November 2004

Highlights from my weblog in recent weeks...

Marketing, the tragedy of the commons and cold turkey

Alongside fellow blogger, Chris Lawer, and several industry luminaries, I took part in a panel session at the Direct Marketing Show recently. The theme was the Nuisance Factor - the increasingly negative image Direct Marketing has among an irritated public.

It was a good debate and most people acknowledged the problem for DM: that's it's getting harder and harder to get results from a sceptical public, and the industry's activities put its practitioners even lower in the public perception than estate agents.

What I see is a sort of tragedy of the commons. Each attempt by marketing to break through the noise sufficiently to engage customer attention just adds to the level of that noise, increasing the irritation and reducing future effectiveness. I might add that the crass nature of many mailshots hardly helps (see this article I penned a few months back: Taking the Gloves Off)

A common response - one we saw in the session - is for marketers to throw their hands in the air and say "but how else can we sell our service?". The trouble is, for as long as marginal economics encourage them to keep churning out direct mail, they'll never really ask the question with genuine interest in an answer - as opposed to just asking it rhetorically.

I guess that many alcoholics would say "Yes, I know booze is bad for me, but I won't give it up until I have a substitute!". There is a (perfectly human and understandable) fear of stepping into the unknown. The temptation is to try to offer DM-aholics the examples of brands that succeed without clumsy push-branding. (And these tend to be the usual suspects... Pret a Manger in the UK, Southwest Airlines, Patagonia blah blah blah).

But I wonder if that is too glib. After all, one of the most interesting characteristics of these brands is that they have been extensively documented and rarely replicated. I think perhaps that failing organisations may have to do the cold turkey, brave the unknown, and ask themselves some searching questions about the value they offer before they can escape the collective dive to the bottom of the barrel.

Chris made the excellent suggestion that one way to differentiate would be for a firm to make a public announcement that it would forswear all advertising and direct marketing and put the budget instead into improving the customer experience. A quick show of hands showed most of the audience was not up for such a strategy. I said that for the few who did put their hands up, this was excellent evidence that they were right - and most businesses would be too frightened to try it.

I think the problem is that too many businesses are selling products without conviction and passion; they stick to the safety of the known. Example: nearly all banks in Britain blather on about targeting the mass affluent, and about customer service. Few, if any, have anything very different to say about their motivation for saying so, or demonstrate any genuine passion for their work. (Kudos to The Cooperative Bank as a notable exception)

I think most brands in some kind of crisis daren't prolong their confusion. They won't take the time to really engage in searching conversations with their stakeholders about their purpose. Instead, often under pressure from the teenage scribblers, they reach out for an noisy promotional solution from the admen, making grand promises to the public whilst their staff look on, bemused or downright cynical. I fear this has been, and will continue to be, the fate of Marks and Spencer and Sainsbury's here in Britain.

Mutualism and Improv

I've just had an article published in Argent (the Journal of the Financial Services Forum). Mutualism begins at home (pdf) is part of a special feature on Mutualism. In this piece, I share some Improv exercises intended to bring the idea of mutualism to life as an experience, not as a theory. Enjoy.

The Wisdom of Football Crowds

WebFootballClub.com in France is managed by fans via its website. Most fans don't go to games but watch online. Every one gets a vote and votes are weighted by track record in making effective choices (don't ask me to explain). There is a club coach, but "all he can do is shout at the team and determine substitutions during matches". Soon, even substitutions will be done by fans watching live webcasts. Fierce debates take place in online forums.

Result? The club went from the fifth division of the Caen district to the second, in back-to-back championship wins. And went undefeated last season.

And how about this for loyalty, all you frequent flier manipulators? According to The Times,

Corinne Teissier, a 26-year old primary school teacher, was amongst the supporters who could take credit for the triumph. She saw all the games on the internet and acquired enough points to join the most influential grade of decision-makers. "I know everything about the players, except those that have joined this season, but I will be watching them very carefully."

She goes on to a detailed discussion of the club's prospects.

I love the sound of this. Talk about engaging the passion of fans. And I've always felt sceptical of the manger-centric tone of much football analysis, all very much in the heroic leader model of the world. What could other brands and businesses learn from this?

The attention economy?

Rob Paterson has picked up on an article by Michael Goldhaber which argues that the ability to create attention is the way to create wealth in the information economy. Rob gives some long extracts; here's the central argument:

Information, however, would be an impossible basis for an economy, for one simple reason: economies are governed by what is scarce, and information, especially on the Net, is not only abundant, but overflowing. We are drowning in the stuff, and yet more and more comes at us daily. That is why terms like "information glut" have become commonplace, after all.

There is something else that moves through the Net, flowing in the opposite direction from information, namely attention. So seeking attention could be the very incentive we are looking for.

Goldhaber focuses on the need for attention (in Rob's extracts the focus is on getting it - I think we need to think about paying it, too); Paul Hawken talks about the scarcity of meaning. I think they're both on the right lines - we need to think less about information and more about a deeper connection.