Favorites

June 17, 2013 by Leave a Comment

Woman relaxes in a marble tiled bath tub.“Sir,” I started out, taking the initiative in our current discussion. “I must admit to some confusion regarding the concept of favoritism.”

“Confound it Watson, you are slipping! I require a more specific query,” The Effective Detective answered with an annoyed tone to his voice.

“Sorry sir. In particular I am thinking about how companies tend to favor those who spend more with them, or invest in particular programs, versus doing the same with individuals in a work environment or perhaps even friends, a practice that is often frowned upon. My confusion is if one is right how can the other be wrong?” I clarified.

“Much better Watson, a much more specific and answerable question,” The Detective gave a slight smile. “As to your answer, I believe your confusion while understandable is misplaced. You are comparing apples to oranges. Favoritism as you put, in a personal setting is something I have no desire to address, and I leave that discussion to philosophers. Business on the other hand, both with customers and employees or contractors is a much simpler matter to deal with, since the concept of fairness is rather black and white,” The Detective took his characteristic pause allowing for an interjection or question from me.

“Why wouldn’t fairness enter into the equation in business matters, sir?” I asked

“It does, but not in the classic moral sense. You are being fair in business when you are being honest and not cheating someone. This has nothing to do about seeing different employees or customers as equal in value to each other. Customers are providing you revenue. The more revenue they bring in – without causing you undue stress or cost, the better you should treat them. They have earned it, and most likely they will respond in kind. Employees are providing you a service. If they go above and beyond they should be given special treatment as well. These are business transactions, not social interactions,” The Detective to take a breath, allowing me to get a word in edgewise.

“So you are saying that favoritism in the business environment both with customers and employees is a good thing, and in fact should be promoted?” I asked.

“I thought I just said that,” snapped The Detective with more than a trace of irritation. “Remember though, you still must treat all of your customers and employees fairly and honestly. Having favorites does not mean giving someone who gives you less money inferior service, or denying an employee something just because they happen to have a lower level job. Service and respect are given freely to all.  Perks are given to those who contribute something extra to your success, and although the perks can vary in value, they should be freely given at all levels of contribution.

“Something I wish the cell phone companies would learn,” The Detective finished, throwing his latest bill on the floor, closing our conversation.

Filed Under: Leadership, Marketing, providing service, segmentation Tagged With: , ,

Doing the Right Thing, Wrong

June 10, 2013 by Leave a Comment

oops“Watson, I have a wonderful example of doing the right thing wrong,” The Detective began with an uncharacteristically indirect and confusing statement for our weekly discussion.

“Sir?” I asked, not sure how else to respond.

“Come, come Watson, we all know that we should, as part of any well-managed and useable list, have included our customers or clients, however you choose to refer to them. We also know that one of the reasons we segment a list is to ensure that appropriate information is sent out,” The Detective paused, waiting for me to confirm that I understood. I obliged.

“Yes, sir, of course.”

“So I have a wonderful example of a business doing the right thing: labeling me as a customer and engaging me, but doing it wrong by sending me an offer that I cannot use. Worse, it was actually quite an interesting offer,” The Detective said almost wistfully.

“Can you provide me with details sir?” I asked, now that my curiosity had been piqued.

“What? Oh, of course Watson. I have purchased several cars from a local dealership in the last two years. I am very satisfied with the purchases. Now, what do you think would be an appropriate communication from the dealership Watson?”

“Ah, perhaps an offer for some maintenance sir?”

“Precisely! An offer that I would appreciate, that I can choose not to avail myself of, but definitely something I could use if I was so inclined. That, however is not the offer I received. Received three times in fact. No, what I received was an offer for a discount on activation of a feature that is not available on either of the cars I have purchased from this dealership. Worse, it wasn’t until I had clicked through several pages before I realized there was no way I could use this offer. Not only was I frustrated that I couldn’t use the offer, I was irritated that I had wasted my time clicking through multiple pages before I learned this was something I could not take advantage of.

“So, what do you think the lesson learned here is, Watson?”

“Don’t make promises you can’t keep?” I asked, feeling a bit mischievous, and seeing if I could provoke a reaction.

“Bah! Watson, you are playing! The lesson is to ensure that your segmentation includes critical information. There is a delicate balance between over-segmentation and not segmenting enough. It all depends on what you are trying to accomplish and who you are dealing with.  The dealership knew what models and years I had purchased from them. They also knew that the option they were promoting was not available on either of those cars. Any one of those pieces of information included in their list could have allowed appropriate segmentation,” The Detective responded, with an irritated tone – exactly the reaction I had hoped to elicit.

“Simply put Watson, the missing key here was not utilizing information readily available to target a message only to those who would be interested; in this case those who could take advantage of it,” The Detective finished succinctly.

“Simple, but not always easy, sir.”

“That is why it works Watson, that is why it works.”

Filed Under: content, data, list building, Marketing, segmentation Tagged With: , , , , ,

Too Much Of a Good Thing

May 13, 2013 by 1 Comment

pie_chart“Do you know how to destroy the usefulness of a technique, Watson?” This time it was The Effective Detective who began our weekly discussion.

“By misusing it, sir?” I replied.

“Close, Watson. You are still, on occasion, quite vague. There are many ways to ‘misuse’ a technique. I am looking for one way in particular,” The Detective’s response came back with a barely disguised tone of irritation.

“Over use perhaps?” I ventured.

“Perfect Watson! Even if it was a guess,” The Detective shot me a sideways glance. “It is possible to fall into the trap of thinking that if a little of something gives me great results, than a lot of it will give me fantastic results,” The Detective paused briefly.

“Was there a particular technique you were thinking of sir?” I encouraged.

“Yes, Watson, thank you for asking. There is one technique that is often used to a point where the data it provides becomes meaningless. That one technique is segmentation,” The Detective paused uncharacteristically here; usually expounding a bit more on the subject before giving me an opening.  However, even with the limited amount of exposition from him, I had formed a question or perhaps a challenge.

“But sir, isn’t it important, in fact, critical, to have as much information as possible?” I asked.

“An excellent point Watson. That said, there are two dangers in overuse of segmentation.

“The first should be rather obvious. It is possible to segment your audience to such a point that the segments shrink down to a size that renders them unusable. Unless you have a high ticket item that you are marketing to a group that you intend to try to reach at a premium price, who you have a high confidence level of engaging with,  segmenting down to less than fifteen or twenty individuals is most likely not going to produce results equal to or greater than the labor and cost  involved in producing those results.

“The second, and perhaps less obvious, but still deadly, danger is segmenting into sections that will have no effect on your message. If the appropriate age for use if your product or service is anyone older than sixteen years old, dividing your audience into a standard set of age segments like 18-24, 25-34, 35-54, 55-64, 65+ will largely be a waste of time in terms of getting that information, and a colossal waste of time and energy in crafting multiple messages for the different groups,” The Detective took his more characteristic pause here, and my mind raced to come up with an observation or question.

“So one only needs to segment down to the level where the message will resonate most strongly!” I exclaimed in a sudden moment of clarity.

“Precisely, Watson! Well done.  A more specific age example would be  if your product or service is aimed at adults aged 35-64, then you shouldn’t care if they are 35-54 or, 55-64, that breakdown isn’t needed. A tad simplistic I admit, and age is certainly not the only demographic you could over-think,  but you see the point.”

“Indeed I do, sir. So the trick then is finding that balance between too little segmentation, and too much.” I responded.

“Quite, so. That however, is a discussion for another day.”

Filed Under: data, list building, Marketing, segmentation Tagged With: , , , , ,

Ground Control to Major Tom

February 5, 2013 by Leave a Comment
ID-10058943

Image courtesy of sscreations / FreeDigitalPhotos.net 

The Effective Detective looked particularly intense today as he shot his first question at me.

“Watson, are you aware of the term ‘Signal to Noise Ratio’?”

“I am sir, in what context?” I answered.

“Context? Oh. Quite right Watson. The marketing context,” The Detective smiled, acknowledging one of the rare times I had confounded him, if only for a moment.

“Yes, sir. The marketing context would refer to the vast amount of content available to just about everyone via print, advertising, radio, television, and of course, the Internet, compared to the relatively small amount of content that is applicable to one’s particular situation.”

“Excellent Watson, you have been paying attention and absorbing the lessons from our adventures well,” The Detective congratulated me. “But now the million dollar question, how do you increase the Signal to Noise ratio?” The Detective asked with a slight smile. A smile more related to the hunter zeroing in on his prey than the previous smile he had given me.

I hesitated, with a vague sense of disquiet that a misbehaving school boy experiences shortly before he is rapped across the knuckles. “Umm, I would have to say have more quality content, aimed at a particular audience sir.”

The Detective threw back his head and laughed, “You truly have been paying attention Watson! Bravo! But there is still a  missing piece.”

“Sir?” my figurative knuckles now smarting slightly.

“The audience Watson. Even if you have but a relatively small audience, how can you ensure the appropriate content is reaching your specific target or targets?”

“I am not sure I am following you, sir,” I responded feeling a tad confused.

“It is quite simple Watson,” The Detective started, with a trace of irritation in his voice. “The issue is getting your signal through to the right people, the people who are listening for that signal through all of the background noise of their daily lives. Good, strong, valuable, perhaps provocative, content,” The Detective paused, winding up for the delivery.

“Pray continue, sir.”

“But there are always multiple channels of content being sent out, the noise as it were. If the difference is extreme, say your sports channel vs a political channel, then the need for segmentation seems less. Your content will tend not to overlap. But what if the channels are less distinct, say fitness trainers, some who specialize in weight loss vs others specializing in aerobic endurance?

“Segmenting your audience and generating such specific content becomes more difficult,  but extremely rewarding. Because your content is aimed specifically at their concern, instead of the general universe of people who are fitness conscious, or in the wrong niche, and most likely bombarded with messages from any number of fitness based sources, the Signal to Noise Ratio increases dramatically, and there is a far greater chance that the content will be read, and the benefit attributed to you,” The Detective paused again, eyeing me, as if he knew the question I was about to ask.

“Yes Watson, I have made this point before ( A King Needs a Queen ), but the concept of niching things down even further is important. It is easy to believe that we have something to say to everyone in a generalized market, and perhaps we do. But the real world says unless you have a really powerful transmitter, you’re better off fine tuning the frequency.”

“Reach fewer with more impact,” I replied.

“Quite so, Watson”

 

Filed Under: content, data, list building, Marketing, segmentation Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Arranging Deck Chairs on the Titanic

January 8, 2013 by Leave a Comment

“So Watson, what new and interesting things are you starting the year with?” asked The Effective Detective, starting a new round of our conversations in this new year.

“Less starting my own list, and more fascinated by what others may be attempting,” I replied.

“How so Watson?” came the next question.

“I have been reviewing the myriad emails we receive from all of the marketing experts out there and wondering to what extent others try to execute on all of these various marketing methodologies being pushed,” I answered.

“Ah you have noted a common error, one that, as painful as it is, I must admit to committing myself here and there Watson.”

“Indeed sir! Now I am quite intrigued,” I responded, with  perhaps just a tad too much enjoyment at The Detective admitting a fault.

The Detective cast a baleful look before continuing.

“The issue, my dear Watson is how simple it can be to confuse activity with real productive work. In our efforts to accomplish things and cover a lot of ground, we begin to chase after every shiny new bauble dangled before our eyes, without thinking whether this actually accomplishes anything.

“Social Media is a perfect example. So many run around furiously creating Facebook pages, inviting their friends to like them, updating  LinkedIn profiles so that connections will see the activity and perhaps take a quick peek, tweet like crazy, hoping someone who is following 10,000 people will notice, and create Pinterest pages when they aren’t even sure what Pinterest is. The list goes on.”

“Are you saying Social Media is a waste of time, sir?” I asked alarmed.

“Not precisely Watson. I brought up Social Media merely because there are so many channels to it. I could just as easily mentioned sending out a flurry of ill-conceived direct mail pieces or non-specific emails to a list, are you starting to get my point?” The Detective smiled a half-smile, waiting to hear my answer.

“I think so sir. Would I be correct in thinking that the point is that merely doing things without much thought, simply because we have been told we need to take action, is not terribly productive?” I ventured.

“Well put, Watson! I might go as far as to say that doing what you described could actually be destructive. You could be alienating your tribe with an unfocused barrage of marketing, all in the name of generating “a touch”. More likely, but just as destructively, you will disperse your efforts, foregoing doing an excellent job on a few things, in favor of doing a mediocre job on many.

“What we all need to do is take a step back. Consider whether your action will actually produce meaningful results. With direct mail, are we targeting a well written message to a properly segmented list? Have we segmented our own list properly so that our emails are welcome and provide value? With Social Media, is the audience the one we want to be reaching, or are we just talking at people who are merely talking back at us rather than listening – something I think you see a lot of in Twitter.

“Yes, you should take massive action, but think through that action. Limit yourself to a few actions that you can focus on and execute exceedingly well before moving on to the next. More than anything else, before jumping into something, consider: will this move me toward my ultimate goal, or is it actually just a distraction from the hard work we know is needed to create something great,” The Detective finished, leaning back in his chair with a look that told me that further discussion must wait for another day.

Filed Under: Marketing, organization, Social Media Tagged With: , ,

The Mystery of The Incomplete Explanation Part 1

November 12, 2012 by Leave a Comment

Sometimes in relating information The Detective and I forget that giving a couple of bullet points is often insufficient to fully explain an important concept (or concepts!). Case in point. If you are an observant reader you might have caught the link to an article in Time Magazine that we sent out over the weekend just past. If not, fear not! We realized belatedly that perhaps we could have or should have expounded a little bit more on some of the key points; at least given an example that fits in more with our readers. After all, the article was talking about databases with hundreds of thousands of names, perhaps millions. How could that possibly relate? Let The Detective give it a try:

“Watson, do you think perhaps we were a bit, shall we say, vague in how some of the data mining techniques mentioned in that article could actually apply to the smaller list owner?” asked The Detective as we sat enjoying our brandies.

“Funny thing, I was just considering that,” I replied.

“Very well then,” launched The Detective, “perhaps we should give a slightly longer explanation a go. Let me start with the first point: too many databases.”

“Even a relatively small business could have too many databases. In fact, too many could easily be two, depending on the data that is stored in each of them. Take as a simple example a business that deals with consumers rather than other businesses. It would be quite easy for them to have two databases: one for email through one of the many systems out there, and a direct mail listing, perhaps a mailing list database or document they can merge.

By merging the two data sources, or more simply, picking and choosing items that can be used to properly segment the list, such a business could easily send highly targeted emails as well as direct mail to a potential customer base.”

“What types of items could they, as you put it, ‘pick and choose’ pray tell,” I asked, intrigued.

“Elementary, dear Watson. The simplest in this case would be zip code. If the business is local, then  they probably know the neighborhoods and thus the zip codes of the more affluent residents. Given that information included into the Email list, one could send an offer for high-end merchandise, knowing they would not irritate those who have less interest or capability to pay for such a purchase,” answered The Detective.

“Brilliant, sir!” I exclaimed in spite of myself.

“Another simple example would be if they have tracked the purchase history of their customers, perhaps in an accounting system. By adding an indicator of a high volume purchaser to their email program, they could also target special offers for such loyal customers!” finished The Detective.

“I think that gives a much better idea of what was meant by too many databases, sir. Now perhaps the others?…” I encouraged.

“All in good time, Watson. All in good time.”

 

Filed Under: data, providing service, Uncategorized Tagged With: , , , ,