market•able

The Ten Commandments of Survey Writing

2013-05-06T16:52:00.000-04:00

Ah, surveys. They're used everywhere--election polls, censuses, major corporations, even "mom and pop" stores are doing them. It seems like everyone wants to ask other people some questions to get feedback. And everyone seems to think that anyone can write a survey. How hard could it be? Just write down some questions and see what kind of answers you get, right?

Sadly, that is not the case. Survey writing is actually a specific skill. The reason for that is, if you want the data you get in return to be accurate enough that you can actually do something with it, it is important to format the survey as a whole and all of its individual questions in the right way. Otherwise, you could run into problems like different folks interpreting questions/answers differently (giving you inconsistent results), becoming confused and quitting the survey (lowering your response rate), or becoming nervous and not answering truthfully (or completely misunderstanding the question and answering incorrectly). It's difficult to know when you get data back if they are correct or not (because you can't actually compare it to what's in people's heads), but you can reduce the potential for error by following some basic rules.

1) Thou shalt format the survey as a funnel.
The respondents are not as familiar with the subject matter at the beginning of the survey as they are at the end, and they are typically hesitant to answer difficult questions or share personal things immediately in the relationship they have with you, the researcher. So start out with more broad, easy questions to get them introduced to the topic. Court them. More difficult or lengthy questions like grids or multi-choice questions should be near the end. And demographics, being very personal in nature, should always be optional, and should (almost) always be at the end (exception--if a demographic is needed as a screener, but that's for another blog entry).

2) Thou shalt utilize skip patterns and page breaks correctly (for online surveys)
Having surveys online gives a lot more options that aren't possible otherwise, like using skip patterns and page breaks. Take advantage of these, and use them correctly! Spread the survey out over multiple pages because having the entire questionnaire on one page can be too daunting or overwhelming. If you want some people to answer a particular question but not other people, program it so that only those people see that question, rather than collecting data from everyone which may be confusing to some who find the question not applicable. Never let the respondent guess what they are supposed to do if you can avoid it!

3) Thou shalt use common or layman's language
It's tempting to assume everyone knows what you're talking about when you use certain words or phrases. But be aware that a) not everyone is as educated as you are, b) some of your words or terms may be specific to your industry, so even though you think everyone knows it, it may just seem that way from your perspective and c) some words or phrases may have different meanings to different people. When in doubt, always clarify what you mean.

4) Thou shalt avoid leading or loaded questions
Never give the slightest hint that you anticipate or guess how the respondent might answer. You must remain completely neutral! The way you phrase a question must indicate that any answer (and any opinion) is "correct." Bad idea: "So be honest, how drunk did you really get on Saturday night?" Good idea: "Which option best describes how many drinks you had on Saturday night?" The good question here not only asks in a non-leading way, but it also asks for a specific answer, and not a relative one--that means that one person will interpret it the same way as the next person. Which leads to the next commandment....

5) Thou shalt be as specific as possible
Without being specific, your respondents might all be answering different questions. If you ask, "do you like oatmeal?", your respondents might wonder if you want to know whether they like the taste, the texture, the affordability or value, the variety available, the health benefits, or something else. Never assume they know what you mean--always be specific and remove all doubt.

6) Thou shalt live by the rules of MECE
What does MECE mean? Write this down, because you're about to learn your fact of the day, and if you remember only one thing from this article, this should be it. MECE stands for "Mutually Exclusive, Collectively Exhaustive." Repeat that to yourself--I promise, it's actually important in areas outside of survey writing, too. This should be applied to both questions and answer choices. You can't ask "Do you think this event was affordable and informative?" Those are actually two different questions! It's also very important to be MECE in answer choices (and this is a common mistake I see all the time). Try to find the problem with the following question:
How many children do you have?
-0
-1 to 2
-2 to 3
-3 to 5
-5 or more

See it? The responses overlap! These are not mutually exclusive. If I have 2, 3, or 5 children, I'm not sure which answer to choose. This gives you very muddy data. Try to find the problem with the next question:
Please describe your area of specialization (choose one):
-Finance
-Marketing and Statistics
-Data analysis
-Graphic Design

Oh dear. These choices are not mutually exclusive. What if I specialize in Statistics and Data Analysis? What if I specialize in Marketing, but not Statistics? I don't know which to choose! Also, this list is not collectively exhaustive. It's a very short list for a very broad question. I could specialize in accounting, management, negotiations, sales, customer service, and any number of other things and still not have an answer that suits me. Aim to cover about 90% of the possible responses, and include an "Other" selection for things you might have missed. If you end up with a large amount of people who choose "Other," you probably didn't do a good job including an exhaustive list. If your exhaustive list is too long and burdensome, your question probably is not specific enough.

7) Thou shalt use balanced lists
The easy side of this is to say a question like, "How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the service?" would have an equal number of responses ranging from strongly dissatisfied to strongly satisfied, with a neutral response in the middle. Easy, right? It gets trickier when you get to questions with weighted answers, like income. Consider the following question:
What was your total pre-tax household income in 2012?
-$0-$49,999
-$50,000-$99,999
-$100,000-$150,000
-$150,000-$200,000

First of all, I should point out that the question was worded specifically enough, and the answer choices were mutually exclusive. Good job. The problem is, if you have any awareness of household income in the United States, you know that most of the answers will come lumped in the first two options, and the last two options will not have many responses at all. While it makes sense for the answer ranges to be equal (in this case, about $50K), you can make reasonable exceptions to that, and you also should have some idea (when possible) what your ranges of responses might be in order to format accordingly. In this case, you can consult the latest census results. Let's try that again:
What was your total pre-tax household income in 2012?
-Less than $30,000
-$30,000-$49,999
-$50,000-$69,999
-$70,000-$89,999
-$90,000-$109,999
-$110,000 or more

Bear in mind that there is no one right way to ask for income. If my survey was going out to a very affluent group of people, my response choices would look very different. Also note that the response choices are not equal--the first bucket is $30K, the groups in the middle are only a $20K range, and the range that is above $110K in the last bucket is going to be even larger. But if I know that the majority of my responses are going to land somewhere in the middle, and I've spaced out the ranges in the middle enough that I can do the analysis that I need to do, then this format is appropriate and much better.

8) Thou shalt use caution with complex questions
Questions like open-ended response, multi-choice grids, ratings or rankings etc. (apologies if you don't know what those are--maybe that will be another blog post), are laborious in that the respondent needs to think harder about their answers, and they take longer to complete. You should be careful to only include a reasonable number of these in the survey. If you over-burden the respondent, they might either quit the survey, or just fill in bubbles without even reading the question! That's not good...

9) Thou shalt avoid "nice to know" questions
It is VERY tempting to get greedy when we're collecting data. If we have someone's captive attention, we want to keep questioning them! Ask them all sorts of things! Just keep going and who knows, maybe something brilliant will come out of it! Whoa there, tiger, don't get too excited. More is definitely not better when it comes to surveys. The longer the survey gets, the more tired or annoyed the respondents become at the end, and the more likely they are to become fatigued and either drop out, or give faulty answers. You should have in mind exactly what kind of analysis you are going to perform, and what questions you need for that analysis. Ask those things--no more, no less.

10) Thou shalt mind the overall length of the questionnaire
I won't go into detail on this because I've already said it (see the irony?). But it bears repeating.

Tardy to Tweet, but I'm No Twit

2013-04-04T14:14:00.001-04:00

I know, I know, I'm a little late getting on this bandwagon. I have used Twitter before as a researcher, and it has been a great tool for tracking trends and searching for information. But I intentionally stopped short of joining it personally up until now because it always seemed a bit narcissistic. Facebook can be great to keep in touch with people you actually know, but to broadcast your thoughts to the entire world and try to get more "followers" out of people you don't actually know? I'm not sure it's possible to create a tool more driven by narcissism.

In the last couple of months that I have had to play around with Twitter, though, while it is true that narcissism is alive and well in some users (and there seems to be almost a game among many to see how many followers they can get), I have actually come to like it and appreciate it for reasons I did not quite realize before I hopped on the bandwagon.

1. Sharing content. This reason I was already aware of through previous research work that I've done, but it's quite different to see it in action. It's overwhelming the amounts and variety of content that is available on Twitter, and it spans as far as your imagination can reach. I can see how it would be possible to obsess over watching your Twitter feed constantly over hours at a time, but I've avoided that so far and hope I never reach that point.
2. Making new connections. Like many people, I would imagine, I utilize Facebook mainly for personal connections, and LinkedIn mainly for professional connections. But in both cases, I don't often interact with people I don't know. In LinkedIn I may get contacted from time to time by headhunters and such, but when I share information there, I highly doubt many people pay attention--even those I am actually connected to. But with Twitter, the more valuable the content that I share and the more ways I find to share that content with appropriate audiences directly and engage with key people in my industry, the more exposure I get within my industry and the more valuable connections I am able to make with my peers. By sharing one article, I got myself featured in one industry newsletter's website for the day, and while that is a small accomplishment, it astounded me by the power and possibility that Twitter has.
3. Building a personal/professional brand. I have always believed in the importance of making a name for yourself and developing a digital brand. This blog is the result of that, and even though I don't find the time to update it as often as I'd like, it is an outlet I keep for sharing my thoughts and showing the digital world who I am. There are many outlets for digital branding, and Twitter is another one. The difference is, whereas it is difficult to find time to write a blog entry, it is quite easy to throw something out in 140 characters, and I find it a good way to show a little bit of both my personal and professional persona, as a good businesswoman can be her true self in both capacities, and someone is much more interesting to do business with if you get to know him or her a little bit on a more personal level.

These are just a few of my initial thoughts on Twitter. I am sure I have only scratched the surface on what it is capable of (especially since this only really covers the individual level and not the business/corporate brand level), so I look forward to exploring it a bit more.

P.S. If you haven't already found me on Twitter, you can check me out @beckybmw

What's your dream job?

2013-02-27T22:07:00.002-05:00

The other day in an interview, someone asked me what would be my dream job. It's a common question, and one I know exactly how to answer in an interview. But when the moment came that I realized that the job I was describing actually was the job I was interviewing for, I wondered if this job really was that great, or if it was time that I re-visited what my idea of a dream job could be, and think about more of the finer details.

This is a question that I've thought about often in my career, but I've gotten to a point where my dream job could be reachable soon, so it actually is time to start ironing out specifics.

I think we've all had a dream position and/or a dream company in mind. But have we thought about all the details a dream job would entail? What would a dream job look like according to level of company influence, size of company, company culture, work style, work environment, location, industry, etc, etc?

It's a fun thing to dream about, but it's also a good practical exercise. Once you identify exactly what it is that you want, you can see the differences between what you want and where you currently are in your career. Then you can think about what steps you might need to take to get to the dream.

I'd recommend repeating this exercise every few years, both to see if the dream has changed at all, and to monitor your progress toward the goal. Not to mention, it's also just fun and inspiring to daydream a little bit now and then, to help you believe that the thing that you want is out there, and you can make it happen.

Happy dreams!

Super Bowl XLVII Commercials Review!

2013-02-04T00:32:00.000-05:00

Here we go again, it's time for my annual post reviewing the Super Bowl commercials. If you're joining me for the first time this year, this is something I do every year (except I missed last year--sorry about that). I, like so many people, usually watch the Super Bowl just for the commercials (pro football? couldn't give a flying fart....), and while many people throw around their one or two favorites, I enjoy taking a bit more time to dissect the commercials of the year. So I take notes on every last one, pick out my favorites, and add some commentary on my choices. If you'd like to go back in time and catch up, you can find my posts about Super Bowl Ad History, Super Bowl XLIV, and Super Bowl XLV.

This year's commercials overall were much better quality than last year's. Although I did not write up a review last year, I do remember that not very many of them stood out to me, and I certainly cannot remember any of them now (which says a lot). A few overall interesting observations: one, this year's ads were not nearly as exploitative and overly-sexual in nature as the usual (exception: Go Daddy). An interesting and welcome change of pace, in my opinion. Two, while Doritos typically offers 3 or 4 spots during the game, all incredibly witty and entertaining, this year they only had one, which was kind of a dud in my book.

Alright, let's get right to it! My top 5 of the year are:

5. Taco Bell--"Viva Young"

Not everyone in my house got this one, but the track playing is fun.'s "We Are Young," but sung in Spanish--Sort of a "Taco Bell" joke, if you will. The song goes well with the video of some folks sneaking out of the retirement home for a little fun out on the town. The theme of living forever young goes well with the Taco Bell brand, and even though it wasn't my house's favorite, it made me smile.

4. Best Buy--"Questioning Amy Poehler"

This holds a soft spot in my heart because the spot is for a retailer. But in addition, there is no denying how awesome Amy Poehler is. And, not only is this ad clever and funny, but it really sets up Best Buy as a service provider--one who can answer all those questions. In an age when Best Buy is fighting off the "showroom" phenomenon with their business being threatened by the internet, it's an important leg to stand on.

3. Coca Cola--"See the World Differently"

>

This commercial actually isn't new--it came out last June, although if you're like me and have been a little bit out of the commercial loop this year, this may have been your first time seeing it. (Also because it's been around a while, the internet police have already snatched it away from a lot of places online, it was a lot harder to find a video that I could share. If the above embed doesn't work, try this link for the source). And yet, even though it was an older commerical, it still stood out to me. I have always loved the sense of optimism that is a theme in Coca-Cola's ads, and it is always a bright spot in a string of Super Bowl commercials that feature beer, sex, slutty girls, lazy guys, and other content that just makes me roll my eyes. Perhaps that is one of the reasons why Coca Cola's brand is the biggest brand of the world. Perhaps that is why they always have spots in my own personal top 5. Well, whatever. I just liked it.

2. Oreo--"Silent Fight"

The internet BLEW. UP. after this ad aired, and so did my house. We loved this. The debate between cream or cookie is pretty straight-forward when it comes to Oreos (BTW, I'm on team Cookie), but the delivery of a whisper is clever and makes you pay attention to it amidst all the other commercial clutter. Loved the extremes that it develops into.

1. Budweiser--"Brotherhood"

*sniff* I always find it amazing how Budweiser can manage to create an entire mini-drama that is touching, heartwarming, and a complete story, all in a short clip that's just over a minute long. This one was a standout tonight in the way it did all those things, and still stuck to strong brand position that's been around for years (and yet has not gotten old or stale!). Good job, Budweiser.

Honorable mentions:

M&M's "Anything for Love" - They took the classic (?) Meatloaf song and spun it into the drama that the red M&M faces in his relationship with a human lady, and where he draws the line. Cute.
Samsung "The Next Big Thing" - Paul Rudd and Seth Rogan are invited to brainstorm ways for Samsung to advertise the next big thing. Their ideas range from stereotypical Super Bowl commercial fare to quirky weird oddities to things that can be found in the very ad they are featured in. I loved the clever plays, like "If you get Lebron James, you won't need anyone else..."
Jeep "Coming Home" - Featuring Oprah's voiceover, this was a tribute to our troops. I loved the idea of Jeep saluting the troops, and using Oprah to read the script was a bold statement. It was just too long and somewhat repetitive to make it in my top 5.
Dodge RAM "God Made a Farmer" - Beautiful nod to all the amazing qualities of our country's farmers (who of course, get it all done with their Dodge trucks). Again, a bit lengthy for me, but I loved the spot, and it was a good brand fit.

Duds:

Budweiser Black Crown - There were a couple of these spots, virtually identical, and very beer commercial cliche--sexy people drinking beer at a party. Seems like they are introducing a new product that is supposed to compete in a premium market, but any premium beer drinker would laugh at the idea of "Budweiser" being considered premium. Maybe they should have thought more carefully about using the Budweiser name for that.
Go Daddy - They nearly always make my dud list, and while I do give them credit for making an ad that everyone will be talking about the next day (and the "shock and awe" factor is pretty much what they always stand for), this one really pushed the envelope even more than usual. Not in a good way, either. I didn't mind the fact that the hot girl was making out with a geek on principle, but I didn't really need to hear the detailed saliva-swapping audio of such an encounter.
Subway - What's that? Jarred's anniversary, lots of famous people who can't pronounce February or FebruANY or whatever? Meh, forgettable. Nice try, though, I guess.
E*Trade - I know that the talking baby is party of their brand legacy now and maybe I'm just going to have to accept it. I just hate that thing.
Pistachios - Crackin' Gangnam Style? Oh please.

Until next year!

New Year, New Perspective

2013-01-02T09:30:00.001-05:00

Happy New Year!

I'm not normally a person who does resolutions and such for New Years--my general belief is that I can be motivated to make a change in my life at any time of the year, and I take advantage of that when the motivation is pure and strong, not when it is dictated by a holiday. However, perhaps because my life is currently at a bit of a crossroads, I have found myself recently reflecting on a few things and thought it would be good to write them down (if for no one else other than myself).

First, I've thought about what has happened in the past year and how I have grown. Since I have worked in very fast-paced industries in the past, I've always been used to frequent and rapid change. But 2012 has definitely shown me how to roll with the punches in my personal life, as well. People always say, "don't sweat the small stuff," and we all believe that we live by that rule. But usually what happens is we tell ourselves that small things don't bother us, and secretly they fester under the surface and make us unhappy. This year I think I've made more progress on really living that mantra. This year I was laid off along with 40 or so other colleagues in a company restructuring, and although I understand very well my colleagues' desire to lash out against said company with verbal slander, I just did not find it productive for myself since there was nothing I could have done to change the situation, and I needed to move on with my life. That's a big event, too--I've found that the small things roll off my back fairly easily now as well, without even much thought. I think in past years I have told myself that things should not bother me, but the reality was that they did. In a sense, we can't control what bothers us and what doesn't, at least in the short-term. But perhaps between all the times I told myself that things shouldn't bother me, and going through a period when a lot of big stuff happened, I have gained that deep-seeded perspective that if there isn't anything I can do about a situation, it isn't worth getting upset or stressed-out over. I think it's important that I recognize this change in myself and be grateful, before I launch into all the things I want to change.

So, about that. The coming year is going to present a lot of changes for me, of that I am sure. I do firmly believe that I will be in another job soon (it just remains to be seen where it will be). And regardless of where that job will be, I will also have a new place to live soon. I have to recognize that all of these changes afford me the ability to "start fresh," set a new routine, and make my life into what I want it to be. Now is the time for me to decide what that is. A few things I want to change:

It's okay to be a little selfish. I've thought about others my entire life. Practically my entire existence has been about making others happy, trying to make others like me, and doing the right thing for everyone. While this is admirable and I will always continue this to a degree, I've found that balance is necessary so that others don't take advantage of me. Maybe this is a little bit of the East Coast rubbing off on me, where everyone only thinks about "number 1" and if I am always thinking about others, I always lose. I'm not going to lose anymore. I deserve to live a good life, too.
Get back into volunteering. Some things will never change, though, and working for my community and for a cause is a big part of who I am. I've fallen away from it a bit in the past few years as I've dealt with a lot of personal issues, but it's time to start back up again.
Assume nothing. It is so easy to get into an argument or disagreement or misunderstanding by not saying something because I assume the other person already knows, or by assuming that the other person would act in the same way I would. They are not mind-readers, just like I am not a mind-reader. State the obvious--I'll avoid the problems, and if it really is too obvious, we'll both have a laugh over it.
Be grateful. There will always be terrible things that happen to me in life. But I get through all of them when I remember that no matter what happens, it can always be worse. Focusing on the positive things in my life helps adjust my attitude away from dwelling on those terrible things. I like the idea of waking up every morning and thinking of at least 3 things that make me happy, or that I'm grateful for. Thinking of happy things is a good way to start every day, don't you think? It makes a big difference in my attitude for the entire day.
No waiting around for life--life is short. Since I think I've gotten down the "don't sweat the small stuff" mantra in practice, this is one I'd like to work on as a new long-term thought mantra. I've lived my life carefully for the most part, and while that can be a good thing in many ways, it may have stifled my ability to take risks or take advantage of opportunities that could end up being great or even life-changing. I don't want to look back at my life in 20 years and wish I had done more or tried more. The older I've gotten, the more I've realized that it all moves very fast, and the years I have ahead of me are not infinite. There's a saying that hit me like a ton of bricks the first time I read it, and I like to remind myself of it often, whenever I catch myself "waiting" for happiness to find me:

“For a long time it seemed to me that life was about to begin – real life. But there was always some obstacle in the way, something to be gotten through first, some unfinished business, time still to be served, a debt to be paid. At last it dawned on me that these obstacles were my life. This perspective has helped me to see there is no way to happiness. Happiness is the way. So treasure every moment you have and remember that time waits for no one. Happiness is a journey, not a destination.” ~Souza

Anyway, that's enough deep philosophy for now. Good luck to all of you in your goals, whether they are weight loss, quitting smoking, or attitude adjustments (like mine).

Unemployment--what's that like?

2012-12-14T11:31:00.002-05:00

I don't often like to get too personal in this blog, but I thought I'd make an exception to share some of my experiences for this entry. You see, even though the unemployment rate in recent years has been the highest that most of us currently living have ever seen, I have come to realize that there are still many folks out there who don't know what it's really like to be unemployed and often have words of advice for me that are really unhelpful (and, at times, downright hurtful). So I thought I'd jot a few words of my own down so that curious readers can get a sense for what it's really like "out there."

First, I should say that I am not "lazy," and neither are most of us who find ourselves temporarily without work (which is one of the stigmas out there). I dedicate 40 hours a week to my job search, and treat it as my full-time job. How can I fill up this time, you may ask? Well, these days, a job isn't just going to fall into my lap, so it's easy to fill up the time with networking (either going to events or reaching out to my own network, sometimes to inquire about a company and sometimes just to "wave my hands" so I'm a little more top of mind). I'm also constantly looking for job postings, talking to recruiters and headhunters, attending webinars (I'm working on my PRC certification--one more thing to add to my resume), and reading a LOT of news--I am more aware now of what's going on out in the business world than I usually have time for when I'm working full-time. I also do interview a lot, so I spend a lot of time doing company research and interview prep. With all this work that I do, you can see why it would be hurtful when I hear folks say that the unemployed are "not trying hard enough," or are "lazy mooches."

Despite all this hard work, I still put up with a lot of adversity. Many companies never call me, sometimes surprisingly so (if a company's industry and job description match exactly what I have done in the past, making me perfect for the role). I take my interactions with headhunters with a grain of salt because, while it might be a decent lead into a company, they ultimately work for the companies, not for me. And in dealing with the companies themselves, I have found that many processes do not benefit the job-seeker. Follow-up always takes longer than they say it will (hey, they have a lot going on), the formats of online job applications indicate that some companies appear to be recruiting keywords rather than people, and because of the stiff competition out there, they are (and perhaps can afford to be) very very selective. More than at any other time I've spent job-searching, companies now are increasingly requiring much more before making any offers--several rounds of interviewing (5 rounds is not uncommon), tests, throwing folks into stressful situations to see how they handle it, looking at work samples, etc. Some of this is to be expected, as I am further along in my career than I was in my younger days. But sometimes it does seem like more than that--companies obviously now can afford to be picky, and they do indeed take advantage of that.

All that is just the day to day stress. There have also been some fascinating experiences that make up the stories I may tell my children someday. My favorite example is a company that was a great fit for my background--I had worked in the industry before, and the job description basically described me. I spent a month interviewing with them--I met with lots of people, and every time I was in the office, they pulled more people into the interview, unplanned ("oh, if you have a few minutes, I'd love for you to meet X"). This is always welcome, and a positive sign. They had me put together a project plan with 3 scenarios, and present it to them. When all was said and done, they told me I nailed all the interviews. But they weren't going to hire me. Not because there was someone else they liked more--they were going to leave the position open and keep accepting applications. Why, you may ask? They decided they were looking for someone who had done the work with no budget. I wish them all the luck in finding such a person, if it exists, but I wish they hadn't spent a month of my time interviewing me when they would ultimately rule me out based on something in my background that they knew the first time I talked to them.

The worst part about unemployment, however, is the stuff that people don't like to talk about (which I will, because if you know me, you know that I have no problems talking about nearly anything). Even if we know that the situation is temporary, it is very difficult to not have a "purpose." No one is expecting me to show up somewhere every morning. In an American culture where who you are is often measured by what you do for a living and how hard you work, it's dehumanizing to believe that you make no worthwhile contribution--especially when you have to rely on friends and family for help more often than you would like. If the job search lasts more than a couple of months, you become very sensitive when people ask you, "so, you don't have a job yet?" suggesting that you aren't good enough or have somehow failed. It hurts even more when it comes from family. You start to avoid talking to those people. If you have any hope that you will (eventually) find a job, you still face the stress of the unknown--your life may change drastically, causing you to move, perhaps across the country, and you have no way to prepare for it because you don't know when it might happen or what the circumstances will be. If you're lucky enough to receive unemployment benefits, you still have a very limited budget, and may worry about paying all your bills. You have to turn down a lot of invitations from friends because it just isn't in your budget anymore, and may be embarrassed to say why because you don't like to talk about money. Sometimes that means you don't see your friends as often. You feel depressed, and if you already had some sort of clinical depression, the situation is worsened (although you are still criticized by others who say you should "be more positive," or "stop being depressed," when they obviously don't understand what real depression is). And despite all this stress that you go through worrying about your future and your livelihood, you still have to appear in great spirits to the companies you talk to because one hint of negativity or one slip-up in even the smallest way, and they can turn you away. Because they can afford to be picky.

Why am I sharing all this with you? Why get so personal with my peers, my mentors, and anyone else who might read my blog? (okay, maybe I'm too optimistic about my readership--I'm not sure even my mom reads my blog). It's because I believe, in all aspects of life, that the world is a better place when we understand each other. My unemployment experience is not going to be the same as all those who are unemployed, but I can guarantee that we're all fighting a tough battle. Be kind to us. Instead of saying something like, "so you don't have a job yet?", try simply saying, "how are you doing?" and don't be shocked if we let a lot of horror stories spill out. We don't have a lot of people to talk to. Instead of inviting us to your birthday party at an expensive restaurant, tell us that you'd like to see us, and suggest something we can do together that won't make us worry about money. And forgive us if we haven't been ourselves lately. We're dealing with a lot.

Best wishes to all of you, and thanks for reading all the way to the end. That last part is the most important.

Hiring: How's it Hanging?

2012-10-25T16:12:00.003-04:00

Whichever side of the hiring process I've been on, in the last several years I have noticed some glaring problems in the way recruiting/hiring has changed. Certainly with the problems in the economy, many HR departments have been looking for ways to be more efficient. Depending on the position, they may be facing hundreds (or even thousands) of applicants per open position, and they simply do not have the staff to cull through the pool the way they had done in the past.
Their current solution? Make it electronic. Use a web-based application system to weed out anyone who is unqualified, weed through the remaining pile with a cursory glance over the resumes, narrow down the list further with phone screens, then finally deliver the top handful of candidates to the hiring manager, who will interview them and decide on the best person.

So what's wrong with this system? Where do I begin. While it is certainly understandable that there is a need to more efficiently work through an overabundance of candidates (some which may be qualified, some not), it can't work the same way with human beings as in other situations because humans are not cookie-cutter. If I want a pair of shoes on Zappos, all I have to do is specify search criteria for the things that I want (e.g. Women's, boots, casual style, size 9, black, less than a 2-inch heel, knee-high, and less than $100), and boom! I have a small set of boots to choose from, making my decision much easier than if I had scrolled through all the thousands of shoes Zappos has available.

Online application systems were designed to basically filter humans in a similar way that Zappos does with shoes. Want a candidate with 5 years experience, a college degree, experience designing webpages and running search engine analytics? Sure, you can filter that. Also want someone who lives less than 10 miles away, enjoys fly-fishing, and has blonde hair? No problem. Okay, some of that is an exaggeration, but the point is that this system of turning people into data takes advantage of the idea that the hiring company has the advantage of infinite possibilities, and can have whatever they want, so the filter criteria can get a little outrageous. This kind of system hurts both job applicants and hiring companies, and I fear that a lot of times the companies are not aware of the ways it hurts them. You see, people are not data. People are not made from cookie-cutters. They will never fit molds because their lives have infinite possibilities, and the value of their potential contribution cannot be evaluated by a series of data that are created by a seemingly arbitrary lists of demands the hiring manager provides. Some of the most hard-working, dedicated, and intelligent people I have known in my past work experiences were those who did not have a college degree, or whose background was otherwise outside of what is "typical" for the work that they do. Those gems are easily missed through this process, but the search criteria has gotten so crazy that even folks who are extremely qualified are lost through the cracks, never to even be noticed by a human being.

Missing out on qualified candidates is a big loss for the hiring company. But this system also creates other problems. Candidates are becoming more and more aware of the downfalls of this system, so they do what they can to get around it so that they can be noticed. They flood their resumes and applications with keywords and buzzwords, as many as they can, so that their application will land in the "keep" pile. They make more calls and emails to HR and the hiring manager, hoping that it will get them noticed. They send out applications to EVEN MORE companies than they would have before, even applying to positions that they know they are unqualified for, just thinking that maybe luck is in numbers. The result? HR has to filter through even MORE correspondence and applications than they would have in the first place, basically shooting them in the foot by making a problem larger that they were trying to solve in the first place.

This problem, of course, begets more problems--HR managers become frustrated, creating even stricter search criteria to plow through the masses, which brings the problem back to the beginning in a downward spiral, making HR managers grumpy and overworked, and job candidates frustrated, weary, and confidence-shot.

Oh, what to do, what to do. I give advice to others all the time on how to conduct an effective job hunt. This time I'll give some tips to HR departments that might help ease their headaches and not miss the best candidates:

You can filter--but keep it real

Of course, it would be unreasonable to say that you should stop filtering candidates altogether based on their online profiles. After all, there are only so many hours in the day, and so many of you to get the work done. But you have got to be reasonable. Have really good communication with the hiring manager to get to know what he/she needs and what that particular area of expertise is like. Decide on the dealbreakers (must-have qualifications) and the desireables (things you think a good candidate would have, but you might hire someone without). Note: most things will (and should) fall into the "desireable" camp rather than the "dealbreaker" camp. Think really hard about filtering by 5-7 years experience, for example. Is it really out of the question that someone with more or less years could shine at the job and work harder than anyone else to get it? In this case, maybe it makes sense to ask for 5-7 years experience in the description, but perhaps filter by 3-10 years and look at the results in more detail to see if the details make those people an interesting candidate. Remember, "years" of experience do not lead to quality of experience, and people with any number of backgrounds could contribute something to your company. You just have to figure out which is the best. Don't rule out those gems who went against the grain.

Don't be so negative

By this, I mean the attitude or culture you maintain in the way you approach a pool of candidates. A negative approach would be to go into a resume review or a phone screen looking for ways to "weed out" a candidate. The goal is to get down to a handful to interview in person, so the more you can get rid of, the better. It's almost a "pass the buck" attitude--like, "my job is just to get down to a small group of candidates, then the hiring manager can worry about picking one." What about picking the best candidate? With a positive attitude, instead of focusing on weeding out candidates, the focus is to find out who can make the best contribution. This involves experience and background partly, yes, but it's also in listening to their ideas and let them explain why they are the best and why they want the job. The people who want it the most and have the best ideas will work the hardest and do the best work, not necessarily the ones with the most credentials who have the most "checkmarks" on your list of things you're looking for. That simple attitude change does not mean more work for you, just a shift in the questions you ask, the way you ask them, and the way you listen to the answers.

Fix the online application

Oy, there are so many issues here. This is almost always outsourced, and if busy HR managers aren't careful checking the outsourced work, they may not notice all the potential problems that could be in their very own online applications. As someone who has worked with data all my career, I cannot stress enough how important it is to get it right. When it comes to data collection, it's garbage in, garbage out! That is to say, if the method for collecting data (or, in this case, information on job applicants) is not precise, the information you get back will not be usable to your standards. Let me offer up a few examples based on what I've personally seen in real-life online applications:

A couple of companies had drop-down lists of countries (to either indicate residence, or past work). But a couple of them were not in alphabetical order, or the United States was not even listed!
Sometimes there was other kinds of menus, either for how you heard about the job, or what industry your past work was in, but the menu does not list all options, and there is no option for "other." What is an applicant to do? And you might filter them out if they interpret their industry differently than you do, or if you don't even list theirs. Bad data....
Asking for salary history. This is an entirely different blog post, so I'll try to hold myself back from launching into it. What it boils down to, though, is that of course it's helpful to you in getting the best deal when you make an offer. However, asking for salary history should not be used as a proxy to evaluate the potential contribution of a candidate, and it turns a lot of candidates off if you ask for it prematurely (or ever). Don't scare away your best candidates. If you ask for this, at least make it optional.

There are many more examples, but I'll stop there. Basically, if the candidate is confused about how to fill in the application, you will get shoddy, unusable data, rendering your whole screening process useless. Be careful!

Be respectful

There is no way to put this delicately. Yes, it's a "buyer's market" in the hiring market, meaning that there are more applicants for each open position. But that does not give you license to be rude. Don't set up applicants to fail by giving them no notice to prepare for interviews, or blowing off meetings, or not apologizing when you mess up. Remember that the applicants are interviewing the company as much as you are interviewing them. They are trying to figure out if the company is a good fit for them, and you are often the first contact they have. Please remember your manners and treat them as you would like to be treated. This kind of thing should go without saying.

I know you're overworked. I know it's tough to do it all. Just please do what you can.

And candidates, good luck. It's tough out there.

Tough love for retail customer service policies

2012-08-06T21:42:00.003-04:00

In this article from the Business Insider, the author describes how brick-and-mortar retailers are trying to offer better service to try to better compete with online competitors. Sounds like a good idea, right? Customer service is the one thing that folks in a shop can do better than a website, so might as well focus on improving that.

Nope, not good enough.

The problem with this way of thinking is that it's old-fashioned retail. And unfortunately for many brick-and-mortar retailers, a lot of them have very old-fashioned cultures and ways of running their businesses. What they have to do is ask the consumers what they want, and (this is a very important part) be willing to roll the dice and make investments in some drastic changes if necessary.

Sure, maybe I am biased because I am a career researcher. But in doing the work that I've done over my career, I have seen many times when consumers would tell me what they want in a study, management would be unwilling to make a change, and a year later, some other company was doing it, it became all the rage, and the first company was officially behind in the game.

Here are some things that I am seeing out there in retail world:
1) Customer service doesn't mean what it used to mean
It always bothered me that old-school retailers always think that "customer service" always has to mean how nice a store employee is to you. But service means so much more to shoppers. It means did you give me what I want, and am I happy about it. There's a lot going on in the world, in case you haven't noticed. I can practically blink my eyes and twitch my nose and anything I want will be right in front of me by first thing tomorrow morning, and my credit card will be automatically charged. So you think it's enough for someone to pounce on me as soon as I walk into a shop and say hello, and subsequently follow me around while I shop? Wake up and flip on your Apple II computers, retailers. If you ask customers how good your customer service is, you may mean one thing, but their answer will mean something completely different.

2) Yes, some store employees are rude. Probably more than you realize. And that's unacceptable. But they don't need to be in your face every second, either.
It seems to me that a lot of "revamped" customer service policies or training modules are really weak, basically asking employees to say hello to guests more quickly, and maybe even have more employees on the floor. Now, I ask you--is that really revolutionary? Many people now are used to an automated world of the internet, mobile devices, and figuring out what they want on their own. Yes, be there for us if we need help. But if you jump from around the corner ever two seconds scaring the bajeezes out of me asking me if you can help me, you're just going to creep me out enough to make me leave and shop at Amazon.

3) The conveniences, pricing, and other appeals available with online retailers have changed the game permanently. A smile or a "can I help you?" in the store isn't going to change it, and it isn't going to be enough.
Apps. Seamless ordering however I want, without bombarding me with requests to buy more or add on warranties or insurance or other crap. Reviews I can rely on. One-step ordering. Make it easy for me. If I want something, don't tell me it's only available online, or only available in the store. Put a stamp on it and get it to me--I don't care how you do it. Go above and beyond for me. That's service. Check out Zappos. They do it right.

To you, old retailers, service means store employees saying "can I help you?" That's not enough. Ask your customers what service means to them. Even ask them in different ways--ask them what was the last time a business did to go out of its way to make them happy, and what did it do. Learn from that. If I hear one more retailer say that their new "customer service policy" is to have a race to see how quickly they can say "hello" to a guest once they enter the store, I'm going to throw up on their 1981 shoes.

With great power comes great responsibility

2012-08-01T13:51:00.003-04:00

Greetings again old friends of the blogosphere. Today I come to you on a topic that is of timely importance to a large amount of people around the world: the Olympics. Specifically, in the United States, getting information about the Olympics from finding schedules to results to video leaves us largely at the mercy of NBC, with the exclusive rights to Olympics coverage in the States.

There has been a lot of controversy and criticism of NBC with these rights, which as it turns out, come with great responsibility. The Olympics have widespread appeal, which means that while the holder of the media rights will undoubtedly win in the ratings, it will also be expected to deliver up to expectations, which are set quite high.

Let us look at just a few of the controversies. Broadcasting the Olympics used to be straight-forward: show a few things during the day because well, you could. But most things could be shown in primetime, 1) because that's when most people were watching TV, 2) with the Olympics being held in various parts of the world, it was almost always taped, and 3) No one really knew the result until you broadcasted it anyway.

The problem is, we now live in the day of social media, and in a global society. Other parts of the world are no longer a distant mystery because we are all connected via the internet, and news is reported in real time via CNN newsfeeds, NY Times email alerts, and Twitter. True, there are still folks who will go home from work and curl up to watch the events in primetime, content with knowing that it is not broadcast live. But chances are, with all the news outlets they bump into throughout the day, they still found out who won the event, spoiling the surprise before they even had a chance to walk into the door at night. Even in the last Olympics in Beijing, Twitter was just a baby and didn't have nearly the usage it does today.

It's a different ballgame now.

NBC gave it a half-assed effort. They allowed you to watch events online. But you had to have a cable subscription (which is another issue--understandable that they have to make money somehow, but is that really the spirit of the games? That only the folks with cable can watch, and everyone else is screwed?). And some high-popularity events, like gymnastics, were still unavailable online so that NBC could hold them hostage for higher primetime ratings. But again, you probably already knew the result before you got a chance to watch it, even if you tried to watch it live and were denied. So, in effect, instead of making everyone happy by covering all its bases, NBC made everyone furious by only doing everything halfway.

It's a tricky scenario to figure out, but it's fair to be harsh on NBC because they are a media company, and this is a media issue. They took on the responsibility by paying big dollars for the exclusive rights, and as a media company, they should be able to rise to the challenge of mastering a multi-channel media experience.

As a shout-out to someone who describes this disappointment far better than I can, I give you this satire article from the New Yorker. Enjoy.

And in case you still aren't sure what the fuss is all about, here is more.

Don't sweat the small stuff. But do treasure the laughter.

2012-04-17T20:28:00.000-04:00

I recently made the decision to make a change in my career, and was asked in my final week at the job I was departing for my parting words of wisdom. Obviously I learned a lot of things at that job, like how to take reasonable risks in trying new projects or new responsibilities, how important it can be to consider how you deliver the message (even as much as the message itself), and how including a bit of personality in your professional life can go a long way.

But upon reflection, I may have settled on one thing that is an important bit of advice in a wide variety of occupations: Enjoy your job. Certainly not all of us are lucky enough to have a job that we love, and definitely all of us have some days that just do not go the way we would like. But we spend much of our lives at work, perhaps even seeing our co-workers more than our families. For that reason, it is important to do our best to find a job that we enjoy at least most of the time, and find a way to enjoy ourselves while doing it, even if we are stuck doing the most mundane of tasks. We should enjoy being with our co-workers, feel comfortable laughing with them, and make the most of our work environment to make it safe and comfortable (as much as we can control, anyway) not only because we are spending so much of our time there, but an environment where we feel inspired and comfortable will enable us to do our best work.

Part of enjoying your job is learning how to handle stress, and not sweating the small stuff. When I find myself in breakdown mode because of too many deadlines or professional failures/disappointments or frustration, I try to remind myself that five years from now, or ten, or after I move on in my career, or other such future milestone, I will most likely not remember this moment. The moments I will remember, however, are the moments when I laughed so hard I could barely breathe, or what the morning sun felt like from my office window every morning, or silly office pranks we sometimes played on each other. Obviously the stress cannot be ignored because the work needs to be done and I still care about my contribution to the company and my professional reputation. But in the grander scale of my life, those kinds of problems are not worth sacrificing my health by slipping into a nervous breakdown, and I'm not likely to remember those moments or problems in the future anyway.

I will, however, remember the fun and the jokes. I'll remember the silly mistakes that I was able to laugh about. I'll remember the misunderstandings that I was able to resolve. I'll remember the silly things that co-workers say, and how I was able to develop a closeness with them over sharing silly experiences together. When some of my co-workers were laid off, I remembered the feelings I felt, but I don't remember what the company memo said. I remember laughing over beer with them after their last day, but not what they said while they packed up their personal items from their desks. I remember standing on desks to decorate workplaces for birthdays or pranks, but I don't remember the nights I worked late. I will keep some perspective and try not to get caught up in those stressful moments because they do not make a difference in the big picture. And that is my advice to others as they stumble through their careers, as well.

I wish all my former co-workers the best as they continue on in their own careers, and I wish my former company well as it continues on to find new ways to build on its success. Making a big change like this can be scary, but I am excited to try something new in my career and find even more things to learn and new ways to enjoy my career. And other co-workers to play pranks on. :)

Let the creative juices flow

2011-11-10T09:35:00.002-05:00

The mind is a funny thing. When I was younger, I could never decide if I was "right brained" or "left brained." I was great at math, but I also loved art class and playing in the band. I've come to realize over the years that I don't have to be one or the other. I am actually both! I process problems in a methodical, logical way, and my aptitude for managing data, staying organized, and loving the order of spreadsheets translates into my career in research. However, I also frequently have intense cravings for creativity, and I dabble in all sorts of mediums--cooking, reading/writing poetry, sketching, watercolor painting, interior decorating, fashion, collage, music performance, theatre, crochet, etc. I notice that if my workday is spent mainly exercising the "left side" of my brain (which it often is), I come home craving a creative outlet and have to spend a couple of hours painting and reading poetry just to get it out of my system.

Not everyone is like me, of course. The beauty of human development is that we are all gifted with different abilities and strengths. But I believe there is something to stretching the creative muscle in the workplace, regardless of whether you are a part-time Picasso or not. Creativity in any form helps us to think beyond our day to day tasks to discover better ways of doing our jobs and inspire new ideas--whether it's a new pitch for a contract or a new data-crunching method or a fun teambuilding activity. Creativity is what drives innovation and growth, and higher levels of strategic thinking.

How can you stretch your creative muscles? The possibilities really have no end, but here are just a few ideas to get you started, that everyone should be able to do:

Start an art journal for drawings/doodles, collages, or whatever you like
Write a letter to your future self or your future child
Imagine what you would want for your last meal. Look up recipes, and make it. And use the good china to eat it.
Make a bucket list
Before bed every night, write down 5 good things about that day
Read Pablo Neruda's poetry. You don't have to "get" it--just enjoy the words.
Flip through an art book. Again, you don't have to "get" it--just enjoy the colors and lines and shapes and shadows. Find one picture you think is interesting and stare at it for at least 5 minutes.
Lay in the grass and look for figures in the clouds
For a day, say "yes" to every reasonable request. Try stretching it to a week.
Write a good old fashioned letter to a relative. In your best cursive.
Sidewalk chalk.
Try one of these exercises
Here are some more tips to inspire creativity
And here's a good article about creativity at work (hey, if all else fails, you could just read about the subject itself)

Now I'd love to hear from you. How do you spark creativity?

Happy creating!

Google+: I give it a C+

2011-07-14T09:53:00.002-04:00

Alas, readers, I do apologize for my lack of posts for... months. I guess when life gets in the way, the blog is the first thing I neglect. But rest assured, I always have thoughts rolling around in my head, so hopefully I'll keep this going at some level!

What brings me here today is to discuss Google+, Google's latest attempt at a social network. Google has tried getting into social networking several times, but never really stood a shot at making a mark in the social universe. This time, they've gotten enough buzz and enough interest that they may have a shot. Or, enough people are getting frustrated with Facebook that they're interested in shopping around. Either way, Google needs to watch the success of the Google+ beta launch very carefully.

I was lucky enough to be granted an invitation to use Google+, so I've been spending some time playing with it. What many people mention in their reviews are Google+'s Circles, which allow you to partition all of your contacts into groups like friends, family, acquaintances, co-workers, etc., and you can decide which circles can see each bit of information that you share. This is exactly like Facebook's "lists," allowing you to make lists of your friends, and use the same lists for manipulating your privacy settings. The only difference is that Google+ makes its circles central to its interface, making it very easy for the casual social networker to figure them out. As for me, I've already mastered doing this on Facebook, so it wasn't all that compelling to me.

Other than that, Google+ is very simple yet powerful, much like what you would expect from Google. So far it's not overrun with advertising (yet... this is Google, after all). I appreciate that it doesn't sign me into chat automatically (which is one thing that annoys me about Facebook, although I think the problem is mostly with the FB mobile app). There isn't a company presence or some of the other things Facebook has like groups (...yet. Again, this is probably just because it's in beta). But "Sparks" is an interesting way to find content based on your interest, so there is potential to build on this to make it even more compelling.

What I haven't yet seen in any published Google+ reviews is a major issue that I uncovered and makes me very uncomfortable with Google+... as well as everything else Google offers. The problem is that Google is a major enterprise with many offerings--Gmail, Blogger (like what you're reading right at this moment), Buzz, Google+, Documents, Calendar, etc. What became apparent to me once I started using Google+ (and I kind of feel dumb for not noticing this before) is how interconnected all these things are, and in a scary way. Example #1: I have two blogs, one professional (what you're reading), and one personal. I would like to have different profiles for the two blogs simply because I would like to share different information in each of these outlets. But Google only allows you to have one profile, and because both of these blogs are in Blogger (a Google entity), it goes back to the same profile. Now that Google+ exists, the profile that it takes you to is my Google+ profile. I don't like that. Example #2: Once I signed up for Google+, since I used my Gmail address to log in, Google+ automatically populated my profile with everything I've ever entered in Google Buzz (through Gmail). I had no choice in that--what if I didn't want to connect those two things?

While in some ways, it might be convenient to have a lot of entities under one umbrella (and would make sharing things like videos and documents on Google+ very easy and seamless), I see this as a major problem of privacy. I'm not giving up yet, though, since this is still only a beta version and Google still has a chance to fix this and add in some layers of privacy settings. But I will say that if this isn't fixed, I may not just quit Google+, but I might consider quitting some of Google's other offerings, too.

Get it right, Google. If you were to have a chance at competing with Facebook, it would be winning in what frustrates people the most about Facebook: privacy. This is your shot.

Journalism and Charlie Sheen: A Marketing Explosion!

2011-03-04T12:27:00.001-05:00

I rely on journalism to an extent to inform me of what is going on in my town, in my country, and around the world. But like your average college-plus educated person, my intake of journalism goes through a critical filter because I know that 1) Sometimes the writer (whether inadvertently or purposefully) inserts his or her own opinion into the writing, 2) Sometimes the source of facts isn’t extremely reliable or information is twisted in order to make the author’s point, and 3) Journalism is, in large part, about marketing.
This should come as a surprise to very few people, but journalism is all about readership, viewership, ratings, and advertising dollars. Sure, the journalists themselves may have gone to journalism school with the admirable vision of bringing the news to the people and keeping America informed, but they are under pressure from executives to select content that will drive ratings/readership (and subsequently advertising dollars). So not only are the way some stories are written slanted a bit to make them more interesting, but the very selection of the stories we are exposed to is partially driven by what we’re the most likely to read/watch.

This is all a little bit of a downer, I know. So allow me to switch gears a little and talk about journalism as a marketing vehicle. Public relations is as much a marketing vehicle as anything else because every press release and news article about a company contributes to the brand or image of that company. Sometimes it’s used as a necessity to inform investors of what is happening in the company, but it can also be used to maintain or change the image of the company, and in either case, has to be written very carefully.

Interestingly enough, though, it does seem that in some cases, the old adage of “no such thing as bad press” holds true. Companies go through painstaking efforts to make sure that a press release is worded in just the right way. But when it comes to celebrities, even news that makes them look bad will just drive buzz and interest in them. Take Charlie Sheen, for example. His recent interviews and news stories about recent events in his life have not been entirely flattering. Yet despite this unflattering news (and the fact that you would think his outrageous ego would turn many people off), his popularity has reached all-new heights. Although his show “Two and a Half Men” is currently on hold, reruns of the show have skyrocketed in ratings. He reached nearly 1 million followers within one day of his first tweet on Twitter (having just signed up in the past week), which is faster than anyone else has been able to achieve the same (and his follower base is still growing). It may be the popular thing to make fun of the guy, his antics, and his constant references to “winning,” but the fact is, he sort of is.

So when it comes to journalism, what makes a good story? What kinds of stories are things that the most people would be interested in? Instead of answering that question, let me point out the following. The Charlie Sheen story has been all over the press in the last week. He has been interviewed countless times, pops up in every newscast, and although some people complain about over-exposure, it would seem the journalistic media can’t get enough of him. He drives ratings. I could liken him to a train wreck—we see him crumbling before our eyes and yet we can’t look away. I recall another story that was eaten up by media everywhere, and it is that of Ted Williams, the homeless Ohio man with the “voice of gold,” discovered on the side of the road by a local journalist whose YouTube video launched this man into nationwide fame in January 2011 and landing him countless job offers. After that, he sort of fell off the map. So what happened to that guy? Reports say that his overnight fame, full of the glitz and celebration opportunities that come with it, did prove to be a bit too much too fast for the man, who admits to have fallen back into alcohol and an altercation with this daughter. He did spend a couple of weeks in rehab, and is reportedly exploring an opportunity for a reality TV show. But why is it that the country fell in love with this man and his rags-to-riches story, but had no interest in watching his subsequent struggles? And yet when it comes to watching the struggles of someone like Charlie Sheen, America can’t get enough? Could it be that we like to see someone at the bottom succeed, but when someone is at the top (way beyond what most of us could hope for), we want to see him fall? Do we really just want to see the world average out to the middle class?

It’s something to think about. When you’re looking at a news page online, which headlines do you click on to read more? When watching the news at home, what stories make you hang on to every word and which stories tell you it’s time for a bathroom break? Sure, some topics interest us more than others based on our own lives, what affects us, and what things we find interesting, but it’s a package deal—we are always prone to make decisions about stories based on how the story is marketed, whether it’s the teaser, the headline, a certain picture, a name that we recognize, the prospect that something could harm us or that an injustice has been made against us, etc.

Or in the case of Charlie Sheen, sometimes it helps us to feel like our lives are a little more tame or “normal.”

Super Bowl XLV Commercials: A Review

2011-02-06T18:49:00.021-05:00

I have never been one to really care much about the Super Bowl game. When your home team is the Lions, lets be honest, it's difficult to build any interest at all in the NFL (sorry, Lions, but it's true). I have, however, always loved the ads that come with the Super Bowl. I am fascinated by the outrageous pricetag on these ads every year (and how some companies can justify this expense with the large audience, even though I'm not sure it's always worth it). But I also love the creativity that this high pricetag inspires, and how water cooler conversation surrounds commercials just about as much as the game itself.

This year, a 30-second spot reportedly runs for about $3 Million, which is back up to 2009 rates after a slight dip in 2010. Last year's ads were disappointing overall, with a few nice standouts (and if you don't remember them, read what I wrote in my review of last year's ads). I was hopeful that this year would raise the bar back where it should be for such a huge audience and a gigantic cost. Sadly, like last year, there were too many forgettable and/or mediocre ads with a few that "weren't bad."

Below are my top five commercials for this year, some honorable mentions, and the duds.

5. NFL: Best Fans Ever
Not only is this a great collection of fan clips from favorite TV shows, but the compilation and flow from one clip to the other is actually really well done.

4. Chrysler: The Motor City
The only reason this didn't take a higher place is that it needed 2 whole minutes to get the message across (and the questionable use of Eminem), whereas other commercials took a fraction of the time (and cost). I'll admit I have a little bias for this one being that I'm from Southeast Michigan and I always have the D's back, and the poor city gets more flack than it deserves. But this is a beautiful commercial that sells the city as much as (or perhaps even more than) the cars, and I hope even those who live elsewhere can appreciate it

3. Coca-Cola: Line in the Sand
This one was a longer spot (60 seconds), but it told a little story, kept it simple, and stayed with the brand image of Coke bringing people together

2. Doritos: Housesitter
I love the Doritos commercials. They usually do several for the Super Bowl, and they are all better than nearly every other commercial played during the game, which says a lot for the standards they set for commercials to hit the mark of their brand, be memorable, and be funny. This one shows a lazy housesitter who uses Doritos to help him out in the last minutes before his friend comes home.

1. Volkswagen: Darth
I mean, come on. This is just cute. Simple, heartwarming, and everyone knows Star Wars and gets how wonderful it is inside the imagination of a child. Love it.

Honorable Mentions:
Doritos: The Best Part--Haha; have I mentioned I love Doritos ads?
Bridgestone: Reply All--Funny, and clever way to feature tires
Teleflora: Faith Hill--A little unexpected, and clever

Duds:
Kia Optima--Crazy special effects, but I didn't get the point. Looks like you're just showing off money.
Go Daddy--I got the whole thing about driving people to your website years ago when you started this stuff. But really, is it still working? And Joan Rivers? Seriously?
eTrade--The babies. I am so over it.
Groupon--The whole "save the money" thing kind of made a mockery of actual charities. Pretty offensive.

I'm still seeing a lot of ads make fun of men, and use slapstick humor. I'll be the first one to admit that I'm sometimes a sucker for those ads because they do make me laugh. But the ones that really make the list for me are the ones that have a human element to it that we can relate to, and add a level of sophistication with a greater message to it. Congratulations to all my picks!

2011 Consumer Trends

2011-01-07T21:46:00.007-05:00

It’s been a long and busy year, and unfortunately it’s my blog that has taken a back seat. However, I’d like to get it back on track again, and thought there couldn’t be a more appropriate way to kick things back off again than with the coming year’s trends.

I’ve spent a lot of time in the past year staying on top of what’s happening in the consumer marketplace. We are in the midst of some exciting developments in lifestyle and business. While the recession has brought on difficult times for consumers, it has also changed the core of our lifestyles and how we spend money, how we interact with and rely on technology, and how we relate to one another. Based on what I see happening in the marketplace, I put forth the following trends that I believe will continue or grow in the next year.

Mobile Mania: For those of us who have a smartphone, it may be hard to believe that only around 20% of Americans have one. Not only is that going to change quickly (smartphones are THE choice as contracts run out and phones are replaced in the coming year), but they will transform the way we all live our lives. People are significantly more connected to each other by being accessible immediately not just by phone, but also by email. Friends can shop in different stores and still help each other pick outfits by texting pictures or compare prices using the web. Businesses are finding many new ways to interact with consumers using smartphones as well using apps and QR codes, among other things. And if you don’t know what those are, just wait. You will soon.

Pricing Pandemonium: There have always been bargain hunters and penny pinchers. With the recession, the number of them has increased, and even those who are getting jobs again are keeping their newly-found frugal ways. It used to be that stores could charge different prices and out of convenience, people would still pay more in some places to avoid visiting multiple stores. Websites could also charge different prices than stores for this same reason. But with the insurgence of smartphones, people now have the ability to check prices in multiple stores as well as online within just a few keystrokes, and because they are watching their spending, those consumers are willing to go the extra mile to save a little. This is going to drive down prices and ramp up customer service as businesses compete for the dollars in our pockets. Let the chaos begin!

Tiny Treats: While it could be debated whether or not the recession is actually over, it is true that people are still more careful about their spending. However, they have been careful for a long time, so they do want to splurge a little to have some fun and relieve some of the stress. They are ready to go back to spending a little on fun things. But only a little. Vacations like local tours or camping instead of flying someplace warm, pampering treatments like manicures instead of massages or spas, nights in like takeout and a movie instead of expensive dinners out.

Local Love: The local movement actually started a few years ago with an environmental twist—it was considered green to eat food produced where you live because it saved on distribution costs and could be grown organically by a local farmer. Now the local movement has taken an interesting turn—economic and social. People are finding ways to save money by growing their own produce or buying directly from local farmers. They support local businesses to encourage job growth for their neighbors. They get coupons for local businesses through Groupon. They like news and advertisements to be personalized according to their location. Even though they have access to the whole world through the internet (and now the phone), it still comes down to what’s available just outside the front door.

Consider Compassion: On a personal note, this is one trend that I am extremely happy to see. Because so many of us have gone through rough times in the last couple of years, there has been a rise in banding together, whether it be charity work or just kind gestures by good Samaritans. Could it be that society isn’t so bad after all? I won’t hold my breath, but I like what I see right now.

Health Hubbub: This comes every year around New Years as people make their resolutions, but make no mistake, this time it’s not just about resolutions. This trend has been increasing due to a number of factors—more attention being given to the rise of obesity in America among both adults and children, the rise in popularity of certain diet fads or shows like “The Biggest Loser,” etc. But whatever the source, more people are paying attention to their waistlines. Companies are playing to this trend already, so consumers will need to become more savvy about understanding what is actually healthy and what only “sounds” healthy. For example: McDonalds is now offering oatmeal. Good idea or bad idea? You be the judge.

Work/Life Warp: This trend has been in the works for a long time. But because we are even more accessible now with the rise in smartphones and the increasing number of companies offering flexible working environments and hours, the line between our work lives and our home lives is going to continue to become even more blurry. We work at home, we do errands at work, we work with friends or even family and make friends with colleagues. Our employers are even interested in our personal lives by screening our online profiles or getting involved in improving our health to reduce insurance costs.

Compromised Companionship: Although Facebook was originally created for college students, it has become increasingly popular among a variety of age groups including senior citizens. Many say it is a great tool to help people keep in touch with family and friends. This great tool can be a blessing and a curse, though, as depending on it to follow friends and family can easily create a temptation to rely on it as the only way to keep in touch with friends and family. Facebook has caused a decrease in letters and phone calls and emails--previously traditional ways for people to keep in touch with one another. Where one person might call another to get caught up on the latest news of her life, he could now instead simply read through her recent status updates to stay up to date and save the phone call. So while Facebook is good at developing understanding between people who just met or only have a loose connection, it can actually dilute a close friendship and take the place of more meaningful conversation. I hope this trend does not continue--I wish I could say that in the coming year more people would take note of this phenomenon and make more of an effort to step away from Facebook and take their friendships offline, but I fear that will not be the case.

I can’t emphasize enough the increasing role technology is going to have in our lives. Not only are the capabilities of technology rising, but people additionally are becoming more comfortable with using it. Remember the days when people were nervous about buying things online, or sharing personal information via social networking? You can see those days are gone, so imagine all that is possible. What if I could walk through a store, take pictures of all the things that I wanted with my phone, pay for them on my phone automatically at the push of a button using a credit card number, and have them automatically delivered to my home? Think that’s pushing things too far? We’ll see…

Resume Ruin!

2010-04-15T18:59:00.005-04:00

I have a lot of friends out there looking for a job. The fact is, many people are still out of work despite improvements in the economy otherwise, and even those who currently have a job may be looking for something else because they’ve held onto a job they were unhappy with due to a slow job market. It’s a tough time to be job hunting because the market is flooded with candidates. I have helped many people with resumes and cover letters as well as networking and closing the deal on a job. And I have read a lot of resumes and gone through the resume review, interview and selection process to hire for positions many times in my past and current experience. And I see the same mistakes all the time.

Writing a resume is harder than most folks anticipate. Often what happens is people will write down their list of positions and what they did on the job, and send it out there hoping the job they want will magically come to them. Then, after sending out a hundred resumes, they wonder why no one has called. That is a bad idea in a normal job market; it is downright a waste of time in a challenging market. When you are searching for a job, no matter what kind of job it is, you become a sales person. You have to sell yourself (and I mean that in the most professional sense), and your resume is your primary marketing tool. Your resume is one of the most impactful things you can use to convince an employer that you are worth talking to (perhaps after networking, which is another blog entry). Once you get the interview, you can shine with your charming colors and show what a great person you are and what great interpersonal skills you have. But you could so easily be ruled out without a recruiter saying one word to you if you make a single mistake on your resume. So don’t you think it’s worth spending a little (correction—a LOT) more time writing and perfecting that resume?

Don’t feel too bad about it. Actually, many people make the same mistakes, so you are not alone. But just think—if you take the time to fix them, your chances will be so much better. So without further delay, here are the most common resume-writing mistakes I see people make:

1. It’s too long
When it comes to resumes, longer is not better. Very few people should have a resume longer than one page. Recruiters look at so many resumes for every open position, they spend very little time reading each resume (less than 10 seconds). So if you can’t convince them how awesome you are in one page, two pages are just going to bore them. It’s a much better idea to keep it short and make it count.

2. The “objective” or “summary” adds no value
Your objective (if you have one, and sometimes you don’t even need one) should state specifically the job you want and in some way point to your career goals and how your experience leads up to them. This is most useful if you are changing careers or industries since it’s sometimes hard to make that connection between a resume full of unrelated experience and the job you’re applying for. But if you can’t specifically state the job you want, don’t include an objective. You will just end up looking unfocused or not sure if you really want the job. If your list of experience is relevant and leads up to that job, the objective also would not add much value and would just take up valuable space in your resume that you could use highlighting that experience.

3. Bullet points are just a job description
Think about the person who reads your resume. She really does not care what you did on your last job. She cares about what you accomplished. What made you so special at that company or in that position? What did you do that was more than what any Joe Shmoe could have done in that same position? And most importantly, why should she hire you? If you highlight all your amazing accomplishments, she will think you can make the same level of accomplishments in that new job. If you just write down what you did, you wind up looking like someone who just does the minimum and does not take pride in the work that you do.

4. Nothing is quantified/No results are given
So you’ve figured out that you should highlight your accomplishments. Great! But how does the reader know exactly how good you are? Numbers are objective. I can write down that I cut costs or increased sales or was an amazing person to work with. But that is just my opinion about myself or my work until I can say how much I cut costs or increased sales or affected the organization. Don’t just make numbers up, though. If what is on your resume is an estimate, make sure you can back up what you write down with how you came up with that number, and that it is reasonably logical. Imagine someone in an interview asks you how you came up with that number and what you did to accomplish it.

5. Important words and/or skills are missing
It’s a sad fact that in many companies these days, the first pass at your resume comes from a computer. It searches for a certain number of key words in the resumes in its database, and only the ones that include most or all of those key words are then reviewed by a human being. That means that you could be the most qualified person out there for a particular position, but if you didn’t phrase your accomplishments in a way that includes certain words, you don’t even get noticed. Frustrating? Yes. But not impossible to conquer. You can usually determine the key traits that are important to the position by reading the job description. Imagine that! So by reading the job description you discover that the recruiter is looking for someone with good analytical skills and creativity, assuming that you do have those skills, make sure that the words “analyze” and “creative” appear on your resume when you describe your accomplishments.

6. It’s too generic
Many job-seekers do not modify their resume to reflect the job they are applying for. Unless every job you apply for is exactly the same and is in the same industry, you are going to need different versions of your resume. True, your work history and your accomplishments are still the same, but for different jobs, you will have different recruiters from different companies looking at your resume, and they could be looking for different things. Do your research on the industry, the company, and the job. Find out what is important to all of those things. Even companies in the same industry may have different values and cultures, and your resume should describe why you are exactly the right person for that job, company, and industry. So how you describe yourself may be slightly different.

7. Gaps in employment history
People are always trying to find clever ways of covering up imperfections in their work history. The truth is, the recruiter reading your resume is not stupid. They know what you’re doing if you omit dates on your resume or reorganize it out of order or whatever trick you come up with. You are better off being honest about what happened and explaining it in your own words (the way you want the company to understand your history) rather than letting them imagine what happened (which is often the worst). If you lost your job and were out of work for a year, it is better to explain your interpretation of what happened in your company to make you lose your job and what you did do with that year (hopefully you were staying informed about the industry, volunteering, or maybe you took some time off to spend with your family or travel, rather than lounging on the couch eating pork rinds) instead of just leaving it blank and letting the reader think that you did actually sit around eating pork rinds.

8. It doesn’t tell a “story”
Nobody really has a perfect work history because it’s rare that we know from day one what our dream job is and every job we have along the way leads us progressively and directly there. Sometimes we have to take a step back, move to a different industry, move to a different function, and try new things altogether. But if I’m looking at your resume and you have 8 years of computer engineering experience and you are applying to a job selling insurance, I’m going to scratch my head a little. You can still tell the story of how your previous jobs lead you to that point in your career through your accomplishments along the way. If you want to sell insurance, useful characteristics for that job might be influential skills, building relationships, a knowledge of medicine, teaching skills (so you can sell to other people who don’t know much about medicine), and being results-driven (since it’s probably commission-based). Show how you used those skills in your experience with computer engineering and how those skills would mean you’d be the best insurance salesman ever. And if it still seems like a bit of a stretch, here is where a career objective can help you. The idea is that YOU may know you would be the best insurance salesman ever, but the recruiter reading your resume may not make that connection. You have to make it more obvious. Remember—they only spend 10 seconds reading your resume.

9. It’s too wordy
Resume writing is not the same as writing a grant proposal, or writing a novel, or any other kind of writing. You can cut out virtually all unnecessary words as long as the message still makes sense. And because space is limited, it is in your best interest to do so, anyway, so you can get more of those “good” words in there that really describe who you are, and those results that illustrate how you performed on the job. But get right to the point. Again, think of the recruiter who spends 10 seconds looking at your resume. If he sees a page full of words words words, he could just get dizzy and lose interest. Hey, he’s human, and he has 300 resumes to look through to fill one position (let alone the five others he’s supposed to fill). Maybe it seems too difficult to describe the situation in few words, but remember that you can fill in the details in your interview. On your resume, get to the point: your exact accomplishment.

10. You are over-or under-qualified for the position
It’s probably not likely that you match every qualification in the job description to the letter. I think it’s safe to apply for positions if you match up with 75-80% of the qualifications or more. But a word of caution: you’re not necessarily going to have a better chance if you’re overly-qualified. One reason is that they might worry you would be constantly looking for a better offer, or they could worry that you would ask for too much money. But in addition, remember that the people considering you are human. If the hiring manager or someone on the team who reviews your resume feels that you might be too much competition for their own career paths, you might have a strike against you. Be careful to apply for positions that you are appropriately qualified for.

Good luck to all the job-seekers out there. Happy hunting, and stay strong.

A Tale of Two Genders

2010-03-14T16:43:00.006-04:00

Introduction

This is a topic that is very personal to me, very controversial, very difficult to solve, and very fascinating. It has been proven in virtually every study ever done that women are still getting paid significantly less than men working similar roles and hours. The million dollar question is why, and of course, what can be done about it. There are people out there who study this sort of thing for a living, and write PhD dissertations on the subject, and it should be said that no one has come up with the undisputed reason for this phenomenon. While I cannot offer the same extensive amount of research and insight on the subject as the best in the field, I can offer my own perspective. I also cannot think of a better time to write about this topic than in March, Women's History Month.

A Little History

An obvious place to begin discussing this subject is to look at the discrimination against women in the past and how it has evolved. Inequality between men and women has existed as far back as history books go. The women’s rights movement in the United States began in the mid-1800’s with a push for voting rights, with leaders arising such as Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. After a long battle, the 19th amendment granting women the right to vote was signed into law in 1920.

Although some women have been in the workforce for some time, they had been in the minority until large numbers of women began working during World War II with many American men away at war. In 1942, The National War Labor Board requested employers to adjust wages to women to be equal to those paid to men, but most employers chose not to adhere to this voluntary request. Not only that, but many women were pushed out of the workforce when the war ended so that veteran men could return to their jobs.

Until the early 1960s, newspapers listed separate job postings for men and women, at times listing identical jobs for both sexes but with different pay scales. On June 10, 1963, congress passed the Equal Pay Act, making it illegal to pay a woman less than what a man would be paid for the same job. In 1964, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act made it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race and sex in employment. These Acts have not come close to solving the problem, though, because employers will always seek ways to cut expenses, and unequal pay is difficult to prove because payroll is seldom discussed among employees (and always held close to the chest in human resources), and job descriptions are often written to be just so different that it becomes more difficult to compare wages for similar roles. This problem was somewhat addressed in Schultz v. Wheaton Glass Co in 1970, Corning Glass Works v. Brennan in 1974, Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education in 2005, and the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act of 2009, but none of these have really solved the problem completely.

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/womenstimeline1.html
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/equalpayact1.html

Current Wage Gap Statistics and Study Findings

Although closing the gap in wages for women has improved over the decades, it still needs quite a bit of improvement. Women are currently earning about 77-80% of the wages men earn working similar hours and jobs (depending on the study and the scale used, such as weekly or yearly earnings). This is an improvement over the rate of 59% in the early 1970’s, but considering the commonly-held belief that women now have equal rights and abilities in the workplace since the Equal Pay Act, the 80% rate is still an abomination. Many of the world’s top companies have yet to institute any policies that would address the disparity in pay and in advancement opportunities, and most companies do not even have systems to track salary differences by gender. Only 15 of the Fortune 500 companies are currently run by women, and the absense of women in leadership positions trickles down to many higher-level positions as well.

http://www.iwpr.org/pdf/C350.pdf
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/08/business/global/08manage.html?ref=business
http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/2009-01-01-women-ceos-increase_N.htm

Speculated Reasons for the Wage Gap

Over the years, many hypotheses have emerged as to why a wage gap still exists. Perhaps the first thing to consider is the methodologies of the studies finding the wage gaps. Some of these studies look at the gap as an aggregate—that is to say, the gap does not compare lawyers against lawyers and nurses against nurses, but rather averages all wages among women and compares it to those of men. The problem with this method is the high numbers of women in so-called “pink-collar” jobs, or jobs historically believed to be predominantly held by women and that have lower pay, such as nurses and teachers. The reason why women are drawn to these types of jobs is a study all on its own, but the simple fact that more women occupy these jobs and more men occupy jobs as executives in high-paying industries, so the average is inevitably skewed.

Still, not all studies measure the wage gap in this manner. In fact, a study through the Center of Gender Studies found that only four occupations where women earned more than men: special education teachers, order clerks, electrical engineers, and food preparation. In all other occupations, women’s pay lagged behind. The study also found that the gap did not improve with education; quite the contrary, among those with higher levels of education, the gap actually widened.

Another argument for the reason for the wage gap is that women work less, take more time off, or have more gaps in their work history due to pregnancy or other family-related issues. First, studies like these usually only include those working full-time, so the part-time or unequal hours argument does not hold. When it comes to breaks in experience, this could potentially account for problems in achieving equal pay. In some jobs or industries, breaks in work experience mean becoming out-of-touch with industry trends or a loss of drive and productivity. However, this deserves a closer look. In actuality, the wage gap widens when looking at men and women who work longer hours. In addition, it seems that women may have to work longer to get promotions that will lead to higher salaries, as women in higher-level positions have more years of work experience than men in similar positions.

http://www.womensmedia.com/new/Lips-Hilary-gender-wage-gap.shtml
http://moneywatch.bnet.com/economic-news/article/salary-checkup-is-the-gender-pay-gap-over/390638/

Call to Action

It is difficult to propose a solution without understanding the nature of the problem. However, there might be a few things that could help address the issues:

1. Better tracking of wage discrepancies within organizations
Since most companies hold no methods for tracking possible gaps in wages, a logical place to begin would be to monitor the situation to see if a problem exists on a company-level.
2. Better handling of potential sex discrimination issues
Many times when issues like this exist, they are not addressed because women are concerned it can be a career setback. If problems like this were brought to the forefront more often, more awareness could be built in this issue and the involved companies could take action.
3. More transparency in wage and promotional opportunity
It is a separate argument (and a separate blog post altogether) for whether or not introducing more transparency in wages is a good thing for the organization as a whole. However, it would certainly bring problems like this to the surface and give women more insight into how to achieve promotions and raises.
4. Widespread training in career development and negotiations
This may be an old-fashioned suggestion, but women seem to negotiate less often. They are more likely to accept offers and be grateful to have one than to put themselves at risk by pushing for what they deserve. Men seem to fight for themselves more instinctively, and perhaps with a little more of a push, women can find a way to get what they deserve as well.

Human Resources and Joe Worker at War--Will They Ever Make Peace?

2010-02-15T20:40:00.004-05:00

Over the years of my professional life and through conversations with people from various companies and industries, one common trend I have seen is that people everywhere are unhappy at work, or have some issue to complain about regarding HR policies or practices at their organizations. Many companies are making the same mistakes with regards to human resources, and many employees make mistakes with regards to how to respond to issues they see. The combination makes it impossible to create a positive environment, and problems just get amplified in a difficult economic environment. However, good HR practices are important no matter what the economy is doing, and employees need to understand how to take control of their own career track and workplace happiness.

Advice for HR Leaders

One big problem among creating corporate HR practices is that many things involved in HR are expensive (benefits, incentives, raises, bonuses, perks, etc.), and while every company wants its employees to be satisfied, these things are often seen as unnecessary for the core operations of the business, so in good times, companies will employ these practices to be competitive, but in difficult times, they are often the first thing on the chopping block. The reality is that the employees are really what make or break the company, so their satisfaction with the workplace is supremely important for achieving all other goals. When you take away perks or benefits, you are also taking away productivity and even your best employees altogether (who will leave for greener pastures).

Another problem is that companies often put HR policies and practices in place and believe they are doing the right thing, but the implementation of these practices comes out very differently at the end of the tunnel (the employees) than they were envisioned in the planning stages, thus creating a disconnect preventing top leadership from understanding the needs and satisfaction levels of their workers.

In response to these problems, I will list some suggestions for companies and employees with regards to their human resources practices. These suggestions are for HR leaders:

When it comes to performance evaluations and setting goals, be very specific, and follow through.

It is important for every employee at every level to understand exactly what is expected of him/her. This means knowing what it takes to do the job sufficiently, what it would take to earn a raise or promotion, and what it takes to stand out among the crowd. These goals need to be as specific as possible, recognizing positive results rather than punishing bad ones, and most importantly, the boss or HR rep needs to follow-through on promises once the goals are reached. Just like animals and little children, we respond best to positive rewards for positive results, but our positive results will only happen if we know exactly what the reward will be, and actually get it once we deliver our part of the bargain.

Incentives don’t always have to be monetary

Many managers assume that money is what it takes to make employees happy and to put in their best work. But the truth is, happiness among employees comes from a variety of places, and money is only one of them. Knowing that someone recognizes our good work is a great motivator, so verbalizing recognition for good work regularly is important. It is also nice to know that the boss cares, so simply asking how they are doing goes a long way, and so does allowing people to leave early once in a while, or give the opportunity to take an afternoon to volunteer in the community (without taking away pay). These things may sometimes seem like a waste of productivity, but employees are often more productive during the time they are working if they are happy in their work and motivated by perks like this. These things do not really cost much money, but because of the increase in happiness and productivity among workers, they are a really good investment.

…but the monetary ones do help

I’m not going to lie; a little extra money goes a long way to make someone happier at work. But that money needs to be specifically tied to a measureable result. It’s a downward spiral to let employees feel entitled to yearly raises and bonuses, but tying it to an achievable, measureable result will ensure that those results are achieved and workers have more control over their own successes.

Watch the pipeline and react appropriately

Implementing policies is a lot like playing telephone—the message changes more and more the further along it gets in the chain. And most HR managers or senior leadership don’t really follow what happens to these policies after they sign their approval except for periodic top-level updates. Keep tabs on exactly how the practices are being communicated, executed, evaluated, and modified at every level of the organization. There is no need to micro-manage the process, but it is important to watch the process at every level and in a variety of different departments because with all the different styles of management and work implementation, messages and policies are going to be different to virtually every person, so you need to stay on the pulse of what people are saying about the procedures not only to make sure they are understood correctly, but also to make sure you didn’t miss anything when planning them out. And by the way, before you even decide on any incentive policies or benefits or whatever, you should ask the employees what would work for them. This happens very rarely, and it would help employees to feel empowered to have a say in how the organization is run. But be careful how you do this. No employee should feel he/she is being judged for the feedback given or feel that job security is in jeopardy depending on how the feedback is received.

Advice for Employees

Before all the fingers start pointing just at the HR leaders, it should be noted for as often as I see problems in corporate HR, I also see workers place blame for their unhappiness on HR and senior leadership before they search inside themselves. Yes, sometimes the company makes mistakes, but we can’t depend on the company for all of our happiness, especially since we, too, make mistakes. Here are the suggestions I have for employees:

Put your expectations in check

I hate to be the deliverer of tough love, but I feel that it needs to be said. It is a workplace, not a camp. Your HR representative is not a counselor or therapist and is paid to keep the company’s best interests in mind just as much as yours (if not more). Your boss isn’t paid to worship the ground you walk on; your boss is there to make sure you do your job. You are paid to do a job, and you are not entitled to additional money, or promotions, or play time, or unnecessary luxuries. Sure, those extra things make you happy, but I think so many people wind up disappointed with their jobs because they expect the job to be something it isn’t. They expect pats on the back for doing what they are supposed to do anyway. They spend much more time complaining about the workplace or the boss or the job rather than doing something to make it better. The boss is human. No work project is perfect, and there are always problems. What is going to make the biggest difference in your happiness is how you handle those problems and how you learn to deal with a difficult boss or colleague. Your happiness is up to you.

Manage your boss

Now that I am sure I have made everyone reading this mad at me for the tough love part, let me clarify one piece of how you can take ownership for your own work happiness. We have all had bad bosses and dumb bosses and bosses that do so little we wonder why we couldn’t be paid to do just what they’re doing and do it better. But the only way to succeed in an organization and be happy working there is to find some way to work with your boss. Your boss cannot read your mind and does not know what circumstances are best for you to do your best work, so you need to have a constant discussion about that. Do you need that pat on the back when you do good work? Schedule a wrap-up evaluation meeting when your project is done so that you can ask what went well and what to improve on. And by the way, as cliché as it sounds, you should learn how to take criticism as an opportunity to improve yourself rather than an identification of weakness. Do you want a raise? Tell your boss you will do whatever it takes to get it, ask specifically what he/she would want you to do to be considered for a raise (actual, measureable goals), and do it. If you deliver the results, follow-up with him/her and ask for your raise. No one is going to have a raise or promotion gift-wrapped and delivered to your desk. You have to do the legwork.

Manage your environment

This one is kind of tricky. Workplace happiness is a living, breathing thing. We all want to make friends at work, which is important to our workplace happiness, but if one person is unhappy, the complaining can turn to gossip, which can turn to empathy, which can turn to other people feeling unhappy, and before you know it, you are feeling unhappy and nothing about your job has really changed—only your attitude has changed. This kind of sharing and recycling of negativity is what creates a toxic environment. A toxic environment is easy to create, but nearly impossible to escape. The only way to manage this is to stay strong in your own workplace satisfaction and managing your own environment. Don’t take part in workplace gossip when it turns to bashing bosses and complaining about company policies. This type of talk is usually done by people who do not know how to do the above suggestions (keeping expectations in check, manage the boss). You cannot let others’ dissatisfaction infect your own. If you really are unhappy about something, do something about it. Yes, there will always be office politics which make getting your voice heard or changes implemented all the more difficult. But no one ever got anywhere by whining about it. So learn the system and the politics, and find a way. If you can’t find a way, decide if it is something you can live with. If not, find somewhere else to work. There are a thousand stresses in life, and you make it exponentially worse for yourself by letting things bother you, or by complaining about them and not taking action. Take control. Either do something, or live with it. If it’s the latter, don’t let yourself complain or be subjected to complaints by others.

Conclusion

The truth is, no workplace is perfect, and no person working in a job is perfect. Whether you are a corporate leader or Joe Worker, it is always beneficial to step into someone else’s shoes to understand why they make the decisions that they do, and also be introspective to understand how you can improve yourself. On the side of the company, there needs to be more focus on finding out what employees need directly from them—they will be happier, more loyal to you, and will probably work harder, too. On the side of the employees, there needs to be more ownership for workplaces satisfaction and less entitlement—do something about a problem, and if you find yourself with an unavoidable toxic attitude, maybe it’s time for a change in your career. There will always be problems. But it is how we deal with the problems that define how strong we are both as individuals and as organizations.

Further Reading
http://www.dirjournal.com/guides/the-best-hr-practices-that-successful-companies-practice/
http://www.entrepreneur.com/humanresources/humanresourceburtongoldfield/article204482.html
http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/health/24-tips-for-being-happy-at-work-631166/

Super Bowl XLIV Commercials: A Review

2010-02-08T21:05:00.005-05:00

Evaluating the quality of a commercial begins with identifying the goal of the commercial, which you can usually decipher simply by watching it. Goals can range from awareness building, brand development, special promotions, market comparisons, and sometimes segment targeting (i.e. fashioning your ad to address a particular audience who might relate to your product more than anyone else). Usually, television advertising is difficult to measure in effectiveness because few consumers pay attention to it, and all it can often do is remind the consumer of a brand by repetition or paint a picture of what a brand stands for. The Super Bowl is special, though, because many people watch the program more for the commercials than the game—it becomes part of their conversations at work the next day, and everyone wants to be able to share their opinions about the creativity and humor that they saw. In the case of Super Bowl XLIV with 100 million viewers (many of whom are expecting commercials to be exceptional in some way—funny, creative, moving, etc.), segment targeting is probably not a good idea. All other types of ads could still work, but with such a big audience, such a big price tag, and so much potential for the ad to live longer than just the 30 second spot during which it is aired, the goal of each ad should be, above all, to be memorable. You want your ad to be one that makes it into water cooler discussions at workplaces the next day, passed around on social networking sites, and discussed in humble little blogs like this one.

Overall, I saw a bunch of disappointing ads—really, missed opportunities. I saw a few mediocre attempts, and a few good ones. But I have to say that this year there weren’t any that I was really excited about. So while I was able to pick out my favorite ads, this is really relative to an overall mediocre field. And what I also see is there is a wide range in ads that most people liked—everyone I heard from picked out different ads that they liked, proving that there really is no stand-out winner this year. Below, I highlighted my top 5 ads, as well as some honorable mentions.

5. Coca-Cola--Mr. Burns is Broke
This was a good use of one of the longest-running and most popular television shows of all time in combination with one of the world's most recognizable brands. Everyone wants to see Mr. Burns lose his fortune, and Coke can heal problems by bringing people together.

4. Budweiser--The Bridge is Out
Harkens back to "Lassie" and other old-school folksy tales, this ad stays in the theme of Budweiser for keeping the party going and rallying together by the whole town creating a human bridge for a beer truck.

3. Doritos--Dog "Anti-Bark" Collar
Doritos have a reputation of putting out some very creative, funny ads, and they often make it into my favorite list. This year's Super Bowl featured a whopping four ads from Doritos, and while two of them did not land on my good side, I was definitely not disappointed with this cute and clever ad featuring a dog taking revenge with his "anti-bark" collar.

2. Doritos--Two House Rules
Short and sweet, this cute little boy sticks up for his mama and his Doritos by laying down the law for a gentleman paying a visit.

1. Google--A Search Love Story
This ad is not only heartwarming and cute, but it is spot-on for the image and reputation that Google maintains in pure simplicity and reliability for providing information on absolutely anything. It was also a departure from the usual Super Bowl ad that features men doing dumb things like walking around without pants or getting yelled at by their girlfriends. This ad was a standout for me.

Honorable mentions:
Snickers--Betty White Playing Football,
Hyundai--Brett Favre in 2020,
Audi--Green Police,
Coca-Cola--Africa Sleepwalk

Duds:

GoDaddy in the past tried to push controversial raciness, which worked the first time because it drove traffic to its website. But this time, they pushed it too far, we've seen it before, and now it just looks dumb and cheesy.
e*Trade--it is time to give up on the creepy talking babies. Really. Please.
In the Denny's commercials--all three of them--I was so distracted by the annoying screaming that I didn't even get the message that they were giving out free breakfasts. Hey Denny's, next time you want to get our attention--less is more.
Census, I was really rooting for you. You come along only once every ten years, and this was such a great opportunity to get a huge American audience ready to take part in one of the most important and useful studies there is, and that's what you came up with? I was still confused after I re-watched your commercial online. Such a disappointment.

Next year, I would like to see the year's biggest night of commercials step away from making men look stupid (read the Dockers and CareerBuilder ads with men sans pants, or FloTV showing a guy getting dragged around by his girlfriend, or Dodge showing men making promises to their women but drawing the line at their vehicle, etc... etc...), and challenge more real issues. Coca-cola and Doritos will always be around for something clever and funny. But I'd like to see clever paired with issues we can all relate to. The Google ad was the closest thing I saw this year, and the Tim Tebow ad for Focus on the Family had potential to do that (although fell a bit short). Lets see if we can move advertising beyond half-naked people and creepy babies to make a real, artistic, pushing-the-envelope, revolutionizing statement.

Super Bowl Advertising: A History

2010-01-17T21:54:00.005-05:00

Super Bowl I took place in 1967, although at the time it was called the “NFL-AFL World Championship Game.” The temporary unofficial name of “Super Bowl” was contrived when Kansas City Chief owner Lamar Hunt observed his daughter playing with her super ball. After some time with the original name, fans and media took to the shorter unofficial name over the wordy original name, and in 1969 the name was officially changed to “Super Bowl.”

As a marketer, however, what is more interesting to me is the other half of the Super Bowl spectacle: the advertisements. It is arguably the one time of year when advertisements take center stage and are given almost as much attention as the regular television program. The reason this came about is because the Super Bowl has grown in viewership to become the most watched program of the year, and high ratings attract competition among advertisers. This demand has caused the price for a 30-second spot during the Super Bowl to rise dramatically, and thus pushed advertisers investing in spots to put special amounts of innovation and creativity into these expensive ads.

To see this transformation in action, we turn directly to the numbers. When looking at television ratings, the “rating” indicates the % of all television-equipped US households who tuned in to the program, while the “share” indicates the % of those viewing the program out of those who were watching television at the time. Super Bowl I in 1967 was shown on two networks with ratings of 22 and 18, shares of 43 and 36, and viewership of 26 million and 24 million. Back then, a 30-second spot cost about US $40,000 (adjusted for inflation would be about US $245,000). In 2009, Super Bowl XLIII grabbed a 42 rating and 62 share with almost 99 million viewers. A 30-second spot in 2009 cost US $3,000,000.

One of the first really memorable commercials aired during the Super Bowl was a Noxzema ad shown in 1973 featuring Farrah Fawcett applying shaving cream to Joe Namath's face. Both were popular celebrities of the time, and audiences of the 1970s showed little issue with sexual innuendo in advertisement.

However, the bar was truly set in 1984 with the engaging Apple ad directed by Ridley Scott introducing the Macintosh to the world and inspired by the George Orwell novel “1984.”

In 2010, prices for Super Bowl ads will unusually dip slightly to between US $2.5M and US $2.8M due to the dip in the global economy, and some big players in Super Bowl advertising such as PepsiCo and General Motors will be absent, potentially making way for creative newcomers to enter the scene. I am personally looking forward to this event, and plan on reviewing the advertising in full in a special Super Bowl entry of this blog.

References
http://www.superbowlhistory.net/superbowl/index.php
http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/01/18/historical-super-bowl-tv-ratings/11044
http://articles.sfgate.com/2008-02-01/entertainment/17140446_1_super-bowl-bud-bowls-super-ads
http://advertising-influence.suite101.com/article.cfm/superbowl_advertising
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/marketing/super-bowl-ad-prices-fall-but-still-cost-millions/article1426695/

2010 Trends to Watch

2010-01-07T15:15:00.007-05:00

Trendwatching.com recently published a list of trends to watch in the coming year (some of which may have already begun, as trends don't necessarily follow the calendar). I will summarize them here:

1. Business as Usual: Despite any difficulties in the economy, businesses need to continue to follow consumer trends and demands, which include stepping up to sustainability or being a good corporate citizen, in order to compete for business. Which ironically is not really "business as usual..."

2. Urbany: More and more people are now living in cities, and becoming more "sophisticated, demanding, try-out-prone, and super-wired. This also leads to a sub-trend of pride in one's own city.

3. Real-Time Reviews: Consumers crave instant gratification, and are sharing more of everything they do, including reviews of everything they consume.

4. (F)Luxury: The definition of luxury is whatever seems scarce to the consumer, which can be any number of things, and seems to be in flux.

5. Mass Mingling: Although people are spending much more time socializing online, the trend has not been to create more homebodies. On the contrary, people are spending more time socializing offline, perhaps driven by finding social networks online with similar interests, the need to be with warm bodies away from the computer more often, etc.

6. Eco-Easy: A trend toward making it easy for consumers to do the right thing for the environment, which is made most possible by strong government or other large entity intervention, such as city-wide bans on plastic bags or bottled water.

7. Tracking & Alerting: The idea that relevant information will find its way to consumers based on their preferences, instead of consumers having to hunt down the information.

8. Embedded Generosity: Making gift-giving easy and painless, if not automatic, such as companies who automatically donate something to a charity when you make a purchase.

9. Profile Myning: This isn't about advertising mining your personal information, but about users managing their own digital profiles, whether it be offering bits up for sale to advertisers, or hiring someone to manage digital real estate after death, etc.

10. Maturialism: No doubt due to much more exposure to racy media, people don't want to be treated as uninformed or easily shocked, and can handle much more quirkiness, raciness, and daring and exotic innovations and communications in marketing and otherwise.

/summary

What is interesting to me in all of this is how these trends overlap. There is definitely an increased trust and dependence on technology (3, 7, 9) and a movement toward edgy youth away from the traditional (2, 10). There is also more focus on doing the right thing (6,8). Any companies that are not already finding ways to reach consumers through these trends are really missing an important opportunity and will likely have a difficult time staying relevant. It is also interesting that these trends point away from the thrifty and cautious consumerism of the recession and toward spending a little more, whether it be on technology, sustainability, social activities, or the more expensive urban lifestyle. 2010 will be an interesting year, as we will still be seeing the effects of the recession with jobs struggling to come back and consumers slow to start spending again. But the desire is there--people are tired of being holed up in their homes watching every penny. They will invest again eventually, get their jobs back eventually, and start spending again soon. They are ready.

Black Friday

2009-11-27T13:07:00.006-05:00

It is a commonly-held belief that Black Friday, or the day after Thanksgiving, is the biggest shopping day of the year. While that is actually not true (Black Friday does welcome very high traffic, but the Saturday before Christmas remains the day of the year with the highest sales) (1) , it has long been considered the kickoff to the holiday shopping season. It is also thought of as a “big” shopping day because, even though it is not recognized as an official national holiday, many businesses give employees the day off (except for retailers, of course). In recent years, it has become a tradition for many people to hit the stores early in the morning--even as early as 4 or 5 a.m. Maybe their motivation is partly the good deals that retailers offer, and maybe also partly the desire to get out of the house after a day cooped up with family, food, and football. This tradition becoming so widespread has contributed to this being known as a big shopping day.

History

The term “Black Friday” refers to times when accounting records were kept by hand, and negative amounts were recorded in red ink and positive amounts recorded in black ink. This day was considered the first day when retailers used more black ink than red. But the term “Black Friday” has seen more use than in the retail sense. Ironically, referring to a day as “Black” has often meant a day of financial catastrophe. Perhaps the earliest reference to Black Friday comes from Sept. 24, 1869, “when plunging gold prices precipitated a U.S. stock-market panic. An attempt by Jay Gould and James Fisk to corner the market in gold and drive up its price depended on preventing the sale of government gold, an arrangement assured through the two men's political influence. When President Ulysses S. Grant heard of the scheme, he ordered the government to sell $4 million in gold, which caused the price to drop and produced a panic selling of other stocks.” (2) “Black Tuesday” has been coined to describe the day of the great stock market crash on October 29, 2009. Similarly, “Black Monday” is often remembered as October 19, 1987, when the stock market saw its sharpest drop since “Black Tuesday.”

In terms of shopping, though, the day after Thanksgiving has been regarded as the kickoff to the holiday shopping season since the start of the Macy’s Thanksgiving Parade in 1924. The day after Thanksgiving, retailers would begin their “After Thanksgiving Sales,” of which shoppers were eager to take advantage. “During the Great Depression, President Roosevelt changed the date of Thanksgiving to a week earlier so that merchants could have more shopping days in the season in which to sell their wares.” (3) The day was not called “Black Friday” until around 1966 in Philadelphia when shoppers clogged the streets, causing chaos for police, who gave the day its new name. Still, this name for the holiday season kickoff did not see widespread popularity until recent years, around 2002. (4)

Black Friday 2009

After a year of recession and even longer in a sluggish economy, many retailers are placing even more hope than usual in their holiday sales to boost their annual profits. However, even though reports indicate that the recession has past, the lingering effects still remain. Unemployment and underemployment is still very high, and the effects will continue through the holiday season. Even those who keep their jobs have reportedly learned from past financial mistakes and the hit they have taken in the last couple of years, and will subsequently shop much more conservatively this year. Many shoppers report that they do not plan on purchasing with credit anymore, and are shopping just for the good deals and nothing else—news that retailers do not like to hear. Their doorbusters are meant as a means to get you in the door… so that you can also buy other things. I like to see people being smarter about their shopping and spending habits, although I hope retailers can figure out a way to stay profitable (perhaps--shock!--in ways that do not rely solely on crazy Q4 shopping) for the sake of our economy.

Further Reading

WSJ Article for this year’s Black Friday
Reuters Report (Yahoo!) on Initial Black Friday Analysis
Retailers are encouraged but cautious (Yahoo!)

References

1. “Black Friday,” Snopes, http://www.snopes.com/holidays/thanksgiving/shopping.asp, accessed 11/27/09.
2. “Black Friday,” Answers.com, http://www.answers.com/topic/black-friday, accessed 11/27/09
3. Lowery, A "Why is it Called Black Friday? The History and Origin of Black Friday." Why is it Called Black Friday? The History and Origin of Black Friday. 18 Nov. 2009 EzineArticles.com. accessed 11/27/09 .
4. “History of Black Friday and Cyber Monday.” http://www.blackfridayandcybermonday.com/, accessed 11/27/09

Article Critique! Burger King Lawsuit

2009-11-21T13:03:00.008-05:00

In case you haven't heard, Burger King franchise owners are suing Burger King corporate for forcing them to launch a $1 double cheeseburger promotion. Franchise owners claim that selling the cheeseburgers at $1 makes them take a $0.10 loss.

I am sure (or I hope, at least) that the lawsuit will dig deep in to the balance sheets of how this promotion affects the business. But the problem I have with articles like this is that they only tell part of the story. This particular story might lead you to feel sorry for the poor franchise owners who have to lose money at the demand of the guys in suits. Surprise! News stories don't always give you the entire story.

Some observations on this lawsuit:

There is always a bit of tension between the field (stores/franchises) and the corporate headquarters, with the field believing that corporate lives in its ivory tower and doesn't care about the needs of the field, and with corporate believing that the field doesn't appreciate the research done behind the scenes for decisions and is lazy about implementation. Bickering like this is bound to happen if communication between the two is lacking in the slightest. Burger King corporate claims that this promotion was tested before launch, but did it share the details of the test with the franchisees, and the forecasted results?

In the article, the NFA generalizes the franchisees' cost structure by saying that $0.55 goes toward ingredients and $0.45 goes toward overhead. However, overhead costs are spread out over all incoming revenue (not just the double cheeseburger), so the "loss" would be less than $0.10.

This promotion is clearly meant to be a loss leader, a tactic employed by a lot of companies, and virtually all fast-food companies. You sell an item at a loss to encourage more traffic and hope that more people will buy other things that give you more profit. This often works, and the article mentions that an analyst predicted traffic would increase by 20% with this promotion. This additional revenue should in theory make up for the loss from the double cheeseburger.

So, I thought I'd try to work out some "back of the napkin math" to see if I can find out just how much "loss" this is causing the franchises to take. I had to make a few assumptions to work this out, but I think you can see that the fight is far from easy to call.

According to Burger King's financial statement, their 3-month revenue total ending 9/30/09 is $636.9M, which would average out to $212.3M per month. If we assume that the average visit brings $5 in revenue, then that would mean the chain sees about 45 million visits per month. With the promotion, the analyst predicts an increase in visits by 20%, bringing it to about 55 million visits per month.

Here's where it gets a little tricky because there is a lot of information I don't know. I don't know what the double cheeseburger was selling for before the $1 promotion, and I don't know what proportion of sales the double cheeseburger makes up, or how that proportion might have shifted after the promotion (the promotion might mean the proportion of double cheeseburgers sold compared to other things may have increased). Lets say the double cheeseburger was selling for $3 before the promotion (and the promo reduced the double cheeseburger transaction totals by $2, to $3). And lets say that (generously) half of the visits take advantage of the promotion with relatively no other change in their other purchases (they still buy a coke or whatever else they would normally get). I made this so generous because there might also be some people who come just for the double cheeseburger and nothing else, which is also a number I couldn't guess. That would mean the revenue brought in would look like this:

($5*27.5M visits)+($3*27.5M visits) = $137.5M+$82.5 = $220M/month

$220M-$212.3M = +$7.7M/month

This works out to be an increase in revenue by almost $8M/month. An increase! Now, if the traffic is increasing by 20%, total costs are likely to increase as well, although not likely at the full 20% rate because economies of scale can be enjoyed through purchasing and cooking in bulk, and fixed costs like rent will stay the same.

Obviously, with so many unknown variables, this math is not reliable. But the point that I put forth is that there is more going on in this promotion and in the lawsuit than just what appears in the news, and that this fight might be much closer than it would appear. The lesson here is to take news stories like this with a grain of salt and not rush to the same conclusion that the article may lead you to believe.

Fun!

2009-11-08T10:52:00.005-05:00

This is a huge topic that I couldn’t possibly do full justice to in one blog entry, so I am sure this won’t be the last time I write about it. As a marketer, I can personally say that marketing is fun for me (of course), but trends are pointing to marketing being fun for the consumer, too. There have been fun ads floating around for years—just watch some creative ones launched during the Super Bowl and you’ll probably find yourself laughing more than feeling compelled to go to the store to buy something. However, relying only on print or television ads is not enough anymore. These days, you can’t get consumers fully invested in your brand unless you conduct some kind of engagement marketing.

If you’re not sure what this means, I’ll first point you to a recent viral video sweeping YouTube from Volkswagon Sweden. The video introduces something called the “fun theory,” showing an experiment conducted on a stairway in Stockholm to prove that healthier or more positive actions can be produced more often by making them more fun. The campaign for Volkswagon doesn’t stop there, however. On the fun theory website, more video examples of the fun theory are posted, and a contest for site visitors to engage in suggesting their own ideas to support the theory. Volkswagon also plans to follow-up with ads for their environmentally friendly cars, again to illustrate that doing the right thing doesn’t have to be boring, tying the whole campaign together.

The idea with engagement marketing is that people accept things more if they contribute to them. And obviously, if they are having fun at the same time, they will keep coming back for more engagement. There are endless examples of this—web chat, blogs, product ratings, games, social networking, media, and phone applications are just a few. Engagement creates more positive associations with a company or product, meaning that consumers are more likely to use products themselves, recommend them to others, and have stronger loyalty with that brand. In the Volkswagon example, consumers were engaged by viewing the video (and then posting it on Facebook or sharing the link with their friends), and will tie that positive experience to Volkswagon with the follow-up ad as well as the contest, whether they submit an idea or enjoy the ideas submitted by others.

And now, the fun part. Here are some more examples of engagement marketing, for your interactive pleasure.
• In a well-known example, Amazon.com was one of the first to ask consumers for product reviews on their website. Consumers trust the reviews more if they come from “regular people” rather than a corporation, and they are more engaged in Amazon by reading those reviews or writing some of their own.
• On the flip side, WalMart found itself the victim of a social media prank when users began posting sarcastic reviews of its caskets on its website. The reviews were monitored and eventually removed, but they still made headlines, and perhaps even in this case there is no such thing as bad press.
• FAO Schwarz (recently acquired by Toys ‘R’ Us) engages visitors to its website by having them create their own muppet character in the “Muppet Whatnot Workshop.” The created muppet characters are then, of course, for sale.
• Pizza Hut created a phone application allowing users to order pizzas at a discount as well as play games, generating a reported $1 million in sales. Not bad.
• Hasbro launched its “Trivial Pursuit Experiment” to find out who is smarter: Men or Women? Users can log onto the site, join their team, and play the game by answering trivia questions and contributing to their side.

More Reading:
Author Alan Moore explains more about engagement marketing

Price War

2009-10-25T15:19:00.006-04:00

Although I was hesitant at first to write about the current book price war between WalMart/ Target/ Amazon.com due to my own personal history in the book business and my desire to write about more of a variety of topics, I have to admit that such a compelling and interesting story of pricing does not happen terribly often.

Whoever starts a price war better be sure about what they’re doing. This is a strategy that is difficult to get out of once you start it, and only those with strong operations and balance sheets with survive. Usually, the goal is to force others out of the market and gain market share. The problem is that market share does not automatically lead to profitability, which is why this move is often a mistake.

What happens:
Company A lowers prices. Company B needs to compete, so it lowers its prices as well.
Repeat until one company either
• Loses so much money in the price cuts that it can’t stay in the business
• Has to raise prices back up to account for lost profits, and likely loses customers and subsequently withdraws from the business
• Prices remain at the lower price as the new market standard, forcing out any companies who can’t sustain it and making it more difficult for new companies to enter the market.
If the price war ends and the “losers” are forced out, the “winners” can then raise prices again, sometimes to an even higher level than before, depending on who is left in the market.

Illustration—the “Prisoner’s Dilemma”

Neither company wants to be the first to climb out of the hole because they would lose (by falling into quadrant II or III). Both companies have to come out at the same time to get back to quadrant I, and they can’t legally communicate with each other directly on their pricing, so no one wants to budge, and they both end up losing (staying in quadrant IV).

Market competition is healthy—it forces companies to find the best ways to meet consumer needs to compete for their business. And usually, since for-profit companies are interested in making money, they would be interested in finding the appropriate price that would meet demand and consumer willingness-to-pay, which would be comfortably high enough to make money and low enough to draw consumers. However, before the average consumer gets too excited about falling prices on their favorite products, there are several things to consider:

Why a price war is bad
1. Once companies get involved with a price war, it’s difficult to get out of it. If it withdraws and raises prices back up, it loses business to the company that still has the lower prices. If it stays in, however, it could potentially lose a lot of money with cut prices that often go below costs and has to hope it is the stronger company to win the war.
2. Usually the price war affects a lot more down the supply chain than Joe Consumer realizes. In the case of the book price war, publishers and even authors get less money because there is a smaller pie to pass out. This might mean that some publishers may go out of business, and some authors may not be able to write as much and need to find other income sources. Because of reduced funding, other activities such as book tours may be reduced or eliminated.

The Book Price War
In the case of the current book price war, it is difficult to say what exactly will happen. The major players involved did so to try to lure in customers to the rest of their products, and used books as a sacrificial lamb. They are most likely losing money on the lower-priced books, but hope that interested customers will make up the difference in purchasing other products. That means that—you guessed it—prices are likely a bit higher on those other products, or at least their profits are a bit larger. Since the selection of books at WalMart and Target is lower than at major booksellers like B&N and Borders, the large chains will probably take a hit, but not be forced out of business (although those reduced-price blockbusters do bring in a big chunk of the business). Small booksellers will have a harder time holding steady, though, because they usually can’t cut prices as much and are already at a disadvantage in selection. Amazon.com has the advantage of the broad selection as well as the ability to cut prices in a sacrificial category, so I predict that they will come out on top, however it plays out.
Predicted winner: Amazon.com

Further Reading

Recent news story on what's happening in the book price war

Another blog take on what will happen in the book price war