Bad Branding

Doo dah, doo doo, doo dah, dee dee

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 19:29:00 +0000

The marketing world is enthralled by "Old Spice Guy" these days, with countless articles, blog posts, and keynote addresses talking about how well the campaign is performing in both traditional and new media. So here's one more.

As a consumer, I like the ads and I think their efforts in addressing the social media space are fun and unique. As a marketer, I appreciate that they're successfully breaking through a very cluttered marketplace and are successfully repositioning a very old and tired brand.

However, most "successful" marketing efforts are either great at driving sales or in building positive brand metrics. One is a short term measurement, the other is long term. Rarely does a campaign succeed at both.

I was initially skeptical of the Old Spice campaign -- in fact, it seemed to be failing in both areas, despite its apparent awesomeness.
For one thing, initial sales figures weren't impressive.
Beyond this, I still see many comments from people saying "Fun ads, but Old Spice reminds me of my grandpa, so I'd never wear it."
And... quick: name the specific product being advertised in this campaign. A lot of people aren't sure.

Even some of the "best" campaigns in the history of advertising failed to achieve both.
"I'd like to buy the world a Coke"
"Tastes Great / Less Filling"
"It's Patrick! He took out life insurance! Good for you son! At my age it's probably too late..."

You probably recognize all three of the above phrases.
Here's the thing: The first two didn't actually achieve the great immediate sales results (the second actually helped its competitor more than the advertiser itself, apparently). But they helped establish some powerful brands for years to come.
The third example is one of those "Man, I hate that ad" spots. It's hardly endeared the advertised brand to the public. But it works. The horribly-written, terribly-acted TV commercial ran for years and years because it continually sold insurance.

One of the challenges as an outside observer is not knowing how many hits there are for every shot fired, so to speak.

Case Studies are great. I love to learn about what works and would much rather see a real world example than some academic, theoretical opinion. But we only get to see the best-of-the-best and the worst-of-the-worst when it comes to case studies. We'll surely see plenty more analysis of The Old Spice Guy campaign in years to come. The folks who created it will be the stars of the marketing industry conference circuit for at least a few more months.

But what about the brand's relative failures (or the ad agency's failures for other clients)?

Old Spice had a great (from an "entertained consumer" perspective) campaign featuring Bruce Campbell a few years ago. Very very very similar to the current ads (even including some cool online stuff, before the exact same activities were labeled as "social media"). But these didn't move the needle. They got some word-of-mouth, a few gazillion plays on YouTube, and so on, but never really caught on with the public. Clearly, based on the latest campaign, the strategy and creative direction is a good one for this brand, and yet it clearly isn't a formula for automatic success.

I'm fascinated by this "X Factor". Hollywood has shown us that it's almost impossible to predict which movies and TV shows will be a hit. Two almost identical shows will almost always have completely different results (and it's just as likely that the lower-budget, cheesier, dumber, less-marketed one will actually perform better). Same seems to go with marketing. The people behind Old Spice's resurgence probably had their fair share of unremarkable campaigns in the past, and will probably be hit-and-miss with their future efforts. If these people -- who seem to "get it" and have clients with deep pockets -- can't be consistently amazing, what hope do the rest of us have?

If any of my clients are reading this: big budgets help. It's pretty clear that the "Guy" campaign has a lot more financial support than the Bruce Campbell one did. It's almost always a good idea to spend more. The latest campaign is one of the very few examples of campaigns where it was worthwhile to advertise during the Super Bowl, for example.
But there are also countless examples of campaigns with big money, "star" creative teams and more, that have failed miserably.

Maybe it's a form of chaos theory. There are just so many variables when dealing with unpredictable things (like human beings) that the same actions will rarely generate the same results every time.

Sell The Dream, Or Make It Painless?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 22:45:00 +0000

I'm considering buying a home automation/distributed media system for my new house. Nothing fancy, but something that will let us listen to music in various parts of the house, maybe control some of the lights from a central location, and so on.

Researching my options, it seems that most suppliers really focus on a "sell the dream" approach. They showcase the ultimate system, featuring drool-worthy photos and descriptions of amazing, futuristic homes. As much as this makes me want one even more, it also has the opposite effect of scaring me away. There's no way I can afford a powerful mega-system. My rational side starts immediately thinking of reasons not to buy: I'm not really going to use it that much... it's not really hard to manually turn on the lights... I could buy a separate stereo system for each room for the same price...

Even the suppliers that emphasize the affordability of their offerings still position them as a luxury item.

Perhaps some of them would be wise to focus on entry-level consumers and realize that most of us probably won't just jump in to the full-meal-deal. Concentrate on communicating some bite-size pieces that anybody with a decent job could (and should! darnit) buy today. They can always up-sell us later in the process, of course.

Oversight, Ignorance, Compromise, or Dumb?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 22:04:00 +0000

Walking the dog today, I passed a house that got me thinkin'.

No camera with me, so I'll have to describe it.
The front of the house faces south. It's a two-level with a garage on one side. The first floor looks pretty normal: front door, windows... But the second floor facing south is all roof. A steep roof-line runs from the top of the first floor all the way to the top. No windows or anything. It's not just a giant attic, though, as there appear to be windows at the back of the house.

Why would someone design their house like this?
It's not a particularly busy street. It's in a rural area, on a large lot, well away from the road.
Why not have a few windows on the south side? Living in the northern hemisphere, southern exposure is usually a key location benefit for real estate properties.

I can only think of four reasons someone would choose this design:
1. Oversight. Very unacceptable for professional designers and builders, but excusable for a homeowner who lacks experience. This seems like a fairly major thing to overlook, though. So, perhaps it's better described as:
2. Ignorance. Same description, bigger scale.
3. Compromise. Hopefully this is the most likely explanation. Every window that's installed, every angle that's cut, etc. has a cost attached. Maybe the budget didn't allow for this side of the house to look good. Maybe the owners preferred putting their efforts elsewhere. Maybe they recognized that this design direction wasn't perfect, but gave them the best results for their priorities (for example, if they like lots of un-broken wall space but couldn't make the rooms larger).
or
4. Dumb. Some choices are just unexplainable. Maybe you could call it "personal taste", but this particular case seems as much about utility as tastes.

I wonder if I could apply the same four reasons to other baffling decisions that I see made around me.

Aren't Greyhounds Supposed To Be Fast & Sleek?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 19:36:00 +0000

Want to play a fun game?

Try to book a ticket on Greyhound Canada from Victoria, BC to Nanaimo, BC with the following restrictions:
- pick a travel date that is around 7 to 9 days from today
- choose to buy a 7-Day Advance Purchase ticket
- go through the process as if you're buying the ticket on behalf of someone else

Perhaps start with their Web site at www.greyhound.ca

What's that? Even though tickets appear to be available for the trip you can't buy them online? Hmmm. Strange.

Maybe it's worth a phone call to the toll free number listed on the site. Let's see... according to the Need Help? link shown on the page, that number is 1-800-231-2222. Okay.

Oh. That number is for trips within the United States, is it?
At least there's an option on the automated phone system for trips within Canada. Maybe try that? Alright, that just gives another phone number. 1-800-661-8747, gotcha.

Ahh, another phone system. Fun.
Okay, let's walk through the process.

Select an option to get ticket info (since there is no option to just "Buy").
A seemingly-random selection of departure cities is given. Nope, none of those.
Okay, type "8" for cities that start with T, U, and V.
Nope, none of those are correct either. Nope, we don't need to hear more "T" cities. Oh, thanks for informing us that there are no "U" cities -- good trivia to tell the grandkids one day.
Alright, select the option for more "V" cities. Yay, there it is.
And... repeat the process for the destination city.
Now listen to a list of all the departure and arrival times for that route.

I guess it's time to talk to an agent now that it finally provides that as an option.

Let's tell them our relevant info. Departure city. Destination. Date. Time...

What's that? Why, no, actually, the credit card being used to book the trip is not in the same name as the traveler. But it's a valid card. Honest!

There's an $18 fee for that? Why, that's almost as much as the ticket price! What on earth does this fee cover? If the credit card is invalid, what good does it do for them to add an extra fee anyways? Ohhhhhhh, I see: the ticket agent has absolutely no empowerment and only basic training. Alrighty.

Hold on, let's grab the traveler's credit card info, then. Okay, got it.

Ready. Let's get a-buyin'!

Excuse me? There's a $6 fee for booking by phone? What's that about? They're encouraging use of the Web site? Okay, fine. But the ticket isn't available through the Web site...

Aha! So the ability for purchasers to print their own ticket at home is only available in certain cities. Which means that Greyhound want to mail a ticket. Which takes up to ten days. That's why you can't book online. So, really, if you want a 7-Day Advance Purchase fare, you have to book at least 10 days in advance. And be available to collect the ticket in the mail when it arrives (not much good if you're, say, traveling around the country at the time).

But if you book by phone, they can somehow have your tickets waiting for you at will-call... Right.

Wow.
Amazing that airlines, hotels, and countless other businesses manage to sell bookings(and other products and services) worth thousands of dollars without these sorts of restrictions.
No way to just give a confirmation number and show ID at the ticket booth? Nope.
No way to just print an e-mail or other basic content instead of a full "ticket"? Nope, only for certain cities. ("What does that have to do with anything?" is, of course, the next logical question).

Alright, game over.

Does Greyhound actually successfully sell any tickets online or by phone? Does everybody end up paying extra fees just to get the process complete?

The above is, as you've probably guessed, based on an actual occurrence. And it went on from here. Just imagine the above stretched out over several phone calls trying to find someone who can expedite the process or waive the ridiculous fee(s). Ugh.

Sure, this particular situation just happens to be a weird exception that falls between the cracks (cities without full ticketing capabilities, dates that are more than one restriction allows but less than another, etc.). If this was the extent of the problems it would be forgivable.

But the issues seem to be systemic.
The customer service and ticket agent staff are next to useless. No apologies or efforts to make the process smoother. No suggestions for how to deal with the problems. No effort to make the eventual purchase process go as quickly as possible.

The IVR phone system has got to be the worst I've ever encountered. Ever. Really: Try it out. Call the above phone number (it's toll free) and pretend to book a ticket. Time how long it takes to get to any useful info. God forbid you want to just buy something right away.

The Web site is some antiquated thing that looks like something I would have been ashamed to produce in 2001.

The fare and fee structure looks like something designed by a sociopath.

I could go on for hours outlining just a few of the things wrong with this company. And the worst part: this is before even setting foot near their actual facilities or staff. I shudder to think what they'll screw up. Can I actually trust them to have a record of the ticket at will-call? Will there be room on the bus? Will the bus be even running?

I wonder if the reason Greyhound has a virtual monopoly on most routes is that their potential competitors see only a handful of people traveling and assume that there's no demand. Little do they know that most of the potential customers are still waiting on hold somewhere.

Everyone's A Winner Baby

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 19:02:00 +0000

The idea of "best" is incredibly arbitrary and fleeting. Even in areas where reliable, absolute data is available, results seem to change on a constant basis.

(Before I get started, here's a previous post about what I think of "Best").

In the world of sports, why does the gold medal winner at the Olympics only finish is seventh place at their event's World Cup a few weeks later? Why is it so rare for a particular golfer or race horse and jockey or Nascar driver to win multiple big events in a single season?

If you're the best at something, shouldn't you be winning event after event, show after show, award after award?

The most obvious explanation is that there are an enormous number of variables in every activity. Even the best athlete in the world can have a bad day. Track conditions vary. The whole "butterfly beating its wings" thing comes into play.

This might explain the differences on a particular occasion, but shouldn't things average out over time? A single race or run or game might go badly, but the "best" should bounce back and be on top again soon afterwards. A lot of the time, though, this doesn't seem to be the case -- someone who has been declared the best at some point will typically see results that go up and down for years at a time.

Another explanation is the simple arbitrary nature of the term. What does "best" even mean? In many ways, it's like "quality" -- something I've complained about previously. Even when something can be judged based on absolute, irrefutable data it's still debatable which data is actually the most important, how results should be weighted, when variables should be taken into account, etc.

And a third explanation relates to timeframes. Is consistency over the long-run more important, or is it better to have an absolutely stellar performance once in a while? Again, this is arbitrary, but it's interesting how it relates directly to marketing vs. sales -- marketing is more concerned about consistency in the long run and driving towards lifetime achievement whereas sales is much more about doing really well this time (even if it means doing nothing to improve your chance of success next time).

It's pretty clear that these issues regularly pop up in the business world. A simple example is how Canada's three big cell phone companies have been arguing over claims of "fastest", "most reliable", and even just "reliable" lately.

In the end, if you're truly the "fastest", "best" or whatever, shouldn't it be obvious? Would you really need to constantly prove yourself? Why don't you go out and win a dozen big events in a row if you're so awesome? You probably don't even need to say so; people will just know.

A Theory About Social Media Experts

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 20:26:00 +0000

If you've read this blog before, you've probably noticed that I have a bit of a problem with the over-use (and sloppy usage) of the term "social media".

In a nutshell, the Internet is inherently "social" (weren't e-mail, chatrooms, and discussion boards the first widespread uses of the Net?) and good marketing is also inherently "social" (great marketing is shared, sharable, parodied, copied, etc. and always has been). The idea behind social media is nothing new and often merely refers to the growing ease with which new tools let us work.

I have a new theory:

This term is being used as a synonym for Digital Marketing as a whole, and I think it's largely due to people who previously missed the boat finally jumping on board.

If you're a marketing professional, you can't simply admit that you've been ignoring or under-valuing the Internet for the past decade. And you'd look like a fool if you were to now brag about how you're embracing online channels. But if you position yourself as a "social media expert", well... that's a whole different story! You're on the cutting edge. You're pushing the envelope and embracing new stuff left and right.

Don't get me wrong -- there are plenty of true social media experts out there. These are people who understand the tools and have been actively evolving their skills and experience to the industry's current state.

As usual, though, the real experts are drowned out by countless others whose expertise is largely self-professed and often merely academic.

Next time you talk to a "Social Media Expert", ask them how they were using Digital Marketing in 1999, or 2003, or 2008.

Don't Bother

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 05:51:00 +0000

I've noticed a few sales lately, especially at the grocery store, where the savings are virtually nonexistent. "Regular price $1.19 a pound, now just $1.11"

I have to ask: Why bother?
Is the store really attracting much (any?) incremental sales from this? Are consumers really going out of their way to purchase the "special" products?

Even better, I came across the following promotion on a loaf of bread:

It's a little blurry, but the amazing promotional offer is a free toaster oven with 12 proofs of purchase, plus $18 shipping and handling. www.thinkbreadinstead.ca

I wonder how many redemptions they had. How many people:
a.) Even want a toaster oven
b.) Want that particular brand
c.) Are willing and able to save 12 proofs of purchase without losing them (and before the promotion expired)
d.) Are willing to pay $18 for shipping and handling
e.) Actually believe the "suggested retail price" is what they would have to pay otherwise

I could, of course, be completely wrong and this may have been an incredibly successful promotion. But it's hard to imagine anyone going out of their way to buy extra bread (or switching to this particular brand) in order to save a few bucks on a small appliance.

Shouldn't a special promotion offer -- especially one with plenty of marketing support -- be, y'know, special? It doesn't have to be the greatest offer in the history of the universe, but should be a little bit noteworthy and memorable.

(As an aside: I don't really get the whole "Think Bread Instead" promotion. Instead of what? How many people don't already consume bread as a staple? Are there really people out there who don't "think of bread" at most meals? Seems weird.)

Give Me A Sign

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 14 Feb 2010 17:01:00 +0000

I think I've written about this before, but it's an ongoing problem:

Want to improve your brand? Put up a few informational signs.

I'm not talking about advertising or other promotional activities, but simple directions and basic information.

I attended an Olympic hockey game last night. The venue is set up very differently from when it hosts NHL games: all spectators are being funneled to a single entrance area, then go through security checks, then proceed to the arena. Besides being a stupid process (instead of putting 20 metal detectors in one place, why not put 2 in each of 10 different places?), its also quite confusing. Literally thousands of people were circling the building in both directions trying to find an open entrance.

The maps in the official spectator guide are equally confusing. One shows the location of each of the entry "gates" to the arena, but another only vaguely indicates where the security entrance is.

Because of street closures, this all results in the need for a long walk around the building, several city blocks away and often walking in what seems to the opposite of the desired direction.

Staff and volunteers were helpful and were directing people in generally the correct direction, but still faced a lot of questions.

Meanwhile, I kept asking myself "Why don't they just put up a few signs?". Even a basic cardboard sign proclaiming "This Way to All Gates" every block would have been useful.

Why are the most simple solutions so overlooked?

Of course, it's not just a problem with big venues and huge events. How many stores actually clearly indicate where different products are? How many smaller events tell you which way to go? How many construction sites tell you about road and sidewalk closures before you get right up to the closure? How many businesses give you useful information about where to park?

Extra Extra

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 01:31:00 +0000

I wonder why newspapers still seem to follow the old fashioned direction of creation splashy headlines and cover stories.

Once upon a time, newspapers were the primary source of news and information for most people. There were lots of competitors vying for readership, and multiple editions of each paper were published throughout the day (and night). Most readers would buy at least one of each day's newspapers from a store, newsstand, or even a good ole "Extry extry!"-style paperboy.

It made sense, then, that papers would not only compete for the best stories and other content, but would also try to write the biggest, most attention-getting headlines that they could.

Now, however, most markets have only a couple of newspapers. Even the huge ones only have a couple of editions each day. Circulation numbers might vary a bit from day to day, but are pretty steady these days -- people subscribe to their favourite, grab certain ones on the way to work, read certain ones at the office, etc.

For most consumers, newspapers are just one of many news sources they refer to throughout the day. The information they get from a paper is a complement to stories they'll see, hear, and read elsewhere.
Most people also know that the vast majority of content of any paper is non-exclusive.

So why do newspapers still act like a shocking headline is really going to help attract more readers and sell more papers?

Pennies

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 08:02:00 +0000

Okay, a short one tonight:

What's with miniscule, almost non-existant, discounts?

I've been noticing this for quite a while, especially at the supermarket: items marked on sale for just a few cents below regular price.

Why bother? Is anyone actually rushing to buy extra Jello because it's $0.89 instead of $0.95? Anybody heading to the store just so they can pick up some special 1% off rice noodles?

All this does is make me think the store are being cheap.

Fanatics

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 17:20:00 +0000

Sometimes the best customers (or users, or watchers, or players, etc.) can actually be a liability. Their fanaticism can actually push away those people seeking more casual relationships.

A few examples:

Ever play a competitive multiplayer online game? One I like to indulge in from time to time is Tribal Wars, for instance, but there a million others. The general idea is that each player develops medieval villages, wages war, and trades with others. Working in "tribes" with other players allows for a lot of support and interaction. I only dabble in it and don't devote an enormous amount of time or effort to the game. There seems to be tens of thousands of other players with a similar level of engagement. Unfortunately, a relatively small group of players seem obsessive and ruin it for the rest. They've figured out the exact best approach to the game and play almost mechanically, performing actions in a very formulaic way. To the game's producers, I'm sure these guys seem incredibly valuable: they spend a bunch of time online (which brings ad revenue) and they're the most likely to pay for a "premium" account. Because these fanatics are so deeply engaged, though, they easily defeat the casual players and make the game much less fun. I wonder how many thousands of casual players would be more engaged if the fanatics weren't there.

Similarly, in the real world, ever go to a professional sporting event? Even terrible teams have their share of fanatics. Most of them add to the overall game experience. They lead the cheers, they dress in team uniforms, they yell at the refs and get the crowd going. But some of this crew can also make the sport unbearable at times -- not just at the games, but ongoing. They yell and cheer so much that you can't hear the event, they stand in front of other spectators, they talk obsessively about the sport at work, at the bar, on the street... Sure, this group might buy every piece of merchandise they can find, but how many others' brand experience is harmed by this obsession and discourtesy?

Games and sports are easy examples. So what about more typical businesses?
Here's an example from my personal experience:
A couple of years ago I worked for a well-known, international consumer brand. The company had been around for about a decade and had established itself well. Its products are sufficiently unique and effective to have gained a strong following.
One of my responsibilities was marketing for the mail order division, which included online sales. Before "social media" became the buzzword of the moment, we were operating a very popular and successful online community. About half the discussions in this community were directly related to the company and its products. The other half was all over the map, but a great way to extend the brand. People with little else in common were brought together by various brand principles. The community had its share of fanatics. At times, they were our (the marketing department's) best friends. Many of them bought huge amounts of products. Most of them were invaluable assets for new customers who had product usage questions, etc. And their high level of activity was an excellent example and lead for newcomers. But... they were also some of the biggest thorns in our sides. Some took it upon themselves to speak for the entire customer base (often with limited actual support from others). Some used the community as a place to push personal agendas. Some used their leadership positions to unfairly push the company ("We're really valuable! Gimme gimme gimme!"). Some bullied the newcomers. And so on.
We had to very carefully manage the demands and expectations of this group while also supporting the new or "lesser" customers. Despite the fanatics' value, the long tail phenomenon certainly was in effect at this company, with a huge number of small customers providing a bulk of the sales.

I suppose the keys are:
1. Brands need to look at their "best" customers as more than one homogeneous group.
2. Fanatics can be great, but brands shouldn't be fanatical about them.

Content is Still King

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 18:31:00 +0000

As you've probably surmised from my previous posts on the subject, I have mixed feelings about social media marketing.

In general, my biggest concerns are with the faddy-ness of focusing on particular tools and tactics. MySpace leads to Friendster leads to Facebook leads to Twitter leads to FourSquare...

I recently pondered (see the last paragraph in that link) what evolutionary or revolutionary path social media would take as a marketing tool.

But perhaps that's the wrong question.

We really need to better understand and address what "social" is all about at its core.

First, there's the matter of identifying what types of social media channels/strategies/tactics are out there. I think it comes down to:
1. Networks. Systems that enable connections between individuals, brands, groups, etc. These connections then grow into conversations or other relationships.
2. Consumer Generated Content. In any form -- text, video, photos, music... and in any quantity -- from entire novels to one-word comments.
3. Leads. Things that help participants find and/or use the above. Trending topics and hashtags on Twitter, Digg and Reddit links, or even just a "Hey, I just tried..." posts on a forum.

Is there anything in the social space that doesn't fall into these groups?

So it really comes down to: having something to talk about and a place (and way) to do it.

At the heart of both of these is one simple thing: Content.

Social media Networks and Leads are just another way to spread content (or tell people where to get it). Consumer Generated Content is just plain ol' Content with more contributors.

Here's what I think:
It's time for marketers to take a step back and look at their marketing strategy as a whole as a Content Strategy.

What do you want your brand to say?
What do you hope others will say about your brand?
What existing content do you want to associated with?
Where's the best place to say these things?
How can you help others say these things?
What similar topics or ideas should you align with?
Where are conversations already taking place?
Where should conversations take place?
How can new conversations get started?
How can potential participants find each other?

And this is BEFORE even thinking about a particular channel, or even medium.

It's not about "social media". It's not even about "digital marketing". It's just marketing.

Every single one of the questions above might be addressed with traditional marketing vehicles or real-world venues. Or fancy-pants, newfangled Web 3.0 options might be the best opportunities. Or, obviously, some combination of the two.

I'm working with several clients who are taking this approach. Each is working to establish their brand as experts in their particular industries and/or associated topics (whether that association is through demographic, psychographic, or other qualities). From there, they're determining the best ways to ensure this brand attribute is shared, and to (legitimately) prove their expertise by sharing as much as possible.

I think this makes a lot of sense for building the brands in the long-term.

The sexy-tool-and-tactic-of-the-moment is still important, and is a part of most of these plans. But we won't have to reinvent the wheel when a new flavour of the month comes along.

It's also, frankly, a lot less work in the long run. The same content may be valid for TV commercials, blog entries, Twitter posts, Facebook Fan Page updates, live events, sponsored community organizations, contest, and so on and so on across the entire gamut of potential marketing tools. Effort switches from constantly re-defining what we say to adjusting how and where we say it.

Beware the Case Study

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 18:31:00 +0000

I really really like case studies. In general, when I attend a conference or industry event, the presentations that I find most interesting and useful are the stories about "Here's what we were trying to do, here's what we did, here's why we chose this approach, and here's what happened."

But I've begun to get a bit more jaded about them lately.

At a recent Internet marketing event that I attended, for example, several case studies were presented. In every case, the brands saw amazing results. The solutions/campaigns/technology used were absolutely the best choices that the marketers could have selected.

Same thing at a recent advertising awards show. Of course, because it was a "creative" event, they didn't actually show any results generated by the winners, but the reels and screenshots and sample images, etc. certainly implied that the featured ads were the greatest pieces of design and copywriting ever beheld by mankind.

But some of us in the audiences at these events wondered aloud -- were these examples actually any good? Is there much we can learn from them?

A campaign by a major beer brand comes to mind. Their case study showed how they generated thousands of contest entries (and, we would assume, a whole pile of brand building value) for a particular promotion. Why was it successful? According to the case study, it had something to do with the amazingly-chosen media mix and the fancy new creative unit (ad size) used. But maybe, just maybe, it was successful because the brand spent millions of dollars promoting the contest. Maybe it had something to do with the prize being a dream vacation. Maybe the fact that the ads were basically just images of beautiful people in skimpy swimsuits had some influence on success. Or maybe the brand's history as the leader in market share for decades helped a little...

I would actually be more interested in a case study where a campaign like this failed miserably. If you have a multi-million dollar budget, few imagery restrictions, a product that's inherently linked to fun, and a well established brand, how on earth could you possibly screw up?

Unfortunately, case studies, like history, are written by the victors. There's not much reason for a marketing manager or ad agency to tell the world about their mistakes. Unless they're blaming someone else, of course.

One of my favourite marketing books is The End Of Marketing As We Know it by Sergio Zyman. Zyman is former CMO of Coca Cola and has been a consultant for numerous other huge consumer product brands. The main message of the book is pretty simple: marketing is meant to sell. One of things that makes the content so interesting, though, is that he spends more time talking about the failures than he does about the successes. It turns out, for example, that classic ad campaigns ("Mean Joe Greene", "Tastes Great, Less Filling", and many others) didn't actually do anything for the bottom line.

Case studies can be very dangerous, and I think it's all about context. If you're a marketer, you need to look very carefully at the similarities and differences between your brand and the examples. Don't assume that because X (seems to have) worked for those other guys it will automatically work for you too. Are their budgets similar? Is their background similar? Is their audience similar? Are the inherent product attributes even remotely similar?

It's pretty obvious to say "Your small brand can't count on the same success that a big brand saw" or "Your boring product can't count on the same success that a fun product saw", but it also works the other direction. Everybody loves the "Little brand that could" stories of some guy in his his mom's garage growing into a multi-national leader. But just as that little guy had to start with a different approach than his billion-dollar competitors, his billion-dollar competitors couldn't just look at this up-and-comer and follow his approach.

Case studies aren't useless, of course. Like I said, I really really like them. The key is to identify the similarities.
If I'm selling banking products, maybe I can relate to the fun-loving attributes of a beer campaign. Who doesn't love money, right?
If I'm selling high-end cosmetics, there's probably something to learn from the techniques of other ridiculously-high-margin products like pharmaceuticals...
A huge baby stroller producer should be able to use similar insights into the minds of new parents as a small, local daycare...

A Million Monkeys

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:16:00 +0000

Are thousands of amateurs just as good (or better) than a small number of professionals?
That's the question behind crowdsourcing.
But you could even extend this to other areas of social media -- are the comments and contributions of the general public as (or more) valuable than the comments and contributions of experts? Are you better off connecting with a pro or a bunch of average Joes?

Like most questions (especially those related to marketing), the answer is: It depends.

In some situations, the crowd of amateurs is a much better resource than the professionals. Usually this has something to do with:
a.) The fact that the "professionals" are just amateurs who managed to get themselves a fancy-sounding title.
b.) The topic at hand is a matter of opinion.
c.) The amateurs are extremely enthusiastic.
and/or
d.) The crowd members are well-qualified (vs. anybody who feels like contributing)

Take movie reviews, for instance. I'd much rather hear from other movie-going members of the general public than a journalist or professor or sociologist or "academy".

Or reviews and ideas about favourite hobbies and products. If I like photography, the input I can get from the legions of other photographers out there is at least as valuable as what I might learn from a professional review, an art school, or some other self-proclaimed authority.

But in other situations... Well, all it takes is a glance at the comments on any (really, ANY) YouTube video, most news articles, or countless discussion forums to show just how sketchy the contributions of many people are. Or look at some of the top applications on Facebook, or the inane #hashtagged topics on Twitter, or the sheer volume of juvenile chatter in almost any social network.

It's pretty clear that the biggest problem with addressing the "crowd" is the crowd itself. Makes me wonder how marketers will react in the long term. Will marketers work more on filtering the garbage? (Some would say that this defeats the purpose of an open discussion). Will marketers and users accept all the useless content, but get better at just ignoring it?

There's no doubt in my mind that social media will lose its title of Trendy Tactic of the Moment, but will our collective attention shift to something similar and evolutionary (perhaps classic concepts under a different name, just like word-of-mouth became viral)? Or will there be a radical shift to something very different? Will be people suddenly get tired of belonging to a dozen different "communities", updating their status on a regular basis, and sharing their lives with everybody they've met?

Tennis, Baseball, and Golf

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 23:49:00 +0000

Play any sport that involves hitting a ball with a stick and the coach will tell you that follow-through (continuing your motion after contact is made) is just as important as your form and strength prior to contact.

Same goes for marketing.

I recently attended the big Home and Interior Design Show that comes to town a couple of times a year. Hundreds of merchants and manufacturers set up fancy (and some not-so-fancy) booths where their salesiest or salesy salespeople try to convince everybody walking past that they need a new roof/hot tub/gutter/shower/furnace/stereo/countertop...

I'm in the process of building a house so I actually welcomed the sales pitches. So, over the course of a couple of hours I gathered together as much information as I could about windows, doors, heating, cooling, and every other topic imaginable.

So on to the follow-through.

A couple of weeks later, and I don't think I've been proactively contacted by anyone I met at the show. Most of those that I've contacted have been very slow to respond (if they've had any response at all) and don't seem interested in answering many questions.

I suspect that, like most small businesses, the participants at the event saw it as a one-off. They simplistically look at the attendance numbers and hope that a significant portion of the attendees will magically turn in to buyers.
I also suspect that there are enough of these instant and easy sales to justify the expense of the show.
But if many people are like me and not quite ready to buy (which should be a safe assumption for high-consideration products like these), the vendors are missing an enormous opportunity.

Missed Opportunities (Again)

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 04:51:00 +0000

Promoting film and TV properties seems like such a fun and open area of marketing. I've only done a small amount of work in this field, but have had the chance to run a few campaigns for other fun products over the years, and they're always much more creative (and easy) than trying to market an inherently boring product or service.

So why is so much film and TV marketing so lame?
There are a million interesting and unique methods to try, and some have done a great job. But far too many are just the typical "Run a few TV spots showing a few seconds of the best scenes. Put up a few 'coming soon' Out of Home ads. Maybe run a small viral video campaign or have an interactive Web site of some sort." Yawn.

Especially when it comes to remakes and new versions of iconic characters or shows.

Take the upcoming (it starts tomorrow) new "V" series. The original was nice, cheesy, 80s sci-fi, but it's incredibly recognizable among the target audience. Scenes like Abraham, the concentration camp survivor, spraypainting a big V "For victory" on a piece of Visitors propaganda, for instance... Wouldn't it have been cool for the marketing of the new show to replicate this, with big red Vs painted (with real paint, not just a lame poster) over fake ads (of various types) in outdoor placements across North America?

Or the recent Transformers films (especially the first one) -- there would have been a collective gasp of "Oh my god!" among fanboys if the first teaser trailers had shown absolutely nothing but then played the memorable "chee-choo-choo-chaw-chaw" transforming sound effect from the original cartoon series.

Or how about the hugely-successful Spider-man films... The marketers could have run a guerilla campaign hiring stunt performers to dangle from major buildings around the world.

Just a few silly ideas, but you get the picture.
Many of these big productions pretty much sell themselves, but creating a sense of excitement is still incredibly important. Using a bit of creativity could even save a few million bucks in advertising dollars.

Getting Unique

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:43:00 +0000

Everything's cyclical - it's just the length of the cycle that changes.

Big chain stores and mass-produced products are the norm right now. I don't know if this will ever change.

But I suspect that there is a growing trend of small producers and sellers chipping away at the long-tail of the behemoths. Led largely by the efficiencies that can be experienced at even a small volume online, but also appearing in physical locations, there are a lot of "cottage" companies out there. Why buy the same, generic, everybody-has-one stuff when you could get something of (probably) higher quality that's substantially more unique, interesting, and personal?

It will be interesting to see if this develops into a trend, and if the big guys respond with niche sub-brands of their own.

Whither The Clickers?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 16:45:00 +0000

Last time, I explained why I don't think that clickthrough rate is a dead metric for online advertising.

But this still leaves the big questions:
Why do most campaigns have such low CTRs?
And why do so few people click at all?

I think there are two simple reasons (requiring not-so-simple fixes):
1. It takes a certain type of person to click much.
2. Most campaigns suck. Even the good ones.

A Certain Type of Person
People are people, regardless of the medium they use.
A small portion of the audience are hard-core coupon clippers, sweepstakes entrants, infomercial-callers, letter-to-the-editor-writers, and so on.

It's hardly surprising that a relatively small group of users account for the vast majority of clicks. Even if average clickthrough rates were to dramatically improve, I suspect that the heavy-clickers would keep up the pace and continue to dominate.

I don't have any stats to back me up (anybody know of a good study on the topic?) but I'd bet that this group are a strange mix of extremely high-value consumers (the type who will buy anything, who are easy to sway, and like to tell all their friends about their purchase) and virtually-no-value consumers (the type who don't actually buy anything, but browse anything and everything purely for the sake of their own curiousity). I don't think there are many of the sought after in-betweens in this group: those who browse anything and everything and become experts for their friends. Those guys need to actually be targeted properly.

Most Campaigns Suck
It's true.
Typical online ad creative is awful. Unclear message, weak call-to-action, low-quality imagery or animation, too much copy, not enough copy...
And the typical campaign is very untargeted. Who are you trying to reach? It still amazes me that the bulk of online ads aren't even geo-targeted.

Is it any wonder that very few people respond immediately to an ad that doesn't speak to them, and is just plain lousy?

If advertisers took the time and made the effort to segment (and sub-segment) their target audience, identify targeting filters and techniques, carefully select media providers (not just pick the top 10 in a category on Comscore, say), created multiple creative variations, matched creative execution to placement/audience, and other basics (that we should all understand by now)... Well, I suspect we'd see clickthrough rates improve (along with all the other applicable metrics).

Of course, I completely recognize that sometimes this just isn't realistic. Deadlines, budgets, resourcing requirements, and a thousand other obstacles get in the way.

But I'm sure there are plenty of cases where these obstacles can be avoided and the people involved just didn't bother to do things right. You could write a book on Internet advertising best practices, and hundreds of people have, yet many media planners, brand managers, creative directors, and so on simply don't apply these.

When this changes, brand marketing through online display advertising will have a chance to bounce back. Who knows? Maybe one day it will be the sexy-tactic-of-the-minute...

The Reports of The Clickthrough Rate's Demise Have Been Greatly Exagerrated

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 16:05:00 +0000

It's an ongoing debate in digital marketing circles, but really brought to the forefront lately: How valuable is clickthrough rate (CTR) as a success metric?

A recent report, for example, indicates that the majority of clicks come from an extremely small group of people.

At an IAB event last week, a speaker basically said "Clicks are dead. You've got to get past looking at clicks."

Within a typical ad campaign, it's normal to expect a clickthrough rate of around 0.10 to 0.20%. And even that's a stretch for some campaigns. In other words, only one or two people click on the ad for every thousand that see it.

And, of course, clicking on an ad is just one of many steps in any consumer interaction -- alone, it does not give us a very complete picture of what actual happened in that interaction. Many interactions don't even involve a click (such as in cases where a user sees an ad, doesn't respond immediately, but at a later time performs a search for the advertised product or brand).

In addition to all this, CTR isn't even an exact measurement. In most campaigns, the number of clicks registered by the ad server is different than the number of visits registered by a site's log files (or other metrics methods).

So, with all these negatives, why do I think that the CTR isn't dead yet?

Lots of reasons. Among them:

1. Clickthrough rate is still better than most traditional metrics.
How many clicks did your latest out of home ad garner? How many people responded to your multi-million dollar TV campaign? How does this compare to the number that responded to your radio campaign that ran at the same time?...

Most traditional marketers simply cannot answer these questions. Those who can do so by spending a significant amount of time, effort, and money on research and analysis. Or they use direct response tactics (such as a unique phone number, coupon code, or other identifiers) to differentiate between ads, channels, offers, etc. (Which is great, but has all sorts of not-so-good impacts on branding and consistency).

2. Clickthrough rate is good for quick analysis of trends and general status.
At a glance, CTR can tell you if Creative A or Creative B is making a bigger impact, or if Placement A or Placement B is more relevant to your target audience.
Watching clickthrough rates change over time can help warn that your campaign is getting stale or, alternatively, tell you that you're reaching an optimal frequency level.

It's not perfect, and it's not a complete picture, but it can be invaluable when you need a quick-and-dirty understanding of what's going on.

3. Clickthrough rate is an important part of the big picture.
Although its importance as an individual metric is questionable, CTR can give us lots of great information when combined with other data.

Going back to Marketing 101 and the AIDA model (Awareness, Interest, Desire, Action), clickthrough rate can help us understand how well we're achieving some of the earlier metrics (Awareness to some degree, but primarily Interest). This info has a low value by itself (it doesn't do much good to gain someone's interest if they don't eventually Desire your product), but can help you understand where you're going wrong (or right).

A campaign with, say, a high CTR but low conversion rate might indicate that the creative is excellent, or very well targeted, or that the offer is strong at first glance, but that the landing page is weak, or that the details of the offer are disappointing when the user looks more closely.

On the other hand, a campaign with a low CTR but high conversion rate might indicate that the media plan needs to shift focus, or that the creative isn't getting the message across clearly, because the small portion of people who do click are actually quite impressed when they get to the landing page.

An ad with high engagement (like watching a video or playing a game) but low clickthrough rate might indicate that it's doing a great job of branding but needs a stronger sense of urgency.

A campaign with high CTRs -- but only for ads with high impression levels -- might tell us that the ads are too complex, or that a certain level of frequency is required, or that sequential messaging would be beneficial.

And so on and so on.

Without understanding the clickthrough portion of the bigger picture, our understanding of the end result is incomplete.

4. Clickthrough rate has become a standard.
Right or wrong, everybody understands (or can understand) how to calculate a clickthrough rate and what it represents. When we start talking about “engagement:” or “time spent” or “viewthrough” or “complete views” or “post click conversions” other metrics that are typically more valuable to an analyst, the waters get a bit muddy. What does an “engagement” really mean? Does 30 seconds spent playing an online game have the same value as 30 seconds spent viewing an online video? How long after an initial impression is made should its contribution still be attributed to a sale?

CTR might be simple, but that’s part of its value. GRPs don’t tell us much about the value of a TV audience, but they’ve become a standard metric for much the same reason, as have distribution and circulation for print.

So, if clicks are still important, this brings up the equally important question:

Why are clickthrough rates so low?

Some thoughts on this in another entry.

Don't Get Defensive

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 16:24:00 +0000

Good advice for personal relationships, and equally so for business -- when confronted with a potential argument (or even just a disagreement), don't get defensive.

Two stories for this one:

A few months ago I was at a local home improvement warehouse store, waiting in line with some lumber. This store has a "contractors" line-up for people with large, bulky items. Due to a bit of ad planning in the store layout, the cashier area only has room for one or two big shopping carts and the line-up is then intersected by a major aisle through the store. So, the line breaks up for twenty feet or so and then reforms. Anyway, I was waiting in the third position (the first person after the break) with two customers in front of me. The second customer had a couple of carts, so they were standing with one by the cashier while their spouse waited with the other a few steps to one side. The person in front of them finished, and the person in line moved forward. Their spouse brought the other cart over to join them.

At this time, a staff member walked past and confronted the spouse. "The line up is back there", she said, pointing in my direction.

Okay, common situation for almost every store. The spouse had a legitimate reason for being there, though, and simply said "Oh, I'm with her".

Instead of smiling and moving on, the staff member decided to get upset. "There's no way I could know that!" she snapped. I still remember this because of the way she said it. You know that episode of Family Guy where Brian has a new girlfriend who's a complete moron? Near the end of the episode, Stewie and Brian are talking about how she talks, where every sentence.. ends with an upwards inflection... as if it's a question. That was exactly how Miss "Angry That A Customer Pointed Out Her Mistake" sounded.

Second story:
Stopped for dinner at a restaurant a couple of weeks ago. One of us wanted to order the soup and salad combination. Unfortunately, they didn't want the soup of the day and tried to substitute French Onion in its place. The waitress informed us that there would be a $2 charge for the substitution. I pointed out to her that, on the menu, the price difference between the two items was $0.50. Unless the soup in the combo is four times bigger than the one on the menu (doubtful, since the combo cost in total was only double the price of the soup alone), the extra charge seemed a bit high.

We didn't care about the $2. It's not a big deal. But the principle of charging a significant premium for a slight alteration seemed like a really poor business practice.

Instead of simply apologizing and saying something like "Unfortunately, we have to charge a standard $2 for all substitutions" or some other excuse, she became very defensive. She proceeded to tell us how she isn't responsible for the pricing. And how she has to enter the substitution into the computer when she orders and can't instruct the cook to make the change. And how it's a much bigger soup bowl than the one on the menu... And on and on. Meanwhile, we're just telling her "Okay fine. It doesn't make sense to charge that much, but we'll just order something else."

In the first case above, the staff member risked making something of nothing, and obviously created a bad impression for any customers within earshot. In the second case, the staff member risked turning a mildly irritating bit of bad pricing decisions into an entirely bad customer experience.

In both cases, the defensiveness was completely unnecessary and was worse than the initial problem itself.

Oldies are Goodies

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 16:51:00 +0000

My birthday is next weekend.
Like happens with many people, this prompted me to think of some of the positives about getting older.

One that came to mind immediately was: "People take you seriously."
More specifically, business associates, clients, and especially potential vendors.

I want to focus on the last of these.

I'm currently in the process of buying an empty lot, selling my home, moving in with family for a few months, and building a new house. More about this in another post, I suspect.

The incredible thing is that this whole idea and process kicked off with a single visit to an open house. On a lark, we decided to check out a beautiful show home in an area we love, just to see what it was like. Amazingly, the real estate agent showing the home didn't ignore us. She actually spoke to us as if we might buy the place (or one like it). Just as importantly, she didn't seem to be just humouring us -- she really believed that we might actually be capable of buying the place. We continued down the street to a second show home that was having an open house. Considering the good experience at the first one, we decided to check the second one out as well.

Same thing happened. The agent was friendly, helpful, and genuinely seemed interested in taking some time with us. Even when another family arrived to look around, he continued to pay attention to us, answer our questions, etc.

Interestingly, a couple of rooms in this show home were being used as the office for the home's builder. When we were in that part of the house, he greeted us, introduced himself, and said that he'd be happy to answer our questions if we're considering building a house any time in the future. (We hired him, and the second agent, by the way).

I compare this experience to even just a few years ago. The last time I was house-hunting, I was virtually ignored by the agents showing the homes. Same thing with other "grown-up"' products and services.

I remember going into a BMW dealership, just to have a closer look at the current models, and not being approached by a single employee, while others around us were being accosted left and right.

Needless to say, although we were totally capable of affording one of their cars and were actually quite interested in considering one, we didn't hang around. We haven't been back since.

I wonder: If the slightly-younger me was given the same respect as the getting-older me, would I have been much more likely to buy back then? Probably.

Obviously, it might not just be an age thing. But it's the only obvious difference I can think of.

Missing The Spirit

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 04:31:00 +0000

I'm going to complain about the concept of "social media" again.
But this time as an example to illustrate a bigger problem.

A lot of brands have the bad habit of diving into a popular topic or concept on a very literal level, but miss its greater purpose (or the reason for its popularity in the first place).

Take iTunes. It's now more integrated with social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter. Your social networks can see what you're listening to.
Okay. Great.

I supposed that, technically, that's making the music software more "social", but what's the point? It's a nice feature, but is it particularly valuable to users?

Social media is really supposed to be about connecting people, finding new connections, and about contributing to a greater whole. (Yes, I know it's a lot more than that, but this is just an example, right?).

So, how about this concept for iTunes: In a public place, listening to your iPod or iPhone or iShoe or whatever, you can choose to broadcast to those in your immediate surroundings. Imagine that you're sitting at a bus station, and people are using their devices to tune into your playlist (and vice versa). Find somebody with musical tastes that match your own and add them to one of your networks. Or discover a new song or artist just because the cute girl across the room seems to be listening to it...

(Again, this is just an example. Don't start with the "but copyright law..." and "but technologically..." stuff.)

I feel like a bit of a broken record (ha ha - it's a pun!), but it's worth repeating: don't focus on the tools. Figure out the WHY and the WHO before you worry about the WHAT and the HOW.

Meaningless Slogans

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 20:18:00 +0000

Ever notice how many slogans, taglines, or other brand statements are completely meaningless?

Real estate agents seem particularly bad for this. "Your professional partner", "A strong choice", "Enabling smart choices"... Did they all attend the same seminar or something, telling that they should start branding themselves?

Or check out hair care brand Tresemme's (one of many) lines:
"Used by professionals"

Wow. This says something and yet nothing at the same time. Could they be any more vague?
How is it used? For their clients or themselves? As a shampoo, or as hubcap cleaner?
Do they still use it, or is the implication that it was once used by professionals at some point in the past?
And who are these professionals? The shampoo company's lawyers? A couple of employees in the HR department?

I hate to think how bad or pointless some of the slogans they didn't pick must have been.

Who Are You Talking To?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:22:00 +0000

I'm running into a lot of salespeople lately who don't seem to understand how to address the appropriate person or people in a transaction.

The old cliche, of course, is the construction worker or car salesperson, etc. who, when dealing with a married couple, virtually ignores the wife.

But even on a B-to-B level, things like this happen. I deal with several reps, for example, who insist on cc:'ing everyone on my team when they reply to my e-mails. In the past, I've had numerous experiences where a salesperson will invite my boss to an event or offer them some other goody, completely bypassing me.

Sure, sometimes it's forgivable. In some situations the roles of the people in a client or prospect's organization - or the relationships between those people - are complicated and hard to decipher. It makes sense for an outsider to either deal with everyone or just their "usual" contact.

It would be nice if (in all the other cases where it's not so understandable) the salesperson would simply ask a few questions to help clarify who should be involved. Don't go over my head or around me. Most of the time, you won't get a better response from the other people than you will from me, and in the meantime you're just making me think you're being sneaky or that you're unreliable.

Communications

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 02:09:00 +0000

It's interesting how many different ways people like to communicate.
I know people who seem to use Facebook (and, more specifically, their public "wall" on Facebook) as their primary communications medium.
I know others who would rather send a Twitter "DM" than write an e-mail.
And others who will pick up the phone for every little conversation.
And still others who go out of their way to meet in person.

At the same time, it's amazing how poor many businesses are at dealing with the multitude of preferences their customers may have.

Personally, for example, when looking for a new service provider, I love coming across "contact us" forms. If done well, they give me a great opportunity to send the provider a large amount of pertinent information up front, so I don't have to explain my needs to such a degree during our first phone call or meeting. Unfortunately for me, most service providers offer (at best) a form where I can submit a callback number.

Brands need to recognize that consumers' preferences about this stuff are all over the map. When a client asks me "Should we be using Twitter?" or "Should we advertise our mailing address?" or "Should we include our phone number on our Web site, even though people can just e-mail us?", I usually answer "Sure. Why not?"
Unless it's likely to require a significant investment of time or money to operate a communications channel properly, it certainly doesn't hurt to make it available. Setup a Twitter account as long as you'll be checking it daily -- even if you only post a few times a week... As long as you check the post as soon as it arrives, what can it hurt to advertise your mailing address?...

And finally:
It's even more amazing how many brands miss the most simple of tactics for communicating with customers: Calling people back.
I'm currently going through the process of selling a home, buying a lot, and hiring builders for that lot. I've had to deal with real estate agents, mortgage brokers, land owners, banks, construction firms, inspectors, government officials, cleaners, stagers, and so on and so on.
Sadly, a huge number of people I've contacted or replied to simply don't get back to me in a timely way. I wait days for urgent information to arrive (without receiving even a "It's on its way" in the meantime). I virtually tell suppliers that I have money ready and waiting for them, and they don't bother to get in touch. Are you so busy that you can't even spare a couple of minutes for a conversation with me? Not even an e-mail note? If so, lucky you. But you aren't getting any more business from me if I can't count on you.