Perception Analyzer Dial.Log

Environmentally Unfriendly Marketing

My associate, Wes Breazeale, took issue with a FedEx direct mail piece he (and apparently many others) received today.  Here's his rant:

I work in sales, so naturally I have nothing against aggressive marketing.  We need it to get the job done and I appreciate a well done piece as much as the next guy.  But there are certain points where other factors seem to be more pressing than the marketing aspect and a recent mailing I received from Federal Express is a sample of marketing done poorly, at least in my opinion.

Announcing FedEx's new ground shipping options, the piece encourages people to "share the great news" that you can now use drop boxes to drop off your packages.  I'm not sure I'm ready to call all my friends or buy the next round in honor of this exciting news, but I will tell them (and you) about why the piece really makes me angry.

The piece was akin to the omnipresent AOL cd's sent out by the millions in that my main issue is what it is made of.  Measuring 10" x 6", it's really no bigger than a large postcard, but it is made out of rather thick plastic or vinyl.  For something they must know is going to be tossed in the trash by a large number of recipients, this is a rather serious example of a corporation being completely and utterly socially unconscious.  This thing cannot be recycled, even by the most die hard recycler.  Thousands (if not millions) of these cards will fester in our dumps for centuries.  But fortunately, when future archaeologists finally unearth them, they will be able to share the news that there is a quick and easy way to ship their discoveries back to the office.

It's frustrating that every time we take one step forward, something like this pops up that takes us one step back.

These Views Do Not Necessarily Reflect...

According to this article in USA Today, Starbucks is planning to run a religious quote on its cups in 2006 as part of a campaign designed "to carry on the coffeehouse tradition of conversation and debate."  What I was prepared to write about is how absurd it seemed to me that on the cups is the disclaimer that the opinions "do not necessarily reflect the views of Starbucks."  I thought, how can a company serve-up a message on its product, then claim the views do not necessarily reflect those of the company.  If that's the case, don't print the message.

Then I thought about where else I've seen a similar disclaimer.  Television networks, magazines and newspapers routinely make such disclaimers regarding content and I have no problem with that.  If NBC broadcasts a news story about someone who advocates racist behavior, I don't then believe those at NBC are racist.  So why does the Starbucks thing strike me so differently?  And it's not that I necessarily object (or don't object) to the particular message.  It's the notion that a message that may not reflect the opinions of the company is being used at all.  Is content on a Starbucks cup any different than content on a TV network or in the pages of a magazine or newspaper?

Medius Overwhemlus

I think it was the addition of 3000 podcasts to iTunes that finally put me over the edge.  With limited non-working, non-sleeping, non-parenting and non-husbanding hours in the day, there is now way too much media available.  In addition to 3000 podcasts (plus all the others not available through iTunes) there are millions of blogs, countless other websites, hundreds of cable and satellite TV channels, hundreds more satellite radio stations and good old terrestrial radio, print magazines and newspapers.  It has not only become stressful to decide what media to consume, but it has also become stressful to think about how much I'm missing.

So, the question is, when will the bubble burst?  When will people become so overwhelmed by what's available that they start resisting it?  I'm starting to feel that urge for the first time and I'm not sure what to do with it.

Place My Product, Please

CBS Chairman Les Moonves recently discussed how he sees a significant increase in television product placements on the horizon.  He references selling rights to everything from the brand of car driven that to the brand of orange juice characters drink.  Interestingly, it wasn't long ago that product brand names were being obscured because shows didn't have the rights to use them.  We all remember seeing cereal boxes and soda cans with tape over the names or some other alteration to the packaging.  Now, those very same brands are paying to have their product names shown.

I actually think it makes perfect sense, as long as viewers are treated with respect.  Let's face it, television ads are becoming less and less effective and more and more people will be skipping ads through their DVR's in coming years.  If I were a television advertiser, I would much rather have my product used by a popular TV character than lost amidst a sea of 30-second spots.  The trick is, it has to be natural.

For instance, I recall an episode of Alias where the good-guys were chasing the bad-guys and the good-guys said something like, "There they go...in the F-150."  It was so blatant and silly that my wife and I both laughed out loud because that's not what someone in that situation would say.  They would say, "There they go, in that blue truck."  I also recall an episode of The West Wing that had three or four blatant product placements, only two of which I even remember now.  One was where one character told the other to "Google" someone to get more information on them and another character was called "Mr. Moto" (a la Motorola's recent ad campaign) for not being willing to part with his cell phone (or pager) for a few minutes (or something like that???).  While that may be how people really speak, it was just a little too in-your-face.

Viewers are smart and the subtleties of using real products in a show makes that show more realistic.  But, if those products are thrown in people's faces, they will resent it and the result will likely be the opposite of what advertisers want.  So, to promote a brand of mobile phone service, don't have a character say, "Call me on my Verizon Wireless phone."  Instead, have the phone simply ring with the ringtone we are used to hearing from that provider's ads and their phones on the street.  People will get it.  In other cases, naturally show the screen of a website someone is using, or the logo of the car they are driving, or the packaging of the beverage they are consuming. 

I believe there is huge potential for the effective use of product placements to be lucrative for both the advertisers and the television industry.  They just need to be subtle, natural and in context so as not to abuse the very viewers advertisers are trying to persuade. 

When Is It More Than Spam?

AP reports, "A man convicted in the nation's first felony case against illegal spamming was sentenced to nine years in prison Friday for bombarding Internet users with millions of junk e-mails."  They believe he was responsible for 10 million emails a day and through fraud and deception grossed up to $750,000 per month.

To me though, this is not a case of someone going to prison for sending "spam" or "junk emails."  This is someone going to prison for fraud and theft.  Not that I'm defending spammers, but to me spam is an email, that I didn't ask for, soliciting a product that will supposedly enlarge my undercarriage or whatever.  When an email tries to bilk me with a scam, that's fraud.  Does the fact that it came to me via email, and not by phone or in person, classify it as spam?  While spam is unsolicited bulk email and technically that's what this guy sent, what he did is really much more than can be neatly characterized as spam.

I'm Sorry Sir, That's Only For New Customers

For the last month or so, Verizon Wireless has been advertising the Treo 600 for $199 after instant and mail-in rebates (I've only seen the ad in print or else I'd link to it).  That's a great deal considering the regular price is $350 (excuse me, $349.99).  So, last week I visited my local VZW store and the catch is, the deal is for new customers only.  Since I have been a Verizon Wireless customer for just over a year, I am not eligible for the deal.  Once I hit two years, I will be eligible for a trade-up credit toward a new phone, but that's it.

So, my options are:

1. Pay full price for the Treo
2. Wait until my two-year anniversary with VZW to apply whatever credit I have "earned" toward a new device at whatever price they are charging at that time
3. Find a great "new customer" deal with another wireless provider and switch

Option #3 sounds pretty good to me right now except that I'm locked into my two-year contract with VZW.  So, they got me for two years (to which I happily committed) and, for being such a great customer, won't let me have the screamin' deal they're offering to new customers.

I realize the economics of the wireless industry is such that they offer low prices on hardware to lock you into service and it's all based on a maximum of one great deal on hardware per customer every two years.  Trading out customers' phones more often than that would throw things out of whack.  The problem is, now we can take our numbers with us and I'm pissed.  So, when my two years are up, am I going to get a new phone with Verizon Wireless or switch to another provider that has not yet pissed me off?  Not sure, but I'm thinking about it and that's not something I was doing last week.

Any business model that dangles great deals in front of existing customers, but only offers them to new customers, is deeply flawed, especially considering how much more it costs to earn a new customer than keep an existing one.  In this case, rework the model to allow anyone to take advantage of these deals, require I extend my contract with them for another two-years from this point (thus locking me in as a longer-term customer every time I trade-up) and make me happy!

A Tale of Two Offences

The Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005 is expected to pass in the House of Representatives.  According to Reuters, fines to both broadcast companies and individual broadcasters will be increased to $500,000 per "indecent" incident aired between 6:00am and 10:00pm.

Major League Baseball has announced new steroid rules.  According to CBS News, "A first positive test would result in a suspension of up to 10 days, a second positive test a 30-day ban, a third positive a 60-day penalty, and a fourth positive test a one-year ban."

Quick look at the numbers:

The average baseball player's salary in 2003 was $2,555,476 per year. Therefore, a 10-day suspension (not a 10-game suspension, mind you), without pay, would cost the player $70,013 [($2,555,476 / 365) x 10].

While average broadcaster salary data are harder to nail down (especially since there are many types of broadcasters), if a $500,000 fine had equal weight to a baseball player's 10-day suspension, the broadcaster would have to earn $18,250,000 per year [($500,000 / 10) x 365].

So, here are my questions:

1. Why doesn't MLB have the guts to simply implement a zero tolerance policy and ban, for life, any player caught using illegal and/or banned performance enhancing drugs?  Included in every contract would be the zero tolerance clause and a player would forfeit every penny of future contractual wages if caught.  Baseball may take a hit for a few years while fans' expectations are reset to not expect blistering home runs and unbelievable brute force, but fans will also learn to once again appreciate the game for what it used to be - a game of strategy, tactics and skill.
2. What clear framework will be placed around the concept of "indecent?"  While I have a young son and there are certainly things I don't want him seeing or hearing on television and radio, I also understand that broadcasters are often out to entertain and one person's indecency is another person's humor.  I am all for a framework around what can and can't be broadcast over public airwaves, but in fairness to the broadcasters, there must be clear rules on what is 'indecent" and what is not. Otherwise, fines will be indiscriminant.
3. How can these two entertainment entities be so opposite?  MLB has firm rules on what is and is not allowed, but considering what the average player earns (let alone the top earners), the penalties are weak compared to what many players likely feel they potentially have to gain if they are willing to take the risk.  By contrast, the broadcasting indecency rules are murky at best, but the fines are astronomical.  While comparing the two may not be entirely apples-to-apples, it's a pretty darn interesting to look at two high-profile groups completing botching (in my opinion) regulation and enforcement.

"Better Man" Manifesto

After writing a previous post about how men are more and more being portrayed as dopes in advertising, I started thinking about why that is and whether men are responsible for this shift in perception (or reality), or if it's just the flavor of the month for advertisers?  As a way of determining if others are also interested in a better understanding of this trend, I submitted a manifesto proposal to ChangeThis, entitled "Better Man," and it was accepted as a proposal.

If enough people are also interested in my proposal, I maybe then be asked to develop it into a manifesto.  As I state in my proposal, my goal would be to try and understand why men have acquired such an unflattering reputation? What have men given-up, stopped doing and changed about their behavior that has led to this shift in perception (or reality) and what can they do to shift it back?

To read and my full proposal, click here, and if you are interested in having me develop it into a manifesto, click the "Yes, write this manifesto" button on that page. You can also click the "Send This" button on that page to share the proposal with others who you feel may be interested. If you have no idea what ChangeThis is, rather than me trying to explain it, please read the FAQ.

Hopefully enough people will be equally as curious about this and I'll be given the opportunity to explore it in greater detail.

Resources:

Read my original blog post here.

Read The New York Times article that started this here (free sub. required).

Read my ChangeThis "Better Man" proposal here and vote for it if you're interested.

Forward my "Better Man" proposal to someone else here.

Darth Tater?!?

Hasbro's newest Mr. Potato Head toy - Darth Tater.  Would that make the mini version Darth Tater Tot?  I'm sorry, but this just seems wrong to me.

   

The Price is Wrong

I drive a 1999 Nissan Maxima and last week one of my two keyless entry remote thingies stopped working.  I tried changing the battery, but it still wouldn't work.  So, after looking at it for a prolonged period of time and willing it to open my car door, I came to the only logical conclusion - it's busted.  While I was mildly frustrated by this, I wasn't too upset.  After all, I've had it for over five years, used it to lock and unlock the car thousands of times and I have another one that works fine - it's just nice to have two since one is always misplaced.  So, I called my local Nissan dealer and told the somewhat-surly parts department guy that I needed a new keyless entry remote for my car and asked if they were in stock.  Turns out, they were and I could have one for a cool $135.  One hundred thirty-five dollars!

This is one of those cases where an organization makes less than it wants on some things it sells and gouges the customer on other things to make up the difference.  They may only profit $500 on the sale of a car, but they know they're going to make the money back on inflated prices for service and parts.  The problem is, I'm a loyal customer who now feels like I'm getting screwed.  So, the question is, what nets a company a better overall result - a happy customer and an unhappy customer that cancel each other out or two pretty satisfied customers, neither of whom got particularly screamin' deals, but neither of whom feel like they got screwed either?

I understand that if you don't profit enough on the sale of one thing, you have to make extra profit on something else to balance it out.  But, there is a price point for every product and service beyond which it just gets absurd.  Anyone who has used the van Westendorp (link is to a PDF overview) price sensitivity meter method of pricing research understands this.  The idea is to determine at what price a product or services seems inexpensive (less than you'd expect to pay and therefore a good buy), expensive (more than you'd expect to pay and enough to make you start question the purchase), too inexpensive (priced so low that you'd question its quality) and too expensive (priced so high that you'd question its value).  Within the resulting data rests the sweat spot price range.  Ignoring principles like that and simply pricing some products/services low (to make a sale) and other products/services high (to balance things out) is lazy business and doesn't serve anyone.

As for me - I'll use my other remote most of the time and for those occasions when I can't find it or I left in in my other coat pocket or my son has decided to play "hide dad's keys when he running late," I'll just do it old school by inserting key into keyhole and turning. Believe it or not, but that still works.  Now, what to buy with that $135 I just saved?

TiVo Wants to Stop Generic Use of Name

TiVo is aggressively trying to stop the use of its trademarked name as a generic term, especially as a verb, as in, "I TiVoed my favorite show last night" or, "I'm going to TiVo that tonight."  As quoted by a TiVo spokesperson in The New York Times...

"'We do aggressively protect our trademark,' (the spokesperson said), adding that with competing digital video recorders entering the market, TiVo wants to keep its name from going the way of Xerox or Kleenex."

I am the first one to advocate the proper use of a company's intellectual property, especially its name.  In fact, I recently underwent a year-long battle to re-secure the registered trademarked rights to my company's primary product after it was mistakenly allowed to lapse (don't ask!).  However, I believe most companies would kill to have its product's name used as a generic in its space.  Do Kleenex and Xerox not benefit from having their names used in place of their competitor's?  Am I not more apt to grab a box of Kleenex off the shelf because my wife tells me need Kleenex, when what we really need is facial tissue?  I would think that as the market for digital (or personal) video recorders becomes much more competitive, TiVo would welcome its name being used as a adjective (i.e. TiVo-like) or verb. It means people are saying TiVo and not something else.  Rather than fight it, I say embrace it and even promote it.

Anyone agree/disagree?

via [Lost Remote]

Out of Pocket

According to this article, teachers spend an annual average of $458 dollars out-of-pocket on school supplies for their students. We're talking basics like paper, printer cartridges and pencils. Some receive partial reimbursements and/or tax breaks, but those are getting harder to come by and many teachers say they will still do it because the kids need it. Contrast this to expense reports we are all surely used to submitting and approving that include every nickel and dime, from big ticket items to a box of paper clips purchased while on the road. I'm not saying that everyone shouldn't be reimbursed for every penny, because they could be, but the dedication shown by these teachers is amazing.

The article also plugs and web site that matches teachers in need of supplies with those in a position to donate. I'll do my part and plug it here as well. iLoveSchools.com

If This is How They Treat Their Best Customers...

I shop at a high-end retailer that has a loyalty program - for every $40 spent I get a card stamped and after 10 stamps I get a $40 credit toward my next purchase. Not a bad deal. I essentially get 10% back on every $400 spent. The problem is, they stick it to you with ridiculous rules.

First, you must spend $40 during each visit to the store in order to get credit for that purchase. If you only spend $30, for instance, then no credit and that $30 does not carry-over to next time. This rule is just unnecessary. I will spend the same amount of money over time or I won't earn the credit, but why force me to spend more than I want to on any specific visit? Either way, they still don't give me a $40 credit until I first spend $400, so why not let me earn it the way that works best for me?

Second, a completed card may only be redeemed on the next visit. I learned of this when my last purchase was $85. I needed one stamp to get my $40 credit. I asked if they could stamp me for the first $40 of my purchase and apply my $40 credit to the remaining $45. They said, "No, the card may only be redeemed on your next visit." So, then I asked if I could split it into two purchases. Ring me up for $40, stamp my card, then ring me up for the remaining $45 and apply the credit. This time the "no" came before I even finished my thought - clearly they had heard it before. And, to make it even more silly, since my purchase was $85 and my current card only needed one more stamp, they completed my first card and had to start a second one for the stamp for the second $40 I spent (though no credit for the remaining $5, of course). Now I have two cards. One that's full and taunting me until I go back to redeem it and one with a single stamp.

So, this is what they call a loyalty program, eh? I understand they want to get me back into the store and not redeeming my card until next time is a way to force that to happen. But, by the time I have a card full of ten $40 stamps, haven't I already established myself as a repeat customer? It's not like I'm going to spend $400 at their store just to get my $40 credit and never return. I'm not asking for anything more than they currently offer - $40 credit after $400 spent. Just don't stick it to me with ridiculous rules designed to force me to shop more at a store where I have already established myself as a good, repeat customer.

Bottom line - loyalty programs are for our most loyal and valuable customers. They spend the most, return to us most often and provide powerful word-of-mouth (positive and negative). Let's be sure to show them the appreciation, and treat them with the respect, they have earned.

Alienating Your Best Customers

Not only is it nearly impossible to book an airline seat using frequent-flier miles anymore, but now United is increasing its fee for making changes to award tickets from $75 to $100 and adding a $15 fee for any award ticket not booked through United.com. I remember, not long ago, when you could change award reservations indefinitely and didn't have to pay extra to talk with someone. Those who have frequent-flier points to use are those who have earned points by either flying United or spending money with partners that in other ways benefit United. It's these loyal customers that United and the others must cater to the most, not alienate with fees, inconvenience and frustration.

UPDATE: Per Clinton's comment below, Northwest Airlines is also adding a $5 - $10 fee for tickets not purchased through the company's web site. Northwest is comparing this move to discount airlines (such as Southwest and JetBlue) that offer lower prices online, but I say there is a difference between offering a lower price online and charging a fee for not ordering online.

AAARRUUUUGGGGGG!

NBC paid God-knows how much money to air the Olympics on its multiple networks and results of events that will not air until tonight are splashed all over MSNBC.com's home page. I know MSNBC.com is a news site and they need to report the news just like everyone else, but this sure seems like a disconnect to me and it's as bad as reporting spoilers to movies. Why not instead put a prominent link on the home page to a section of the site where the Olympics are reported? Those interested can go there and everyone else can still surf news sites without learning who won every event we have yet to watch. And, even if every news site didn't want to do this, you'd think NBC would try a little harder to protect its investment and work something out with MSNBC.

Blockbuster May Be Getting It

Since this previous post, Blockbuster has begun testing online DVD rentals to compete with Netflix. And, in a move to beat Netflix at the online DVD rental game, Blockbuster is "offering is an unlimited number of rentals per month, with up to three DVDs out at any one time, for a monthly fee of $19.95. Netflix recently raised its price for the same service by $2, to $21.95." Blockbuster is also sweetening the pot by offering two free in-store rentals with the subscription so customers can grab a quick movie if they can't wait for their next selection to arrive by mail. The battle continues...

via MarketingVOX

Email Wars

Hotmail has now jumped on the mega-storage bandwagon, lead by GMail (1 GB free) and followed by Yahoo! Email (100 MB free), and is offering 250 MB of storage to its free email users (and matching the Yahoo! offering of 2 GB for $20/month). However, Hotmail and Yahoo! Email's free offerings are still far behind GMail's groundbreaking 1 GB which I think is a mistake (as previously discussed here).

What I really don't get is why it took so long (and a move by an email newcomer - Google) for Hotmail and Yahoo! to make this move? For years they have had people dealing with 2 MB and 4 MB of storage and now all of sudden, in a matter of weeks, they are all able to offer hundreds of megabytes for free. I know it's a matter of survival since GMail dropped the gauntlet, but one of the other guys should have gotten there first. Talk about a missed opportunity.

However, Google may have missed something here too. GMail is still in beta and not available to the general public, but Hotmail and Yahoo! Email are. GMail set the pace by announcing their forthcoming 1 GB free email offering, but with the other guys increasing their offerings before GMail launches, they have a chance to retain more customers and in the meantime, pick-up many new ones. In retrospect, Google should have beta tested GMail with much less storage and announced the 1 GB at the time of launch. Granted, it would have generated less buzz during the beta phase, but they would have had a real surprise advantage over the competition at the time that matters most - when everyone can sign-up.

More on Starbucks' Customer Experience

As a follow-up to this post, I refer you to this article from MarketingProfs about another less than satisfying experience at Starbucks along with a good analysis of the interplay between expectations, performance and satisfaction. In the article, the author describes his experience as "stressful" and when I was reading it I was imagining him as having been uncomfortable.

Stressful and uncomfortable are certainly two emotions with which no company ever wants to be associated. What's interesting is how much of this always seems to come down to the very last step in the marketing and customer experience process - the actual interaction with the customer. Millions and millions of dollars and countless hours of strategy and planning go into creating an experience and environment that is intended to evoke certain emotions. Then, one wrong word or one wrong look between staff and customer and it's all for naught.

I don't mean to pick on Starbucks exclusively as I notice this sort of thing all the time, whether face to face in a retail environment or over the phone with, say, an airline or some other service provider. The challenge for marketers is that this generally comes down to workers with the least to loose. So, how does one incent them to care as much as those developing the best laid plans?

Good Advertising, Where Art Thou?

Here is a post from productmarketing.com, a blog I recently discovered, that discusses what's wrong with a lot of advertising today and offers some good suggestions for improvement.

Thanks to Amanda at Extensis for the link.

Yahoo! Stopped Short

Today Yahoo! unveiled their upgraded email service response to Google's upcoming 1GB GMail service. What did they offer to combat this bold offering by Google? Did they match the 1GB? Did they offer more than 1GB? No, they upgraded free email accounts to 100MB.

I use Yahoo! email and have been generally happy with it. I also realize that Google's 1GB offering is probably unnecessarily large. But, if you are going to try and compete with a company that went to the edge* can you really get away with offering 10% of what they offer and expect to get people very excited? Yes, Yahoo! email does have other nice features and yes, you can upgrade to Yahoo! Mail Plus and get a whopping 2GB for $20 per year, but what makes the news and generates buzz is that GMail will offer 1GB for free, but Yahoo! only offers 100MB. Google gets it - Yahoo! doesn't.

*Going to the edge or "edgecraft" is a concept by Seth Godin that he wrote about in his book Free Prize Inside. It means that small changes are risky because they are not bold enough to have much impact, but big changes (going to the edges) are actually safer and more prone to succeed.

Want Do Customers Want and Why? Just Ask.

This post over at the Good Experience Blog, about the simplistic customer research methods of Hallmark founder Joyce C. Hall back in 1915, makes a good point about how sometimes more simple and direct methods can yield the most valuable and compelling results. He simply observed people doing their thing and asked them why they did what they did. Do our advanced research methodologies of today sometimes take away from the simple beauty of, and clean results derived from, just asking people what they want and why they do what they do? Granted, it may not be the most efficient or cost effective method, but it sure seems as if it may be one of the more accurate. How much more pure can you get?

Mobile Phone Service - Second Worst for Customer Sat

Right behind cable providers are mobile phone service providers with the second lowest ranking in the University of Michigan's customer satisfaction index. Key complaints: dropped calls, poor customer service, penalties and fees.

My biggest complaint -- why can't we get the coolest phones and latest technologies that show up in Japan and Europe?

Actually, scratch that...my biggest complaint is exemplified by something that happened to me last week. On of my employee's mobile phone bills was $75 higher than normal (on a $65 monthly plan). I noticed it was all concentrated under the "Roaming" section of the bill and all calls took place over a three day period. She has never incurred roaming charges before. I called the service provider and they said that on those days she was in DC where another carrier's signal is stronger. The phone picked-up the stronger signal and I was charged for roaming (and long distance) for all calls during those days. Now, as if that wasn't bad enough, the next thing I was told was that for $5 per month I could eliminate all roaming and never have this problem again. Where were they before? Where were they when I needed them - before the roaming incident that no reasonable person could have avoided? That, my friends, is why this industry is floating in the customer sat commode.

Technology as a Tool, Not the Focus

Media strategist for George Bush, Mark McKinnon, discusses the campaign's use of technology to deliver messages faster and with more immediate focus and relevance in this Business 2.0 article. The takeaway for me, from a marketing and business perspective, is:

"For him and his team, the point of using new technology isn't to call attention to how clued-in they are. And it certainly isn't to use it as an end in itself. Technology, as McKinnon says, is "just another tool" to be employed in the service of driving home a focused message."

I liken the use of technology in business (and politics) to that of a summer blockbuster -- you know immediately when the technology is being used to simply say, "Look at this cool stuff we can jam down your throat!" and when it's being used to subtly, but effectively, improve the quality, relevance and/or value of the message, end product or experience. Does your use of technology scream flagrantly or whisper effectively?

McWow!

My wife and I have known each other for 15 years and until last month, we never ate together at McDonald's. My wife's eating habits are on the healthier side and McDonald's never fit with that. I'd eat there occasionally and enjoy it, but always felt guilty because I knew it was no good for me. A few weeks ago we decided to stop in and see if our son would get a kick out of a Happy Meal. My wife reluctantly tried one of their new salads, I had a fried chicken sandwich with fries and our son has a few McNuggets and fries.

Well, my wife was blown away by the salad. Fresh, crisp, big and it came with Newman's Own® light balsamic vinaigrette dressing. Since that visit, my wife has gone to the McDonald's drive-thru twice for the same salad and we went back as a family this weekend and I actually had a grilled chicken sandwich and a side salad (instead of fries - something I have NEVER considered before and still can't believe I did voluntarily) that was as good as her main course salad. My son still had a few McNuggets and some fries, but while eating we noticed the option to get him apple slices instead of fries and will likely do that next time.

As we ate, my wife and I (both marketers), discussed the changes at McDonald's and the brilliance of not only the new food items, but also the marketing of them including the Go Active! Happy Meal for adults that includes a salad, a bottle of water and a pedometer device they call a Stepometer™. The key here is that they are not only offering these food items, but the quality of them are high and they are being marketed well. It's not just a salad, it's a good salad. And that makes all the difference.

I know other fast food chains are offering healthier options as well, but for McDonald's to get my wife there on her own and back with her family by choice, well...trust me, that's no small feat.

Blockbuster Doesn't Get It

Clearly in response to the increasing popularity of Netflix, Blockbuster announced the Blockbuster Movie Pass allowing customers to rent two to three movies, for as long as they want, with no late fees, for a monthly fee of $24.99 and $29.99 respectively. The problem is, Netflix offers customers the rental of three movies, for as long as they want, with no late fees, with online ordering, often with next day delivery, including free return shipping, without people having to leave their houses for only $22 per month. Why would people choose to go to the store to rent their movies and go back to return them and pay $3 - $8 more for the inconvenience? Though Blockbuster does intend to begin offering an online option later this year, the cost will likely still be higher than Netflix (based on current pricing). Even though Blockbuster is the industry leader in movie rentals, they offer the same product as Netflix, but at a higher cost and less convenience. How does that make sense?

Sounds Like a Stretch

In this post we referenced how, partially due to the proliferation of DVRs (digital video recorders), more advertisers are moving parts of their advertising dollars to media outlets other than television. Today, Lost Remote links to an article about a study that suggests 96% of DVR viewers stick through commercial breaks as opposed to the 49% of non-DVR viewers (claiming the other 51% of non-DVR viewers flip around to other channels during commercial breaks). The caveat in the article that, in my opinion, makes the statistic worthless is, "96 percent of those viewers actually watch TV commercials when they become DVR subscribers, albeit in fast-forward mode."

I have a DVR (TiVo) and fast forward through commercials at the fastest fast forward speed and I can tell you that I have absolutely no idea what any of those ads are. Even though the article claims that, "most fast-fowarders "notice" TV commercials either "always" (15 percent) or "sometimes" (52 percent) while zipping through the spots," I'd say "notice" is a pretty weak term and not one on which advertisers are going to want to spend millions of dollars.

Purchase decisions 95% subconscious?

According to Harvard Business School professor and author, Gerald Zaltman, 95% of consumer's purchase decision making takes place in the subconscious mind. This piece in HBS's Working Knowledge offers Professor Zaltman's thoughts on the matter and how he proposes getting into the subconscious mind of the consumer.

Quant v. Qual

Knowledge@Wharton has an interesting article on the balance needed between quantitative and qualitative research approaches. The theme of the article can be summed-up by a statement by Peter Fader, marketing professor at Wharton, who says, "Thanks to technology and other innovations we know far more about our customers than we ever did before, but I would contend that we don’t understand more about our customers than we did 40 years ago."

The article also cites opinions of Americus Reed, marketing professor at Wharton, on the need (and techniques by which) to overcome respondent's unwillingness to be candid regarding certain topics or their uncertainty of why they do certain things by getting them to "project" what they really think. We previously referenced Professor Reed's opinions on focus groups in this post.

This is what we're saying!

For years, we at MSInteractive have been saying (and our clients agree) that using the Perception Analyzer® in focus groups helps eliminate "group-think" by allowing everyone to respond to questions based on their own opinions and not be influenced by the more vocal respondents in the group. It also facilitates more honest feedback through the anonymity derived from their own personal dials because people are not afraid to share opinions that may be embarrassing or unpopular.

Well, every once in a while we have our position validated by people far smarter than us. In this case, it is by way of a quote from Americus Reed (marketing professor at the Wharton School of Business). The context of the quote is in reference to traditional focus groups as compared to ethnographic research, the topic of the article in which he is quoted.

"A focus group is like a chainsaw. If you know what you're doing, it's very useful and effective. If you don't, you could lose a limb. Group opinion can be swayed by more vocal and strident members and findings can be skewed by participants' reluctance to share their true feelings in front of a group." [L. Tischler, "Every Move You Make," Fast Company, (April 2004), 73-75.]

Users of the Perception Analyzer certainly know what positive impact the elimination of those two concerns have on their research.