Thursday, 19 June 2008

Negative Marketing.

Marketing is everything that connects a provider of products and services to the meeting of specific customer needs. It's usually all about helping and/or persuading people actively to do something. In contrast, governmental marketing is often about persuading citizens not to do something. It's an intriguing mind-shift. Do you lecture, humour or shock or do you reframe the negative as a positive. And which works best?

At the launch of the latest anti-binge drinking campaign, the windows of an empty building in Covent Garden were filled with tableaux illustrating the various TV ads that have been created. It's looking at the problem from a different angle (as I do with these photos from behind the shop window) and seems to take the reframing route. They show people the downside of binge-drinking and suggest that "you wouldn't start the evening like this, so why would you end it like this?"


Even in the daylight when the windows were suffering from sun glare, it was evident that people were being stopped in their tracks and laughing at the tableaux. But is laughter the right route and how long before someone posts an online image of their replicating the actions against the respective windows?

Are soiled home furnishings really the key impact of binge drinking? Or is it damage to your health and personal reputation? If you dont want to shock by showing twenty-something cirrosshis patients (of which there is a growing epidemic), then why not focus on how unattractive it makes you by showing the reaction of members of the opposite sex to drunken antics? Though, of course, the secret to making smoking socially unacceptable was the focus on its health consequences.

At the launch, there was talk of drunkeness as a cultural norm, but that's the consequence not the cause and leads to the "cheap alcohol" red-herring. To my eyes, binge-drinking is much more about lowering one's social inhibitions and it occurs also in Scandanavia and Japan where alcohol is far from cheap but emotions are also repressed. If you want to change behaviour, then perhaps it's fruitful to investigate the reasons for the behaviour as well as the consequences. But politicians and civil servants do that even more rarely than marketing directors.

Wednesday, 18 June 2008

When Creativity Gets In The Way.


Why does a sign on a phone that's promoting reverse (collect) calls need to be difficult to read? Presumably, because somebody thought that "creativity" was more important than communication.

Tuesday, 17 June 2008

Does This Water Dilute Innocent?


This Water was until recently a part of Innocent. They then decided that it wasn't consistent with their core business and sold it to the employees who had been running it. Everything was very amicable.

But I wonder if it was too amicable because this ad makes me think that it's still part of Innocent and I'm not sure that's a good thing. Given that customers at their recent AGM voiced real possessiveness towards Innocent's packaging, I have to wonder if it would have been too harsh to have insisted that they move away from the Innocent tone of voice?

Monday, 16 June 2008

Shopping Trolley Marketing.


Fresh&Easy (Tesco's chain of low-price US supermarkets) provides another reminder that marketing is everything you do in the customer's gaze, and that it's the customer not the company who rationalises it.

Amongst a number of tweaks they have made during a three month hiatus in new store openings, they decided to replace their original small trolleys with regular size ones. The thinking had presumably been to supply trolleys that matched the expected average purchase (Fresh & Easy being bigger than convenience stores but smaller than regular supermarkets).

However, as the chief executive explained, this was interpreted in an entirely different way.

"If you have dinky little carts they think you are a dinky little business. Full carts are a sign of a full shop." (source ft.com).

I'm not sure he's exactly right. It's the absence of full-sized trolleys, not the presence of small ones that makes people think that way.

Sunday, 15 June 2008

Under-Promise, Over-Deliver.


Only make promises you intend to keep. If people see you failing to do so, they won't believe the next promise and they'll act accordingly.

Thursday, 12 June 2008

Egocentric Design Ignores The Customer.

The Times recently launched its latest new design. Good design is about improving customer satisfaction and this revamp was, no doubt, distilled from lots of research (albeit coupled with new technological possibilities). Hence there are different fonts, new arrangements and amalgamations of sections and due to the technology, lots of coloured photos and charts!

Now, I'm not sure about the new look and could nitpick, but I noticed that they are not sure about it either. It's definitely in beta because this week the review page format changed from this

to this

You may or may not notice the slight changes, but can you see the big problem? In both versions, the name of the reviewer has prominence over what ever is being reviewed and that is wrong. I might well value the opinions of a certain reviewer over those of another, but my first-level filter as a reader is surely the specific subject of the review. Never mind the reviewer, if that doesn't interest me (or I can't easily see it), I won't be reading the piece and your focus on reader-friendly fonts, layout and space will have been fruitless.

Ego, even subconsciously, should have no place in design. If it does, then you're not truly committed to focussing on your customer.

Wednesday, 11 June 2008

Sticking The Boots In To Loyalty.


So you're in a store that you visit infrequently and they ask you if you have a loyalty card. You say "yes, but not with me at the moment". They say that's ok, if you return to the store with the card and this receipt within fourteen days, we'll adjust your account accordingly. Straightforward. You reward loyalty rather than punishing forgetfulness.

But not Boots who ironically are praised for having a generous scheme. You return to their store with your card and your receipt and ask them to adjust your account. They say, we can't do that because your receipt (which clearly states that you would have received x loyalty points if you had presented your card at time of purchase) has not been validated. And by "validated" they mean it has not been reprinted to show that you expressed the intention to return to the store to collect the points.

You validate car-parking, you don't validate loyalty.