Reveries: Cool News of the Day - marketing people, insights, innovation, ideas

Aesthletics

Tim Manners — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 10:59:27 +0000

"Everything inherent in theater is inherent in sports," says Greg Manley in a New York Times piece by Alex Williams (5/17/09). Greg is an actor, who, three years ago, invented a sport he calls "circle rules football" (video). His creation was meant as "an experimental theater project at New York University," but it has since "inspired a plan for a league of its own and has been played in more than eight cities around the country, including Puerto Rico, and in Prague."

Circle rules football involves moving "a giant Pilates ball" down a field and through a goal, and anything goes. The intent is "to highlight the common thread between improvisational theater and athletics." When that happens, walls come down, suggests Tom Russotti, an artist and founder of the Institute of Aesthletics. Tom "invented a version of the Irish sport of hurling that uses whiffle ball bats instead of traditional wooden hurleys."

It is art, says Tom, "because its smirky costumes (ruffled collars) and team names (St. Brendan's Reformatory for Incorrigible Self-Knowing) subvert the conventions of sportsdom. And by throwing artists and stockbrokers on the same field ... both are forced to explore new identities." Tom says he's been surprised to see "Type-A stock traders enthusiastically tap their inner surrealist," donning sombreros, for instance. "Conversely, mild-mannered artists can turn cutthroat."

Royal Enfield

Tim Manners — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 10:20:06 +0000

You have your Harleys and your Triumphs, but there's only one motorbike that's been making the same model for 54 years -- the Royal Enfield Bullet, reports James Parchman in the New York Times (5/17/09). The good news, for Royal Enfield fans, is that the Bullet Classic C5 is now rolling off the production line in Chennai, India, and will soon be on sale in 49 U.S. states (the bikes still need to be certified for sale in California). "Like Harley-Davidson, Royal Enfield holds its heritage as an important part of the product's story."

That heritage dates back to 1891, when Royal Enfield began "production of bicycles and rifle parts in Redditch, England," as recounted in "Royal Enfield: The Legend Rides On." The first Bullet rolled out in 1932: "Its chrome trim, full mud guards and peanut-shaped gas tank made it a sporty addition to a company whose products had become a bit stodgy." In 1953, the Indian military purchased "800 British 350 cc Bullets ... as kits, to be assembled in India," and by 1955, "Enfield India ... was formed to make civilian and military Bullets under license."

At the time, "the roster of British motorcycle brands included AJS, Ariel, BSA, Matchless, Norton, Royal Enfield, Triumph, Velocette and Vincent; today only the Triumph name continues as a production brand." Part of the reason is that Royal Enfield sources parts locally, but it's also because of a history of innovation. When the Bullet arrives in America it will come "fuel-injected and designed to be efficient, reliable and environmentally friendly." Your choice of "black, deep maroon and a retro teal green ... the fuel tank features white panels with a prominent Royal Enfield logo. The price: $6,395, plus a $300 destination charge.

Round and Round

Tim Manners — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 10:19:37 +0000

The unlikely revival of round sunglasses is "a case study of the group-think of the fashion industry," reports Eric Wilson in the New York Times (6/11/09). He writes: "Given that there is no obvious source for the revival and that typically it takes more than a year to develop expensive sunglasses from a design to prototype to salable object, how could it be that all of these designers stumbled on the same idea at the same time?" Simon Jablon, a sunglass designer, thinks the answer is obvious: "This is what fashion is," he says.

Eric uncovers a few more specific possibilities, however. One is suggested by "eyewear maven" Selima Salaun, who traces the trend to a "lifetime achievement award" given to photographer Malick Sidibe, two years at the Venice Biennale art fair. A number of "prominent designers" were at the event, and subsequently "sought out monographs of his work, notably a 2004 edition ... that conveyed the exuberance of postcolonial West Africa with images of stylish young men and women, many of them wearing incredible sunglasses."

John Lennon is also a factor. First, a pair of his famous round glasses drew bids of $1.5 million at auction in 2007. Demand for Lennon-style specs also surged in N.Y.C. in May, when posters advertising "a Lennon exhibition at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Annex in SoHo" popped up all over town. The revival of "Hair" on Broadway is thought to be feeding the hippie-trendy frenzy for circular frames. And of course there's Lady Gaga, who, along with everything else, is into round glasses. What's next? Predictions are that "another signature Lennon style -- an upside-down pear shape" (link) is on its way back.

Bar Codes

Tim Manners — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 11:06:51 +0000

"It was cheap and it was needed," says George L. Lauerer, who, 35 years ago, led the team that created the Universal Product Code, reports Gerry C. Shih in the New York Times (6/26/09). At first, the team considered a circular pattern, but then settled on the now "familiar format that uses 30 black and 29 white lines to convey 12 bits of data in binary code. The 12 digits give nothing more than an "address to look up information," says George, now 84. When he and his team presented their design to a committee at M.I.T., the only feedback was to change the numbers under the code to a machine-readable font.

The committee thought that within a few years, the numbers would "supplant" the bars, but of course they were wrong. Not only have the bar codes endured, their application has grown to include lots of other uses -- "to board airplanes and track packages ... help people with diabetes calculate glucose meters and researchers study the pollination habits of bees," for instance. Attempts to replace bar codes with RFID technology meanwhile have fallen short, mainly because a bar code costs about a half a cent, while RFID tags cost about five cents each.

Bar codes have also evolved into "two-dimensional matrices, which resemble jumbled checkerboards and carry much more information ... Cellphones equipped with technology for scanning those patterns can read them" and be used in place of airplane or concert tickets. The first cashier to use a bar code was Sharon Buchanan, "to read the price on a 10-pack of Juicy Fruit gum (67 cents) on the morning of June 26, 1974." Back then, "the vision of the bar code as some sort of surveillance device with ominimous social implications was quite resonant," says T.J. Jackson Lears, a social historian, addding," it now seems comparitively innocuous."

Serve Yourself

Tim Manners — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 10:55:48 +0000

More companies are outsourcing jobs to their own customers, reports the Economist (7/4/09). That is, they are increasingly steering customers to self-service ATMs, kiosks, websites and checkouts: "According to VDC Research Group, retailing, hospitality and health-care firms spent $2.8 billion on self-service technology in 2008. Between now and 2013 their investments will grow by around 15 percent a year." The fact is, most of us have gotten used to self service, and some of us -- especially younger people -- actually prefer it.

A study by NCR suggests that "self-service can even increase customer loyalty." Of course, NCR makes self-service technology, but it claims that "85 percent of consumers prefer brands that offer several forms of self-service: online, at kiosks and via mobiles, for example." In some cases, the technology -- such as voice recognition -- does make self-service highly personalized. It's also a heck of a lot cheaper, as online self-service costs about 10 cents a query versus $7 to have a person answer a call at a call center.

Not only that, but according to Summit Research Associates, "each self-service checkout at a grocery store replaces around 2.5 employees." However, companies claim that they aren't replacing people with machines, but rather redeploying them "to do more important work." Blockbuster meanwhile plans to install kiosks in 3,000 supermarkets and c-stores, and Pitney Bowes, in partnership with the U.S. Postal Service, is setting up mailing kiosks "in shops and office buildings." And, coming soon are near-field communications chips, which will let people use their mobile phones like credit cards.

Roger McGuinn Folk Den

Tim Manners — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 09:34:06 +0000

Come a ti-yi-yippie yippie yay yippie yay, ti-yi-yippie yippie yay, sings Roger McGuinn in The Folk Den. (listen)

Profitable Loyalists

Tim Manners — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 09:33:30 +0000

Most companies are confused about what constitutes customer loyalty, writes Tim Kenningham, et. al., in the Wall Street Journal (6/22/09). True loyalty is not just an attitude, it is also a behavior -- specifically, a shopping behavior. The problem, says Tim and his three co-authors, is that most companies only conduct research into how their customers feel about their brand, and not how those loyalists spend on it. In other words, they may be loyal emotionally, but not profitably.

If such research into spending habits were conducted, most companies would find "that profitable customers tend to make up only about 20 percent of a company's customers. Break-even customers represent around 60 percent and unprofitable customers around 20 percent." Research by Ipsos Loyalty finds that a very large percentage of loyal customers -- often more than 50 percent-- are not profitable because their loyalty is driven largely by expectations of great deals."

For example, one "company mis-priced a product, which led many of its loyal customers to buy the product in large quantities -- making some of them the firm's largest customers in the process." They just weren't profitable. The answer is to calculate not only the sales generated by loyal customers, but also "the cost of serving them." The authors conclude that "the percentage of profitable loyals a company has in its customer base tends to be much more strongly correlated to its financial performance than other common loyalty metrics."

Super Users

Tim Manners — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 09:32:57 +0000

Justin McMurray spends up to 20 hours a week handling customer service questions for Verizon -- for free, reports Steve Lohr in the New York Times (4/26/09). Justin is happy to log onto Verizon's community forums and help others solve problems for nothing more than the glory of it. Even though Verizon pays him nothing, he is rewarded via "elaborate rating systems for contributors, with ranks, badges and 'kudos counts.'" It's the best thing since the Cub Scouts.

Guys like Justin are known as "lead users" or "super users" ... the only question is, who's using whom? Natalie L. Petouhoff, a Forrester Research analyst, says Verizon's approach follows "what she calls the 1-9-90 rule. About one percent of those in the community ... are super-users who supply most of the best answers and commentary. An additional nine percent are 'responders' who mainly reply and rate web posts ... and the other 90 percent are 'readers' who primarily peruse and search the website for useful information."

Says Natalie: "The 90 percent will come if you have the one percent." Verizon initially thought about hosting its own forums, but then opted to hire an outside service, Lithium Technologies, to handle it. Lithium got its start in the gaming category, with a site called Gamers.com, where it "created technologies for professional rankings and tournaments." The insight is, "The mentality of super-users in online customer-service communities is similar to that of devout gamers." In any case, it works out great for Verizon "because it absorbs many thousands of questions that would otherwise be expensive calls to a Verizon call center."

Fiat's Co.

Tim Manners — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 09:32:05 +0000

"The car already had body rust when we bought it," says Jonathan Stein in a New York Times article by Rob Sass (6/28/09). "Every six months we had to return it to the dealer to have it repaired." Jonathan's car was a 1981 Fiat 131 sedan, and it's stories like his that makes some people wonder what it's going to be like when Fiat returns to America, this time in control of the Chrysler Group. The last time Fiat was here, in the early 80s, it was peddling the Fiat Strada, whose many charms included "an engine compartment that got so hot the electric fan, controlled by a thermostat, would never shut off. It simply stayed on until it drained the battery."

Fix It Again, Tony, speaking of acronyms. Actually, Joan Sass used to refer to her 1981 Spider 2000 as her "bring it on by" car, because that's what her dealer said every time she had problems with it. And yet these Fiats, for all these flaws, "were often the darling of the enthusiast press." For example, Road & Track called the 1967 Fiat 850 coupe "one of the handsomest, best-balanced designs ever seen on a small car." The magazine also liked the 1100R sedan: "Despite the car's first purpose as economy transportation, it can deliver more sheer fun than almost any small sedan on the market."

Given common ownership with Ferrari, some Fiats look a bit like Ferraris (they shared Pininfarina and Bertone designers). Still, Fiats maintain a reputation for breaking down, and continue to suffer by comparison to its British competitors: "There were simply more MG and Triumph dealers out there, they were better stocked with parts and technicians and they spent more on advertising," says John Montgomery, president of a Fiat enthusiast club. The good news for Fiat is that, surveys show Americans don't anticipate quality or reliability issues with Fiat. The bad news is, Fiat currently ranks at the bottom of customer satisfaction surveys in Europe.

Split Screen

Tim Manners — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 09:31:37 +0000

A brand divided against itself cannot stand. Or can it? The strongest brands are those that remain true to that which made them strong to begin with. The weak are those that forget what made them relevant and lose their way. Seems to me there was a book about that recently. And yet, we have Google, which makes all of its money selling advertising, but doesn’t invest much in advertising for itself. There’s Nike, whose use of recycled materials is often at cross-purposes with its reputation for “performance.”

We now live in a world where Toys ‘R’ Us owns FAO Schwarz and the Penske Automotive Group, a retailer, owns Saturn, a car company. Then again, we live in a country where an African-American man with a Muslim name is President of the United States. These curious bundles of contradictions aren’t purely an American phenomenon, though. In Germany, BMW is encouraging its factory workers to buy the cars they make. Factory workers buying luxury cars! Imagine that. They couldn’t be serious.

Or could they? Oh, probably not. But just think about that for a moment. Google’s strength is its weakness. Nike’s weakness is its strength. BMW may just be smoking something. It is indeed a delicate balance between strengths and weakness where brand identity is concerned — witness the rise of store brands as innovative rivals to national brands. Like much of the rest of marketing, things are not always as they seem, but a world of possibility resides within brand-identity contradictions. What do you think?