Debate the Fate of 2008
It's customary to begin the New Year with predictions on how things will go over the next 12 months. So of course we took a crack at it. Don Peppers and Martha Rogers, Ph.D. discuss social co-creation of the whole customer experience, as well as the evolution of self-service, and how the economy may affect the state of customer relationships.
Today's lead article in 1to1 Weekly is a podcast excerpt of Don and Martha's predictions. The industry and the marketplace will dictate if these ideas will come to fruition. And there may be some new product, service, or idea about to burst onto the scene that will change everything. The New Year is an exciting time filled with possibilities. What do you see as a big idea or trend for 2008?
1. This year, relationship marketing will travel en masse into the strategic business suite, the place it truly deserves.
2. It'll be a year of organic growth. It will freely build on the existing level of customer relationships and offer businesses a technology and performance management vector.
3. Marketing measurement will get along the P&L pack , with the focus on loyalty, organic growth rate and incremental revenue.
4. The Internet factor will keep levelling the set. The on-line voice of customer will be louder and more influential than ever as well as their Web involvement. It'll call for another reshuffle in the media set with Internet attracting more advertising money and channel appeal.
I think you're right, the biggest reason they put it on YouTube was probably the social features built into the site. When I was doing a story on the Southwest Airlines blog recently, their CEO had posted a video entry that was hosted by Youtube; an image link on the blog led to the actual video.
I think by now people are comfortable with the look and feel of YouTube, and companies would rather give them that conforming view than build something on their own sites that may not work as well.
This is a really good point. Some companies might want to get on YouTube to say they are on YouTube, and others don't want to have to host video files on their own sites. And then there are the social aspects -- user comments, sharing info, ratings -- that are already built into YouTube. But I think you make a good point that it's a somewhat wasted opportunity from a branding and value-add standpoint by not hosting it themselves.
In PEPPERS AND ROGERS PREDICT TRENDS FOR 2008,
Don mentioned an example (Jawbone) where the company directed the customer to a YouTube site video on how to fix their problem.
The question I have is why wouldn't the company set up the instructional videos (also) on their site as a way of reinforcing their branding and value-add -- wouldn't that be the first place you would go? Or are they just trying to be 'cool' by becoming involved in the YouTube space???
http://miroslodki.wordpress.com/
Why are consumers more influential to each other? Perhaps they find word-of-mouth and user reviews so helpful because the marketing copy intended to influence them is laced with jargon, "happy talk" or a bulleted list of product specs. And not what prospective customers want to know like "what's different from this product and that one? Why should I pay more for that one? What things can't it do well? Will this do/make what I want it to? How hard will it be for me to learn how to use it?..." Marketing copy in most ads, packaging and in-store merchandising doesn't address these basic questions.
What if marketing copy had to go through a "BS detector" with the customers it was intended for? Do these prospective buyers find it credible? Helpful? Do they understand the words used? (no jargon) Does it make them want to learn more? Buy now? Tell their friends? Why can't a manufacturer's or retailer's copy say "not good for this use"? Why can't it highlight the key features people really want in the product and explain "why pay more"? And "why buy this brand"? Why can't it be more like what consumers say to each other through word-of-mouth and on web sites? Editorial product reviews are credible because they give pros and cons. Why aren't marketing leaders at companies striving to get their agencies to write copy that replicates what the customer would want to hear from a really helpful salesperson or their sister-in-law?
Why don't marketers turn over control of what copy gets into their marketing pieces to their customers and let them decide what's most effective? Why aren't customers involved in generating, editing, evaluating and improving copy? Why isn't more quant testing done on alternative copy to discern what works best for customers? And for different types of customers? That's what a good sales person would do -- tailor the copy to be most credible and helpful to the person they are talking to. Why aren't customers asked in quant testing to compare ads with editorials and user reviews so the baseline is higher than "better than these other ads"? What if marketers strove to develop marketing copy that was as effective as a user-generated review? That would be bold.
Maybe a picture is worth a thousand words because most marketing copy in ads, direct mail, packaging and in stores is so uterly unhelpful. Marketing will become more irrelevant and uncredible if we don't change our ways and engage the very customers we are aiming to serve in helping us to do a better job in giving them the information they want to make confident buying decisions.
Derrith Lambka
HP Printing & Imaging Marketing (yes, we're guilty of this and trying to change our ways!)
derrith.lambka@hp.com
don't know what to say