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.

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.

In the rush for the demonstrative testimonial, marketers try different tactics.  Some tactics are artifical, some are authentic.  Some work, some don’t.

Test Tube Testimonials
 The easiest method to create testimonials is to generate them in an alternative reality.  A reality in which their product will win against competition or at least win enough so they can get a few customers on tape, in a commercial, and broadcasted to the nation by next week.  These artificial testimonials live in a “consumer lab” and are within a marketer’s control.

One example is last year’s Microsoft’s Challenge.  The challenge asked people to buy a PC or Mac based on a set budget normally under $1,000.  The camera follows the budget minded shoppers as they compare how much “PC” they can get relative to a Mac.  According to AdAge last year the campaign was making a dent in the perception of PCs for budget minded shoppers.  According to my Apple-loving coworkers, they don’t believe the results, and think the majority of people paid the difference and bought an Apple.

Currently Ford is (re)running Swap Your Ride  where people exchange their vehicle for a new Ford.  From Ford’s perspective, the positive aspect of the commercials is the driver  positively portrays the Ford product relative to their current vehicle.   From the consumer perspective, this is the fundamental problem with Test Tube Testimonials — it is not a balanced perspective.  However, very few marketers (like Domino’s) would broadcast people disparaging their product.  This is the conundrum with Test Tube Testimonials:  a balanced perspective is more believable — more real.  But showing a balanced perspective may be more harmful to the brand.

Free Range Testimonials
My brother raises chickens.  Not many.  Maybe about twelve or so.  He doesn’t feed them grain, corn, or some fancy chicken feed.   He just lets them wander around the yard and peck away at his lawn, eating whatever may be beneath the surface.  He swears the eggs taste much better because the chickens are allowed to freely roam his yard eating what nature has to provide.

Customers who paid for the product and use the product regularly are believable.  Their experience is not fabricated.  A classic example of a powerful customer testimonial is Jared for Subway.   The interesting aspect to Jared’s Story is it offered a brand repositioning for Subway — one that Subway initially did not want to do, until it worked.   It worked because it was dramatic, original, and unexpected. 

As of last December, Taco Bell is trying to repeat Subway’s formula with Christine Dougherty’s Drive Thru Diet.  Christine lost 54 pounds on the diet (compared to 245 pounds for Jared).   The effect of the Drive Thru Diet will be interesting to watch.  On the one hand, novel diets seem to be always a trend.  On the other hand, this fast food “diet” formula seems tired, and may be rendered ineffective due to fast food diet apathy.

Another example occurred last February when Toyota briefly used customers who recently bought a vehicle in ads to counter the negative recall buzz.  It is hard to tell if the ads were effective, but I think timing is an issue with these ads.   When a safety recall is top of mind with hundreds of thousands of owners and the general public, airing ads about enthusiastic new customers comes across like Toyota may be out of touch.  Instead of new buyer testimonials, Totyota should have generated testimonials about the speed and progress to fix the recall (which some ads speak to) and how Toyota went the extra mile to treat owners well. 

The Personal Testimonial
The most effective testimonial is the people you know.  Nothing new.  There have been many books written about the effectiveness of word of mouth mareketing.  Many companies like BzzAgent or House Party base their business model on marketing products through word of mouth.  The basic premise of word of mouth marketing is for people to describe the product on their terms — identifying their benefits, and then talking about the product in terms their friends can understand.  This authentic interaction is the power of a first-hand testimonial.  The power is found when one friend personally recommends a product to another.  A lot of the power is lost when it is filmed and broadcasted to the masses.  

While the effectiveness of personal recommendations will trump mass recommendations, word of mouth takes time.  It is about becoming social relevance.  Think about the automotive industry:  It took several decades for domestic auto companies to become socially irrelevant in many social circles (especially on the east and west coast).  And for GM and Chrysler the icing on the top of the irrelevancy cake was the bail out – it just turned many people off.  It will be a long way back for GM and Chrysler.  One car at a time. One customer at a time.  One driveway testimonial at a time.  And this journey will take patience.  It took decades to become socially irrelevant — something that will not be corrected overnight.

Driving Testimonials
The art of the testimonial is putting the right pieces in place to be relevant.  It is about giving people something to talk about, initiating the conversation, and encouraging interaction.

Give them something to talk about.  We love to tell a good story, especially about our experiences.  If a marketer would like to be brought up in conversation they need to be relevant — be in the story.  The story could be about a customer’s interaction with the product.  The story could be about excellent customer service (God knows we hear enough stories about how our friends or family members are mistreated).  The story could be about a bold company action they are proud to identify with (e.g. Ford not taking the bail out money or Amazon redirecting all their advertising dollars into free shipping).

Initiate the conversation.  Help your customers come up with stories by asking about their product purchase – their product experience.  Many companies like Weber Grills, John Deere, and Honda to name a few, request owners to tell their product stories.  By initiating the conversation, brands will get people talking about their product experience.  The first evidence is online – an owner generated story for all to read.  The second benefit is initiating a behavior.  A customer behavior to talk positively about the product.  A behavior which is hopefully repeated multiple times with friends, family members, and co-workers.

Encourage interaction.   I like the testimonial twist to State Farm’s latest campaign.  The commercial prompts prospective insurers to first speak to one of over 40 million drivers who currently use State Farm.  Nice.  A company with nothing to hide will encourage prospective customers to talk to owners.  Of course this may backfire if all my friends have Geico and Progressive, but the point of the testimonial tactic is to get people to talk about their insurance.  And hopefully through discussion they may find there is a better insurance plan for them.

Testimonials should always considered within the marketing mix.  They are one of the most persuasive methods in persuading people to try or buy a product.  Just be authentic, be realistic, and be patient.  Testimonials are a marathon strategy not a sprint.

We have all witnessed the anti-exposure: a commercial that is so annoying it not only wore out its brand welcome, but has also became a detriment to the brand — degrading the brand with each successive viewing.

There are different reasons for this like the commercial was never that good. However, sometimes the anti-exposure is more than just a good or bad commercial.  It is a byproduct of too much money, micro-targeting, or lack of desire.

Too Much Money
My guess is the Southwest commercial tested well with focus groups, however, I am sure the focus group did not watch the commercial 50 times.  The high frequency of the commercial ruined possibly an effective ad:  

• Seeing the commercial once – entertaining, impactful, and memorable. 
• Seeing the commercial too much – annoying, harmful to the brand, and unfortunately not forgettable

Sometimes over exposure is a function of too much money.  Marketers have a choice of spending money in media or production.  Many times the marketer will choose to minimize production (number of commercials) to maximize media dollars (exposure). 

Some marketers understand this concept and consistently create ads to keep their message fresh and prevent the anti-exposure.  For example, to win the mobile wars AT&T and Verizon are pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into broadcast, and they are constantly creating ads to support their key differentiation.  Verizon is continues to generate map commercials, and AT&T has Luke Wilson reveal a myriad of different ways to multi-task with a phone.

Designed for the Few
About five years back I was working on the Chrysler business.  A bright strategist for BBDO did a insightful analysis proving excessive dealer association advertising degraded the brand.  It made sense.  The dealer advertising targeted deals to people shopping for a new car, which at any given time is less than 4% of the market.  The excessive deal-vertising overwhelmed the brand message and constantly degraded the brand for the 96% of people not in market for a new vehicle.

The Chrysler example is another reason why a commercial can get annoying — they are designed for the micro-target.  Designed for the few.  Most Super Bowl commercials work because they are designed to entertain all viewers.  Effective marketers who use mass media understand they are communicating to all viewers, so they either need to entertain the masses and/or communicate a mass benefit (e.g. think about our Verizon’s maps as a mass benefit).  If people cannot relate to the product benefit or the entertainment value of the commercial, it will decrease commercial effectiveness.  It will become more and more annoying with every exposure.  In a way, DVRing the commercial may be a brand blessing.

Create Commercial Desire
You may remember the  Messin’ with Sasquatch commercials from Jack Link’s Beef Jerky.  Or maybe you don’t, because the commercials did not receive a lot of air play.  The commercials were based on a simple entertaining premise — people playing pranks on Sasquatch.  The commercials don’t seem to get old, and if you check out the YouTube Channel you’ll find that many of the commercials of received well over 1 million views.  They are not only on television they are sought out online.

Sought out — an interesting premise.  Can you imagine creating commercials that are the antithesis of the anti-exposure — they are a desired exposure.  Many Super Bowl commercials are sought out, because the single airing was not enough.  Some marketers, like Apple, create desirable ads on a regular basis. For example, the introductory commercial for the MacBook Air ad was simple, elegant and memorable (i.e. sliding a MacBook into an envelope),  and online within weeks the commercial had over 1 million views.

So what about Southwest Airlines?  Well, as of the past weekend they have moved on from the beer-gut, belly-painting, flashing baggage handlers to just the baggage handlers strolling on the tarmac discussing the merits of bags flying free.  Simple, entertaining, and not over epxposed … at least not yet.

What is with the purchase funnel fixation?

I read recently that Jeff Jaffe is flipping the funnel.   His view is customer service should be a priority — hard to argue with that.  Before Jaffe, some of you may remember that Seth Godin was flipping the funnel  way back in 2006.

JD Power and Compete claim the purchase funnel is a fallacy for new vehicle buyers.  The article notes that shoppers will be cross-shopping more vehicles one month prior (3.6 models), than they looked at three months prior to purchase (2.4 models).  Interesting generalization — lets come back to this one.

 In the past few years, different people have proposed the funnel is more like a downward spiral,  Ironically, the diagram presented by these people looks like a spiral funnel, however, the shopper sort of glides in a spiral pattern along the outer rim as oppose to plummeting down the center of the funnel.  Interesting adaptation, but I would argue it is still a funnel. 

And of course there are the annual shock blogs, articles or books that claim the purchase  funnel is dead.  To this point a recent blog offers not a funnel but a Yellow Brick Road.  The author argues:

Marketers must respect people as curvaceous souls, and supplant the purchase funnel with the idea of The Yellow Brick Road. This will both re-humanize advertising and make it, again, a cultural act.  Then people may incline towards more products and once again love advertising as they did in the era of Bill Bernback and David Ogilvy.

Supplanting the funnel with a “Yellow Brick Road” metaphor would be more flashy, and who can argue with making advertising more appealing.

Lets see.  So far we flipped it, killed it, spiraled it, and reconstructed it but in the end it its just a funnel.  A marketing metaphor.  A simple way to represent a person’s shopping journey from awareness to purchase.  Nothing more.  Unless we get personal.

 The Personal Purchase Funnel
The reality personal purchase funnels are like chaos theory — they are unpredictable.  The likelihood of two people having identical purchase funnels is remote.  Factor like lifestage, lifestyle,  media consumption, social influence, past purchases, shopping psychographics, and customer service all play into someone’s purchase process.  If we were to sketch out a mass purchase funnel it would look like one of those dizzy internet diagrams.  It would be spectacularly confusing.  It would be information overload.  It be difficult, if not impossible, to draw insights from a viewing everyone’s purchase funnel at the same time.

So it would be safe to say we need to simplify, generalize, homogenize the purchase funnel.  This is why the purchase funnel lives at a “3,000 foot” view.   Depending on the purchase funnel author you have different steps identifying shoppers from awareness to purchase.  For example, in automotive many people use the Allison-Fisher funnel which defines the purchase funnel with the following seven steps: awareness, familiarity, opinion, consideration. make-model intention, shopping, and  purchase. 

The Dangerous Metaphor
The funnel demonstrates a logical progression on how a shopper may purchase an item.  However, the progression is not a path to purchase, it is more like an attitudinal staging area.  As marketers we can survey people on the strengths and weaknesses of our brand within the funnel.  We may find our brand has high awareness, familiarity, and opinion, but we have a significant drop off at consideration and beyond.  This diagnostic tool assists us in how to market our brand / product.

At the same time, the funnel is not a purchase process.  It is not the answer.  It is just one data point.  This is why applying the funnel to solve marketing conditions can be dangerous.  Since it is a homogeneous tool, marketers make try to solve it with a “mass response” like a television campaign.  The goal should be not to react at superficial data, but to dig deeper.  To go beyond “what” is occuring and identify the “why” the drop off is occurring.  We need to go from homogeneous to heterogeneity. 

Shoppers and Scenarios
To get to the answer we need to understand differences in shopper psychographics and shopping scenarios.  How people shop can be vastly different.  Shoppers have different sensitivities (e.g. price, brand, time, quality, value) that will define their shopping process.   You will find shoppers who buy only on brand and ignore price.  They will most likely havea quicker purchase cycle and lower consideration set.  Conversely, someone who shops predominately on price may be brand insensitive, have a larger consideration set, and longer purchase process, because they are seeking the best deal.

These are just two examples of many.  Studies like MediaMark can dimensionalize different segments.  In MediaMark’s Psyhographic Segmentationanalysis they identify 22 different psychographic segments including a Buying Styles Segmentation.  The five Buying Style segments and definitions are as follows:

Penny Pinchers—Nuances of quality and desirability are not paramount to these consumers, who judge all purchases by a single criterion: cost (the lower the better). Brand loyalty is less important than a “cents-off” coupon, and they express little interest in technology, nutrition or the environment, unless it will save them money. 

Conscientious Consumers—These consumers know what they’re paying for and shop for bargains, but cost is only one of the factors they consider when shopping. Buying American products and environmentally safe products also matter. They are conscious of quality, loyal to their brands and highly unlikely to try new products or make impulse purchases. 

Buyers of the Best—Low price is not the objective to consumers in this segment; it’s quality that matters most. They are careful to buy the best, and brand loyalty trumps all other considerations in their purchases. They favor environmentally safe products, are extremely comfortable with new technology, and always check the ingredients and nutritional content of food products they buy. 

Habitualized Havers—These consumers find comfort in tradition, even when it’s just their own – they buy what they have always bought, and see little reason to change. They are brand loyal, but only in the sense that once they’ve found a brand they are comfortable with, they stop looking. 

Swayable Shopaholics—They shop for no other reason than that they want to; price, quality, brand, ”Made in America”—nothing matters so much to them as the emotional payoff from a simple act of buying. Impulse buyers, these consumers are willing to pay extra for image-enhancing products, and easily switch brands for the sake of novelty or variety.

The Buyer Styles give you an idea of how people would approach buying products differently.  In addition to how we buy there is another major factor — brand loyalty.  We are a creature of habit.  Over the years we develop brand loyalty, based on product experiences.   Our loyalties may shift or evolve, but as we age we tend to set more and more into a brand loyalty routine.  Some of this routine can be attributed to a consumer survival.  Imagine how complicated your life would be if you rethought every purchase.  Buying groceries would take five times as long as we rethought every product from milk to pasta to bacon to toilet paper. 

The shopping scenario will weigh heavily on a purchase process.  Shopping scenarios may compliment our natural buying habits or conflict with them — forcing us to act differently than we prefer.   Imagine a time investor buying a new vehicle.  In past purchases the time-investor shopper spent upwards to four months actively researching vehicles — researching online, visiting dealerships, reading auto buying magazines, and relying on advice from their social circle.  There are very diligent.  Very thorough.  There goal is to make the most informed decision and get the best value for their money.

Suppose our time investor got into an accident and had to find a car quickly.  Their purchae time frame would be weeks not months.  Imagine how the time investor would feel.  Their anxiety would rise as they try to shift their behavior from thorough to expedient.  They would feel uncomfortable as they quickly try to process information to make an informed decision.  They may feel awkward because they would need to rely on dealership salespeople for information, which historically has not been a trusted source.

The purchase funnel is a diagnostic tool we can use to determine the health of our brand.  It works.  However, people will continue to contort the funnel for dramatic effect and attention.  That’s okay, the metaphor will survive.  It will be barometer to guide us to something deeper.  Something actionable.  Something personal.

Television is a safe bet.  It has been around for one-half century.  It is proven, modeled (with reach and frequency curves), and provides immediate high exposure.  Oh yeah, and no one gets fire for recommending television.

Some clients and agency people have the luxury of wrapping a multi-million dollar, television-campaign, security blanket around their careers.  It works — no one gets fired for recommending a television campaign.  Sure, the product may not sell, but that must be the fault of the product designer or the price point; maybe even logistics.  It sure as heck was not the ad guy — he recommended television.

About four years ago I worked on the Pontiac G5 launch.  The Pontiac Client had a flair for the dramatic (he was behind the Oprah G6 launch, where all audience members received a new car).  For the G5 launch he declared it would be the “first all digital launch”.  A bold move considering most automotive marketers just dabbled in digital.  Sure they may put a million or two in digital, but the bulk of the money went into television. But, the G5 launch would be different.  It would be all digital.  It would live or die on the Internet.

Did it work?  Doesn’t matter.  The point of the story is it takes a bold move to not use television, especially if you have tens of millions of dollars in your media coffers.  I am sure many people in the business have a G5 launch story.  And  there are plenty of other clients who thought about an “all digital launch”, but the  clients and/or agency people got cold feet and added television to the campaign.

Television is an easy sell.  
 The reality is with television the media gods plug numbers into their reach and frequency models and can guesstimate how much impact the campaign will create.  And just maybe the agency has a data wizard that can interpolate how the reach and frequency will relate to different funnel measures: awareness, familiarity, favorable opinion, consideration, intent, and purchase.  Seems scientific.  Seems plausible.  Seems like it will work (insert visual two agency people doing a high-five slap).  Seems like we are missing something — oh yeah, the idea.

For those who don’t know, I began my career (eons ago) in media research, and I will tell you media models do work — sometimes.  The obvious problem is the model treats ads like they’re widgets — like there interchangeable.  The model is about efficiency, not effectiveness.   The reach and frequency model is illogical — it is illogical because the creative will have no discernible difference in the campaign results.  The model may misjudge the impact of the campaign.  If the creative is lame, you will have no impact regardless of what the model spits out, and conversely  if the creative is superior you may be wasting money, becuase you already persuasively made your point in the first couple of exposures.

You can’t model the subjective
This is an interesting debate, because the models may hold us back.  Subjectivity in creative, in ideas, and in different channels is difficult to measure.  As we increase efforts in lesser known areas like digital, social, and mobile, the comfort level of many decision makers decrease.  Many people think these channels make for nice tactics, but they wouldn’t bet their entire product launch on them.  The prefer the television security blanket.

This debate needs to go to a higher plateau, because it isn’t about the tactics or picking a channel.  Unfortunately many people in advertising begin with tactical elements like a Super Bowl commercial, facebook page, or mobile QR Codes.  An all TV or all digital launch makes very little sense, because like the media model, picking on channel is not an idea, nor does it account for a bigger idea.

The true gurus see advertising through ideas.   Ideas that are impactful.  Ideas that can effect people with one exposure. However, ideas are risky.  Risk mitigation will tell you to test an idea before you invest — before you launch.  So we test.  The problem is we often test our ideas through television or some video format.  This testing method may be fine for television or other intrusive media , but it does not work well  for interactive campaigns.  Sure, a marketer could just create the site and test it, but creating a $500,000 to $1 million web site could be a waste of money, or worse result in consumer backlash.

I guess this is where the boldness needs to happen.  The willingness to take risks when we can’t model our future.  We shouldn’t be careless in taking risks — we should be educated.  Ideas should be generated from consumer insights, brand insights, and channel insights.  Insights rooted in data — not just opinion.  These ideas will transcend any one channel.  They will live in the cross section of a brand truth and a consumer insight, and will be executed through channels that maximize the impact of the idea.  If the premise of launching a product without a media model, don’t fret — you can always wrap yourself in a television security blanket.

Yes, as the old axiom says actions speak louder than words.  This idea was reinforced about a year ago by the Ford Motor Company, when they did not take federal funds in the bail out.  The action changed many consumers’ view of Ford.  It was powerful and memorable.  Ironically, about five years earlier Ford ran a corporate campaign called “Bold Moves”.  It was not a bad campaign, however, it was marketer rhetoric stating what they were going to do.  In the end it wasn’t a series of ads that began to change people’s perception, rather, it was a single bold action.

Actions can establish a brand.   Earlier this year, Hyundai made a promise to take a vehicle back if a new owner lost their job.  The Hyundai Assurance Plan established a brand promise that the auto manufacturer was acting in the best interests of their owners.  An action that was not matched by the competition for months.  The action made Hyundai a topic of conversation.  The once unknown Korean auto company started appearing on many shoppers’ consideration set, and also in many peoples’ garages.

Actions can be more powerful than advertising, because actions are relatable — believable.  You may have heard the story of the following story about a Honda owner.  The story is about these two neighbors a man and a woman.  The man asked the woman how she liked her new Honda Accord.  She responded by telling him the engine blew last week.  He responded, “I guess that is the last time you will buy a Honda.”  She responded, “Actually, now I am a Honda owner for life.”  To the man’s amazement the woman told a story of how the dealer and Honda took care of her — they quickly replaced the engine, Honda picked up the cost, and she received a free rental.   I don’t know if the story is true or a marketing urban myth.  I do know the story is memorable, easily repeatable and will probably do more for the Honda brand than probably 100 commercials. 

By the way, coming up with a defining marketing action is not easy.  Actually, coming up with action is probably easier than implementing the action.  Generating an action that is a “win-win” for marketer and customer may require business investment, changes in production logistics, or a shift in the corporate mindset.  It is much easier to come up with  an ad to tell everyone what you are going to do, than actually do it. 

Regardless of difficulty, I believe marketing through actions is worth the effort — worth the risk. So the next time your brainstorming about how to differentiate your brand or launch a new product, try starting with actions instead of ads.  And let me know how it goes.

A recent Sears commercial with Brett Favre highlights the deliberation many people have when buying a high priced product.  People agonize over product details.  They want to make the right decision.  They do not want to regret the purchase.  Sears concludes the commercial with a promise of no regrets.  A simple concept.  Yet a promise difficult to achieve.

Sears’ no regrets promise centers on one dimension of the purchase: price.  Given their ability to do real-time price checks, Sears can probably deliver on best price at the point of time of purchase.  And that may be enough for deal seekers.  However, the reality is that regret is more than one dimension, and the “no regrets purchase” can be a huge opportunity if a marketer can solve it.

Regret has many dimensions all centering around a consumer’s personal value equation.  Price is a part of the calue equation, evaluated in context of value received.  And the valuation of a product (even the same product) can be different by person.  For example:

• Value can be how a product feature saves a person time.
• Value can be found in how a brand experience makes one feel.
• Value can be in an social association with a person and a brand. 
• Value can be how a product feature accentuates an experience.
• Value can be … you get the idea. 

Regret is difficult for many shoppers to assess at time of purchase, because many shoppers lack the foresight on how trade-offs made at purchase will impact their satisfaction with the product down the road.  This is common in vehicle purchases.  Most people buy a vehicle based on a monthly payment.  Shoppers will blindly negotiate to their payment goal, and often lose site to what they are giving up feature-wise.  This leads to buyer regret.  Most of us know someone who purchased a vehicle and wished they spent a little more and got the heated seats, higher end stereo, remote engine start, or sunroof. 

So what can a marketer do about regrets prior to purchase?  The answer is within their reach if they turn to their customers.  Ironically, the people who regret their purchase can be the best consultant for future customers.  Some customers already pay-it-forward by completing reviews of the product they purchased.   Although a review can be beneficial to shoppers, the no regrets purchase is much more robust than a review, because it takes into consideratio trade-offs people make at purchase that impact their product experience.  Also, the no regrets purchase would match people based on lifestyle, needs, and takes a perspective of the product experience over time.

Matching people by lifestyle and need takes into account how people use the product.   HDTVs are a good example.  Think of three different buyer segments for HDTVs:  older couple without kids who watch primarily broadcast television with some movies; a couple with two kids ages four and six who watch broadcast television and a lot of movies; and a single guy who is a heavy sports fan into technology and gadgets.   Although they could be looking at the same HDTV, their needs vary.  Do they need plasma versus LCD?  What contrast ratio meets their needs?  Do they need internet connectivity? 

The goal of a no regrets purchase would be to match a buyer with customer with a similar lifestyle profile, interest, and needs.   The customer could inform the shopper on functionality and features they found most beneficial.  They could talk about features they wished they spent a little more to get.  And finally they could reveal features that did not live up to expectations and may not be worth the a higher price.  Expectations can vary from delivery, to product performance, to customer support.

The robustness of a no regrets purchase would work best on high-consideration products where there is a lot of variability in product features.  In this would be products whose product lifespan is measured in multiple years and many times decades.  Examples include HDTVs, computers, cars, homes building, remodeling to name a few. 

Ownership of the no regrets application would vary.  In some product categories a retailer would be the owner, while others the manufacturer would be more effective.  What drives ownership would be the point of sale or who has the customer contact.  In electronics customer contact and assistance gravitates to the retail outlet (e.g. Best Buy, Amazon) while automotive it is the dealership or manufacturer. 

A no regrets purchase would help many shoppers.  Unfortunately, even if a no regrets program were available, I don’t know if it would help Brett Favre decide on a television.  It would be hard to match Brett up with ex-quarterbacks, er, current quarterbacks, wait, retired quarterbacks — um, either way I like the commercial.

Honda is finding out first hand out on their Honda Accord Crosstour facebook page what facebook fans think.  Honda revealed their new crossover on facebook and the wall posts are resoundingly negative.  Referring to the new Crosstour as “Has to be the ugliest car of 2009. Ugliest car of the decade?” or “The Crosstour looks like Honda’s attempt at building an Aztek out of spare Dodge Caliber and Chrysler Sebring parts. This really is hideous.” or “Just like other’s I became a fan to make this comment alone. It’s ugly, plain and simple.”  You get the idea.

In addition to rubbernecking at the social crash on the facebook site, I was also checking out how the news and social bloggers are responding to the situation.  Some are defending Honda’s move recommending to stay the course it will turn around.  Others are stating it is a misstep, a social marketing faux pax, a debacle.  One blog post, on Mashable, drew a nice parrallel equating Honda’s feedback on facebook to the Twitter Effect experienced when a movie is released.  The “Facebook Effect” should not be taken lightly by marketers.

So what went wrong with facebook Crosstour page?  Several things.  The first is rose colored brand glasses.  Marketers love their products, and why shouldn’t they.  They spend years creating the new product — from concept to drawing board to production.  It is hard to maintain objectivity.  Sometimes they lose sight of how others may view their vehicle.  While Honda may see a nice, streamlined crossover, facebook followers are seeing the Pontiac Aztek (with the track record of the Aztek, this reference may be worse than calling the vehicle ugly).  

Another factor may just be the type of vehicle is not conducive to a positive response.  Face it.  There are very few nice looking crossovers.  Crossovers are a minivan evolution without the SUV gas-guzzling hangover.  Unlike most sports cars, the beauty is found in the utility of the vehicle — in less glamorous features like leg room, MPG or seating versatility.    Therefore it is not a surprise Honda received such a negative response from the facebook masses, who were looking for a more appealing curb appeal.  If the responses were confined to minivan and Pontiac Aztek owners, Honda may be hearing a different tune.

Lastly, I don’t think this type of public response is new.  It just hasn’t been recorded.  Imagine if we could have placed a microphone on television sets over the years and listened to consumer response to new product commercials.  Depending on the product, the response may be very similar to the facebook Crosstour feedback.   Marketers just never heard the response, becuase television lacked the listening platform.  facebook and other social sites allow for reactions — many honest and brutal.

One last nore is an interesting phenomonon that did not occur:  the lack of brand advocacy defending Honda. Most times, the negative conversation evens out as advocates come to the brand’s defense.  In this case it seemed like everyone was piling on — from Joe Facebook to Honda Haters to Honda Advocates.