CK's Blog

Because people don't speak in buzzwords. Marketers do.

During my panel presentation at Sun's Startup Camp last May, I was asked a very important question during the Q&A. It's an exchange that has stuck with me and I tell it a good deal off-line to colleagues and clients.

You see, it's a lesson that I encourage. But it's also a lesson that I constantly have to remind myself of in my messaging work--because I have been plenty guilty of it! So I wanted to share the sum and substance of the conversation:

Attendee: "Can you tell me the buzzwords that marketers should avoid using with our audiences and in our communications?"

CK: "Oh dear, I'm sorry but given we only have 5 minutes before this session ends and since this entire conference is only two days long, we don't have enough time to rundown all the buzzwords we marketers abuse...because there are so many." 

(Hey, I needed to be honest!)

"But the good news is that social media gives us a surefire way to avoid using all those words that are confusing, over-hyped or just so overused they've been rendered meaningless: read the comments and conversations of consumers and prospective customers at many blogs that are relevant to your business and target audiences. See what they're talking about, and what's meaningful to them. But mainly look at how they say things. Because now you're afforded to actually "see how they speak". And let that be your barometer.

Because people don't speak in buzzwords. Marketers do."

(so we've found yet another reason why listening is so helpful)

At the same conference, I sat in on a great "cloud computing" panel and learned so much "techie" stuff. But there were so many buzzwords and acronyms that even the moderator apologized. Afterward I went up to congratulate him on a great presentation--and made sure to thank him for also noticing the buzzwords. I told him it made me feel so much better knowing that we marketers weren't the only ones that play Buzzword Bingo ;-)

And on that note, here is a great 30-second commercial; it's all sorts of fun, and true. RSS and email subscribers, please click through to the blog to view.

If you're a "free" play, the deal is that you need "free" users. They're not freeloading, they're your path to profitability. Said another way, advertisers don't want you unless users want you. So, free users are actually your company's TOP asset. Eureka!

I swear I never get to come off smart on my blog because I'm too busy highlighting the obvious. (Sigh). And this post is no different.

This advice does not apply to technology companies that sell software, hardware or consulting services, because that quid pro quo is very defined--and there's actually no "free" involved (i.e. "I'll give you this computer and you'll give me this amount of cash").

But it absolutely applies to "free" tech plays (or companies who use new media to run their businesses). You know, companies who offer free tools, content, features, widgets, wikis or otherwise. Because these types of companies--some are 1.0 like with free content, many are 2.0 like with social media tools--need free offerings so as to lure and build traffic...in order to monetize said traffic.

After all, they have employees to pay, servers to run and a host of other expenses.

It also applies to tech plays that have both free and premium-based models. MarketingProfs has two levels of content and I value/use them both. Slide.com is just a nifty and remarkable player that I've spent hours fooling around with. I also enjoy both the free and paid-for rockin' services of Animoto--and when enough users balked, they added the feature of uploading their vids to YouTube (thank you for listening and acting ;-).

Twitter is a great tool due to so much of my network being on it, and so many lessons learned through the conversations. But the technology is so unstable--and the communications from management so precarious--that it's no longer a beloved brand. And Facebook lost my face due to putting advertisers ahead of users with the innovation-that-was-actually-an-intrusion called Beacon. (Yes, I know, much of Beacon is gone now. Problem is, so too is my trust).

So, what's the solution?

Well, it's more realization than solution. More companies need to realize (Eureka!) that free users are not just "users getting a deal because we gave them value through our free whatnot" but--due to the users' providing their content, eyeballs, time, and bringing more users via their networks and WOM--they actually equate to the company's revenue stream.

Yes, the advertisers fork over the greenbacks. But they only do so to gain access to audiences that they value. So since they value those eyeballs, tech plays need to as well.

If more companies understood and relentlessly ran their businesses by this very basic, if all-too-pivotal notion, then suddenly (Eureka!), more companies would treat their users, communicate and respond to their users, and place the relationships they build with users...as their number-one priority.

Kinda like "It's the free users, stupid."

They'd realize that it wasn't the market who was fortunate to get free tools but (Eureka!) it's the company's good fortune to have users who care about their tools (and who, in turn, bring more users). Then every decision would be guided by the yardstick of "How does this new feature, ad model or otherwise work to engage, delight and grow our user base?"

(Because in delighting and growing your user base you are at once growing your revenue stream.)

Plus, once you've built and maintained your user base, then advertisers, sponsors and financiers will court you--as they had their "Eureka!" moment long ago and know how valuable those "free" users really are. Just ask any Exec in broadcast television, radio, media publishing, magazines, etc, etc, and so on.

Staying "on message" is not enough--it actually needs to be the right message, too. (I know, go figure)

It's both funny and sad. Funny in that it's such a ludicrous story. Sad because the story is true, and happens to innocent consumers (and decrepit old servers) every single day.

The back story is that my Web site is currently down--well, currently non-existent. As is my email. You see, I come to find out today that my Web files and account were on a "very old" server. I started hosting my Web site waaaay back in the 90s when Web stuff was new. Hey, I'm innovative like that.

But it's been a decade.

So servers get old (I guess they get put out to pasture). And the company just retired the server, along with all my Web site files and email account.

Nope, I cannot understand why--in over ten years--they did not transfer the files to a new server as I've updated my site many times over in the course of that decade. I've worked with tons of tech companies and, well, this practice is quite standard. Plus, I'm not talking a small company, I'm talking a big company.

And even though I pay this company to maintain my site--which to me means maintaining my site and server--I come to find out that because the server is old they don't do such things. Kind of like "When your server's time is up, so is yours."

Oddly, they just kept harping about "how old the server was"...as if I had known this server and should accept its fate because, hey, that hunk of titanium, had a good run. Yet all the while I'm astonished that no one realizes that it's not only the server that has become obsolete, it's their style of operations and marketing practices.

Then they talked about not knowing where the server even is. Which caused me to ask them if perhaps it's been archived into the Smithsonian (since they kept talking of how 'old' it was, maybe it's a legitimate relic?). Or maybe it's been taken hostage by some militia group and the FBI are within a hair of solving the case.

Or, more likely, it will resurface on eBay any minute.

But fellow marketers, the server's whereabouts and age matter not. Because technology companies know about very 101 things like "data redundancy"...especially since their customers know about it. What matters is that three different agents in three different departments--through two hours of speaking to them and being on hold to the exact same song over and over and over--all stuck to the SAME message.

And the message was this: "But it's OK because there is a disclaimer about not backing-up files on old servers." And while each agent kept on message, the fact is, the message (and the mentality) is wrong.

So what will I do? Well, I'll make my designer a bit crazy having to go through, find, upload and edit the Web site files. I'll get my Web site--and email--back up in due time. And as soon as I can, I'll get myself a new Web-hosting company (and yes, I'll request a "new" server). Hey, it's only a temporary Web site and email snafu after all--the world has far larger problems. This doesn't even qualify as a blip; but this is certain:

I'll be sure to keep "on message" too, and that message is this: the company doesn't care about its customers; but it sure cares about disclaimers.

The reason I have not cited/linked to this company is because I'm not looking to get anything out of them; like that old server they are irrelevant to me now. What I am looking for is that my fellow colleagues and future clients get something out of this. Let's do better. And let's keep pushing our clients to do better--to have customer-centric operations and synchronized messaging, sure...but let's ensure that we first have the right message (and mindset).

And please do think a good thought about that old server. She did well by me, too bad the company did not.

Going green needs to take a lot less gray (matter)

In reading this article today, I was brought to the site of an agency (TerraChoice) that has developed a laudable, inspired program to cut down on the act of "greenwashing." What is greenwashing, you ask?

Greenwashing is "the act of misleading consumers regarding the environmental practices of a company or the environmental benefits of a product or service." To that end, the agency has created a nifty campaign titled, "The Six Sins of Greenwashing" and you can download the report in full...as well as a wallet card that will aid in greener purchasing.

The wallet card is especially neat as it breaks down the information into an easier format featuring six questions--that map to the "six sins"--for consumers to use as a guide when making product purchases.

Overall, the campaign is darn cute, well-intentioned and handy. In other words, all the oh-so-clever things I rave about.

And here comes the BUT.

Problem is, even in a great format, we are still asking consumers to do a lot of critical thinking. According to the six questions, consumers will need to assess areas like (1) hidden proof, (2) vagueness, (3) irrelevance, (4) fibbing and a few more.

That's a lotta action points.

With. Every. Single. Purchase.

What's more? We're asking consumers to do this critical thinking when they're at places like the supermarket.

And at the hardware store.

At WalMart.

But navigating through the metropolis that is your local WalMart--with two kids in tow, no less--demands an abundance of focus and energy on its own, no?

Yet what so many marketers--the six sins being but one example--are expecting of consumers is to assess if the product they're about to buy is really green, just sorta green, too suspicious to be green...or the same product with a tree next to its logo for good measure.

Not gonna happen. (I'll bet green money on it)

With big-ticket, high-involvement purchases--like cars--then, sure, people are prone to run through a battery of internal Q&A before acting. But that is the purchase exception and far from the rule. The rule is that people don't have that type of bandwidth when making every day, split-second purchase decisions.

And it's those everyday, split-second purchasing decisions that will have the most impact.

The fact is, besides large companies making viable choices in how they can operate more efficiently--and getting global buy-in from major energy economies like China, too-- it's the gazillions of actions and billions of purchases that consumers make day-in/day-out that are going to make the BIG differences.

Some of those actions include unplugging your cellphone charger when not needed, decreasing AC and heat usage by a few degrees or bringing your own re-usable bags to the grocery store. Others will be to buy more efficient light bulbs and greener cleaning supplies.

The other problem? Marketers (of course).

Marketers pore through hours of copy and brainstorming sessions to plot how their product can claim green-ness. Some marketers can easily claim this, others have to bend the truth. And others outright lie.

Even the agency's CEO knows we're asking much too much--this is how the article ends: "With such a barrage of eco-messages slapped on products these days even McDougall concedes that "the six sins of greenwashing" might be too much for consumers to remember when out shopping.

So, in a nutshell, what's his advice? 'The most essential guide I can offer consumers is; choose the product that appears to be doing its best to educate you, to offer you information and in precise language.'"

Ergo, winning the green fight--or winning "green revenues," depending upon how you look at it--is an object lesson in simplicity (and, I'd argue, believability). That does not mean it can't be creative, but it needs to be simply so.

Regulatory agencies are going to need to lay down the law of what can be green-stamped and what constitutes greenwashing. But marketers need to make this process easy if they want for consumers to buy in and, um, buy from them.

Because if I can't spend the time vetting six questions--and I'm a marketer in the 1% who obsesses over product messaging in my local supermarket--I can promise you that the remaining 99% won't either. Sustainable strategies for greening the mainstream is what I seek (and in marketing Mother Earth, simple is my mantra.)

PS: As for fellow marketers? The wallet card and that full report are very much worth checking out right here.

TiVo: from liberating us from advertisers to getting in bed with them

Interesting article on TiVo today. Now, as we all know, TiVo introduced the "disruptive" set-top box that allowed us to record shows to our heart's delight--so TV became a slave to our time instead of vice/versa.

And gritting our teeth through advertisements no longer needed to be the price of watching our favorite shows. Nope, now we pay a price (enter TiVo) to skip those pesky ads.

And it's well worth the price.

Funny thing, while TiVo is coined as a "disruptive" technology by broadcast advertisers...to consumers, it was always the advertisements that were disruptive. (duh)

But as of today, the company will introduce a "product purchase" feature that, in TiVo's various onscreen menus, links to buy products.

According to the article: “Just a few years ago, we were viewed with great paranoia as the disruptor,' said Thomas S. Rogers, chief executive of TiVo. 'Our goal now is to work with the media industry to come up with ways to resist the downward pressure of less advertising viewing and create a way for advertising on TV to become more effective, more engaging and closer to the sale.

What we are trying to do is to create all the underpinnings of a future business model for television.'"

(Oh, I should note that TiVo is partnering with Amazon in order to deliver this service.)

Personally, I'm a big fan of TiVo because it's a brand that represents a movement, a friendlier mindset, that is more closely aligned to the desires of consumers. It's a hero in that it liberated the "viewing audience" from having to live around a certain schedule determined not by them but the networks...and even more so by liberating people from having to live through commercials.

But even that statement of "trying to create all the underpinnings of a future business model for television" feels far less about consumers. Much more about models.

And far less friendly ;-(.

We'll see how it plays out and how intrusive this non-intrusive-and-really-engaging model really is.

The article again is here.

Let's bees really cool and produce a viral video. No, let's please not.

I've nothing against bees. Well, I don't like it when they sting me. And I get a bit nervous when they're in close proximity to me...because the risk of them stinging me increases exponentially. But that's not to say I no longer want them around.

And right now the fact that they're not around has scientists scratching their heads--they can't understand why honey bees are just *poof!* dying out. It's very concerning being it's happening overnight, as usually we get a bit of a warning before species go extinct.

Bad enough we have so many beautiful animals going extinct due to reasons that we understand--like our poor polar bears who, due to climate change melting so much ice, drown because they grow so tired from swimming so far in search of some ice to rest upon.

But now we have another species dying for reasons unknown. So Haagen-Dazs has taken up the mission of spreading awareness on this epidemic. And that's a good thing. In fact, if consumers buy their "bee-dependent" flavors of ice cream they'll donate more to research. Another good move--I like it when companies align socially responsible initiatives with everyday purchases.

But please don't be fooled into thinking that this is a purely altruistic measure, or "do-good" branding tactic...it's for the bottom line. You see, nearly 40% of their yummy flavors need the honey, nuts and fruit that the honey bees facilitate (bees aren't just for honey; we need their nectar for peaches, blueberries and many more fruits). So saving the bees and saving the brand go hand-in-hand. And they have a nicely done web site about it right here.

And then they have this very peculiar video on it (video is below).

I guess someone thought "Since bees do a funky little dance when they spread their nectar, and we humans can dance like crazy, then let's make it really cool and, um, 'keep it real yo', by creating this dancing bee video."

And then people will say "Yo, those bees sure can dance and we should care more about saving them." Then I guess, the reasoning goes, that after watching the video, consumers will buy more ice cream since it supports a good cause.

But I do not think that's what people will takeaway from this particular video. It's just so completely ill-aligned with the web site and the campaign's other messaging.

Now, I admit that this video does make me laugh and it has engaged me. But I'm engaged in laughing at them, not caring more about the cause or buying more Haagen-Dazs ice cream.

My thought? Perhaps we should put this video in a time capsule and then 1,000 years from now when they look back to see how we worked to solve this problem they'll intuit, "Apparently, 21st century Fortune 500 marketers figured that placing dancing humans dressed-up as hip-hop bees on YouTube was an effective tactic."

And then maybe that will give them a few extra laughs, too. (Wouldn't it be great to be a honey bee on the wall at that meeting?)

Drew Mclellan--who is, in fact, the bee's knees--has a far better analysis of it here. By the way, it may be a virus that is the culprit of the honeybee epidemic, learn more here. In any case, here's the video-- email and RSS subscribers please click through to the blog for your share of dancing bees ;-).

I'd like my innovation straight up, with a twist

When we're developing an entirely new offering and brand category--especially when it's all "innovative" and "groundbreaking," we're focused on how unique, state-of-the-art and never-before-seen-nor-done it is.

And we should be. We're marketers. Differentiators and unique selling points are a currency, or bargaining chip of ours.

And man do we go bananas for an innovation. Heck, we go absolutely ape over just the chance to claim "innovative" status.

But while customers love new-and-oh-so-improved, the reality is that they need a big ol' dose of the old right along with it. See, people need a familiar place, or foundation from which to start. In their recent Fast Company column, Dan and Chip Heath call these familiar places the "anchors" (it's a great article, btw).

For example, take Red Bull. They company marketed it as a as a high-energy soft drink. So it has a clearly established foundation of "soft drink" (that would be the anchor) and it's modified by the differentiator of "high-energy." The Heath Brothers call these differentiators (or innovations) "the twist".

Take TiVo. Before people could truly understand the benefit of "TV on Your Time" they needed to understand what the innovation did and, more to the point, how it made their life easier, better and more enjoyable. So TiVo used the "video recorder" anchor and then delighted us with the "digital" twist.

Take the personal computer (which has since diverged into laptops, notebooks and personal digital assistants, or PDAs). Before personal computers, there existed "computers" which were used only at businesses...and they were big, bulky and pretty boring to everyday consumers.

But IBM made them "PCs" (which stands for personal computer). So the consumer could understand that this innovation was a computer BUT it was made for personal use NOT business use.

Same thing with e-books (electronic books), satellite radio, electronic mail, plasma TVs, digital cameras, and the mother of all billion-dollar businesses, good old bottled water. Now we have vitamin water, mineral water, artisan water and about a zillion other bottled-water categories. Personally, I'd like to see the world's populations all have access to clean drinking water, but I guess there's not much of a profit model in that particular category. (sigh)

And it's not just that we need to leverage the familiar in explaining the categories of new offerings; we also need to do this when explaining the products' uses, benefits and features. This is why metaphors and analogies are so helpful. For example, how many times a week do you explain what a blog is...moreover, how do you explain it?

I often start with, "Do you know what a website is?" And then I go onto explain, "Do you know how the website of The New York Times is updated daily with new articles?" And then I'll explain how a blog is like a website EXCEPT that it's updated every day (sorta like TheNewYorkTimes.com) BUT that it's usually updated one article at a time (which are called posts), and many times authored by a single person (vs. many professional writers)...and that blogs usually focus on one subject area, be that subject a professional interest, political leaning, hobby, cause or other.

Of course then they better understand the innovation--but of course always ask, "But why oh why use the ugly word "BLOG?" (Oy)

Now, you can also communicate the new by showing how it's completely unlike the familiar...we just need to reference the familiar in order to do so.

For example, take Hancock, a not-so-super-of-a-hero movie that I just covered last week. The reason this movie has done so well is because they've used the familiar of "Everyone loves the altruistic, selfless superhero who saves the world!" to create an entirely different category. In this case the superhero is apathetic, silly and sloppy--oh, and the world, and even little children, loathe him. In explaining this difference, the movie's tagline reads "Not your average superhero." So they stated the familiar, and then made the familiar less appealing in order to make Hancock more so--since the rest are just "average" after all.

So the overall lesson is this: be different...but introduce your differences by building upon the familiar...and then show how, in being different, you're far better than the familiar.

(Or you could just remember "anchor and twist" which is probably less confusing--but a complex woman am I ;-)

Perhaps I should tank more often

Recently I was (very politely and privately) made aware that my blog's rankings have slipped over the past couple months. 'Twas a very respectful exchange, not at all rude. It actually isn't surprising being my posting dramatically decreased in May and June, mainly due to deadlines, professional events, traveling and some much-needed downtime.

Now, long-time readers know my stance on rankings (I'm not the competitive type, creation is my thing). But when people alert you that you're "down," it's natural to feel a little down, no?

Yet that didn't happen.

In fact, the exchange ended up making me feel...terrific.

You see--and this is why I share it with you--the conversation gave me the perfect opportunity to explain the really important stuff gained through social media. Well, I should say what I view as the really important stuff, as the goals of participating in this groovy new medium are rightly determined by each and every one of its participants.

And for me, what's important is the tremendous body of knowledge one can amass and the advancing relationships one can build as this world continues to grow smaller (and as a result, far better).

The lessons I continue to learn--be they on social media, strategy or sustainable branding--serve me in spades professionally, just as they satisfy my personal learning curve. As for the relationships? The blogosphere has brought me some of the most supportive colleagues--and dearest friends--of my life (and, not for nothin', many of them went to the time, travel and personal expense to attend Blogger Social to meet so many other terrific marketing bloggers).

But what was most peculiar was that the conversation left me more secure, not less. The reason? Because I'm not a bit worried of losing what's important.

Hey, I've lived enough years to know two things for sure. When your mind is forever open to learning new tools, ways and lessons, then you'll forever learn (great how that works, eh?). And when you treat your relationships with respect and care, then you'll continue to have those relationships, as well as all new ones...because when people find value in you, they're happy to introduce you to new colleagues and friends (it's great how that works, too).

Overall, I think the greatest thing I re-confirmed is this: in your life, you'll likely find out more about yourself, your values and your passions through the most unlikely of exchanges...and even more so by your instant responses to them.

Hmm, perhaps I should tank more often? (Just kidding ;-)

Who's afraid of that BIG green monster in the room?

I'm gonna let my readers in on a little secret. I take all the smart, advancing, clever, unique and oh-so-terribly fascinating lessons, tips and techniques that other marketing bloggers divulge in their most sacred of smart places (their blogs, silly) and I use it in my work.

Yup, not only am I listening...I'm also learning. And then I'm using those great teachings to do better by my clients.

Sneaky, huh? Yeah, I'm a clever girl like that.

(I sure hope you do the same from the smarts I divulge in my most sacred of smart places, right here.)

But when my colleague Mario Vellandi goes ga-ga over green marketing, sustainable branding practices and product development--and then produces tons of videos from top-tier conferences hosting best-in-breed companies and provides a veritable treasure trove of green goodness, I simply must give praise--and point you to his most sacred of smart places.

Seriously.

Go.

Here.

And go Now. As that BIG green monster in the room isn't going anywhere...but hopefully he's as cute as Kermit.

And check out the many videos, posts and teachings--just scroll through the many posts.

Oh, and go Green while you're at it. You can do things that are good for the planet...or don't do as many things that are bad for the planet. (Or be an over-achiever and do both.)

Thank you Mario, for the depth, breadth and quality of work you've captured for the world--as I've learned a ton of green goodness over the past week through your hard work.

Which, as divulged above, I will be using in my work.

Because I'm just that sneaky (and smart).

Joy

Maybe it's because the video below embraces the whole world.

Or maybe it's because some things in the world are universal (like really silly dancing).

Then again, maybe it's because the video, along with the music, is so superbly uplifting.

Actually, maybe I don't want to think about why...but rather how much this piece moves me. Watching it I had tears (of joy) streaming down my face.

I hope it moves you too.

Gavin Heaton has a great analysis of it over at his blog. But over here, I just want to share some joy with you. RSS and email subscribers please click through to the blog to view it. The story behind this video is located here.

Where the Hell is Matt? (2008) from Matthew Harding on Vimeo.

In a summer of superheroes how's about we make the hero LESS super?

So far this summer we've had Iron Man, BatMan, the Incredible Hulk and, I think, Hellboy is coming back. And I've likely missed one or two. (Does Indiana Jones qualify as a superhero...or just a super character?)

Granted, these superheroes are not only super, they're also grappling with the responsibilities of being, well, super. After all, being super is a lot on a person--even if you're made of iron, have a smokin' batmobile, came from hell or give new meaning (and green muscles) to the definition of "getting angry".

And now that I've lumped all of those superheroes together, I'm going to turn my attention to the one movie that stands apart.

It's titled Hancock, a not-so-super-of-a-hero movie. (see trailer below, RSS readers click through to the blog to view). Sure, the character can fly and beat people up. But he apparently causes more collateral damage than goodwill. It's not that his character is hung-up on brooding about his lot in life... he's just hung over.

His flaws, which make him more real and less hero, are not his true problem. Apathy is. It makes for sloppy work, warrants for his arrest, a public relations crisis and a personal journey that is exactly the stuff upon which successful movies are made (oh how we love to watch our characters transform their lives.)

And that makes Hancock different than the rest. Different is good for brands and it's very good for stories (and many marketers say a brand is a story). As a result, I suspect this movie will do super at the box office. Time will soon tell. (update: my prediction was right)

Oh, and just to be clear, I'm not advocating sloppy work, apathy or drinking. I'm encouraging "different" thinking because that leads to innovative branding. When you position your brand as far as possible from "all the rest" instead of the "best of all," then all the rest no longer matter. Because you're in your own league now.

And when you're in your own league you're far less concerned with outdoing your competition and far more focused on perfecting your own act. So let the rest be heroes because you're truly super.

Here's the trailer...