It came on a brushed metal tray accompanied by a thin sliver of dark black chocolate, a short glass of water and low fat milk in a clear beaker. It was decadent.

Maybe it was more than just the presentation that made it one of my favourite coffee experiences in recent memory.

Maybe it was the atmosphere, for I was alone in a foreign city.

Maybe it was Yvette. The gorgeous waitress who brought along the tray of Illy. Her auburn locks flowing gently in the crisp autumn air…

Focus.

The point is, my friends, that I wasn’t drinking just a cup of coffee. For those 15 minutes or so, while I sipped my precious brew, I was transported from the current reality of my world. The BlackBerry would have to wait. The fires would have to burn just a little longer. I could not quell them at this moment in time.

It was an experience. I suppose, this is what marketers mean when they talk about creating brand experiences. It was an experience that far exceeded the price because for those 15 minutes it provided a temporary escape.

And while I sipped the last few sips of Illy and stared blankly at the neatly wrapped sliver of chocolate I started to scribble how Starbucks could be fixed.

Yes, I was nerding out.

Wait, Starbucks is in trouble? Wieden just quit the Starbucks account blaming micro-management and a lack of direction. Coffee prices are sky-rocketing. A bear economy that has people questioning their daily need for 4bucks. Jobs are being cut and stores are being shut-down. Yes, trouble is brewing at Starbucks (sorry, I just couldn’t resist the pun).

See, Starbucks was built on a belief that coffee should be an experience. It offered an alternative to the mediocre coffee that most Americans had become complacent with. An alternative to the Dunkin Donuts of the world.

But along the path of it’s exponential growth it seems to have lost its way.

The Starbucks’ problem is not one of advertising its an issue of marketing. How does Starbucks continue to attract and retain customers? This is fundamentally a question that needs to be addressed by marketing.

Here’s how I would fix Starbucks:

1. Get back to “retail theater”

Remember, I’m not buying 4bucks for the coffee. I’m buying it for the experience. The escape. And with the pressures that a struggling economy brings that temporary escape will become even more of a necessity.

When I walk into a Starbucks I don’t want to see crumbs on the floor, the cream and sugar empty and that whole area where I stand stirring my coffee adding a dash of cinnamon in disarray.

Design experience theory suggests all of these small details can make a notable difference in a user’s experience. In fact studies show that people report having a higher sense of satisfaction from their cup of Joe when these details are in order even though they have no direct impact on taste.

2. NO price promotions, NO discounts and NO brand TV commercials. 

Resist the temptation. That’s the easy way out.

There’s been talk of Starbucks experimenting with mass media when they’ve generally stayed away from these traditional brand building tactics. I’m sorry but you just can’t adequately capture the Strabucks experience with a TV spot. I’ve seen some of their past attempts and it just seems odd and off-putting. It doesn’t feel right.

The experience is individual. It’s felt. And it will be different for each person as it should.

Okay I kinda lied. They should use mass media. But to solely promote and create awareness for the different causes and philanthropy efforts they support. Show us how Starbucks is helping coffee farmers in Brazil. Show us how Starbucks’ employees are volunteering their time.

It’s about humanizing Starbucks. And that’s what the function these forms of mass media should serve. (If you haven’t already you’re going to hear a lot more about the humanizing of corporations. I’m willing to bet it will be the buzzword for 2009)

3. Bring back the allure of exclusivity

Tall, Grande, Venti. Dunkin Donuts doesn’t have that shit. Even though I feel like an idiot saying Venti it helped differentiate the finer differences between Starbucks and the others.

Starbucks needs to create more of these finer points of differentiation. The things that help make it exclusive. The things that help you associate with the Starbucks tribe.

4. Focus on becoming the “hub” of the community

This should be the goal. Baristas that know your name (and I’m sure it wouldn’t hurt if they had auburn locks that flowed like…focus). Small business networking events after-hours. Local art exhbits. Spoken word and poetry slams. Book clubs. You get the point.

The local Starbucks should serve the need of helping neighbours connect and make friends with each other. It should be a throw-back to the front porch. When people sat outside and actually talked to their neighbours.

Yes, Starbucks should be and can be more than just the coffee.

Until then I’ve got a new best friend. Her name is Illy.

See, when you’re ten your world stretches not much farther than you can see down your street. But no matter how far you could see, it always seemed infinite and nothing really seemed impossible. When I grow up I’ll make a gazillion dollars, travel the world and drive fancy cars. And when you’re ten you figure you would accomplish all of that by 25 because 25 seems really old when you’re only ten.

As I grew older and supposedly wiser, something happened, I started dreaming less and worrying more. Those dreams started to fade and I was left with a whole new set of realities, the realities of responsibility. And soon, like I have been over the past few months, I’ve caught myself looking back wondering where it all went wrong.

You realize rather quickly that nothing really works out the way you planned it - life never follows a linear path.

Apparently, I’m not alone.

This seems to be a common problem for those particularly of my generation who seem caught in a constant pursuit of searching and wondering.

So, where did it all go wrong?

I’m not exactly sure.

Proponents of one theory suggest that we are simply inundated with an overwhelming number of choices. But isn’t the freedom of choice supposed to be liberating? Not if the number of choices we face creates paralysis. We have so many choices, that we stop making decisions out of the fear of making the wrong choice.

Think about all of the decisions that you’ve simply put on hold. I’ve certainly been there more times than I would care to admit.

However, I’m not convinced that fully explains why so many of us have this constant feeling of stagnation.

I was reading an article on the plight of Japanese youth in AdBusters the other month. The article talked about how the current generation of youth had lost its way. There was a quote from a Japanese student that caught my attention “we grew up too comfortable to take risks” and I haven’t been able to stop thinking about that quote since. It’s also the inspiration for this post (and one of the main reasons why I haven’t been able to write anything in awhile).

Thinking about that quote I started to reflect yet again. I’ll be honest, my life has been relatively easy. One of my mentors told me that the first time I met him. I didn’t take it too well. I went on the defensive. What else do you do when someone tells you you’ve had easy? You throw something back at them like “you don’t know my life, you haven’t walked in my shoes”.

But nearly a year later, I can admit it. My life has been easy. And rightfully so. Like most first generation Canadians my parents worked damn hard to ensure that I would never have to endure the same hardships that they did. A few decades ago they faced a choice - to leave a country that they called home for a foreign land they barely knew. All in the hopes that life would be better, maybe not for them but for their future children.

Makes the choices I face pale in comparison.

I grew up with a relatively easy life. A comfortable life leads you to believe you have something to loose. Thinking you have something to loose means you stop taking risks.

I didn’t need to take risks.

And that’s where I’m wrong.

I’m wrong because if we aim to do anything meaningful with “our one precious and wild life” than we have no choice but to make a choice, to take a risk and to turn some of the opportunities in front of us into realities.

Live well, my friends…

- Nish

What a cluster-fuck this has turned out to be.

If you are like Dana Gordon and the million others just like her you probably already know that Scrabulous has officially been shut-down. Chalk one up for the lawyers.

Maybe they read my blog?

Not likely.

Fear not; however, Scrabulous is back on Facebook as Wordscapper. Letter tiles are now circular. Oh boy. Don’t get too excited it probably will get shut down as well.

Everyone wins. Except for Dana.

Sorry, I tried. Oh and Dana if you’re reading, you’re running out of excuses now…

[//UPDATE]

Dana Gordon is up to her old shenanigans again.

Loyal readers may recall an earlier post where I hypothesized the real reason my friend Dana was mysteriously eluding my requests to hang out:

[//ORIGINAL POST]

I have this friend who enjoys playing Scrabble. No, she’s not retired and no she’s not my grandmother.

Let’s call her Dana. Last name, Gordon. Dana Gordon is often busy with “prior engagements” or at least that’s what she tells me. I have a sneaky suspicion that she’s actually busy playing Scrabble online with some kid from across the world. Sad, I know, dissed for Scrabble.

Apparently, Dana Gordon is not alone. There are close to 600,000 daily active users of the Facebook application “Scrabulous“. 600,000. Daily. Active. PLAYING SCRABBLE! A majority of these people were probably not what Scrabble would define as their core target market just 3 years ago.

This is what most brand managers dream of. We go to pointless meeting after meeting so that we can figure out how to replicate exactly this - a loyal community that is deeply passionate about our brand.

So, what do the geniuses over at Hasbro/Mattel do when they find out about Scrabulous and this community of 600,000 strong.

Cease and desist on their punk asses that’s what.

And all of a sudden Dana Gordon has a lot less “prior engagements”. Coincidence?

There’s a group that’s started on Facebook called “Save Scrabulous” - its has over 40,000 members. Talk about passionate users.

Am I missing something here? Shouldn’t the brand managers at Hasbro/Mattel be overwhelmingly giddy like a bunch of teenage girls waiting for the Jonas Brothers to perform?

There has to be a better solution then trying to shut-down the community. The problem, as I see it, is out-of-touch marketers making decisions based on the opinions of lawyers. Corporate lawyers are tasked with minimizing risk and that can be a problem when marketers and lawyers don’t communicate.

Scrabulous is just one, of what I am sure are many, examples of poor communication between marketers and lawyers. So, what’s the solution? To start, marketers and lawyers should sit next to each other. Corporations have made strides breaking down the silos between different departments but this should also apply to the legal department. If this is not possible or will take months of “planning sessions” to figure how to move everyone around then have a weekly mandatory working session between the marketing and legal department. This will allow each department to update each other on what they are trying to achieve, upcoming programs/initiatives, etc.

Matt Dickman over at Techno//Marketers also has some other interesting suggestions and how to look at all of the options inside of social networks like the Scrabulous community.

What are you waiting for? If you’re a marketer call up your legal deparment and vice-versa. Introduce yourself. Talk. That’s all I ask. Don’t do it for me. Do it for Dana and the millions of people just like her around the world.

I knew something was afoot when all of a sudden Dana started having a lot more “prior engagements” again.

Yes, it’s true, after doing some detective work I have once again been dissed for Scrabble. After the Scrabulous debacle and Hasbro/Mattel’s failed attempt at shutting it down they decided to launch their own version - the official version.

My version of what happened within the confines of Hasbro/Mattel:

“Damn it this Internet thing is not going away”

“Neither is this social networking thing that all these kids seem to be occupied with”

“I wish it would all just go away so we could just frolic along and not have to adapt”

“Screw it, I know let’s create our own official version, everyone will love us”

And so that’s exactly what they set out to do.

The official Scrabble boasts a flashier user interface and an automatic refresh for faster game-play.

Aside from these main difference most of the other functionality mirrors that of Scrabulous. Except if you switch over you can’t carry over your ranking score (apparently for nerds like Dana Gordon this is a big deal) you also can’t play with anyone outside of North America.

High-fives all around we created an official version that sucks. Let’s hope nobody notices.

And nobody will. That’s because they will be unsuccessful in converting users over to the official version of Scrabble on Facebook.

The point is if you’re trying to change a person’s behaviour - to have them convert to a product that is essentially the same, than you better have a hell of a good reason for why they should.

People don’t care that you refreshed your package design (the next time you are shopping look for the number of products that boast “wow new bottle design” as a point of differentiation) or created a flashier user interface.

They do care about how your product makes their life easier, enriches their experience or addresses a real need.

When you’re trying to change behaviour start with the steak the sizzle is all secondary.

- Nish

Fans line-up in eager anticipation for your movie, setting weekend box office records in the process.

They get excited (even when you haven’t put a good product on the ice in arguably over a decade) when you announce a free pre-season game.

When there’s outrage over another company screwing up your product they still countdown the number of days until your product comes to their country.

Yes, the game is different when you have fans.

So, what happens when you make a small change and start calling your consumers fans?

Developing products/services that your fans will love becomes the number one objective - everything else is secondary (think Lovemarks)

You realize that it’s much more cost effective to keep existing fans than trying to steal fans from other “teams” (think of all the money you would need to spend to convince a Yankee fan to become a Red Sox fan. Good luck.)

You treat your best fans differently (think of how teams treat season ticket holders)

Fan development all of a sudden becomes an actual business function within your organization.

When you have fans the frame in which you view your business changes. So stop worrying about consumers and start thinking about who your fans are.

And if you don’t have fans, than why are you in business?

- Nish

For those of you that have the divine pleasure of knowing me, know that there’s nothing really gangsta about me. I guess, that’s why I couldn’t help but unleash my inner nerd while watching American Gangster and thinking of all the relevant business lessons that underscored the plot.

Here are three business lessons that you can learn from Frank Lucas in the movie American Gangster, my man…

1. Create Blue Oceans

In the 1970s the American heroin trade was characterized by relatively high prices, an inferior product and a weak distribution system. The process of finding blue oceans (new uncontested market space) involves creating a strategy canvas as detailed in the book Blue Ocean Strategy.

Here’s how it might have looked for the heroin trade before Frank Lucas got involved:

The strategy canvas for Blue Magic, Frank’s product probably looked like this in comparison to the heroin industry at the time:

By going straight to the source to get a much cheaper and better product and involving his family, Frank Lucas was able to create his own blue ocean in the American heroin industry.

There are examples abound of companies that have created blue oceans for themselves and reaped the rewards in the process. Think Nintendo in the gaming industry, Netflix in the movie rental industry or Cirque du Soleil in the circus industry. No clowning around, this is serious business…

[UPDATE: The always insightful, J. Ho made an interesting point - did Frank really create a blue ocean or did he simply find a way to optimize the trade? Thinking about it some more I think I may have been incorrect in my original assertion. Frank didn’t create a completely new market which is what finding blue oceans is really about like the above companies did.  I am now re-reading Blue Ocean Strategy. Thanks J. Ho)

2. Protect Your Brand

“I got hatas on my j-iz-ock, plus the frickin c-iz-ops…” - Jay-Z. (Translation: He’s got haters and cops on his jock, I think)

Frank Lucas surely had both. Nicky Barnes was another gangsta who wanted his fair share. Since he couldn’t compete with Frank he started cutting Blue Magic, mixed it with his own product and started labeling it with the same brand name. Talk about hatas on your j-iz-ock and you thought you had it bad. Frank Lucas had a sit down with Nick and when that didn’t work he whooped his ass. Gangsta.

When it comes to the brand you’re working for or your personal brand you have to do everything to protect it. Quoting another gangsta movie, “all I have in this world is my and my word…and I don’t break ‘em for nobody”.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not advocating violence. I’ve been told that violence is never the answer.

Sic your lawyers on the Nicky’s of the world and channel your energy towards out-smarting the hatas.

3. Know When to Quit

Frank didn’t know when to quit. It’s why most gangstas end up losing. The Chinese General with seemingly infinite wisdom says it best to Frank, “quitting while you’re ahead, is not the same as quitting”.

This lesson should of been # 1.

You hear a lot of bullshit about “never quitting” but I say you’re an idiot if you’re in a sinking ship and you don’t at least try to jump out before it’s too late.

You can learn a lot from gangstas.

Here are bunch of other business lessons from Frank himself, my man…

It’s been awhile since my last few posts. I have a new vision for the site and as you can see it will take on an entirely new look. I wasn’t satisfied with the old site; it’s structure prevented me from building on a cohesive thought or idea.

Look for a brand new site coming June 2008. Fresh content and a few surprises. Would you be satisfied with anything less? I didn’t think so.

Thank you for your patience and for reading.

- Nish

Every day I come home and check my mailbox. To my shock there are no secret love letters from long lost admirers. Shocking, I know. What I do get by the truck load is lots of direct mail.

First 50 customers get free gym memberships.
Hurry, condos are selling fast in your area.
Limited time offer, free delivery on sushi orders over $20.

And every day I do exactly what everyone else does in my condo - I quickly scan through the mess and then in one fell swoop deposit the entire stack into the recycle bin.

If only these companies really knew what happens to their scarce resources, maybe just maybe they would stop bothering me with their direct mail.

So, how can these companies justify spending their budgets on a medium where anywhere between 95 - 99% of it goes to waste? The model is broken yet nobody in the room wants to admit it.

This doesn’t apply solely to direct mail but also tv, radio, OOH - essentially any medium that justifies its cost based on the size of the audience.

What these metrics fail to capture is who is actually paying attention. If the size of the audience was based on those that actually read the direct mail or paid attention to a commercial would marketers still be willing to invest the same amounts of their budgets? I doubt it.

How does a marketer justify paying a premium for a niche audience? It’s an easier internal sell to say you are going to take $50 K and reach 100,000 consumers compared to trying to stand up in a boardroom and explain how you’re going to instead spend your energy focusing on 1,000.

I would love to wrap this all up in a single post with a magical answer, like a Full House episode where everything gets solved in 30 minutes, but alas I don’t think it’s that simple.

More on this to come. Stay tuned.

Truth be told, I would never have imagined doing that just a few years ago. Public speaking made me nervous. So nervous that my hands would start shaking. And I couldn’t explain it. It just happened every time I got up but I still enjoyed the thrill of speaking.

Something had to be done.

(more…)

It’s an interesting question.

I’m not sure what I would say but that question sure helps put things into perspective.

I came across this speech today and wanted to share it.

It’s from a series of lectures that asked distinguished individuals from around the world the exact same question - if you had to give your last lecture what would you say?

The video below is from a Professor named, Randy Pausch, his story is simply inspiring. It’s about 76 minutes, so go pop some popcorn and make yourself comfortable. I promise it’s worth listening to. And plus, have I ever let you down? (That’s a rhetorical question, don’t answer that).

“Really Achieving Your Childhood Dreams”

Enjoy.

I watched intently as she snapped away anxiously not wanting to miss a single moment. And I couldn’t help but think how ironic it was. Here she was, preoccupied with taking these pictures so that she could preserve the moment, while the actual moment passed her by.

And there I was fixated with this thought as the moment passed me by.

I’ll refrain from saying something cliché here or maybe I already have.

Hope you’re off to the start of a good week.

- Nish