The lesson of Fax.com's downfall goes unnoticed to political hacks

In the world of marketing, there is an almost obsessive focus on "traditional" advertising - television, magazines, newspapers, radio and outdoor. But highly targeted media, specifically online media, is getting more and more press.

That's why it's interesting to see a usually unconsidered media, like junk faxes, break through in a news story that, I think, has implications for other medias down the road.

Fax.com (who's website no longer works, by the way), was fined over $5 million for auto-dialing phone numbers throughout California in an attempt to identify which numbers were answered by fax machines. By accepting the fine, Fax.com agreed to stop its auto-calling operations and is now facing a larger civil penalty when the State of California takes action against them.

Of course, all of that gets in line behind Jankfax.org's $2.2 trillion dollar lawsuit which is still pending.

In fact, Junkfax.org has provided quite a bit of information about junk faxing - a technique that annoys businesses and consumers alike. And now, those of us on the receiving end have started to fight back. Junkfax's case status report provides a run-down of a few cases along with horror stories, news stories and even instructions on how to sue faxers.

So is sending unsolicited faxes worth the risk? Apparently. As a marketing strategy, these companies seem to have a relatively high rate of success when compared to other "annoyance marketing" tactics like e-mail spam, boiler room calls, etc.

And even though the federal government is working on revised/more stringent legislation, it appears tougher reform is still a year or so away.

It's interesting to note that the fax marketing companies we looked into, like FaxAd Express don't even mention possible privacy concerns, lawsuits or legislative issues related to their profession. Instead the focus on the "bells and whistles" of their technology and hide behind third party service providers, a Las Vegas business location and a dodgy legal disclaimer.

All this smells bad to us to. And the implications for other, more conventional, forms of media are what concern us. After all, if this were to go to the extreme and every commercial communications relationship required some kind of “opt-in” before it could take place, how would you ever break the ice? (Then again, maybe that’s the next great business opportunity.)

The way it’s worked out, telemarketers, e-mail spammers and companies like Fax.com are like the kids in the back of the school bus who won't sit down and so the rest of us have to suffer the consequences. Their persistent disregard of personal space and invasive haranguing is enough to raise the ire of the one group who can really do something about all of this - voters.

Yeah, not politicians. Voters.

You see, when the voters get annoyed, they take it out on the politicians and it doesn't matter how much special interest money is involved. If passing a law that only hurts a faceless company is all it takes to get the voters off your back, there isn't a politician on Earth who will be kept off the bill.

The problem, of course, is that special interests are starting to see how this all works and have co-opted voter angst and rage in an attempt to get their special legislation across. And what are they using to do it?

Unsolicited e-mail, telemarketing calls disguised as political opinion surveys and, I would assume, broadcast fax messages sent to whoever they think can make a difference.

Ironic, isn't it? Thanks to ill-informed political marketing and media consultants (most of whom don't have a commercial credential that's worth a damn), politicians have become the next "niche annoyance" marketer. They could learn a thing or two if they thought about how their actions speak louder than their sound bites.

Later.

DMNews.com | News | Article

Maybe it's time we look at demographic markets in more than two dimensions?

I ran across this post as I was working on my Much Ado About Marketing blog (a daily summary of interesting blog bits concerning marketing, branding, corporate leadership and other things of interest -- at least to me).

This post, by Edelman's CEO, Richard Edelman, discusses how different "experts" on the teen market view the potential, attitudes and future of today's youth.

Surprise, surprise, surprise. Each expert has a different opinion. And, as a father of four, I can tell you that they're all right.

Maybe the problem is not who's right or wrong but rather the idea of lumping an entire generation into a category and making sweeping generalizations about them is not all that accurate a method in the first place.

Well, maybe that isn't entirely fair.

I could certainly make the case that generational labels and profiles have been useful marketing conventions for the past few generations. But I see that more as a result of our own history, cultural development and available technology than as some sort of scientifically-provable premise on which to rest an entire profession like marketing.

Here's why:

● Over the past two to three hundred years, America has been populated by ethnic groups that have arrived in "waves" to our shores. The motivating factors behind these mass immigrations have varied from generation to generation - but inside each generation, the motivation to come to America was fairly consistent. In the 17th century, Europeans fled religious persecution. In the 18th century, war in Europe drove people to our shores. The 19th and 20th centuries saw people come to this country in search of new opportunities or to avoid famine or political persecution.

● At the same time, political and social culture was continuing to evolve but, for the most part, generalizations about race, ethnicity and culture were the accepted norm. Ethnic stereotypes were a kind of social short-hand and mixing of cultures through inter-marriage was considered improbable (at best) and problematic (at worst). It was easy to say a certain ethnic group would identify with a certain product because those ties were strong - in many cases stronger than that group's American identity, but that would change over time.

● While ethnic ties to the "old country" started to weaken in succeeding generations and an American identity was forming based on our own short history, information and communications technology continued to develop. Over the last thirty years we've seen technology break through the conventional bonds of community (ethnic, age, geography) and draw divergent groups together in new and exciting ways.

What's the result of all this?
The result is a much richer and diverse social landscape with people of various ages sharing similar views and insights rendering the old method of slapping a label on a certain age demographic more and more useless.

This "two-dimensional" demographic map of our country is becoming less and less accurate. And while marketers can sense that something isn't quite right, no one seems to be finding a solution to this problem.

At some point, someone will.

I suppose a new market model will evolve that will still consider age as a factor - but from more of a scientific standpoint with regard to cognitive ability and from a social standpoint with regard to legal rights, responsibilities, etc. Attitudes and cultural influences should probably be evaluated and measured without respect to age (first) and then shaded appropriately based on the role age plays in physical maturity and social responsibilities.

What we will probably find is entirely new demographic clusters that span a number of years that are built around common interests and needs. Each cluster will probably be arranged in a hierarchy that has some dependency on age but not solely reliant on it.

Who can build such a model? Not me. I'm just one guy. But when it comes to one guy with the resources, maybe Richard Edelman has an idea? He certainly has the rolodex file that can do the trick.

Later.

This information is (c) 2004, Brand Central Station, all rights reserved. If you are interested in receiving news and analysis directly from BCS, please log onto our website.

CNN.com - Oklahoma recalls tourist brochures featuring cow manure tossing - Oct 6, 2004

In the world of tourism promotion, there is not a single, more important document prepared each year than your "Visitor's Guide." So now comes a report from Oklahoma that the official state tourism guide features pictures of a cow pie throwing contest and a Confederate battle reenactment.

"We discovered the material in the event guide was culturally insensitive and contained errors," said state tourism director Rob Gray. "Images are powerful. They have to be selected with caution."

Boy, no kidding. Talk about the shit hitting the proverbial fan.

The point here is not to poke fun at Oklahoma (as tempting as it might be for someone who went to college in Texas), but rather to talk about the selection of images and the impact those images can have on your brand. It may be obvious to some, but it deserves re-statement: "What you say and the way you say it - in pictures and in words - tells people how they should perceive your brand."

After all, who knows more about your brand than you?

When a business or, in this case a state agency, is careless with the images and messages it presents to the public, it's sending another message: "We don't care about ourselves enough to care what you might think about us." And that can be a perceived attitude that spells trouble for your brand.

We see it happen all the time in the business world. A company that's a bit careless with how it presents its logo or uses its corporate colors are guilty of this carelessness. Think about it for a minute ... how much credence do you put into product claims made by a company that can't seem to keep its own "identity" in order?

If your company is guilty of this brand neglect, what should be done about it? Take a page from the Oklahoma state department of tourism - you eat a little humble pie and start pulling the literature and other material that is inconsistent (at best) or inappropriate (at worst) back in-house. Do a little damage control and then move on.

Next, it's vital to nail down a communications platform from which to work. Identify the key messages that support your brand's position and move your company further along on your mission. Along with those key messages, you have to set some kind of guidelines for the graphic elements that support your communication: colors, pictures, icons, etc. Believe it or not, there is a way to craft a communications strategy that covers these graphic elements. Spend a little time online (or reading future Brand Central Station blogs) and you're bound to find advice and instruction on how this can be done.

Finally, make sure you have some method in place to constantly review and re-evaluate the communications materials you produce on a regular basis. Remember, brands are elastic and the messages used to communicate their value need to be constantly updated and kept relevant.

And what is the result of all this work?

If it’s done right, you’ll find customers, employees and all of the other people who matter most to your brand to be more engaged and understanding of what your brand represents. You’ll be forming relationships between your brand that can mean a lot to you and your business in the future.

So it's no longer just watching what you say, it's carefully determining the best way to say it that makes a difference. By paying attention to these details, your reputation can improve, profit margins increase and brand value continue to improve.

Let’s hope the guys in Oklahoma figure this out.

Later.

CNN.com - Oklahoma recalls tourist brochures featuring cow manure tossing - Oct 6, 2004

Las Vega$: Who loves your brand promise, baby?

So, here I am in Las Vega$ … city of lights, fast action, endless buffets, easy money and hard-luck stories. And so what does my mind turn to when I have my first chance to take a break out by the pool?

Branding.

Yeah, it’s a sickness. But I can’t help it. I used to work with casinos and the gaming industry quite a bit in the 1990’s, during the explosion of gaming across the country. It was a great chance to get in on the ground floor level of a new industry.

And while deciding not to become an “expert” in marketing gaming establishments was a choice I made, I do owe a great deal of what I am today to the time I spent in the market then. You see, if you learn one thing in the marketing of casinos and games of chance, you learn how important it is to keep the promises you make to the customer.

Maybe the casino promotion business is a little different than most – but I can’t think of another industry where the business turns so much on brand perception.

Think about it. With the exception of a few percentage points, the odds for every game in every casino are equal to the odds for similar games in competing casinos. There is, in essence, extreme parity in the casino marketplace.

So the challenge for a marketer is how to differentiate your “product” from the similar games and products offered by other casinos. To make matters even more confusing, when it comes to slot machines (by far the most lucrative part of a casino operation), almost every casino has the exact same games as their competitors. Add to that the fact that there are literally thousands of slot machine “brand names” and claims of unique games or slot “titles” becomes almost irrelevant. Prospective customers can’t hear the claims of one casino over another because of the excessive ring-a-ding-ding of slot payouts.

That’s why in the 1990’s casinos started to lead the way in customer segmentation and maximization strategies. Player’s clubs started to evolve from the Telly Savalis days (“who loves ya’ baby) into a kind of hyperactive preferred customer program. Comps (complimentary goods and services) were bid by casinos in an effort to attract the best players. Players learned how to play this game as well as blackjack, poker or slots and quickly learned how rating systems worked and how to maximize the comps for the least amount of play.

As a result, more than one casino saw their drop increase (the amount of money bet) but their margins erode. They were, in effect, buying market share and not managing their margins.

About the mid-90’s, Gary Inks of High Performance Profits and I started working with smaller casinos to teach a relatively new concept. The idea was to integrate the external promise making function (advertising, promotions and PR) with internal customer service training to create a more “customer-centered” experience. The results were pretty remarkable.

Working with casino brands that didn’t have a reputation for high-rollers or lavish environments, we developed ad campaigns that went beyond the traditional “stand-up” shot of a slot winner holding a big check to show our winners were actually people who were able to do something with the money they won at the casino. On top of that, Gary worked inside the organizations to make them more responsive and engaging with customers.

We were actually able to show that trained and engaged dealers (slot or table game employees) managed to stimulate higher average bets, more profit per hour at their station and – best of all – elicit bigger and better tips from customers as a result of the experience. We made it okay for dealers to root for players rather than act staid and bored by following the house rules. We made singing and dancing in the casino an expectation.

Everything was a show and the customers showed their appreciation by leaving larger tips and staying longer.

It worked so well that most of the casinos we worked for were bought by casino-operator roll-ups who wanted to “capture the magic” for their larger organizations. But, of course, in order to afford the acquisition, they had to cut out the consulting contracts for those services they deemed “non-essential” to the operations of the casino.

Gary still works in the industry and is continuing to do great things for casinos and resorts in outer market destinations and start-ups. I’ve moved on to apply what I learned about making and keeping promises to customers in industries outside the gaming business.

I think that, in a way, we’ve both won.

Later.

This information is (c) 2004, Brand Central Station, all rights reserved. If you are interested in receiving news and analysis directly from BCS, please log onto our website.

Pitching blogs: Do's and Don'ts

Kristen Osolind, who writes the re:invention blog provided some great insights into a growing new media trend: Bloggers pitching bloggers.

I think I've been pretty clear that I feel there's something a bit incestuous about this whole blogging thing. It seems bloggers' favorite subject is blogging. It's just too damn circular - I keep getting dizzy.

It's kind of like the literary version of pop-up windows. Ugh.

But Kristen's points in her October 1 blog entry are well taken - especially when you read the blog entry that inspired it which eventually leads to an apologetic posting from the originators of this entire chain of events - the guys from Marketing Playbook.

Dizzy yet?

OK, the point of this entire entry is not to point out the silliness that is blogging about blogs and bloggers, but more importantly to demonstrate how important it is for a person to understand the needs, wants, desires and (most importantly) expectations of people when you approach them with a new idea. This is certainly true of members of the "traditional" media and it is also true, as all of these bloggers point out, with members of the blog community.

Guess what, though. It's also true with customers and employees. In fact, I'd hazard a guess that any successful, interpersonal relationship relies on mutual understanding.

I don't mean to make it sound like common sense, even though it is. You would be amazed how many people don't practice common courtesy as soon as contact is relegated to less personal/less direct methods like telephone, fax or e-mail. I listen to employees pitch stories to the media and new concepts to clients and can tell which relationships matter.

The interesting thing is we're all in a position to do things differently and form relationships that matter - whether they are with customers or faceless bloggers in another time zone. The basic listening and understanding skills that worked in elementary school still apply and, for the sake of repetition, are re-stated below:

1.) Deal with people on a personal level - find a way to make a connection. If you've never met them, read about them or read what they've written to gain some insights that will help you associate with them.

2.) Respect their space - don't litter it with useless gifts, don't send unwanted attachments don't "make yourself at home" unless you've been invited to do so.

3.) Identify and reinforce the culture in which they operate - if they're formal, be formal. Talking to someone who is in a hurry and doesn't have time for small talk, don't go into what you did this weekend. Pitching a snarky blogger? Better be ready to trade jabs.

4.) Make sure communications channels are open in both directions - don't send your message/make your pitch without providing adequate methods for responding to you. You can't make a sale if you're not listening.

5.) Look for opportunities to work together - collaboration is a relationship building activity. You don't start off as friends. But by accomplishing something together, you might become friendly.

6.) Understand what constitutes an acceptable reward - some call it a "thank you" gift. For me, I just appreciate a "thanks" or an update on how things have gone after concluding an assignment. For others (like Kristen), shoes seem to do the trick.

If these basic rules may seem universal, they are. Use them when you pitch blogs, producers, your boss, a new client or whoever matters the most to you right now. And realize that if you do it right, you'll be building your own brand equity in the process.

re:invention blog - for women entrepreneurs

This information is (c) 2004, Brand Central Station, all rights reserved. If you are interested in receiving news and analysis directly from BCS, please log onto our website.

Besides editors and politicians, who cares about newspaper endorsements?

There is probably no more telling evidence of brand depreciation than if your business takes a position and no one cares. And that's precisely the subject of Tim Porter's recent article in the American Journalism Review.

Porter provides an in-depth analysis of whether or not newspaper endorsements of political candidates really matters any more. The conclusion? Besides a select few (primarily political junkies, habitual newspaper readers and the candidates themselves), the answer is that people don't know and they don't care.

In the last study conducted to determine the importance of newspaper endorsements (the 1996 election), nearly 1/3 of the readers of newspapers endorsing Bob Dole thought their paper had actually endorsed Bill Clinton. Over 10% of the readers whose newspapers had endorsed President Clinton thought their paper supported Dole's run for the White House.

While this may be a timely topic for discussion today - after all, the next US presidential election is just a few weeks away - it can also form the foundation of a timeless discussion concerning the consistent erosion of brand equity faced by newspapers (specifically) and the news media (in general). After all, while newspapers continue the tradition of endorsing one political candidate or another, you don't see other media stepping out to voice an opinion.

Although, really, would any of us be surprised by the candidates chosen by most of the major news outlets. Let me see, just who do you think FOX News would endorse for President? What about Dan Rather and CBS? Ok, so there may not be much suspense to these choices.

But, more importantly, we don't expect television, radio or magazines to annoint a candidate for one reason or another. Why is that?

Get those college history books out, boys and girls. If you know anything about the tradition of the free press in America, you'll find newspapers played an important role in building candidate credibility (and tearing down the opposition) since the time of Washington. The editorial endorsement is a mere shadow of that original genesis.

As late as the 1940's, newspapers were railing against opposing politicos in front-page screeds, shabby investigative journalism and the like. Newspapers represented select communities and supported ideas, beliefs and attitudes that were fostered inside those communities.

But as newspapers merged and journalism strove to extricate itself from political influence (thanks in no small part to Richard Nixon and Watergate), you started to see newspapers become broader and less opinionated. Yes, that's right, LESS opinionated.

Was this a good or bad thing? It was, by all accounts, an economic thing. Using economies of scale and monopolizing ad markets by being the only game in town, newspapers focused on generating profit and not necessarily creating an editorial "mission" or clear point-of-view. In the short term, that was great for IPO's, bonus checks and employee profit sharing - but it took the teeth out of the brand.

And, worst of all, it opened the door to other medias to adopt the standard of "thought leader."

Newspapers are paying for these mistakes now. But look no further than the editorial page and the power (or relative weakness) of editorial endorsements to see that brand value for more newspapers is barely negligible. Can they come back? That remains to be seen.

But the big challenges faced by newspapers when it comes to media diversity, the Internet and a 24-hour/7-day a week news cycle are small when compared to the decades of self-inflicted damage when it comes to brand credibility and value.

Do editorial endorsements count for anything anymore? To a precious few they do. But for the vast majority of Americans, they've already turned the page on newspapers for good.

Later.

American Journalism Review