Yesterday, I had a minor epiphany. More of an insight, actually.
Biking in Provincetown (a beautiful day, capping a Yoyodyne wedding weekend, which is more than you wanted to know), I mentioned to my wife that every couple we passed (straight, gay, lesbian, didn’t matter) had synchronized their helmet habits.
Either both wore helmets or neither did.
At first, I attributed the PHI to some sort of subtle evolutionary cue. People must be attracted to people with a similar sensibility about helmets. If you were a foolish daredevil, perhaps you could sense that in a potential mate. When you both got to the bike store, voila, you’d see that you both made the same choice regarding a helmet.
Further research at the store (including some surveillance and an interview with the manager) demonstrated that this was a bogus theory.
It turns out that what actually happens is this: a couple stands at the rental desk and the counter-person says, “do you want helmets… they’re a dollar each.” One person starts to answer, but glances at the other. Then a subtle form of bullying starts.
Usually, one person says, “no, I don’t think so,” and the other, who was about to say yes is intimidated enough to say, “me neither.” Sometimes, it works the other way, “Oh, we’d never ride without helmets,” says one, and the other agrees.
So?
So this is actually what happens to your product and to your service every single day. THIS is the moment of truth whether you sell securities or consulting or yoyos or motel rooms. One person hesitates, the other leads and the decision is made. In a nanosecond, all your marketing and all your advertising and all your sales work is over.
What can you do about it?
Well, for a cheap and simple product like bike helmets, the answer is pretty simple. I’d create a momentum of peer pressure. Salesman: “Here are two helmets,” he says, as he hands the helmets to the two renters. “They only cost a dollar each and almost everyone wears them. It’s the smart thing to do.”
Now, since BOTH riders are holding the helmets, it’s easy for the helmet-inclined to take the lead. All she has to do is try it on (a natural thing to do) and the discussion is over. The salesperson is using the PHI to his advantage.
I think the same thinking works when selling a two million dollar consulting contract, though. The idea of working with individuals on the buying committee before the meeting, of getting each one to give you the benefit of the doubt, of discovering their favorite features or tesimonials, person by person, and then organizing that information for the committee is just like handing over the helmets. If it’s easier for each person to say, “sure, why not” than it is to say, “I don’t think so,” then you’ve got the PHI on your side. Just one little tiny push at this very high leverage moment can have a huge impact.
June 28, 2004
So, I’ve gotten three letters (from three different continents) in the last week about Really Bad Powerpoint (see below).
They all say the same thing,
“I really enjoyed your ebook Really Bad Powerpoint, and I understand how the advice could be effective for [insert your own profession here, but something soft, like politics or the arts]. However, my work is quite technical. My peers [in the medical profession, at the university, at the VC firm] would laugh me out of the room if I tried to make my presentations have less than six words per slide.”
This, of course, is nonsense. In the paleolithic era–before PowerPoint–of course, there were NO slides. So if we start from the beginning and realize that whatever is on your slide is a BONUS, something that complements your words and your handouts, it gets a lot easier to see how this might help you.
The bigger issue, the one I can’t let go of, is this: If what you are doing isn’t working, why is it so easy to reject alternative advice? If a peer or a writer or a competitor can show you something that is working for others in different circumstances, why does human nature make it so easy to say, “sure, that’ll work for YOU, but my situation is totally different…”
The number of times you’ll find yourself in a completely unique situation at work is pretty limited. Unless you work on a nuclear submarine, it’s pretty easy to imagine that there are more commonalities than differences when it comes to communication, marketing and management. Time to loosen up a bit, say I, and give the alternative way of thinking a try.
PS I challenged one of the writers to send me a few slides. It was pretty easy to show him how straightforward it would be to rip out the bullets and most of the text… but you’re on your own, please don’t send me any more powerpoints!
June 27, 2004
My site Seth Godin :: Free Prize Inside offers a free copy of my bestselling mini-e-book, “Really Bad Powerpoint” to anyone who buys a copy of my new book.
This may shock you, but a large number of people are downloading the ebook without keeping their end of the bargain. Of course, I expected there would be a fair amount of leakage, but there’s quite a lot.
This is especially sad because all the proceeds from the sale of the ebook on Amazon go to charity. The optimist in me believes that people who download it without buying are going ahead and making their own donation.
But that’s not what astonishes me.
What astonishes me is that several of the folks who took a copy then had the chutzpah to email me with with follow up questions about the book! (see above).
No, it’s not a secret plot. Sethgodin.com and the others has a glitch.
Hope to fix it soon. Stand by!
Thanks for your patience.
ps NOW FIXED! Phew.
June 25, 2004
Stephanie Howard (Leo Alliance, Inc.) sends me this clip from AdAge:
NEW YORK (AdAge.com) — Declaring that mass marketing no longer works and that “no single ad tells the whole story,” Larry Light, McDonald Corp.’s chief marketing officer, said McDonald’s has adopted a new marketing technique that he dubbed “brand journalism.”
Speaking at the AdWatch: Outlook 2004 conference at the New York Sheraton Hotel and Towers, Mr. Light described the concept as one marking “the end of brand positioning as we know it.” He went on to say that effective marketing should use many stories rather than employing one message to reach everyone. In effect, he declared that McDonald’s was abandoning the universal message concept.
“Any single ad, commercial or promotion is not a summary of our strategy. It’s not representative of the brand message,” he said. “We don’t need one big execution of a big idea. We need one big idea that can be used in a multidimensional, multilayered and multifaceted way.”
He went on to define brand journalism, which he also referred to as a brand narrative or brand chronicle, as a way to record “what happens to a brand in the world,” and create ad communications that, over time, can tell a whole story of a brand.
# # #
My take? Yay for Larry for realizing that monthilic marketing is broken.
I worry, though, about two things:
1. changing the marketing without changing the underpinnings of the business is almost always a bad strategy. If all the people, the systems, the real estate, the factories and the menus are organized around monolithic marketing, slapping a little brand journalism on top isn’t going to work awfully well.
and
2. The marketer doesn’t get to run the conversation. It’s not really brand journalism that’s happening, you see. It’s brand cocktail party! You get to set the table and invite the first batch of guests, but after that the conversation is going to happen with or without you.
I have four irreverent ideas for McDonalds:
1. Start your own brand of lightly sweetened caffeine free iced tea. 10% the sugar of Coke. 4 times the profit. A brand you can own. A way to significantly impact the health of the world. Phase out Coke. Completely.
2. Offer a free DVD of the award-winning SuperSize Me! documentary with every iced tea sold.
[no, I’m not kidding].
3. Challenge every store to offer something new and real and local and remarkable on the menu. Diversify times 100.
4. Bend over backwards to host meetups in your stores. Keep up with the free wifi. Sponsor soccer teams and girl guides and the astronomy club. Put chess tables on the placemats. Use the real estate advantage to create a place where people meet.
June 17, 2004
“My Life” by Bill Clinton: Exclusive Extract!!!. Even with all the technology at our disposal, great writing wins out every time. This post is breathtakingly viral.
AFTER you read the link above, feel free to read the riff below.
I posted that paragraph this morning. This then, I’ve gotten a lot of mail from folks who wanted to know why I was shilling for Clinton and to let me know how bad his book is.
Folks! It’s a parody! It’s subtle, but truly funny.
My lessons?
1. viral stuff is often obvious, isn’t it? In other words, if you’re too clever, some people don’t get it and it doesn’t spread well. On the other hand, be too obvious and it’ll just sit there. It’s the fine line (sort of like the Tom Bihn launder tag) that makes something go. Obviously, I misoverestimated some readers.
2. brands don’t guarantee a virus, but they sure can get in the way. Clinton’s brand is so tarnished for a portion of the population that they’d likely refuse a cash gift from him. They certainly didn’t bother to read the post until the end… they just decided they hated him, it, and by extension, me. Worth thinking about when you decide to trade in a little brand equity to move people to, say, an opt out spam program…
June 15, 2004
Continuing on my post of the other day, check out: (Bihn Label). (Thanks to Russell Buckley for the link).
As you first read about the hidden message, it may very well cause you to sit up straight and want to tell all your friends. It’s got just the right mix of mystery and style and lack-of-exploitation of the audience.
I then clicked over to buy a t-shirt, and my I was delighted to see that they’re being consistent with their actions in treating it as not just a publicity stunt to boost business. What if they DID do it on purpose? I think the intent does matter. Or maybe it only matters to me… Anyway, Tom makes great stuff (I’ve been a long-time customer–I might even have the tag!) and all the proceeds go to charity.
June 11, 2004
It’s not about you. It’s not about you. It’s not about you.
It’s about me, of course.
Amazon, meaning well, sent me a note offering a $5 gift certificate if I’d answer a short survey about their associates program. Good for them for wanting feedback. Good for them for compensating people.
http://globaltestmarket.com/20/survey/s.phtml?E_18764_113422F49632BE39
So, I visit the site (above) and discover not one or three or ten multiple choice questions.
Sixty three.
What sort of person sits still for 63 multiple choice questions?
How scientific is the feedback if it’s only from the people who answer 63 questions?
What concrete action can Amazon take with all this finely tuned statistical nonsense?
Wouldn’t it be a lot more useful to just say:
Tell us the three things you like most (or least!) about our program and how you would improve it!
Then have a real honest to goodness person read each one and write back.
Invite 100 people to do the survey. Then 100 more. A hundred a week for a year. You’d learn a lot.
My two cents.
June 10, 2004
Newspapers are in trouble. eBay has sucked the life out of classifieds. People have stopped reading papers. More folks read the NY Times online than on paper…
Is the answer to trick people into getting spam?
My wife sent me a link at the LA Times. In order to read it, I had to register. Here’s the last part of registration:
Notice that the box ISN’T checked. That’s the universal symbol for, “We’re honest and we want genuine permission from you before we send you stuff by email. So if you want it, please check here.”
I was glad to see that. But then I read the text. It says that the UNchecked box means that they WILL send you spam unless you affirmatively CHECK it to say you DON’T want it. (Even without the ALL CAPS I’m adding, it’s still confusing.)
So, let’s be clear here: In order to ensure its future in a world where everyone is online, one of the great newspapers on the planet is relying on second order trickery (because ordinary opt out isn’t nefarious enough). Do you really think they’re building much of an asset here? Can you imagine that three years from now the publisher is going to say, “I’m sure glad we tricked a million people into having no leg to stand on when we busily spam them!” Hardly.
Carson McComas sends this great tidbit: