Marketing News Radio recently ran a podcast by Jonathan Salem Baskin,  author of "Branding Only Works on Cattle". He talks about his book and about how brands should think of places other than the marketing department to do branding. I think one of the most insightful things he states in the interview is that it (branding) is not about telling people things, but about experience, is about showing them by action. He has a great example of how Zappos.com doesn't spend any money on marketing, but pours it all into customer service -- again experiencing the brand. The most effective way of influencing one's buying decision is establishing a unique relationship with the customer's experience. In addition, social media is not the savior of marketing.  Content has to be delivered when relevant to the situation, in the right venue and at the right time.

Marketers need to think differently about branding, building affinity, and sparking conversations and more importantly get your customer service department in line. Breakthroughs in marketing can come from various departments within an organization. Please the customer and they will talk about you positively and increase your brands sales. Brands as behavior is an interesting concept.

What are other ways that brands can differentiate themselves through non-traditional branding techniques?

Jonathan also has a blog called Dim bulb. It has some great comments on the business decision of running a Super Bowl Ad.

Permalink 1 |

Science Fiction and Fantasy publisher Tor.com recently completed an experiment with distributing free e-book downloads.  The publisher used the free downloads to promote a new Science Fiction community complete with blogs, bookmarks, etc.  To encourage engagement, only members connected through the newsletter were provided download access.  Participating author John Scalzi noticed a 20 percent increase in sales of his downloaded title and more importantly a 30% rise in the book's sequel.  LONG LIVE FREE. LONG LIVE FREE.  

Permalink 1 |

Prior to reading the following statement, please prepare for a mind-blowing revelation.

Permalink 1 |

Direct connection with customers is desirable for most companies. So why is the term direct marketing often used as a pejorative?  The answer exists in the complexity of relationships between customers, companies, and marketing/PR groups.  Let us examine the historical foundation of direct marketing to discover where "direct" lost its mojo. 

Early direct marketers such as Montgomery Ward and Sears & Roebuck connected with customers through mail-order catalogs beginning in the late 19th century.  The minimal cost of delivering a quarterly or bi-annual catalog to rural Americans established a predictable sales channel for the retailers and also a communication channel for customers.  With early direct mail, even a disconnected rural Illinois resident could enjoy the luxury items available to distant Chicago city dwellers.

The success of mail-order catalogs, however, resulted in greed.  And the influx of greed created an overwhelming amount of mail for the average American prompting the current conception of direct marketing as a negative term.   Direct marketing professionals continued to innovate though and moved online - first through the addition of email and more recently with the explosion of targeted social shopping.  Love it or hate it - direct marketing continues to produce results by connecting personally with customers.  So why is the term used in a negative tone?    

Marketing Gurus like Seth Godin might link the negativity to a breech in permission based marketing standards.  The customer must begin the intimate relationship by accepting personalized and relevant messages. Godin and other experts are correct, but their analysis  excludes further introspection into the complex relationships formed to directly interact with a customer through blogs, social networks or any other online content site.  The diagram below represents a potential path for "direct marketing" online:

To spread direct messages in the blogosphere or social networks, a company contracts a Marketing/PR firm.  The service provider analyzes the product and identifies potential evangelists of the company's product.  Once evangelists are engaged, the message is ready for distribution to average customers.  After the engagement, the marketing term re-enters the picture to provide progress updates to the company.  






Wow! A lot of intermediaries for the supposedly "direct" message.  Here is a streamlined revision of how the relationship could function online:



Permalink 1 |

Sustainable word of mouth marketing means forming persistent, authentic relationships. It means defining conversation as more than an email exchange. To foster sustainability, a transparent liaison between community and company must demonstrate favorable intentions and consideration for each contact they make - and maintain those relationships through meaningful actions and correspondence.

There is an important distinction between sustainable word of mouth and buzz. While buzz can provide strong impact and visibility for a new product or service in the short-term, it lacks the qualities that earn the long-term trust and advocacy of a community.

Word of mouth isn't free. Brand evangelists are earned through persistent, meaningful interactions that require time and attention.
 



When the buzz dies down, do the influencers in your industry have a reason to keep talking?  


Permalink 1 |