Measuring Up

Why marketing should make the user manuals

I love this post: How we treat customers. 

The gist of it is that there is far too much time, emphasis and marketing spent on trying to win new customers/clients and not enough caring about those that are already retained. The user manual is a really poignant example of this. Prospects receive the most beautiful, well crafted brochure or slick ads on why they should buy a specific product. Yet, once they purchase (and the credit card transaction is done), the next document they receive is typically the most boring, hard to read, visually upsetting user manual on how this product actually works or should be put together.

Now, if only the marketing people took over the responsibility of creating this manual, it (like the brochure) could look like a work of art. And, customers would continue to have that same feel good emotional attachment about the product, after they purchased it.

The 50,000 foot concept of this post is also insightful. Why don’t more companies provide the same love and attention to people after they become customers as they do before hand?

I’m not going to answer that. Because, I think it is just too damn obvious. But, what I’d like to do instead is roll of a number of companies/industries that do this real well, to separate themselves from the pack. Here are five:

1.) Williams Sonoma – We had a high end coffee maker that was jammed after owning it for one year. We had no receipt, or even box for it. My wife took it back and they volunteered to replace it with the same one, brand spanking new.  I’ve heard about three other stories like this. That company cares about its customers.

2.) Mandarin Oriental Hotels – Have you ever stayed at one? Guarantee that any request you have will be followed up with at least two calls to make sure what you received is to your liking.

3.) Empire Car Service – I’ve written about Empire in a past blog nine months ago. Nothing’s changed. Always on time. Always impeccably clean cars and always the best service in the industry.

4.) Singapore Airlines – Unlike any other airline I’ve ever flown, they make you question whether you’d really like to ever get off the flight.

5.) Eos Wireless – Very good wireless iPod speakers system. They got my order wrong. Yet, were so attentive and focused on solving the problem that I’m now writing about how this negative issue turned into a completely positive situation.

I’d love to hear about any other companies you’ve experienced who fit into this minority category. Let’s keep this list growing…

ATM fees represent bad PR

Like most people, I regularly use ATMs to obtain cash. Yesterday, I used one from TD Bank in Manhattan and was charged $3.00 after withdrawing just 50 bucks. For those of you who aren’t good with numbers, that transaction was a 6 percent cost to me. Quite candidly, it pissed me off. And now, for no other reason than this, I’m annoyed with this specific bank.

ATM fees are nothing new. And, these annoying fees that banks charge to consumers have risen steadily over the last 20 years. But, this issue has been a contentious one forever, as well. I remember when we represented the PLUS banking network in the early 90s (back in my J. Walter Thompson days). The number one issue keeping those banking executives up at night was how to show consumer rights groups, legislators and the constituents they represent that ATMs provide real value. And thus, those nasty fees are entirely fair.

The main problem is that none of the arguments they put forward then worked. Just like the messages that are being emitted now, they continue to fall on deaf ears. And, this creates real legislative and reputational problems every few years when the issue becomes hot again. If you read some of the comments/positions that a few banks take, one can understand why.

I read an article in which a Chase spokesperson (my bank is Chase) said (I’m paraphrasing) that the ATM surcharge fee supports real value that the bank provides through its 11,000 U.S. ATMs to non banking customers. (Chase, like many banks doesn’t charge its own customers these fees.) So, if I read this correctly, would Chase close down these ATMs, or continue not charging its customers for ATM usage if non customers decided to forgo using these services from Chase forever? I highly doubt it. Chase needs to have ATMs available to me and the millions of other customers for convenience. It just knows that everyone else represents a huge money making audience, especially in this tough economy.

Another bank issued a statement early this year that it only charges ATM fees to those who aren’t checking customers. And, this is a real reason why those who aren’t customers should really think about becoming ones. Are you kidding me? Talk about a bizarre, strong armed sales tactic that will not resonate with the average consumer.

My point in all of this is that ATM fees are bad news from a reputational/image standpoint. Most banks have realized this and at least stopped charging their customers for the pleasure of using their machines. I’d like to acknowledge the few (though) who learned that they can’t win this PR war and have stopped charging fees all together, or in only very specific instances. These banks understand that there are millions of people who everyday have the same experience I had yesterday. And, they clearly value their images a great deal.

I realize that ATM surcharges represent a very healthy revenue stream for the banking industry. This is not a simple issue. But, as we’ve seen over the last nine months, the difference between a financial services company having a positive versus negative reputation, now takes on an entirely new reality as to whether that organization can survive (or at least thrive) or become part of a growing banking graveyard.  

Lots of talk, but some things never change

Katie Paine is somewhat of a measurement guru in our industry. This post  (Assessing the Assessors at AMEC's Summit) from her is well written and a must read for those interested in the latest PR measurement trends. Unfortunately, it also clearly shows that our industry still doesn't "get it."

I wasn't at this conference (thankfully). But, these informal survey findings are appalling. When the question is raised to 150 public relations executives: Do you still measure the value of your media relations programs by comparing results to that of advertising value equivalencies? Amazingly, 150 people raised their hand to say yes. Ugh.

For those reading this post who aren't in the industry, it means that these executives still use an ancient, worthless means to gauge the return on this part of their public relations programs. An example would be comparing a full page positive feature article that a company obtained in Business Week, to the cost of a full page ad in that same publication. If the ad costs $75,000. Then, the article ROI is deemed to be worth that as well.

Unfortunately, I liken this to comparing apples to broccoli. Yes, they both are in the greater fruit and vegetable category. But, take that away, and there is nothing else relevant between the two. An advertisement tells the world "we are great," and is also viewed through that same commercial lens by anyone who reads it. A full page article supporting that same company, infers that a third party, high end national media publication (such as Business Week) believes the organization is doing something very right. I'm not biased against advertising. But, it's just a simple fact that the article is more credible, believable and typically provides immensely more value in building a reputation, enhancing investor opportunities or generating leads than the ad.

My real question here is: Why is this still happening?

Over the last 10 years, I've heard from no fewer than 100 clients that they hate this antiquated measurement approach. And, they want something that is more verifiable to support important programs. Yet, according to the responses at this summit, many of these same folks say that their clients continue to push them or mandate this atrocious means of measurement.

So, one of two causes is having this effect (in my mind). Either the corporate world still doesn't understand just how wrong this is (possibly because we haven't educated them enough,) or they simply don't care. It's hard to create general stereotypes for an entire segment of the industry (and I'm glad to say that most of our clients actually want real metrics), but I'll offer up my two cents.

In this bad economy, I think many just don't care about measuring accurately to understand real ROI. They might claim the opposite, but the reality is they just need some end numbers or stats that can be pushed up to the senior powers at large which show major benefits for the costs of the program. And, one thing is almost always true. When comparing PR apples to advertising broccoli, the apples almost always win. That's because all an agency has to do is churn out a large quantity of media hits to typically drive the supposed $$$ value well above what the actual cost of the program is to the company.

With jobs on the line and so much fear out there, it's hard to blame some for doing this. That said, our industry is always fighting for greater respect among the C-suite. It's hard to argue for that, when a large chunk of the industry is still stuck in the 20th Century measurement world.

Interviewing curriculum is now a must for college seniors

There are tens of thousands of graduates competing for far fewer jobs right now. As a favor to a few friends, I interviewed/met with three in the last week. All are very nice, smart and personable and graduated from good universities. None had any clue how to interview well.

That's a real problem.

Ok. I know what you could be thinking. Maybe they were just a little intimidated because of my position. That's duly noted. But, the main issue has little to do with jitters and entirely about what the focus of any interview really needs to be.

You see, my belief is that any interview with me needs to revolve mostly around, well.... me. That is, it should focus on the interviewee asking questions about Peppercom, Ed Moed, the world of PR and communications and anything else relevant to my professional life or what his/her job might be. Contrary to what most might think, I don't want to have to ask 25 questions about the candidate. No, instead I want the candidate to show me how smart he/she is by asking 25 intelligent questions about my business and firm so that I can see how savvy he/she is. This will truly create a natural dialogue with the candidate. When this happens (and it is rare), it demonstrates that this person really took the time to research what is important to me and to make sure that he/she really wants to stand out among competitors.

I'll never forget the best interview I ever participated in a few years back. It wasn't an easy interview because both Steve and I conducted it together (and we like to have fun at the expense of each candidate) with this woman who was interviewing for a management supervisor role here. She really surprised us by opening up the conversation with just how much she knew about Peppercom, our offerings, our philosophy and even the two of our blogs. It became a real ego trip for Steve when she asked very pointed questions about specific posts he wrote and created a very intelligent conversation about our beliefs in measurement, connecting PR to sales and a variety of other really topical subjects. After about 25 minutes, we were smitten and sold on her. We told our management team to offer her a job. I'm happy to say that she continues to be a real star at our company today.

I'd argue that in some ways the process for conducting a good interview is very similar to having a solid new business pitch. It should be about the prospect/interviewee in both cases. In new business, that means even if the prospect says he wants to hear all about your firm, the real truth is that he's got problems and wants to see if they can be solved by you. So, you better dig deep to uncover or understand those problems (versus just talking about yourself).

Having gone through this experience three times, made me think that our colleges and universities are not doing enough to train these graduates now. I know every school has career centers that offer tips, prepping and probably training. But, I wonder (especially in this day and age), if that's enough?

Just as students have to fulfill a certain requirement of math, English and/or science classes, schools should offer mandatory classes for seniors on the art of interviewing and how to create real dialogue with prospective employers. Learning how to network to find a job would also be a spot on course in this overly competitive environment.

Some colleges/universities might already be doing this. If so, congratulations. You are offering your real world bound students something that they absolutely need. Those that aren't should get with the times and change their ways.

Respect and value our time and the end result will be better

The debate rages on in our industry about whether agencies should have fixed monthly retainers or bill real time of staff for client engagements. With all due respect to PR Week, I think the publication really got it wrong in its latest analysis. And unfortunately, it’s public viewpoint acknowledging that fixed, month to month retainers are the way to go, only serves to hurt our industry by bringing us back to the "Dark Ages." It’s ironic because PR Week is one of the few objective guiding lights whose mission has always been to show the business world just how strategic and important our work is. But, in this instance, the argument conflicts with its mandate.

Here’s the article: "Are fixed monthly retainers the best billing option for PR agencies." In full disclosure, you’ll see that the article is actually a debate between my partner Steve Cody and another agency president, Sean Cassidy. Sean strongly advocates monthly retainers. Steve argues against it. And, PR Week wrongly agrees with Sean. For the record, I’m not writing this post to stand behind Steve. As a matter of fact, Steve and I often disagree on many issues within our industry. This has nothing to do with loyalty and everything to do with the fact that I vehemently disagree with Mr. Cassidy (and PR Week). Now, let me explain why.

This really all begins by understanding what clients are actually paying for (conceptually). We believe that our clients are compensating us for all the valuable time we devote (strategically, creatively and implementation) to generate results. In essence, our professional staff’s time is our product. Knowing that this is the case, when we tell a client that it will cost $20,000 this month to do all of that to generate the results that we all agreed upon, that isn’t some arbitrary number that was made up out of thin air. It’s truly based on how much time we believe it will take for the team to accomplish the goal. If we follow Sean’s train of thought, then that same $20,000 has nothing to do with the professional time the team will need and has everything to do with a lump sum of money that will support whatever it takes to generate the same said results.

This means that if it takes the team $45,000 or $62,000 in time for that month to generate those results, so be it. Because Mr. Cassidy’s view is that it’s all about settling on a fixed amount of fee to be as flexible as possible for the client, the agency could end up losing serious fees every single month because the client has been conditioned to believe that he/she is only paying for results, not for the professional time that is needed to obtain results.

Publicity that you just can’t buy

This, ("Daly’s Return Comes With a Fashion Statement,") from yesterday's NY Times is simply a great piece of publicity for LoudMouthGolf.com. As you can see, this niche golfing apparel company exploited the fact that the irreverent golfer John Daly has decided to wear its very own outlandish colored pants at the upcoming US Open. While it isn’t clear whether Daly is receiving sponsorship money for doing this, it doesn’t really matter. The photo opportunity by itself makes for a great story.

This type of exposure might happen once in a business’ lifetime (or never at all). And, that’s why companies like LoudMouthGolf.com need to make sure they “milk it” for every ounce of value. If done right, these 15 minutes of fame can substantially increase a company’s reputation from a non- existent brand to one with very high awareness. And, sales can skyrocket.

A similar (but much more impactful) opportunity arose for J. Crew months ago, when the First Lady decided that she would sport J. Crew casual outfits when appearing on stage and in many public forums. That instantly created a huge sales demand for the exact same outfits that Ms. Obama appeared in. And J. Crew jumped into high gear by making sure the world understood what the First Lady’s clothes preference is. I must have seen 25 national media stories about this somewhat superficial story. If I’m not mistaken, J. Crew also created an online/offline ad campaign to acknowledge and promote this honor as well. 

So, you’re now wondering how your company can be so fortunate to win the publicity lottery like this? Well, here’s my take on three key ingredients needed for this type of award winning recipe:

1.) How does my product connect to something extremely timely and trendy?
With LoudMouthGolf.com it’s clearly the U.S Open. With J. Crew, a pure blast of luck connected the company to the presidential election. There’s always some opportunity to connect your product to a timely holiday, seasonal milestone, political controversy or business event taking place. You need to think about what the hook might be for why your product would be deemed interesting or important around that tie-in and how it should be positioned.

2.) What famous/infamous or controversial figure would tie nicely into my product and this trend?
Now, what famous or controversial person would really create visibility or an emotional reaction or just laughter if he/she/they actually decided to use your product? That’s the question. With that, you need to make sure that this partnership would actually emit your brand in the right way to key audiences. You might want to actually brainstorm a laundry list of possible candidates and then write down the pros and cons of each representing your brand (officially or unofficially).

3.) What is the win/win for all parties involved?
Finally, you need to really think about why this person might endorse or care about your product. And, what’s the real story for media, or the blogosphere or even your end consumer? We refer to this as the “win/win.” What end benefit does each party involved receive? Is it pure publicity opportunities for the celebrity? Does the story make sense for media because it’s so beyond unusual? Once you understand that, then create a packaging for this offer or story that will be simple to understand and impactful to implement.

Here’s a closing point to think about. The phrase I used above, (15 minutes of fame,) is just that. So, when all is said and done, those 15 minutes come and go very quickly. The most savvy marketers/business people are always thinking ahead and have figured out a way to use that initial 15 minutes as merely a high octane introduction to their brand. They then use that new found notoriety (and credibility) to consistently develop a steady drumbeat of ongoing publicity and successful marketing endeavors to build the business further.

Sometimes bad behaviors turn good during tough times; but will they ever last?

I've told any number of people that I see only one true silver lining in this bad business economy. Commercial landlords are hurting badly. Thus, leases on new office space are dirt cheap.

With only 15 months left on ours, I am salivating about what kind of deal we might get. I'm also giggling like a school girl with a crush because these once arrogant bullies (landlords) are exemplifying model behavior and doing most anything to show us tenants the respect that we have always deserved.

You see, this new attitude hasn't been seen since the last great depression. No, I've always been amazed with how this industry marches to its own drum beat. It's the only one I can think of where the main strategy is: Once the client (or tenant in this case) signs on the dotted line, the goal is then to provide as little actual service as humanly possible, while simultaneously stick us with as many hidden fees and charges that the tenant never could have expected.

It's truly a backwards industry. Case in point, your office space might be actually 10,000 square feet (as an example). But, landlords are legally able to find ways to keep adding new, fictional square footage to the space for every new lease. They claim its added space from the street, or building, or wherever. But, it's downright sleazy. So theoretically, that 10,000 square foot space in 2003, is actually listed and marketed at 12,000 square feet in 2009. That's right, twenty percent more space was magically created out of thin air in that time period.  

The other point is that with most landlords, trying to get them to service random office problems is truly frustrating. I know that our office manager (the saint that he is) spends a large chunk of his time pushing, prodding and (at times) yelling at their maintenance people just to get them to deal with broken parts, heating issues, etc.

So, let's get back to what's happening now, though. Because, that's the good part of this post. I've been invited to "exclusive" dinners by one big landlord, where I can meet any host of celebrities. I'm receiving email after email from their brokers promising a world of benefits and perks if I come and meet with them, or their boss (uh.. a landlord) and listen to their proposition. And, our landlord seems to be doing everything possible now (including offering much better service) to convince us to stay.

So, the real question is: Will this changed behavior last? Hell no. I'm not naïve. As soon as our economy begins to tip in the other (positive) direction, this industry will go right back to its typical "screw the tenant" ways. That's pretty bogus. But, for now, I'm going to continue to enjoy being treated like a king and take the perks for all they are worth.

Does the client really give a damn?

I’ve been participating at the Counselor’s Academy Conference these last few days. A hundred or so small, medium and large PR agency CEOs come here to listen, learn, debate and network about the latest/greatest happenings within our industry.

One session that I sat in on was of particular interest. The main focus was on specialization. More specifically, a number of very smart large agency leaders led a panel discussion on the virtues of creating new  , supplemental marketing capabilities or industry practice areas. The thought here is that by adding deeper capabilities in a new or timely specialty (like digital, environmental or public affairs capabilities), agencies will be that much stronger in competing for business and providing clients much more focused strategy and service around a particular need in these challenging times.

There’s nothing new about the specialization trend. It just makes more sense than ever now because of the increasingly complex and confusing means by which customers, employees, prospects, shareholders and other constituents receive information and news that shape their opinions and decisions. For example, a group or division of specialists who truly understand how to influence a particular segment or audience (like mothers) through social media, would be of huge value to a particular company (like those who create baby products) trying to find the right way to reach that audience successfully.

We discussed how specialization can work well in agencies, what can’t happen  or failure will be the result and what specialty areas are most important to clients these days. The conversation was great until it veered off into what I call “agencies only looking inward.” And, that tends to happen a lot.

Someone raised the question of how agencies should present and promote these specialty services/capabilities to clients knowing that the client or prospect is really only familiar with the agency’s core name or brand. Since many agencies are creating sub brands to describe their digital, green, employee communications or other services/practices, this could get mighty confusing when parties from each are presenting capabilities to prospects/clients. For example, how should the digital group’s sub brand (and the people within) of the agency be positioned among the current healthcare division of Agency X, which has the long standing client relation. Not a bad question… but we spent entirely too long (a good 20 minutes) debating possible solutions. And, there’s where the problem lies.

Because the answer is: The client doesn’t really give a damn. Yes, that is true. Most clients only get lost when agencies start offering up too much information on them. And, it goes downhill real quickly when multiple brands are introduced as a way of showing how diverse, experienced and smart an agency is. You see, clients have real problems. And, these days, most just care about how any particular agency is going to eliminate those pain points.

In the midst of the conversation, I finally raised my hand and pretty much said just that. I also offered that it’s more about just showing the clients how deep your expertise, knowledge and results (for other clients) are in that particular specialty, not how you wrap the new service brand into a nice pretty package. I went as far as to say that those agencies that excel at showing the three variables highlighted above, but have yet to figure out branding around their offering, will still fare better than their competitors who do.

In the end, it has to be all about the client anyways. All of our talk on how we sub brand and make our specialty areas real is all inward thinking. It isn’t always easy, but when clients see that all the resources, skill sets and expertise are aimed at solely figuring out communications solutions to their challenges, you’ll have a happy client.