I have no idea who “Elizabeth M” or “design guy” is, but I trusted them (and others) in their recommendation of the typography book Thinking With Type. Same with “SplitGrin” or “sonicdescent”, but based partly on their recommendations, I picked up some Jack Daniels Barrel Aged Blackbeerd Imperial Stout from Coast Brewing.
Why? Well, for these 3 reasons.
1) Time - In a world where time is increasingly the most scarce of resources, these people took time out of their day to tell the world how they felt about a certain product.
2) Effort - These reviews didn’t happen by accident. They sought out the product on the site (maybe more than one) and left very thorough reviews. They go out of their way to point out pros, cons and any other details they think people might find interesting. Many are on or above par with “professional” reviews in terms of relevance.
3) Lack of Profit - It’s safe to say that “designguy” isn’t getting a kickback from Ellen Lupton (author of Thinking With Type), and I would guess that “SplitGrin” didnt find a free keg of Coast Beer on his doorstep in the morning (to his probable dismay). We trust these people because they’re doing it in the genuine interest of getting their point of view out there. Not to say that paid reviews are all trash, but when there’s an angle it takes away from the authenticity.
So what say you, Internet? Am I way off base here? Did I miss something?
Big companies are like huge boulders. Hard to get moving, but once they are, forget about stopping or changing direction quickly.
This is a bad thing.
A lot of times little things will happen (the kid who built furniture out of FedEx boxes, or Starbucks closing their doors for a night of training), and these little things represent a big opportunity. But the problem is that most big companies can’t react quick enough to do anything meaningful about it. The bureaucracy slows them down.
Big companies need to develop a rapid response group. A small group of marketers with different talents that have a small (but actionable) budget and the ability to execute their initiatives.
You can call it the Brand A-Team, Captain Brand-it, or The Fellowship of the Brand (if you’re a nerd), it really doesn’t matter. As long as they have the right people, a small budget, and a direct line, bat-phone style, to the CMO, that’s all they need.
What do you think? What are the problems? Would this work and would you like to be on a team like this?
Market research is a joke.
Not all of it, but a decent amount.
I’m not condemning all market research. Of course it’s crazy to pump millions or billions into a product on a whim, but with the new product failure rate estimated from 50-75% (think New Coke), something isn’t working. And that’s not even the biggest problem.
It’s beginning to feel to me like market research has become merely an excuse, a way for people to avoid responsibility if a product fails. “Well, we just followed the conclusions from the market research…” has become the mantra of many after a failed launch. That shouldn’t be good enough anymore.
Revolutionary, remarkable products don’t cater well to market research, therefore a lot of great ideas don’t test out well and get shut down. The classic case here is the Sony Walkman. As the business legend goes, the co-founder and CEO of Sony, Akio Morita, ignored the market research that said people didn’t want speakers in their ears. He pushed ahead and released the first Walkman, and the rest is history. The real takeaway here, and what gets mentioned less often, is that Sony didn’t ignore all the research (it followed the results of a 100 unit experience test). It ignored the unimportant research.
I think there’s a real opportunity for people to come up with better research tactics/methods, because with the way things are now, it might be a better idea to take those millions and head to a blackjack table. You might have better odds.
But no excuses…
Have you seen any websites for marketing or advertising firms lately?
Go ahead. Open another tab and search for some. Look at a few of them. Notice anything?
They all look the same. They all have a short section about the firm, a quick list of their “core values” or “goals,” they list samples of their recent work, and then they say something to the effect of “…we deliver a unique experience for our clients to build brands and engage audiences..” (What does that stuff even mean?)
My question is this: If they can’t even differentiate themselves, how can you expect them to do it for you or your product? Sure flashy graphics and novel interfaces add a little value (see Leo Burnett), but with the same old information, it’s like putting a brand new paint job on your 1987 Toyota Camry. Sure it looks better, but it runs just the same.
If I ran an agency, the first thing you would see on my page would be a phone number. And not just a number leading to nowhere, but one that put you in touch with an agency rep that had the power to get things rolling. Sure it’s important to feature some of your work for people who are just browsing, but the ability to deliver real, personal insights immediately makes a big difference.
Another thing I would feature on my site would be a live chat room, where members of my team are both encouraged and sometimes directed to hang out. The purpose of this room is to provide some interaction for people with questions, and also just to set up a forum to talk marketing. If you’re considering hiring an agency, you want to know how they think, and what better way than to discuss it with them.
So there it is..a couple ideas from me. Look for me opening up my own shop sometime in the next 20 years. Look forward to hearing from you.
Business is NOT war.
No matter how tough your office is, or no matter how kick-ass-and-take-names your work environment might be, it’s not combat.
Today, a great business has more in common with the Linux community or Wikipedia than the 101st Airborne.
My name is Matt J McDonald and I'm a New Marketing Strategist based in Charleston, SC.
Recent Comments