The Toyota commercial reminds me of a meeting  at Ford about three years ago.  Back then, I was working with Ford Strategic Research on a project, and we were reviewing the decline of Ford (and all domestics) over the past decade.  In 1995, about 63% of new vehicle buyers shopped domestic manufacturers only.  By 2008, the number slipped to 32% with 49% of new vehicle buyers exclusively shopping imports.  In our discussion, the general sentiment was that it would take a decade for Ford to rebound.

Well, fast forward three or so years and Ford is back in the limelight.  Ford has many many rightmoves over the past several years, and as Jim Farley, Head of Ford Marketing, points out in Advertising Age, sometimes fortunate timing helps too.  For example, the day in 2008 when Ford didn’t take money from Congress, the Big Three started to become the Big Two and Ford. 

There are many reasons why Ford rebounded, but I believe there are two major factors.  The first is Ford had the product.  Although they had many mishaps in the 1990s through about 2003, Ford had corrected their quality issues, invested in vehicle technology, and by about 2005 was poised to challenge the imports — but no one was listening.

This brings me to my second factor — Ford’s social relevancy.  The reality is up to the bailout Ford was pretty much  irrelevent except for several vehicles: the F-Series pickups and Mustang.  The remaining vehicles, most notably their cars, became a defensible driveway discussion for many new Ford owners (a.k.a “So, why did you buy a Ford?” “Um, ah, I got a great deal.”). 

The one brand action, not taking the money, gave Ford permission to be different.  And they took advantage of it.  Ford followed up with many initiatives to gain social relevance.  Several initiatives worth noting were Fiesta Movement and Drive One for Your School.

The Fiesta Movement was another well-timed opportunity.  The “new” Fiesta had been available in Europe for years.  So, to introduce the new vehicle, Alan Mulally announced Ford would bring 100 European Fiestas over to U.S. to be driven by 100 drivers who were innovative, interesting, and socially active online.  The PR move became a powerful social undercurrent in Fiesta’s launch.  The program generated significant awareness amongst the youthful target audience even before the vehicle launched —  before the first commercial ever aired.

Drive One for your School is lesser known than Fiesta Movement, but I would argue had just as much to do with Ford’s social resurgence.  Ford and Team Detroit designed a program which combined Ford’s need to get people into their vehicles with a lack of school funding around the country.  The program offered school associations $20 per test drive at the dealership typically on the weekend.  Although a goal was to generate sales, it was just as important to get people to experience a Ford first hand.  Ford was confident a multi-sensory experience would not only change their impression, it would hopefully encourage people to speak favorably of Ford when someone in their social circle was shopping for a new vehicle.

Ford’s advertising also focused on changing social impressions of Ford.  Different campaigns like Swap Your Ride or Town Takeover, placed competitive owners in Ford vehicles for an extended test drive for a week or so.  This testimonial advertising became more and more believable as Ford’s social relevancy increased.

Assessing Ford’s progress today is quite impressive.  A combination of a demonstrative brand action, social emphasis, and savvy advertising returned Ford to prominence in years as oppose to a decade.

The bottom of my french press split sending hot coffee and grounds all over me, the stove, and the kitchen floor.  My wife had enough — stop the morning grind and brew and get another coffee maker.  So, I turned to my social circle to see if they can find me a worthy replacement for my french press.

I posted Monday (see below), and was surprised how quickly people responded.  Of course, some of the responses were snarky, others were clever, and most were very helpful.

 Eric Bowe: Okay, second day without morning coffee. My french press cracked and spilled hot coffee and grounds all over the kitchen floor (Ugh).  So, now I am in search of a new coffee maker (my wife banned french presses).
Any thoughts for a coffee maker which makes a robust pot of coffee?
Are there any differences?
What features are worth paying extra for?
Monday at 11:58am

 David Bastedo A reusable bin for the coffee grinds, a timer to set for the morning, a pot that’s big enough for your needs that stays hot – carafe vs. heat pad – go for the heat pad if you want hot coffee – a coffee strength nob – not sure what this does or if it works. It’s HOT coffee that is important
Monday at 12:00pm

 Stephen Stepanek How about making it cowboy style – in an aluminum pot from the fifities – just pour the grounds and water in and heat over a campfire – heat till just short of a boil – then strain the grounds through your teeth? As far as keeping it hot – just keep the campfire going.
Monday at 12:06pm 

 Jamie Frech hi eric the interface for programming is a little wonky but this is the best coffeemaker i’ve had in years: http://www.hamiltonbeach.com/products/brewstation-coffeemakers-brewstation-summit-ultra-12-cup-coffeemaker.html makes a mean dark cup of joe.
Monday at 12:30pm

 Steve Walls simple Krups machine will last and last and just be no fuss http://www.krupsusa.com/NR/rdonlyres/42A6F5CA-5A40-48A7-B3A7-868B23534D20/18731/KT4065351x351.jpg
Monday at 12:34pm

 Michelangelo Cicerone For the wife, get this:http://www.sweetmarias.com/sweetmarias/coffee-brewers/filtercones/clever-dripper-with-lid.html (pour hot water, let it seep , then let it drip)
For yourself get this: http://tinyurl.com/3k4tsl9
Monday at 12:44pm

 Laurent Stanevich Lifehacker actually did a really comprehensive / anal-retentive overview of different coffee-making alternatives to automatic drip: http://lifehacker.com/#!5778831/dropping-the-drip-how-to-get-started-with-better-coffee-making  I would say that the Chemex press that Michelangelo recommended is definitely a good alternative to the French Press, but it may or may not meet spousal approval.
Monday at 12:54pm

 Amy Daneke skip it & just go to commonwealth (across/ diagonal from paladuim). you’ll fall in love with coffee all over again!
Monday at 2:07pm

 Chris D’Alessandro http://www.keurig.com/shop/brewers/all-brewers?crcat=wsp-brewer%7Egeneral&crsource=adwords&crkw=keurig+coffee+maker&crcampaign=7207653306&cm_mmc=google-_-Brewer-_-keyword-_brewer&gclid=CKCOkd3epqgCFUMUKgodFWRiIQ
Monday at 2:54pm

 Jodi Bollaert Saeco and Cafe Beletage…you’ll be hooked for life!
Monday at 7:25pm

Based on this advice I did a few searches and I ended up buying a Hamilton Beach Brewstation based on Jamie’s recommendation (also, it helped that model number 47454 was rated the #1 coffee maker by Consumer Report).

Although I would prefer to do my own research, leaning on the knowledge and experience of my facebook network reveals a wider perspective than my typical researching methods.  Some companies have been playing with social shopping apps, yet none to my knowledge have gained critical mass.  Some could be coming or it is just simpler to request help through a status update.  Either way, FaceShopping is a sleeping giant waiting to be awakened.

Usually it starts with the funnel conversation.  You know the funnel is a spiral, dead or in some cases a Yellow Brick Road (see Making the Purchase Funnel Fixation Personal).  To be honest I am tired with the funnel debate.  It seems to have turned into some zealous endeavor to find the next consumer thing — like digital people incessantly talking about Web 3.0.  Okay, enough of the funnel. 

My focus lately is on the path to purchase.  For the sake of this blog, let’s call it the consumer journey.  The theory I am working under has several dimensions:

• Not all purchase paths are created equal.
• It starts with the consumer’s shopper mindset.
• Shopping scenario affecting the mindset.

For brevity purposes of this blog entry, I am focusing this blog just on the first dimension: not all purchase paths are created equal.  This seems logical — shoppers  will take more time researching a high-consideration like a large screen TV for the man cave, a new car for yourself, or remodeling your home than a low consideration purchase like a restaurant to eat dinner, an oil change place for your new car, or can of pork and beans in aisle 3 at the nearby Kroger.  And from a macro perspective this is somewhere between “duh” and a “no-brainer”.

Even though this is obvious, it doesn’t explain why some people will go up and down the aisles at Kroger tossing items into their cart until they reach a certain food category where they pause and contemplate their purchase — say choosing a cut of meat for family dinner, a personal care product like deodorant or shampoo, or in my case a nice six-pack of beer. 

The same “pause” can be found for your daily life.  You may find yourself on auto-pilot when you fuel your car, drop of your dry cleaning, or getting a morning cup of coffee.  However, you may deliberate with the family on where you will go to dinner on Friday night. 

Predisposition drives your auto-pilot.  This predisposition is a built in mechanism we have in our purchase behaviors to avoid revisiting every purchase decision throughout the day.  While you can consider it “loyalty” to a product or service (it is), it can also be a routine.  Many are choices that  conveniently fit into our daily routine.  For example, I like Caribou Coffee better than Starbucks, however, the Starbucks is on my way to work, and I am not willing to exert the extra effort to be loyal to Caribou and drive 2 miles out of my way.  

Breaking a person’s predisposition or routine is difficult.  They aren’t looking for a reason to switch and therefore are not seeking out information to rethink their predisposition.  Therefore a marketer is limited to intrusive methods.  The most obvious one is media — promoting a compelling reason why their current decision is incorrect (i.e., my product is better so you need to try it).  This may work but the product differentiators better be pretty damn compelling.

Another popular intrusive method hits the wallet — giving them a deal.  Coupons, deals, sweepstakes, and group buying are pervasive (just ask Groupon) and a compelling deal has the potential to induce trial.   The objective of the deal is to disengage someone from their predisposition and establish a new predisposition — a new routine.   

The interesting aspect of product trial, is if you remove the stimulus will the behavior persist.  For example, Shell has partnered with Kroger to offer a cross brand loyalty program — if someone spends $100 at Kroger the shopper will get 10-cents off per gallon on their next fueling at Shell.  The program is a great example on how to redirect one loyalty program (Kroger’s) to another brand (Shell).  The question at hand for Shell is: will people frequent Shell without the 10-cent per gallon incentive?  If the program goes on perpetually, this is a non-issue.  However, Shell is normally priced higher than nearby stations, and removing the 10-cent per gallon incentive may result in a reduction in fuelers as they go back to their previous routines.

If not, pay attention.  A consortium of tuna brands and processors want to elevate the tuna –  as a fish, as a meal, as a healthy ingredient to sustain life itself.  Okay, maybe that was a little strong.  Regardless, the new campaign, Tuna the Wonderfish, is attempting to elevate the tuna to a new level — to a milk, orange juice or cheese status.

The success of the campaign is reliant on its ability to crack the four modes of how we think.  The modes are simple and straightforward:

• Daily Mode:  A person is focusing on life – daily issues.  They are not thinking about tuna, Omega 3, or tuna tacos — the person is just living their life.  BTW: this is 99% of people.
• Interest Mode: Someone takes time in their day, because they are intrigued by a product or service.  The person decides to to learn more about the product, but they are still not in the mode of  buying the product.
• Buy Mode: A person’s mindset when shopping for a product.  This mode can be months with a high-consideration purchase or seconds for commodity items.  Whether shopping online or aisle 3, the Buy mode is about closing the deal — getting the purchase. 
• Own Mode:  A person’s mindset during product usage.  Although usage is about meeting and exceeding expectations, you should also layer in did the product generate an emotional connection — a connection to the brand, a connection solidifying loyalty.

The modes vary in intensity by product.  Products with a strong advocacy (e.g. autos, fashion, electronics) tend to have a pronounced Interest mode for some people, because it is not just a product it can also be a person’s passion. 

The biggest factor for marketers is breaking through the Daily mode — a mode advertising is designed to crack.  And it can, however, it is hard to penetrate due to the overwhelming marketing noise in our life.  To compound the “noise” many marketers choose the wrong communication strategy, because they assume everyone is one degree away from purchase.  So instead of influencing the person in the Daily mode, the marketer is appealing to the minuscule Buy mode audience.

So will people Get Tuna?

The answer lies in the campaign’s ability break through the Daily mode, because there are very few tuna passionate people regularly seeking out tuna info, and by the time we get to the tuna aisle the marketing shifts from the Tuna the Wonderfish campagin to the individual tuna brands.  The novelty of the campaign may break through, however, I wonder if the gimmicks used on television can be leveraged in other media.  For example, the “Got milk?” campaign used the iconic milk-stache as an ubiquitous signature to pair with the breakthrough television.

For many purchases consumers lean on their Circle of Trust to assist them in making the right decisions.  The Circle is not limited to friends and family members.  It can also include people who are perceived as experts or have experience with the product category.  By and large these people are grouped into three categories: owners, experts, and brand governors.

• Owners: People the shopper trusts because they have some experience with product or service.  This may be current ownership, past ownership, or they may own a competitive product.
• Experts:  Sources the consumer acknowledges as a trustworthy source within the product industry.  This could be a knowledgeable person they know who has a passion for the product category, or a source that reviews the product category (e.g. Consumer Reports, cNet).
• Brand Governors: People who don’t have any experience with the brand or product at all, but express an opinion.   Brand governors define a brand’s social relevancy, and they are difficult to affect because they address brands emotionally not logically. 

So how can a marketer get in the circle of trust? 

Well, first you need to begin with an understanding of how much a person’s social circle influences their purchase.   You need to look at this on two levels: brand and product.  In most low consideration categories, social has little to do with the purchase  (think about most groceries, many household products, and frequent retail experiences).  In these cases, social is more about aligning the brand with the consumer.  Creating social equity by becoming relevant within their lives, their passions.

Many marketers address social with this strategy.  Think about Kingsford Charcoal’s desire to own Tailgating or Mountain Dew’s desire to own gaming (even so far as to refer to their product as gaming juice) or Dove’s desire to be aligned with Real Beauty.  The goal of of these social initiatives would become an accepted brand within the social group for a given activity.

With many high-consideration products the social circle influences the purchase in several ways.  Some people within a person’s social circle may influence intrusively by lauding or complaining about their product experience, or the shopper may request or seek out information as a part of their purchase process.  Either way, social influence could play an important role in their final purchase.

Generating social influence is difficult for many marketers because it is not a channel they control.  Actually, social is more like a cloud than a channel.  We all are surrounded by opinions, advice, and recommendations.  Some of the social conversation is a result of an experience.  Some is from product news or an expert’s review.  And some buzzworthy stories are relayed through the cloud like lightning quickly passing from person to person. 

For a marketer to be successful in the social cloud, they need to be worth talking about, and not in catchy “ad speak”.  Rather, true authentic buzz is relayed through memorable stories.  Stories worth hearing.  Stories worth sharing.  Stories that are easy to remember. 

Given the diversity of a a targets’ attitudes and motivations, there needs to be a variety of stories, coming from everyone in contact with the product — with the brand.  Think about your story sources:

• Customers:  What are the product stories worth telling?  Is there a way you can fuel the conversation?  Are there interesting ways to recognize advocates or create advocates?  How are you converting dissatisfied customers into advocates?
• Experts:  Do you know the experts within your category (people who influence product purchase either directly or indirectly)?  How are you engaging them on a regular basis?
• Employees: How are your employees embracing their role in the company?  How can you genuinely fuel their passion?  A passion for the products they create?  A passion for the post-purchase or service experience?
• Shoppers:  How are you impressing shoppers within your category (even if they don’t purchase)?  How do you get shoppers to talk about their shopping experience?  How do you invite the shopper’s social circle into the process?

These sources are just a start of your social cloud.  To figure out your social cloud listen to the conversations, understand the motivations and attitudes of advocates and customers, and then fuel the conversation through persistent engagement.

Just Google (or Bing) it.  Any topic.  Any person.  Any thing.  It is all at our fingertips, but is the info helpful?

If I want get up to speed about Lady Gaga, Lebron James, or current unemployment conditions, the web delivers.  If I want to plan a vacation, buy a HD camcorder, or optimize my stock portfolio, the web becomes a dizzying array of facts, opinions, and data that is rarely helpful — and often misleading.

This is the conundrum of the web.  Plenty of information is sprayed around cyberspace, but it is one size fits all.  We leave it up to the user to interpret the data – the information to meet their needs.  Some can interpret the information into knowledge, most cannot.

In the past decade we have failed in many respects to create an online dialogue a conversation to assist people.  Sure there are pockets of hope out there like Click to Chat technology which thankfully humanizes many online shopping processes.   However, like an unseasoned salesperson, click to chat is hit or miss based on the competency, the experience of the person on the other side of the keyboard.  Click to chat provides the intelligence of the person or company.  It does not bring to bear the collective intelligence of the web.

Is there a better way to take advantage of the collective intelligence on the web and personalize it?

Web 2.0 is all about the social web.  Sometimes social connections can lead to valuable assistance in making a purchase decision.  Many times it is social white noise — opinions without basis.  Not any better than the inexperienced salesperson.

The vision I see is the  conversational web.  A human engine which can engage people in a conversation.  A conversation that leads to knowledge — quickly and efficiently.   I believe we are very close to someone cracking the code and creating an inference engine which can decipher and disseminate knowledge based on who we are, how we shop, what we need, and what we aspire to be.

In an attempt to fix their tarnished reputation, Toyota is running a television campaign touting  quality awards, SMART teams, and $1 million spent on safety per hour.   But can Toyota’s current television blitz is wipe the massive recalls from America’s memory?  They claim to have better safety than their competition and they have a safety website to prove it.  The site touts the following:

• The Star Safety System: Toyota is the first manufacturer to make the features of the Star Safety System standard on every vehicle.
• SMART Teams: To ensure rapid response, Toyota has established SMART Teams.  Short for Swift Market Analysis Response Team — are rapid response technical teams that perform on-site analysis (there are 200 engineers and technicians that make up these teams).
• Safety Awards: Yes, Toyota has won safety awards, including five vehicles chosen by 2010 Insurance Institute for Highway Safety as Top Safety Picks.

The site touts several other facts like the number of features that make up the SMART system (5 features); the number of feet of test track a V6 Camry takes to stop from 70 MPH on a test track; and 1,000,000 which is the number of dollars Toyota spends every hour on safety.

Missing Numbers
From a consumer perspective, spending a million on safety per hour may sound impressive, but will it trump the knowledge that 2.3 million vehicle recalled in January for gas pedal issues?  Will the fact Toyota has won more safety awards than any other brand (per their commercial)  compensate for the fact JD Power reported Toyota slipped to 21st in new vehicle initial quality (lowest ever for the manufacturer in the 24-year survey history)? 

In general safety is assumed for new car buyers today.  It comes standard.  If a company is talking about safety, chances are their vehicle is recalled for extreme situations like roll-overs, fuel leaks, or inability to stop.  If they obsess over safety, they appear as an insecure brand over-compensating for deficiencies — and most likely they are.  This is the conundrum Toyota is in: do they ignore the situation and let it fade away or do they attack it head on trying to build their reputation back?  Apparently Toyota is going for the latter.

Given this, the problem with the current campaign is that the messaging and Toyota’s actions are the expected.   There is nothing new, novel, or worth talking about.  Toyota has massive recall –look we spend a lot on quality!  Toyota slips in quality ratings — look we have SMART teams!  While I don’t expect Toyota to spend millions of dollars on a campaign to say “We screwed up.” — the timing of the campaign will limit the effectiveness and the believability of the ads.

Safety Actions
So is there another way?  Maybe.  While I don’t think any one marketing action can wipe away the previous five months of turmoil, there may be actions Toyota can take in the future which will build back their reputation:

• Embrace Your Owners: This is probably the biggest missed opportunity Toyota had.  Stories from owners on how Toyota embraced the recall and exceeded expectations would go a long way shaping public perception.  Having dealerships open 24 hours until the last recall is fulfilled is not only an admirable business action to treat owners appropriately, but also makes for a great story owners can pass along (just please don’t create a cheesy commercial — let the word-of-mouth carry the story).
• Real Safety Enhancements: Toyota’s Star Safety System is just marketing speak ladened with industry acronyms (e.g. Brake Assist (BA), Anti-Lock Brake System (ABS), Electronic Brake Force Distribution (BFD?)) without clear tangible value.  There seems nothing new here, nor is there a differentiating product safety benefit.  If you truly have a safety story – a story that benefits the driver (e.g. think OnStar), then tell it, otherwise wait until the $1 million per hour produces something worth talking about.
• Stop Talking: As I write this Toyota just announced a recall for 137,000 Lexus vehicles in the U.S. for engine issues.  The multi-million dollar risk Toyota continues to run is there safet-vertising will be nullified by their own forced actions — another recall.

The promise for iAds, per Steven Jobs, is to change the quality of advertising.  Currently, online ads provide an interactive brand experience, while television commercials provide an emotive experience.  The promise of iAds is to fill the white space between the two and provide an emotive, interactive experience.

A primary benefit of iAds is the lowers barrier of participation.  Since it is built into the new Apple operating system, the ads are a part of the mobile experience, therefore when someone engages with an ad, they do not lose their place.  iAds become a brand interlude within their mobile experience.

It all sounds good, except the iAd still hasn’t fixed one problem for many marketers: them.   While iAds lower the barriers of user participation in ads, the same people are making the ads.  Ads about product styling.  Ads about product features.  Ads about them.

In a recent blog (Some thoughts on creating the killer mobile app) I offered a perspective on core consumer ingredients to build successful mobile apps.  Three consumer tenants include:

• My Money, My Time:  Some people spend time to save time, others spend time to save money.  Apps that assist people in minimize time to save money will be beneficial to shoppers. 
• My Purchase: Shopping is about knowledge (not just information).   Knowledge is the synthesizing of personal needs with product information to determine the appropriate fit.  Thnik about apps combining personal information with product features to make recommendations.
• My Life: Macro digital experiences will accentuate my life (e.g. facebook, YouTube).  Most likely these ideas will be ubiquitous in a person’s life including a mobile experience. 

I would like to add another thought to this list, which is the promise of iAds: interactive entertainment.  I like the lean forward objective of interactive entertainment.  It is not passive – the promise turns the user from an “audience” to a “participant”.   Basic learning theory will tell you the more someone is engaged the more memorable the experience.

Ah, but there is a catch — entertainment is about the audience(not the marketer).  Think of successful Super Bowl ads — the most popular ones entertain the masses.  Successful mass interactive experiences follow the same formula (think Elf Yourself).  In both cases the marketer puts the person before the product.  This is not easy for many marketers who prefer to fill their commercials full of product features and benefits — they make it about them.  And to fulfill the iAd promise marketers must truly do Brandvertainment.  Not an easy chore for many.

Tommy: Let’s think about this for a sec, Ted. Why would somebody put a guarantee on a box? Hmmm, very interesting.

Ted Nelson (Customer): Go on, I’m listening.

Tommy: Here’s the way I see it, Ted. Guy puts a fancy guarantee on a box ’cause he wants you to feel all warm and toasty inside.

Ted Nelson: Yeah, makes a man feel good.

Tommy: ’Course it does. Why shouldn’t it? Ya figure you put that little box under your pillow at night, the Guarantee Fairy might come by and leave a quarter, am I right, Ted?
[chuckles until he sees that Ted is not laughing]

Ted Nelson: [impatiently] What’s your point?

Tommy: The point is, how do you know the fairy isn’t a crazy glue sniffer? “Building model airplanes” says the little fairy; well, we’re not buying it. He sneaks into your house once, that’s all it takes. The next thing you know, there’s money missing off the dresser, and your daughter’s knocked up. I seen it a hundred times.

Ted Nelson: But why do they put a guarantee on the box?

Tommy: Because they know all they sold ya was a guaranteed piece of shit. That’s all it is, isn’t it? Hey, if you want me to take a dump in a box and mark it guaranteed, I will. I got spare time. But for now, for your customer’s sake, for your daughter’s sake, ya might wanna think about buying a quality product from me. 

Ted Nelson: Okay, I’ll buy from you.

Thinking past this humorous exchange, Buy Back Guarantees are an interesting debate is:  Is a guarantee a sign of brand confidence or brand insecurity?

Can you hear me now?
Currently Sprint is offering a 30-day money-back guarantee on their cell service.  Sprint’s share is 18%  in third place behind cellular giants AT&T and Verizon.  They are currently marketing their 4G network, and they own 75% share of the 4G market. 

It seems like they have a lot going for them.  Or do they?  In the battle of the maps (A simple map versus 2,000 postcards.) AT&T and Verizon are saturating the air waves with their claim to dominance.  Verizon owns the 3G map.  AT&T owns a (2G) map, speed, and iPhone exclusivity.  Sprint is (trying) to own 4G — a better, faster network.  Even though 4G is the future, some pundits are predicting Sprint’s market share will decline by over 50% in the next five years.

So why a guarantee?  My guess is Sprint is not getting through the massive noise created by AT&T’s and Verizon’s marketing.  Also, 4G is better, but it has been difficult to relate to consumers the difference 2G, 3G, and 4G.   Mobile consumers relate to monthly payments, dropped calls, and phone functionality. 

Speed is important, but it’s like buying a 200-plus MPH Lamborghini Murcielago to drive on our interstate highways – it’s nice to have, but you can never (legally) use the speed.  Similarly, the lightweight nature of mobile content does not require a lot of bandwidth (PC wireless users would benefit more, and they are a primary target for Sprint’s 4g network).  Mobile speed may be a core need for future mobile apps, but today a 2G network is more than sufficient for most mobile users.

Will a guarantee work? If a mobile customer were to think about the guarantee, it may seem like just a big hassle.  Moving your mobile service is a little like quitting your bank or cable company — the effort required dictates a permanent move not a 30-day test period.  If you are to switch mobile providers, you will move your number, account, and switch your phone.  Not pleasant.  To reverse it after 30-days seems like double the effort.  

A guarantee appeals most to shoppers who have apprehension with their future purchase.  Sprint’s goal would be to intercept and convert people within their switching window (e.g. expired contract or desire to switch phone/service).   Given this, if a shopper is concerned about Sprint’s service or phone functionality (e.g. think about someone moving from a regular mobile phone to a smart phone), the guarantee may put Sprint on the consideration list, and could result in a purchase if all other factors are equal.

Minivan or Bust
In February, Chrysler announced a Minivan Pledge which is a 60-day, money-back guarantee.   The premise of the pledge is (from the Chrysler site):

We’re giving you 60 days to experience all 2010 Chrysler Town & Country has to offer. Simply purchase a new Chrysler minivan. Enjoy it for 60 days. If you don’t absolutely love it, we pledge to take it back. It’s that simple. Or, whether you lease or buy, you may opt for $500 cash allowance instead. So give us a try. We know you’ll like Chrysler Town & Country so much you won’t want to give it up.

Like Sprint, Chrysler has a lot going for them.  Way back when, Chrysler pretty much invented the minivan, and have consistently been the innovator in the space (e.g. floor storage bins, Swivel and Go seating).   Even innovators can come with baggage.  You can argue the brand took one hell of a hit with the bail-out, bankruptcy, and revolving carousel of owners (i.e. Daimler, U.S. Government, Fiat). 

So why a guarantee?  It is hard to discern if this is a me-too strategy (e.g. GM recently promoted a 60-day money back guarantee), or a smart marketing ploy.  I would argue it is unnecessary.  The problem with the minivan brand is it’s differentiation — it is about the unpredictability of the brand.  A more appropriate guarantee would be a reverse-Hyundai, job loss, buy back guarantee:  If Chrylser becomes insolvent, (company X) will honor our warranty, our service, our great cars.  This mayaddress shopper concerns, but hardly a recommended strategy.

Will it work for Chrysler?  From the recent ads I have seen on television, Chrysler is not over-promoting the guarantee (there is no mention of the guarantee in the ads).  Therefore I would doubt it is being actively used to motivate minivan shoppers to add the Town & Country to their consideration list.  It seems like a more subtle tactic used to keep the Town & Country on the consideration list.   If a shopper is looking for a good product and security, the guarantee may appeal to them. 

There is a subtle tactic being used in the guarantee — the ability for a shopper to opt for $500 incentive.  I am not privy to the numbers, but I would venture to guess there is less financial risk in giving a new minivan buyer $500 than taking their vehicle back after 60 days.  In this case, Chrysler’s hope is the guarantee is the attention getter, while the $500 is the preferred choice.

Dentyne ICE has been trying to own the kiss for years.  Previous attempts included Get Fresh, Nothing’s Colder than ICE, Fresh Breath Changes Everything, Make Face Time,  and Cools Your Breath Twice. 

This campaign breaks through because it is simple, humorous, and relatable.  The ad uses several vignettes of men using Dentyne ICE to practice safe breath. The vignettes different stages of preparedness in a date: at the moment, before the date, and when you forget.  A nice subtext of “don’t be caught with bad breath” persists throughout.

The commercial also uses an accepted social norm.   Cognitively the “dating public” has been preached to practice safe sex since they were teens (or maybe even sooner). 

The dating public can relate to the mass benefit of fresh breath, or conversely the mass fear of bad breath.  While the condum may be representative icon for safe sex, Dentyne ICE is trying to insert itself as a marketing icon for Safe Breath. ]]> http://www.ericbowe.com/2010/04/safe-sex-social-norms-and-bad-breath/feed/ 1