I do love a great infographic.
If people hate shopping in your store, your marketing doesn’t matter.
Just because this is a rant doesn’t mean there isn’t a point.
Christmastime always seems to bring out my latent crafty-craft tendencies, and this year is no exception. I decided to make these chocolate-covered marshmallows on a stick:
(I seriously need a better camera than the one on my phone. Come to think of it, I need a new phone.)
I’d probably make stuff like this more often – put anything chocolate-covered on a stick and you’ve got a high-perceived-value kind of edible – but it generally takes me the whole year to steel myself to do them. Not because they’re hard to make (they aren’t), but because getting the sticks and the melting chocolate and the little bags requires a trip to Michael’s Craft Store, and I can’t bear to even contemplate that more than about once a year.
This is what the lineup at Michael’s looks like, all the time:
Okay, this isn’t a photo of Michael’s. But you see how there are, like, a zillion people in line? That’s what Michael’s is like.
Today, I was the 33rd person in the line, and while it took me only 7 minutes to select the items I needed, it took me 23 minutes to get from the back of the line to a cashier.
And all I could think was: If I’m limiting my Michael’s shopping expeditions to once a year because I can’t stomach the thought of waiting in line, how many other people are doing the same thing?
I have similar thoughts about Winners and Tim Horton’s: There are plenty of times when I pass a Winners or a Tim’s and decide against going in because I can see the line is 10+ people deep, there are only 2 cashiers working, and I know that by the time I’ve been in line for more than 11 minutes, I’m going to need to go on beta blockers for sudden-onset high blood pressure.
How much does this cut into revenue?
It’s at times like this that I wish I was one of those behavioural psychologist researcher types who specialize in retail behaviour, because I would really like to know how much my – and I’m assuming I’m not alone – reluctance to enter certain stores ends up cutting into the bottom line.
How many people, running a little late for work in the morning, bypass Tim’s because they don’t have 15 minutes to wait in line? Does Winners lose business to other clothing stores because people like me can’t face spending 45 minutes combing through the racks followed by another 30 minutes waiting for pay for them? I know these stores have to balance cashier wages against purchases, but is a cashier:customer ratio of 2:10 really the most cost-effective in the long run?
Customer experience isn’t just about friendly salespeople.
Winners, Tim’s and Michael’s all seem to be leaders in their categories, and maybe they don’t worry too much about the business they may be losing. Maybe they can’t worry about it, because it’s impossible to measure. After all, as I said the other day, people in focus groups lie when they’re asked about purchasing decisions, so it’s easy to dismiss the “I spend less money at your store than I would if you had faster checkouts” claims of someone like me as false ultimatums.
On the other hand, Winners, Michael’s and Tim’s spend lots of money on advertising, so they must want more business. Once you’ve got good brand awareness – which all 3 of these chains do – then your marketing is really about keeping yourself top-of-mind so that people purchase more stuff, more often. But when staying top-of-mind can’t conquer people’s reluctance to shop in your store, you might want to reallocate your marketing budget to staffing, or even process engineering.
Is it ever okay to lose your shizzle at work? Yes.
Sometimes, throwing professionalism out the window is all you can do.
The day I smashed the phone down so hard that it cracked in two.
I was 30, a month into my first ‘Director’ title in an ad agency with a big dot-com salary, and 3 days away from launching a $100k website. (It was my first big website project, and I was still learning that ASP was not, in fact, a Shakespearean viper.
I wasn’t too worried, though: The VP had hired a project manager: “This guy’s a genius with the internet,” said my VP. “You do the client management and he’ll take care of all the technical stuff – he’s a genius!”
“Don’t worry,” said Genius Boy. “I’ve been running online bulletin boards since the internet was invented – I’m a bit of a guru. Just don’t make me talk to the client. I hate clients.”
People who call themselves gurus usually aren’t.
72 hours before the site was due to launch, I discovered that Genius Boy had completed none of the tasks he’d been assigned. He hadn’t implemented the changes the client requested (“They’re stupid,” he said, dismissively); hadn’t tested the site on IE (“Microsoft is evil and I’m not wasting my time fixing bugs in IE,” he said with a fastidious sniff of derision); had fired the Flash director (“Flash is stupid, and anyway you can’t put it on a site with html,” he said, erroneously); and he’d called in sick.
I lost it.
From ‘A-list’ to ‘nutjob’, one phone at a time.
I phoned Genius Boy at home. I don’t remember exactly what I said – thought I’m pretty sure it contained something about how I was sick and tired of his arrogant “…Apple-centric, passive-aggressive, Filemaker-Pro-is-the-best-database-in-the-world’, OS-dependent moral code” deluded worldview – but when I was done, I smashed the receiver into its cradle so hard that the handset cracked in two. It’s possible I uttered an oath at well above ‘indoor voice’ levels.
Five seconds later I hear a tentative “Um, Sarah? Are you okay?” from two cubicles away, and I suddenly realize that everything within a 30-foot radius of my desk was enveloped in this thick fog of silence: No talking, no typing sounds, no rustle of papers – nothing.
“Uh-oh,” I thought. “There goes my career.”
As I saw it, I’d just gone from ‘high-performing leader who handles stressful projects and impossible deadlines with grace and aplomb’ to ‘unpredictable freakshow’ in about 3 minutes. “I probably won’t get fired for this,” I thought. “I mean, I didn’t punch him or anything. But I guess I won’t be getting that promotion when I have my annual review next month. No one wants to promote a loose cannon.”
Losing your shizzle can be a great career move
The website got done and the client was (very) happy. A month later, in my annual review with the VP, I got the promotion – and a raise. But I was still feeling awkward about The Phone Incident.
“Don’t worry about it,” said the VP. “You got the job done. And to be honest, before that happened I thought you were too anxious to keep everyone happy all the time. As a manager you can’t be afraid to let people know when you’re angry. The Phone Incident is one of the reasons you got the promotion.”
I said I still thought that raising my voice in a work setting was ‘unprofessional’.
“Ha!” the VP chortled. “That’s a myth! Sometimes it’s the only way to convince people that you’re serious. Sure, do it every week and you’ll get a rep; do it once a while and you’ll find people give you a lot more respect. And if means the difference between delivering on time and letting the client down, err on the side of on-time delivery.”
And because no blog is complete without them:
5 tips for losing your shizzle at work!
Ideally, of course, we would all meet deadlines and client expectations without anyone ever losing their temper. But even paragons of virtue lose it once in a while.
So how do you ensure you’re losing your shizzle strategically
Here’s what senior management people say:
- Don’t use long strings of invectives. Three minutes of non-stop “F-you*&*&%$bleeping a-!@%^*^#&&*” will push you into Mel-Gibson-crazyland.
- Don’t get personal. Referring to a co-worker’s ‘thunder thighs’ is the kind of insult that could destroy a working relationship forever.
- Keep it brief. A one-off, 3-minute explosion gets your point across; an all-day scream-fest just makes you look like you need anger management classes.
- Keep it contained. Don’t start yelling, “And as for you, buddy…” at everyone within a 20-foot radius.
- Don’t do it more than once a year. More often, and not only will you get a reputation as a loose cannon, but your outbursts will lose their efficacy.
When celebrity overexposure is bad for the brand
Kim Kardashian may not fully understand the true cost of her 72-day marriage.
I realize that none of the Kardashians are big on introspection – unless they’re being paid for it, of course – but I can’t help thinking that before Kimmy K here decided to announce her big divorce after less than 3 months of wedded bliss, she might have done well to consider the tragic story of Jennifer Lopez, circa 2004.
You remember the early 2000s, I’m sure: Jennifer Lopez was the hottest girl on the block, with a hit album, reasonably successful movies, a clothing line, perfumes and sponsorships up the wazoo.
JLo was gorgeous, seemed to be everywhere, and had no problems trading on her appearance (including a distinctive rear end).
Then Bennifer happened: Her much-publicized, shamelessly commercialized relationship with Ben Affleck. In those days, we hadn’t yet handed over our brains to reality television shows. But that didn’t stop Bennifer from appearing on screens everywhere, from music videos to really, really bad movies to hyper-promoted tv interviews focusing on the ginormous engagement ring and endless prognostications about married life, kids and the future.
Oh sure, plenty of us complained about the relentless People covers, the Bennifer sightings in various glamourous locations – just as so many of us have complained about the Kim Kardashian media obsession.
But the whole thing didn’t really implode until the marriage was called off at the last minute. And two careers were left in a mess. (Even Matt Damon uncharacteristically called it “the worst thing” Ben Affleck could have done for his career.)
It’s taken JLo 6 years to recover.
Post Bennifer, Jennifer Lopez’s career took a huge hit: Her movies with Afflect (Gigli, Jersey Girl) bombed critically and at the box office; her albums fared poorly; her sponsorships dwindled; and her JLo clothing line was ‘retired’. She spent most of the last half of the 2000s out of the public eye.
(Yes, I know she was busy having babies and all, but look at Beyonce: She’s 5 months pregnant but still managing to release music videos every 2 minutes and if I see her in another Feria or perfume commercial, I think I’m going to lose it. Suffice to say that for most A-listers, pregnancy is no bar to keeping the machine rolling.)
It’s taken JLo 6 years to climb back from the overexposure, and she still hasn’t quite managed it entirely: She had to take a big risk with American Idol, and her new clothing line had to be a partnership with Kohl’s. Her new album’s first single did fairly well, but I’m willing to bet she’s made more money from the corporate sponsorships in the videos than she has from the actual music.
Does Kim Kardashian have 6 years?
At least Jennifer Lopez could sort of sing, dance and act.
What can Kim K do?
Well, she – or her mother, anyway – has a genius for exploiting mass media, and it’s entirely possible that, having watched the world get tired of Paris Hilton, Kim decided she’d go for a massive payout now and take the backlash consequences later.
But I don’t think so. I think that the Kardashians as a group genuinely think that their brand is far more aspirational than it really is. I think they forget that sooner or later, customers do in fact wake up to the fact that they’re being duped, and generally aren’t very pleased about it.
So the question is: When you’ve revealed yourself as willing to do just about anything to get headlines and cash – including what appears to be a ‘sham’ marriage – will people still want to buy your clothing? Or will they just be too embarrassed?
Twelve months from now, Kris Jenner may still be talking about all the ‘deals’ Kim is involved in, but I’m 100% certain you won’t be bragging about the new Kardashian Kollection outfit you just bought.
Frankly, ChapStick needed a little scandal.
When was the last time you bought Chapstick, anyway?
Is it possible you missed this week’s blogosphere scandal?
ChapStick posted the ad above, a couple of (female) bloggers decided it was sexist and offensive. Not a huge deal, except then ChapStick apparently started deleting negative comments about the issue from their Facebook page, which got everyone really upset.
Suddenly it was such a big deal that even Forbes and the Wall Street Journal – who couldn’t possibly be looking to cash in on the short-term traffic spike, could they? – felt it necessary to report on the issue. Adweek referred to the whole thing as a “death spiral“.
Please.
Samantha Ettus of Forbes said that the ChapStick brand has been built on the strength of female athletes like Suzy Caffee and Dorothy Hamill – but what she (and everyone else) seems to forget is that the lipcare marketplace has changed in the past 10+ years, and has changed a lot since the 1970s when Suzy Chapstick was first introduced.
An aging target market has a limited lifespan
It’s great if you can keep the customers you acquired in the 1970s, but ChapStick has a problem, which is, interestingly, contained within one of the offended bloggers’ posts:
“I have used your brand for 25 years, ever since my mom put my very first tube of ChapStick in the bib pocket of my snowpants before heading out for an afternoon of sledding….I have used your brand on my own children….”
Her kids may be using ChapStick now, but you know what’s going to happen: As soon as they can buy their own lip balm, they’ll reject what Mum bought them and head for more ‘adult’ lip balms.
That’s exactly what’s happened to ChapStick: While the lip balm category has grown by 12%, ChapStick sales have fallen by 2.6%, while newer, ‘cooler’ brands like Burt’s Bees have grown by double digits.
(And that doesn’t include the lip gloss revolution. Ask any girl or woman under 30 and she’ll tell you she’s got a lip gloss stockpile that far outpaces her lip balm collection.)
You can only coast for so long on squeaky-clean sports figures.
“I kissed a girl”, and other ways to make ChapStick more interesting
Some sources have suggested that Katy Perry’s Cherry ChapStick shoutout in her “I Kissed a Girl” song triggered sales increases of 50% for cherry ChapStick. And it wasn’t like that song was without controversy.
So you’re a marketing strategist for ChapStick. You see that being associated with older sportswomen is leading to shrinking sales, but being associated with pop culture is getting you more attention than you’ve had in years.
What do you do? Continue with the status quo advertising you’ve been doing since the 1970s, or try something a little different?
Right.
To be honest, I have no problems with the advertisement above. I don’t find it sexist (I’m far more offended by popstars and their ubiquitous naked body parts), and I happen to think it’s clever (because aren’t we all finding tubes of lip balm in odd places, 2 years after we lost them?).
More importantly, I think ChapStick has actually been pretty savvy here: The strategy (“Where do lost ChapSticks go?”) is a good one for appealing to new consumers without alienating existing ones, and has a lot of legs.
No, they shouldn’t have deleted comments from their Facebook page – censoring social media is always bound to get you in trouble – but in the long run I think the whole tempest in a teapot will go unnoticed by most of the target market, while giving them some much-needed top-of-mind awareness.