Well, I just got a direct mail piece that won half the battle, but abysmally failed the other half - and irritated me no end in the process.

The direct mail piece that I received came in an envelope designed to make you believe that you were getting a letter from the IRS. It had a big, bold “2009″ in the return address, some official looking numbers, and a mention that it was from the “Records Processing Division.” There was also something printed on the envelope that indicated that it was “Documented Mail - Confidential - Time Sensitive - OFFICIAL USE ONLY.” I noted that while this was printed on the envelope, there was a coy pretense that this was a sticker, similar to what you might find with a registered or insured mail receipt. The printed on fake “label” went so far as to have this printed on the reverse side of the envelope - fakily acting as if it were a sticker: PLACE STICKER AT TOP OF ENVELOPE…FOLD AT DOTTED LINE.

Well, I’ll fold you at dotted line alright.

I was especially sensitive to hearing from the IRS, because a day earlier we’d received a check from the state because we had made a mistake on our tax form, and had over-paid by $800. So, I was thinking, damn, we have to refile our Fed, since we deducted state tax, or remember to include this as income next year….

Anyway, when I opened the envelope, the missive was from Colonial VW of Medford, telling me that they are very interested in acquiring my car and turning it into a pre-owned, pardon me - pre-loved, car. And letting me buy a new one at up to $6,000 off the MRSP at 0% APR.

Perhaps they aren’t aware that my VW is post-loved, and was given to Volunteers of America two years ago. They, in turn, sold it at auction.

In any case, I know there’s a recession on, and things are tough for auto dealers, but I really don’t think you do yourselves any big marketing favor by sending a flyer out in an envelope that most folks would interpret as coming from the IRS. (And I’m not crazy here: I showed the envelope to a handful of folks, and they all had the same impression.)

I’m sure that this one is on someone’s clever “10 Tips for Getting Someone to Open Your Mail” list, but if they were really clever, they would have made some reference to the IRS-look-alike-ness in their copy. How about, “We know, we know, you probably thought that this was from your friendly IRS, and we apologize for that. But we really wanted you to know about this program….”  That, I would have found entirely acceptable. I still don’t have a VW to turn in, but it would have been a not bad way to get my attention - and acknowledged (wink, wink) their little ruse.

As it stands, I’m just plain annoyed, and not feeling pre-loved at all.

No way to treat a prospect, I’m afraid.

a

A losing proposition

Here’s the story:

As part of my work for this client, I have frequent conversations with customers. Someone in the marketing group, whom I don’t usually work with, let me know that she was planning on using quotes from a couple of customers in some collateral she was pulling together. The quotes were taken from posts that these customers had made on a customer forum, not for the interviews I’d done with them. Anyway, because she knew that I had recently spoken to both of these customers and, thus, “knew” them, she asked me to contact them to get their pictures to use with the quotes.

I was happy enough to do this  - they are both great guys, very pro-my-client-company-and-its-products, and fun to “do business with.” So I dropped them each a line (including the quote that was being used, and the context it was being used in).

One of the guys got his picture off to me right away; the other one wrote back and kinda-sorta asked why we were using a quote from him without his permission.

Yikes!

I let him know where the quote had come from - which is at least a semi-public space - and ensured him that we would let him see how it was being used before we published the piece, etc.

I understand perfectly how the marketing person ran with these quotes. But even though they were already on our website (albeit in a password-protected section), we really should have contacted both of the folks whose words we were going to be using to get their permission. And, before I reached out to these guys for their pictures, I should have checked to see whether permission had been granted. (I did have a suspicion that we hadn’t bothered to ask.)

All is now good, and both customers have okayed using their words and their pictures.

But lesson learned: never assume that a customer is going to be okay with your using their words, unless they’ve explicitly given you their approval.

I don’t think you need to be completely obsessive here. If someone has allowed you to publish a case study, or they’ve participated in a webcast that’s “out there,” or has provided a press quote, I do think it’s okay to re-purpose what they’ve said for use in a PowerPoint preso. It really depends on how you’re going to use it. You should never use material from another source in a press release. No one wants to se their name go out over the wire without knowing in advance that it’s going to happen.

When you do re-use quoted material, you have to be very careful that you aren’t taking something out of context, or implying (deliberately or not) more than the customer has actually said.

Bottom line, you’re really better off letting a customer know what you’re doing. (”Just wanted to let you know that we’ll be using this quote from the webcast - ‘this is the best mousetrap in the world’ - in the new data sheet for Mousetrap 2.0. It will be used in a sidebar, with your name and company name. Let me know if you want to see a copy before we post the pdf.’”)

Most of the time, it’s going to be a case of ask, and you shall receive.

You can, of course, follow the ‘better to ask forgiveness than permission’ philosophy. Personally, I don’t think it’s a great idea to take customers for granted.

a

Ask and you shall receive (mostly). Don’t ask and you might tick someone off.

Princess Sparkle Pony (a.k.a., PSP) is a double oddity: no cell phone, no credit card. But PSP, like the rest of us cowpokes, is not totally immune to consuming cravings. PSP’s was for an iPhone. Here’s PSP’s story:

First I went to ATT’s web site to order the service. Now, here’s another bit of PSP trivia: I don’t have a credit card; haven’t since college! I do have a debit card, of course, but I simply don’t use credit. So at the ATT site, they did a “credit check” and found me wanting, and decided that the iPhone wasn’t for me. So I “spoke” to an online rep, and the conversation went something like this:

Me: Hi, I want to get an iPhone, but failed your credit check.
Rep: Sorry, then you are ineligible for the service.
Me: Really? Just like that? But I was going to pay with a debit card.
Rep: Sorry, if you fail the credit check, you’re ineligible.
Me: Seriously? What if I pre-pay for the whole two-year plan?
Rep: We don’t offer that.

Not to take no for an answer, PSP went straight to the AT&T horse’s mouth. There, PSP found that getting an iPhone would require ante-ing up a $750 deposit for the supreme affront of not having a credit card.

The saga continues - after a trip to the not-so-local Apple store, PSP came home empty-hooved. iPhones were all out!

Given the current economic milieu, in which so many of our citizen consumers have drunk too long at the credit trough, you’d think that an upstanding, debt-free, clean-living pony could buy something with a debit-card. Verizon has figured out how to get my phone bill paid directly from my checking account each month. Don’t you think that AT&T could do this, too?

Excellent cautionary here - it’s apparently better to have a poor credit history than to have none. Still, from a customer service view point, one would hope that companies can accommodate different - excuse the marketing-ese -  “buyer personas”. Although no doubt a rarity, PSP can’t be the only person out there fitting this profile.

a

Princess Sparkle Pony falls through the customer service looking glass

First, I will disclose up front that the two e-mail messages I received were from a political candidate whom I can say with about 100% surety I will never, ever, ever, in a million election days, cast a vote for. (This makes me wonder where they got my e-mail address to begin with. Oh, I know, they may be making the assumption that only members of a certain party read The Wall Street Journal or The Economist. Wrong you are!)

The first e-mail message had a subject line that included the words “‘Obama is irrelevant’ on Iranian crisis.” Well, one can argue whether the incumbent president is more or less relevant than, say, a former senator, but the point is that the header - which contained, I believe, a direct quote from the former senator, was negative. But negative in a way that likely has some appeal to the sender’s core constituency. Less appeal, however, to those not in “the core” who, presumably, this politico would want to reach out to.

The second e-mail message had a snappier, and somewhat more cryptic, subject line, that included the phrase “The Rockets Red Glare.”

It probably makes some sense to relate the full subject lines here, because I do think that they matter:

The first was “Fred’s Monday Clip - ‘Obama is irrelevant’ on Iranian crisis.”

The second (received a day later) was “Fred on Iran - The Rockets Red Glare.”

(By the way, the e-mail messages were one and the same both times. This somewhat disappointed me - I felt a bit shortchanged - but I recognize that, if all they wanted to test was the open-up-and-click-through-rate based on the subject header, they had to keep all else constant.)

While I am curious, I haven’t had the time to click through and listen to Fred’s Monday Clip. And I am really wondering which header pulled better.

If they were going after red-meat Fred supporters, they probably got good traction on the first one. (”Hey, that Obama fellow is irrelevant, now that you mention it.”)

If they were trying to appeal to more independent voters, then I’m guessing the Rockets Red Glare e-mail pulled more folks in. (”Well, I didn’t think much of that kind of nasty e-mail yesterday, but this sounds like Fred-the-once-and-future-statesman may have something to say on Iran.”)

On the other hand, the first message, in fact, provided more content - something I usually appreciate. In this case, however, it pretty much gave away the content in a way that would be not-so-appealing to some audience. The message I took away: Fred’s Monday Clip promises to be an aggressive, exaggerated slam, and not a thoughtful, reasoned position piece.

The lessons for us B2B marketers here are 1) it’s good to test; but 2) maybe you’ll be a bit better off overall if you focus a bit more on your personas before you send out generalized blasts. The first e-mail was pretty much a turnoff to begin with. While the second one didn’t exactly make me fall in love with Fred, it also didn’t suggest to me that this was just going to be an opportunistic attack undermining the President at a critical time.

Fred’s PAC should absolutely have been able to mine their data well enough to know that I’m not a red-meat Fred supporter. Sure, there are those tell-tale business subscriptions…But I’m guessing that they probably had my zip code, as well, which I can guarantee should have given them a pretty good idea that I don’t live in Fred Territory. Business subscription + zip code should have, at best, marked me as a potential Mitt supporter. (And I’ll say one thing about Mitt’s PAC - they’re savvy enough not to go sending me any e-mail blasts, Wall Street Journal or no Wall Street Journal subscription!)

a

Test Messaging

One of the projects I work on for this client is finding customers to take part in their webinar series, a highly successful program that really and truly tries to deliver on real content, not just a thinly veiled sales pitch.

When I’m talking to a customer, I will generally make a note in my file about whether I think they have the personality and presence to shine in a webinar, but not come across as slick or canned, which would be anathema for our techie audience.

So far, I’m batting 1.000 on the candidates that I’ve brought in.

A couple were a bit rough going to begin with, a bit nervous about being “on stage”. Here, I will credit my coaching and preparation with them a little, and the skill of the moderators we used a lot, with bringing the customers out and getting them relaxed and open.

But my most recent win. Wow! Couldn’t have been better.

When I was asked to come up a webinar participant for this particular product, I recalled that, about 6 months ago, I’d spoken with someone and had noted “great personality; lively and fun” in my file. And did she deliver: she was personable, informative, had great war stories, and was very funny. If we had scripted every word, we couldn’t have come up with anything better. She even jumped in and added to the conversation in places where the script - and, yes, we do have a loosely-followed flow-guide - called for our internal guy to talk about an issue with the moderator. Our customer got right into it, and, completely unprodded, came up with an anecdote that supported the point we were trying to get across.

I used to say that one of the best things about managing is when you luck (and, admittedly, skill) into a team that makes you look good. Same goes for our customers: this person really made me look good. (And I have, indeed, let her know.)

I know I can’t count on this to happen with every webinar I’m involved in. And I sure hope that my client doesn’t think I have a whole raft of folks like CJK up my sleeve that I can pull out and deliver. But it is just so great when this happens.

a

So great when it happens…

Now, because I don’t know this particular Colleen T, I really knew it wasn’t a personal letter, and that it was no doubt someone looking for $$$.

In fact, Colleen T was looking for a donation. Sorry, Colleen T, I like your cause, but not this year. Still, that simple touch of putting a sticker with the name of a real person on it got me to open up the envelope which, frankly, if it had only had the noble cause’s name as the return address, I wouldn’t have. Would I have opened it if it had had both Colleen T’s name and that of the noble cause’s? Maybe, maybe not - although I would certainly have been more apt to open it if I thought there was a real person sending it - and not some fake “Betty Crocker” type.

Same goes for e-mails. I am much more apt to at least open it if there’s a real name on it. But not if it’s just someone’s first name. (Carl? Who’s Carl? I don’t know any Carls.) And not if it’s Mr. or Ms. Big’s name, either. (Do I really think that Joe Biden is sending me a personal e-mail?)

So, if the first rule of any marketing communication is getting someone to open it, personalizing that communication may just count for something.

Another way to get me to open the envelope or the e-mail is to have a good message on the envelope, or subject line in the e-mail - but that’s a conversation for another day.

Of course, getting someone to open it up is just half the battle. The other half is equal parts of getting them to read it and getting them to act on it. Also a conversation - or two - for another day.

Anyway, personal got me to open the letter from Colleen T.

It’s worth thinking about what might do the trick for your prospects.

a

Half the battle

I was tempted to review the press release ahead of time to purge gobbledygook words, but held myself back. So I was pleased to find that I only used one in the draft: the word optimize.

With only one bad word, I was shocked to find I got a grade of 45 out of 100. Harsh! But when I looked at the full report, I realized that they were looking at more than word usage. The material that I cut and pasted into the grader was just the “guts” of the release  - I wanted my client to focus on the content, not on the surrounds. So I omitted things like contact info and boilerplate (”About”), didn’t have the ### at the bottom, and only had one link (there should be at least three).

These are all things that I would have taken care of in the “real release” - honest and truly. But it was a good reminder that these things are essential. I will definitely run my final copy through the grader, but I reserve the right to keep the word “optimize” in there. It really does have meaning for the electronics engineers this product is aimed at. But I will check to see if I can be more specific about what we’re talking about optimizing.

I also learned that reading my release requires at least 2 years of college, info that I’ll pass on to my client, as I know this will both interest and amuse him.

Anyway, the grader’s fun and definitely worth checking out.

a

The Gobbledygook Grader

Their purchase saga is an excellent example of why it really doesn’t pay to lie to a customer.

K1 is the primary driver of the nice, comfy, shiny red Lexus, so she was the one who went shopping for it.

After K1 found a car she liked, she reported back to K2.

K2 asked whether K1 had negotiated a deal.

No, K1 told K2. After all, the salesman had told her that Lexus, like Saturn, had gone to a non-negotiation method of car purchase.

This sounded plausible to K1, but not to K2, who is a partner in a big Boston law firm - and a litigator, at that. K2 smelled a rat. K2 made inquiries. K2 was pretty teed off - as was K1, once she realized that someone was attempting to dupe her because she is very sweet, hates to negotiate, and is - as the French say - une dame d’un certain age.

K2 researched what the going rate was for the Lexus apple of K1’s eye, and set out to find a dealer who could accommodate. Didn’t take long to find one.

Win-Win: dealer happy (made the sale!); K1 and K2 happy (saved thousands of dollars).

K2 called the original salesman, who started to back pedal, and even offered to shave $200 off of the price that the honest dealer had offered.

Needless to say, no way in hell.

The honest dealer - I think it was Lexus of Northborough (Mass) got: K1 and K2’s business; and likely have gotten and will get additional business, as K1 and K2 spread the word.

The dishonest dealer - I think I know which one, but I’m not certain, so ‘nuf said - got: no business, word spread that they are not folks you want to do business with. Some of that word was spread to folks like me, who will never be in the market for a Lexus. Plenty was spread to folks who would be in the market for a Lexus, especially after they saw the nifty one that K1 is now driving.

Sure, the dishonest dealer could have made the sale, pocketing a few thousand bucks extra with a bigger commission in the salesman’s pocket. But that was a short term gain, I’m betting, as word spreads that they’re not a company you want to do business with. (Let’s face it: K1 can’t be the first person they’ve tried to screw, and K2 can’t be the first person to figure out that they were being screwed.)

Sure, caveat car buyer and all that. But it’s really hard to believe that there are people out there who think it’s a wise business decision to lie to your customers.

a

A tale of two Lexus dealers

Mostly, he focused on viral marketing, the subject of his recent book, World Wide Rave, which I posted about here. But he also spent a few minutes on another topic: the gobbledygook that most of us marketers tend to fall back on in our collateral, web copy, and press releases. I came across my scribbled down notes the other day, and wanted to air them here as a reminder to folks (including myself) that there are just some words that are so over-used and so tired that they have become meaningless.

Here’s David’s list of the 25 most commonly used gobbledygood words, compiled from an analysis of over 700,000 press releases that went out over a number of different distribution mechanisms during 2008. (The releases were analyzed against a set of 325 words that David developed from a number of sources, which are detailed in his April post on the topic, which is linked below). Here goes:

1. Innovate
2. Pleased to
3. Unique
4. Focused on
5. Leading provider
6. Commitment
7. Partnership
8. New and improved
9. Leveraged
10. 120 percent
11. Cost effective
12. Next generation
13. 110 percent
14. Flexible
15. World class
16. Robust
17. High performance
18. Scalability
19. Proud to
20. Optimize
21. Outcomes
22. In terms of
23. Value added
24. Easy to use
25. Metrics

I certainly have to fess up that I have used quite a few (although not, I’m relieved to say, all) of these terms. I’d say my most frequent “offenses” have been leading provider, cost effective, next generation, world class, robust, high performance, and easy to use.

This is a pretty good list - although my personal (although never personally used) favorite - “most unique” - failed to make the cut. Perhaps marketing folks have finally come to appreciate that there’s no such thing as “most unique.” Alas, one less thing to make fun of someone else for using!

As a tech marketer from way back, I would also like to note that “robust” is a code word for “brutal to use”, and back in the day, was never used in the same release as “easy to use”, since we would have viewed a product as being both “robust” and “easy to use” as a logical and physically impossibility. (Any product that could be both would be “most unique.”)

Some of these I had to pause on - what’s so wrong with scalability and high performance? Sometimes products can have those attributes.

Then it occurred to me that those words contain exactly zero information unless they’re supported by some facts - as in, “scales to 1,000 users before you need a new server” (”Ah! that will work for my organization.”) or “can perform 2 gazillion transactions per second” (That’s some performance, but may be overkill for what we need.”)

Anyway, in terms of my becoming a leading provider of value added to David’s original work, I’m proud to leverage his world-class work by this flexible link to his post on this topic.

And here’s a link to HubSpot’s Gobbledygood Grader (a post for another day).

a

David Meerman Scott on gobbleydygook

I googled around and found the original story (by Chris Davis) in the Memphis Flyer. Cutting to the chase, once the story came out, Burger King headquarters stepped in - they apparently have a clause that prohibiting franchisees from using their marquees to make a religious or political statement.  The signs came down. But the damage - or free promotion? - was done. A lot more people have now heard of Mirabile Investment, which runs a number of BK and other fast food franchises in the South. But is it good heard of, or bad heard of?

I guess that depends on who they’re trying to appeal to, although I doubt that was part of their thinking when they put the sign up.

I’m guessing that the head guy/gal at Mirabile truly believes that “global warming is baloney”, and wanted to make this belief known.

Now, personally, I might find this belief more than a bit squirrel-y, and I fear that the more people who hold such a belief, the more likely we are to end up with Memphis on the shores of the Atlantic Ocean.

But, not so mirabile dictu, Mirabile is entitled to hold this belief.

It’s just that going marquee with a provocative statement is not my idea of a sound marketing strategy. Sure,it’s likely that most folks with a jones for a Whopper are not going to be stopped by (or even notice) such a sign. It’s also likely that the number of people who’d go “good for them,” and thus be inclined to do more business with this BK is equaled by those who’d say, “I’m not going to patronize someone nutty enough to say this.” No harm, no foul?

So, if it nets out to be neutral, what’s wrong with using your business as a platform to make pronouncements of any of your beliefs that most people would find controversial? A couple of reasons come to mind:

• It’s distracting you (and your customers) from your business. Do you really want them focusing on your thoughts on global warming, or on order large fries with that Whopper?
• It will be off-putting to some people, and you do risk that those who’ll be put off will exceed those who’ll be brought in.

I don’t suppose I’ll ever know whether this was a calculated market ploy, based on an assumption that there are more potential BK customers who’ll be brought in with this message than there are folks who’ll be turned off, or whether it’s just a case of a deeply felt belief coupled with a case of “because I can, that’s why.”

It’s probably the latter, but, in this case - given the strictures of the franchise agreement - they really couldn’t.

Given the potential to jeopardize your business - possible customers, Burger King HQ - why not just put up a billboard and get people talking that way. Sure, it would cost more, but it’s a way to get your ideas out there, and people talking. They might associate your name with your business, but it’s pretty much separation of church and state (metaphorically speaking). I’m sure we all patronize businesses where the political or religious beliefs of the owners aren’t ones that we shared. Most of the time, this turns out to be okay. As long as the platform isn’t something I find extreme, this is America.

At the extreme - and some might considered calling global warming ‘baloney’ one of them; I’m not one of them: I find it loony and wrong-headed, but not offensive - I would take my business elsewhere. I can’t, for example, imagine doing business with someone who I found out to be a member of the American Nazi Party or the KKK. It is a continuum, however. Would I step toe in a shop that displayed a sign opposing gay marriage? Hmmmm - I’d really have to think about whether I’d just pass on by, or go in and trying to engage the folks who put up the sign in a conversation about why they were so opposed. (Maybe if I told them about the couple who, among all my friends, have been together the longest. They met in high school. Nothing new there, other than that it was an all girls school…)

In general, BK is right: it’s just plain better business sense to keep politics and religion out of business.

Yet, darn it, here I’ve just gone and put it right in there myself. Kinda, sorta.

a

Let’s not talk about politics or religion, shall we?