Category: a slice of AMUSEMENT

Watch as we unpack and critique, with logic and levity — and the occasional incredulous sigh.

Cash flow, creativity, and compassion are not mutually exclusive™

Watching the death – and birth – of customer loyalty (Part 1)

Posted on by Red Slice

 

Flickr: Notratched

Just back from a trip to Europe. Ah, so many juicy brand nuggets to share over the next few posts! I got to witness how a careless business turned a raving fan into a staunch enemy right over dinner. Heed these lessons, friends, to avoid alienating your best customers as well…

My husband  used to live in Oxford, England and has dreams about Aziz, a local curry house. His Quixotic quest to find a great curry house here in the States has resulted in exactly one place, in NYC. We live in Seattle, so this causes some problems. There are many good curry places here, but in his opinion, they oversalt and the flavors don’t blend quite the way they do at spots in the UK.

So with a group of friends in hand, we journeyed to Aziz, where we’ve been on previous trips. This place seems to get raving awards and reviews for its food, but among the circle, the poor service at this restaurant is widely known and joked about, but the food is very good, so they overlook it for the odd visit. However, after this trip, the restaurant lost icon status in my husband’s eyes – and the local group decided there were other great curry houses around where they could get treated better so this might be the last visit.

Why?  Here are five ways this restaurant killed their fans’ loyalty:

  1. Disrespect – Making us wait…and wait…and wait: We waited almost 20 minutes as waiters whizzed by our table, before anyone came. And even then, he only would take bar drink orders. We then waited forever and a day for the food to come. for refills and even the bill. What this says is, “You and your time are not valuable to us. We don’t need you.”
  2. Inflexibility – Letting process dictate customer satisfaction: We were dying for some water by the time the guy came around to take our cocktail orders. When asked, he said no, he could not bring us water. Another person would be around for that. And that person didn’t come until 10 minutes after that.
  3. Anti-Ease of Use – Making it hard to pay: We had to ask for the bill three times – once to a manager/owner – before someone finally brought it to us. Did they not want our money?
  4. Disrespect Deux – Surly service: No human interaction, no eye contact, no “you’re welcome” to our “thank you’s.” We were made to feel like we were a bother to something more important they could be doing.
  5. Putting Product Above Experience – A bad experience trumps quality – every time: Notice, I have not once talked about how delicious the food was, once it got to us. The experience was so bad, it trumped anything to do with the food. No customer should ever be forced to apologize to his friends, as my husband did, for recommending a place with great food. But that’s exactly what happened. He vowed never to go back again.

All of these problems are easily fixed, and yet this restaurant chooses to treat customers like dirt.  Bad service can show up in all the things that  you DON’T do for customers, just as much as doing something wrong.  Small businesses with a good quality product can easily value customers, empower employees to make customers happy or create a wonderful experience without adding any extra costs to their bottom line.

What one simple thing can you put in place today to ensure your customers feel appreciated, adored and important? Would it be teaching your employees to greet all customers a certain way? Would it be ensuring all emails are responded to in an hour? Please share in the Comments!

Cash flow, creativity, and compassion are not mutually exclusive™

Are you actually attracted to everyone your biz flirts with?

Posted on by Red Slice

You harlot.

There you are, out there spending money on marketing, getting your name out there.  But you’re just a tease.

You’re flirting with everyone, but they’re not all ones you want to date. Worse, they might not even want to go on a date with you. Do you enjoy being rejected in such massive quantity?!

This is what happens when you don’t have your ideal customer persona articulated clearly. I talked about this in my last video. When you say you sell to “women” you don’t really sell to every woman out there: just the ones that can afford your services and who have kids. When you tease that you are the perfect solution for “senior citizens”, you lie. Your product is only meant for those who lack mobility. And when you toy with the notion of being able to solve “all of my legal needs” you really just mean estate and probate.

Businesses spend way too much money on marketing tactics that fill their sales pipelines with the wrong people from the get-go, so that when it comes time to winnow them down to paying customers, you’re left with slim pickings. As I describe in my book, there’s a funnel called the Sales (or Buying) Cycle:

AWARENESS>>EDUCATION>>CONSIDERATION/EVALUATION>>PURCHASE

In order to ultimately buy from you, they must first know you exist, understand what you do, and compare you against the alternative. It’s like dating, really.

It’s a funnel: You pour “raw leads” into the top and out filter a few precious sales at the end. Hopefully enough to hit your revenue targets.

Problem is, I see too many small (and to tell the truth, midsized) companies fill the funnel with the wrong stuff. Garbage in, Garbage (or nothing) out. Man, that’s a lot of wasted effort.

“But I have 3,000 Twitter followers!” (“Are any of them buying from you?”)

“But there will be 5,000 people at that trade show!” (“Does the majority need what you have?”)

So, in an attempt to clear things up, here’s another way to look at these phases, from the wonderful world of dating:

Awareness: Only make eye contact with the most viable prospects in the bar. Employed. Well-dressed. Not living with their parents.

Attraction: Wink at just a few. Not worth winking at the ones already with a date, right? RIGHT?

Conversion: One or two walk over to buy you a drink (or let you buy them one)

See the point? You might make eye contact with less people, but more of them will likely convert on the other side. That’s how to spend your money wisely. Stop worrying about quantity and paying for leads or exposure that will never turn into a paying customer. Focus on talking to a smaller, more quality-focused group first. You’ll have less of them entering the funnel – but a better conversion rate. And your conversion percentage will be a lot leaner, meaner and more efficient as a result.

‘You only generated 150 leads?” (“Yes, but 40% of them converted to sales. Boo-yah.”)

Didn’t your mother ever teach you not to be a tease?

What do you do to control quality in your marketing, so you attract the right potential customer or clients? Share via @redslice!

 

Cash flow, creativity, and compassion are not mutually exclusive™

Are you walking only “on the left?”

Posted on by Red Slice

My precocious Black Lab mix, Eddie, can be a handful. With his deep chocolate eyes, he stares into your soul thinking he can make you give him a treat or rub his belly. OK, truth be told, it usually works.

But we have him fairly well-trained. One of the things we did with him immediately upon adopting him from the shelter was take control of the walk. This invoves keeping him on a short leash, always on our left side, until it becomes second-nature. Continue reading “Are you walking only “on the left?””

Cash flow, creativity, and compassion are not mutually exclusive™

Battle of the college re-brands: ASU vs WSU and who did better

Posted on by Red Slice

It’s not often you get to see two similar brand rollouts side by side and see clearly why one way is better.

As you know, sports fans tend to get closely attached to their team’s brand… and nowhere is that more true than when it comes to college sports.

Arizona State University (ASU) has been trying to differentiate itself over the past few years… in some ways successfully, and in others… well, not so successfully.  ASU Athletics, working with Nike,  created a unique launch campaign leading up to the April launch of its new and improved brand.  To help fans, alumni, and the media prepare for the upcoming changes… and to generate some buzz… they produced a series of dramatic and emotional videos teasing the new branding to come.  The first video of the “It’s Time” campaign was released on March 1, followed by this one on March 9, this one on March 16, this one on March 24, this one March 29 and this one on April 1.  Ya gotta check them out – they are really top-notch quality and focus on the emotion and pride behind college sports.

At no point in the early part of the campaign did they mention it was specific to changing the brand.  They just continued to leak bits and pieces about the fact that the new branding was coming.  They apparently handed out cards with an invitation to an event for ASU boosters before the launch (with no details beyond the “It’s Time” messaging) and then launched a video that generated lots of buzz (even on ESPN) about what they planned to announce on the full launch date of April 12.

Rumors and speculation abounded that there would be a new logo for ASU athletics (potentially something that plays up the trident/pitchfork), new uniforms (including some alternate designs/colors similar to, but not as extreme as Oregon’s multitude of uniform combinations) and that the image of Sparky the Devil would be removed from the ASU football helmets.  That last part had lots of Sun Devils choosing sides on whether this is good or bad for ASU.  ASU hew this would be controversial to make these changes and that is why they address it in one of the last videos, saying “don’t fear change” and showing other changes from the past.  Fans and alumni always have strong opinions on any changes, just as customers and employees have strong opinions when a company changes it branding (especially a logo).

ASU embraced many usual social media channels as well… YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, etc.

Here is the final brand launch press release from April 12 and the online press room.

What did they do right:

  • They didn’t just create a new logo in vacuum, but based it on a clear brand strategy and message
  • They stayed authentic to who ASU is and what it stands for
  • They planned. Yes, planned. They created a multi-stage, timed campaign to speak to various audiences (the public, alums, the press) and built buzz and excitement, which can lead to better adoption and acceptance. This teaser campaign gave them a chance to tell the story behind the new brand before anyone got caught up in colors and typography. It also gave people a chance to get used to the idea of change.
  • They leveraged social media for maximum impact

Contrast that with Washington State University (WSU), who approached their brand change with a simple press release and unveiling event. They also collaborated with Nike on this rebrand for almost a year.

Why the changes? For both schools, it was lack of consistency in brand image and colors, a need to update and refresh a dated brand look and a general need to move forward into the future. “Throughout the project, equal attention was devoted to maintaining an appreciation for the traditions of the past, while positioning ASU for the future.”

Thanks to my good buddy and ASU alum Peter Olson for contributing most of this post.

Cash flow, creativity, and compassion are not mutually exclusive™

Any Open Letter to restaurants: Stop tarnishing your brand at Valentine’s Day

Posted on by Red Slice

Oh, how I wish there was a forum to send a message to every restaurant owner in the country and know it would get read.

Just like my open letter to business owners, this one goes out to any restaurant, bar, or eatery that serves us on Valentine’s Day. STOP. TARNISHING. YOUR. BRAND.

We all know Valentine’s Day is a money maker for you. And it’s so easy to say, “Let’s pack in as many people as we can and do a fixed menu so we can cycle them through faster!” I know margins suck in the restaurant business. I know it’s a tough industry in which to be successful. But do you understand what you’re sacrificing for the quick buck?

The last few Valentine’s Days, my husband and I were so annoyed at pre fixe menus. Like cattle, we were herded into what were supposed to be some of the finer dining establishments and crammed into obviously-added tables, elbow to elbow with the patrons next to us. We were given 3 entrée options that were mass produced and only allowed to select certain wines.  It sucked. Many of these restaurants were ones we were trying for the first time (hello? new potential loyal customers?!) and we were so disappointed with that experience, that even though we know it probably isn’t always like that, we have never gone back. The experience soured us on their brand.

My question is: Is ruining your brand for the long-term really worth it?

Just like I don’t understand why churches pack people into hot, sweaty, standing-room-only situations at Christmas and Easter rather than adding new masses – and in the process, making anyone coming for the first time in a while vow never to come back again – I don’t get how you can squander this opportunity to showcase your brand in it’s best light. This is a prime chance to turn first-timers into loyal customers.

We tried to avoid the chaos this year. Thinking we were smart, we went out on Saturday night instead to a place we were so excited about.  But they were crafty: they knew people would be going out over the weekend, and therefore had a pared-down Valentine’s menu (albeit with many more choices than a pre fixe) for the whole darn weekend. The food was good, but we felt we didn’t get to try some of the more traditional options we would have liked.

I know you want to make as much money as you can in one night. But at what cost? Do you really want my first impression of your place to be chaos and lack of choice? How likely am I to return? There is a great restaurant here in Seattle that we tried on Valentine’s Day last year. It gets great reviews. The regular menu looked amazing. But we won’t go back. We feel annoyed and gypped by that experience.

Is your long-term brand reputation and increase in your loyal customer base worth sacrificing for one good night of sales? I guess I would ask that questions of anyone who trades brand building for short-term gain.

Cash flow, creativity, and compassion are not mutually exclusive™

Best and Worst of Super Bowl XLV: Do you agree?

Posted on by Red Slice

I don’t.

First off, GO PACKERS! I was excited to see them win if I couldn’t have the Jets in the game. 

Secondly, was anyone else a bit disappointed in the ad fare this year?  Given how much companies are spending these days for a :30 spot ($3.1 million, and that’s just for the airtime, never mind the production cost of the ad itself), you’d have thought you’d get….I don’t know, MORE.

Here’s what Brand Channel deemed the best and worst brand spots. Do you agree?  Please post in the Comments.

I disagree with Telefora as a miss. I thought this was the best surprise of the night as to what I thought was going to be a schmaltz-fest with country singer Faith Hill – as many country songs and videos are known to be.  I loved the surprise of the guys vulgar line at the end, combined with the “we’ll help you say it beautifully” message – because “clearly you can’t.” I also kind of liked the Richard Lewis ad for Snickers, although it was too lame of a bet to try to repeat the magic from last year’s Betty White ads. The reason it worked last year is that it was completely unexpected. Still, I thought Richard Lewis (and Roseanne Barr, for that matter) were nice obscure choices.

I do agree that the Career Builder ad was just tired and lazy, Kim Kardashian needs to go away as a spokesperson for anything and the Go Daddy ad was scary and horrible at the same time. Go Daddy’s branding always makes me sad because they are such a great company with killer customer service and tech support, and they don’t need to go the shock value route. Almost makes me NOT want to use them, which is kind of against the point of brand advertising.

And Salesforce.com, what the heck were you thinking? All that money, wasted on an ad that left people outside of the tech industry confused as to what Chatter does (made it appear like a competitor to Facebook, rather than a collaboration tool a la Sharepoint.)  And securing the Black Eyed Peas involvement to boot? Ay yay yay. Thanks a lot. You just convinced other B2B CEO’s why investing in brand ads is a waste of money. Note to those CEO’s: If you do it right, it is not.

As for Best spots, I had not caught the Chevy Cruze First Date ad, as I was hosting, chipping and dipping our own party. But after viewing it online, I adored it. What a great way to show the differentiation between their FB capabilities and Ford’s. And it was just a sweet spot. And as much as I hate Justin Bieber, the Best Buy ad with him and Ozzy was hilarious. “What’s a Bieber?” is my new catchphrase. The Chevy truck ad was very well done, using references to both Lassie and the Balloon Boy (didn’t know that was possible) I think what was great about these ads is that they showed you can still communicate a brand message and differentiator while producing a clever, memorable ad. This is in stark contract to just trying to create a “buzzworthy” ad that gets people talking, without it communicating the brand position you want.

Case in point: Groupon. Another pronounced Hit that I call a severe Miss. They went for the shock factor and it backfired, in my opinion. Yes, I know they were poking fun at celebrity PSA’s and yes, I can take a controversial joke as much as the next guy (after al, I’m a Daniel Tosh fan). But poking fun at Tibet, endangered animals and the like seemed just pointless and off-strategy for Groupon, whose brand is supposed to be all about “community”, “supporting local business” and  highlighting the “underdog small business guy.”  That’s what happens when you aim for buzz rather than brand.  Groupon may have just lost me as a customer – not because I’m offended by the ads, but more offended by the marketing stupidity that someone thought this was a good branding idea and wasted all of that money. The ads were just dumb. Period.

When companies get it right, they really get it right and show the world the power of effective brand advertising.  Effective being the operative word.

Until next year…..!  What do you guys think? What were your faves and misses? Please Share in the Comments.

Cash flow, creativity, and compassion are not mutually exclusive™

When brands disappoint: Hooters

Posted on by Red Slice

Hear me out.

Put aside your disgust about women parading around in orange short-shorts in a PG-rated version of a strip club named after a derogatory term for the female anatomy. If you can. I agree. Only a few people can really pull off orange well – I know one of them. So that’s exploitation right there.

I am actually a fan of Hooters. There, I said it. I like the tacky sports bar atmosphere. I like that the waitresses get to wear the most comfortable footwear in food service history (thick-soled sneakers and warm socks) while on their feet all day. I love the wings…truly. They are yummy. When I want to get in touch with my inner redneck, I can go there. And I love that Hooters understands that in order to thrive and attract men, the restaurant has to be a place that wives, girlfriends and sig others are okay with their man patronizing.

Have you ever been in a Hooters, as a woman? I kid you not, you are treated like royalty.

See, they get it. They know they have to get you on-side so you don’t freak out if your mate goes there. So they fawn over women. They offer impeccable service to you, they make sure your every need is met, they get you your food piping hot, they make interesting chit-chat (most of the time). In San Francisco Fisherman’s Wharf location, they even have a rule that each waitress needs to check in on your table and sign her name on your placemat to prove someone has greeted you, taken care of you, etc. The waitresses are fun, and friendly, and not overtly sexy and make you believe this could be someone you’d hang out with if you wanted. Their goal is for you to have such a positive experience that you’ll either go with your mate or at least be okay with him going with the boys.

And the wings. The wings really are damn good. Since I don’t have access to the best wings in the world, BW3, here on the West Coast, I have to make do with what I have.

Would I hang out there every Friday? Heavens no. Once or twice a year is fine with me. But even a former fellow female colleague agreed with me – especially about how they treat women customers.  And we made a special trip, by ourselves, to the Vegas one when we were in town. We had a blast.

So Hooters knows what it is. They make no apologies for it, in a “wink-wink, nudge-nudge” sort of way. It’s not like women are twirling from poles bolted to the floor and ceiling. They create an atmosphere of good, cheeky fun. And they get that in order for their brand to survive, they must get women on their side. That kind of self-awareness is rare.

Therefore, I was disappointed when we went to Hooters last weekend in Seattle. The wings were small, greasy and not very tasty. And the service, while great at the beginning, faded away until we finally had to flag someone down to get our check. They weren’t crowded so there was really no excuse. We left disappointed in what we thought the brand experience was going to be and the reality.

The lesson here is don’t make promises you can’t keep consistently. While every location has a different manager, it’s the company’s job to ensure the experience is the same no matter where you go. See McDonald’s. if you are going to invest so much into creating a strong brand experience, you have to work just as hard to maintain it again and again and again.

Cash flow, creativity, and compassion are not mutually exclusive™

Tiger-gate: Accenture’s branding nightmare

Posted on by Red Slice

Accenture just announced that, in light of the recent Tiger Woods scandals, they will be dropping the 6-year sponsorship with the golfer. This results in a massive branding and marketing headache for Accenture in more ways than one: they have to replace both internal materials and external marketing materials in 27 countries.  If you’ve been in any airport, you can appreciate the scope of this effort.

Many athletes do have “morality clauses” in their sports marketing contracts to protect a company’s brand if the athlete does anything controversial or not in line with the company’s brand. But there is a spectrum here to consider. Michael Phelps only lost some of his sponsorships but not others after being photographed smoking marijuana.  The rest of his associative traits (fierce competitor, young approachable celeb) still remain intact. In some cases, he may have even gotten new fans as a result.

But in this case, Accenture was aligning its brand with the very traits that Tiger has recently proven might not be 100% accurate. Reading some of Accenture’s ad headlines in light of the recent scandal is a bit ironic: “Go on. Be a Tiger”, “It’s not a setback. It’s a test.” and “How can you plan ahead when you can hardly see ahead?” The crux of the brand campaign was about integrity, excellence and making smart choices.  So in this case, they do indeed have cause to be concerned that Tiger’s recent actions, while poignantly human, are at odds with Accenture’s brand promise – and quite frankly, the entire Tiger brand in general.

From a pure brand perspective, it doesn’t matter what the circumstances around the scandal really turn out to be.  Accenture was banking on Woods’ “grace under pressure” mentality and high standards of excellence to align with their own brand messages. No matter what really happened, those are now not so true as they were a month ago – and Accenture really had no choice but to sever the relationship.