kerr at January 26, 2005 5:46 AM