ManageCamp Blog

InVitria's Portfolio of Cell Culture Ingredients - A Case Study In The Role of Emotions In B2B Marketing

Out here in Fort Collins, Colorado today talking with the folks at InVitria - a life science company that specializes in providing cell culture ingredients to the pharmaceutical industry.  InVitria is one of the very few companies that supplies animal-free products to improve the safety of commercial pharmaceutical manufacturing.

Basically, pharmaceutical companies have traditionally used ingredients derived from animal sources to manufacture their products.  This use of animal derived stuff comes with a bevy of safety concerns which have been well documented by the FDA - not only is this problematic from a safety issue but it also significantly lengthens the approval process and increases the documentation required.

InVitria's products are animal-free, thus resulting in far less safety concerns and potentially speedier FDA approvals.  They are also more cost-effective.  So why doesn't everyone use them?

Good question.  It seems just having the facts is not enough.  Even though this is B2B and very scientific, facts are coming in second to other factors that are more emotionally based.  If anyone has ever doubted how much emotion and trust and branding play into B2B, this will be a great case study to prove the point.

More to come as we delve deeper into this opportunity...

Voice Mail Reform Can Save You 7+ Hours a Year!

OK, I'm not exactly what you'd call an activist.  I've never organized a movement or worked on a political campaign or protested anything in any organized way.  But I do have a blog, which means I can whine meagerly to a limited audience.  And that is just what I intend to do.  Maybe someone in the audience is an activist and will take things from there.  Here goes...

I am tired of the time that is wasted waiting to leave voice mail messages.  Back in the days when voice mail was a new and strange concept, people needed their hands held when they were leaving them. 

"The person I'm trying to reach is not there???  What do I do???  Do I talk? Do I press buttons? Can they see me?" (unrelated tangent: my 4-yr old daughter still thinks people can see her through the phone.  Because of this, most of my phone conversations with her are eerily silent as she answers me by nodding or shaking her head)

Because of people's general lack of experience as it related to voice mail leaving, I can understand the long and complicated instructions that were built into the early systems.  But, do we really still need all that?  Does anybody at this point not know how to leave a voice mail?

And do we really need options when it comes to voice mail leaving?  "Press 2 to leave a numeric page"????  Who does that?  People already have caller ID so they are going to see who called them anyway.  And if I wanted to leave a numeric page, why wouldn't I just text - and open up all the glorious possibilities of using letters too?

Let's assume that the instructions part of leaving a voice mail takes 15 seconds.  And let's assume that, on average, you have to do that 5 times a day.  That adds up to 7.6 hours a year - just waiting to be told how to leave a voice mail message!!!!

And so, my friends, I think it is time we pushed the carriers for voice mail reform.  Give us the option of turning off the instructions and allow us to save our colleagues, friends and family members hours of pointless waiting a year. 

If anybody is willing to take up this cause, I am more than willing to let them do it.  I will not, however, write any letters, make any phone calls, walk in a line with any signs, do any camp outs, partake in any boycotts or engage in any other activities that take more effort than, well, this.

People Seem to Prefer Thinking Smaller

Was checking out some stuff on Amazon today and realized something pretty interesting.  It would appear that the general business book reader is far more comfortable with concepts that involve small movements than a concept that involves big thinking.  The numbers above are the individual books' rankings on Amazon.

Of course, this analysis is about as far as you could possibly get from scientific, and barely even fits into the category of 'kinda thought out,' but the top business books are all currently titled in ways that suggest slight movement in perceptions - even though the titles are not necessarily 100% related to the content of the books (for example, "Sway: The Irresistible Pull of Irrational Behavior" is actually about how we all have a deeply seeded mental drive that pulls us away from rational action).  Let's put that aside, though, as I'm really just interested in the trends in book titles.  "Tipping Point," "Sway," and "Nudge" are tearing up the charts while "Big Think Strategy," which I thought was a great read, is lagging way behind at #31,940.

Could it be that the business leaders of today are so over-whelmed by the enormity of the challenges that lie ahead that they are taking comfort in books that tell them small changes can go a long way?

Is is perceived as easier to sell through a program that 'nudges' rather than a complete overhaul that represents 'big think'?

The next (and first) book I write will definitely have a title aimed at small rather than big.

How important is it to stay true to your brand through ALL touchpoints?

Here is a picture from the bathroom of The Plaza hotel in NYC - a beautiful luxury hotel right across from Central Park.  Everything about the hotel seems top notch - and then this.  A dripping, soapy, plastic bottle of Softsoap sitting on a paper napkin on the marble sink in the men's room.  For the $16 I paid for my Gin and Tonic, you'd think they could have sprung for a nicer soap dispenser.  Remember - it's the little things that people remember...

Cool Packaging = Sell Less Miller Lite Beer????

So I am currently in Boston and figured I would do a 'Boston' thing last night.  I hopped on the T and went down to Fenway for the Red Sox game.  I didn't actually go to the game - but I did go to a bar across the street from the stadium (the Cask n' Flagon - very nice spot), where I sat and watched both the Red Sox and Celtics win to the crowd's delight.  All the while, I was nursing a couple of Miller Lite beers. 

While nursing those beers, I couldn't help but notice how infrequently the bar staff approached me to ask if I wanted another.  Usually I can't get 3/4 of the way through a beer before the bartender is trying to line up another.  Not this time, though.

Could they somehow tell that I was an out-of-towner or, even worse, a New Yorker?  Was it because I wasn't wearing a Red Sox jersey?  I went through a couple of minutes of this social paranoia before I realized what the real problem was - they had no idea whether or not I was close to finishing my beer.

You see, the Miller Lite bottles they were serving had a cool plastic wrap featuring the Boston Celtics team logo.  At first glance, one might think that this is a great local promotion - a fantastic way to show loyalty to a local market and fan base and, thus, drive consumer loyalty in return.  At second glance, however, one can see that this bottle is actually a bad financial decision for the bar.  Not being able to see when beers are low means longer intervals between beers which means less beers sold per night per patron.

Seems like a great package to be selling retail to consumers through stores - but not such a great idea for on-premise serving situations.  As much as I love 'brand,' it is important to not pursue brand at the expense of sales.  It is always important to keep in mind the context of the purchase location and the consumption experience and make sure that cool things - like packaging - don't drive brand at the detriment of your customer's and your own bottom lines.

Larry Light, former CMO of McDonald's on Sustainable Trust

This is my lame picture from the back of the room of the AMA's Strategic Marketing Conference today in Boston.  You can't tell, but that is Larry Light, CEO of Arcature and former CMO of McDonald's standing at the podium (trust me).  He's talking this morning about how to build sustainable trust with our customers and consumers.

Although a bit preachy and simplistic at times, Larry demonstrated a strong speaking style, a true passion for the topic and a well-thought-out and visually pleasing presentation.  He also provided a nice framework of 10 elements that marketers should follow to generate sustainable trust.  They were:

1. Stand up for what you stand for (ex. Chipotle)
2. Promise what you intend to deliver and deliver what you promise
3. Provide extraordinary guarantees - keep it simple and straightforward (ex. LL Bean)
4. Simplify choice complexity - we live in an overchoiced world (See Barry Schwartz - The Paradox of Choice)
5. Be a trusted information source
6. Educate consumers - competency breeds comfort (ex. Home Depot)
7. Be open and tranparent
8. Be responsive and responsible
9. Don't spectate, collaborate.  Collaboration is better than confrontation.
10. Support causes

Larry opened by making the case for the importance of trust in marketing - although I think few would have argued that importance.  Nonetheless, his argument was strong and well documented and his recommendations for how to build trust were solid takeaways that listeners will be able to selectively apply to their businesses as they are appropriate.

Larry closed his session with the idea that there are some bad folks out there who are pursuing short term gains at the expense of long term trust.  These 'trust-busters' as Larry called them are the bain of the marketing world and threaten all around them.  One of those points where he got a bit preachy - but the point is well taken.

How has the job of a brand manager changed in the past 10 years?

I have been trying to utilize LinkedIn more and more these days.  I know there is value there - I just haven't quite cracked the nut in terms of how best to use it. 

One of the things I have started doing is perusing the "Answers" section and providing my own take on some of the questions presented.  I find it not only allows me to flex my marketing muscles, but also gives me some vision into what some of the pressing issues are that are facing brand practitioners today.

A question that I saw this morning was from Bryan Fuhr, Group Director at Organic.  His question was "How has the job of a brand manager changed in the past 10 years?"  I took some time to answer his question from my perspective.  I then realized that the answer might make a nice blog post.  So, here it is (at least this is one use of LinkedIn!  It got me to do a blog post!).  What are your thoughts on the subject?

"Hi Bryan,

I would suggest that the job of a brand manager has changed in a number of ways in the past 10 years:

1. The shear number of options of how a brand manager can deliver messaging to consumers/customers has changed dramatically. Media planning used to be easy - TV, Print, Radio or Outdoor. Now, in addition to those, there is online, social media, word of mouth, and more. There are also countless more complexities even in the old media. For example, TV has been complicated by the proliferation of channels, the advent of DVRs, and the shifting nature of product placement. Net-net, the act of planning how to deliver messaging that cuts through the clutter and delivers a memorable and persuasive message is far more complicated today than it was 10 years ago.
2. Metrics and Measuring. Over the past 10 years, there has been significant pressure placed on the CMO and the marketing department to provide proof that the dollars they are spending are delivering acceptable returns on investment. This was difficult before, but has become none the easier given the aforementioned explosion in potential advertising mediums. Couple this with the emphasis put on the unpredictable world of innovation and new product development, and a great deal of the brand manager's time has now been dedicated to proving that what they do is worthwhile and, in the process, protecting budgets. This creates a hard balancing act when it comes to the also important need of taking calculated risks and trying new things. Many of the newest, hottest trends in advertising and promotion are also the hardest to measure with any sort of accuracy. A dilemma for sure.
3. Consumer/Customer participation in the process. It used to be that, barring traditional market research, the marketing process was pretty much a 1-way street. Brand Managers led the communication process which sent messages to the market. These messages were then graded based on the resulting sales results and consumer perceptions - measured long after the activity took place. Today, the market has developed the expectation of being integrally involved in the process from the beginning to the end and there has resulted a need for the entire process to become a 2-way real-time conversation. This has required today's brand managers to become far more flexible and reactive than they needed to be 10 years ago. They also must be more comfortable in giving up elements of control - not an easy task for the typical type-A personalities drawn to the profession.
4. Due to changing dynamics in human resources, the brand management process has become far more consensus driven than it was 10 years ago. Today, everyone - from sales to finance to operation to manufacturing - has the expectation that their voice will be heard and that they will have input in the entire process. This requires the brand manager to have a deft touch in managing a wide range of personalities and keeping them engaged and fulfilled as they each move their respective projects towards the brand's common goal. This is not to say that this was not required 10 years ago. However, I would submit that 10 years ago people in traditional support roles did not have the expectation - nor the desire - to be involved in the overall strategic process. This, in my opinion, has been a great development in terms of the overall results. Nonetheless, it does require greater people-management skills from the brand manager.

So, the following skills are incredibly important to brand managers today:
- flexibility
- collaboration
- quant skills
- people management / leadership
- consumer/customer-centric mentality
- willingness to take calculated risks
- ability to identify and evaluate trends
- creativity
- strategic

Some of the traits of unsuccessful brand managers are:
- tunnel-vision
- rigidity
- lack of people skills
- subject to emotional swings
- short-sighted
- not enough quant skills"

What do Britney Spears and Starbucks have in common?

You can't get through a day without seeing either one of them?

Nope.  Well...yes, but that wasn't what I was thinking.  What they both have in common is that they both used to be role models who have now faltered and are on paths that completely contradict the reasons they were role models in the first place.  Which leads to the other thing they have in common - critics love to pick them apart.

When Britney first started out, she was famous for her pledge of chastity and pureness until marriage.  Although her musical and on-stage persona did not quite jive with this claim of purity, it was something that could be cited as a reason for her to be a role model for young women everywhere.  The message was that you could be strong and sexy and successful and well-liked without giving away your self-respect.

Compare that with the antics of recent years, and it is easy to see why no one would point to Britney as a role model any more.  And, due to all the adoration she received during those early years, there is no shortage of folks who just love making a living taking potshots at current Britney - covering with great detail her daily mishaps and embarrassments.

Oddly enough, this is not all that different from the situation Starbucks finds itself in today as it struggles to gain traction with its turnaround effort.  There was a time, not too long ago, that no one could have even imagined Starbucks ever needing to turnaround - why would it when it seemed to always be moving in the right direction?

In my business (producing branding conferences), it is easy in any given year to see who the darlings of brand are - the companies and brands that are held up as the Holy Grail.  For the last decade, it didn't seem like a speaker could get through an hour's presentation without somehow referencing how everyone should be like Nike, Apple and.....Starbucks.  (Evidently, if you had comfortable couches, made all your stuff in an iconic white and could figure out your version of the "Swoosh" you were pretty much guaranteed marketplace success.)

Starbucks, they would say, was able to make an emotional connection with its consumers.  It was able to take the ritual of drinking coffee and create an experience around it.  It developed a community - a legion of religiously faithful followers whose extreme loyalty and devotion to spreading the word virtually eliminated the need for mass marketing.  And this added to the Starbucks lore - it had grown to its massive size and ubiquitous presence without spending the tens and hundreds of millions of dollars that other big brands relied on in advertising.  "Be more like Starbucks" was the general advice common to a very wide range of brand marketing speakers.  Starbucks was held up as the gold standard for all to admire in awe.  The battle cry for marketers across a plethora of industries and brands was "Let's become the Starbucks of xxxx!"

Alas, much like Britney, Starbucks has now fallen from graces.  Although many authors and speakers continue to point towards the Starbucks of old for inspiration, the message has lost some of its zest as the Starbucks of new no longer resembles that historical figure.  First of all, folks may ask, if what Starbucks was doing was so great, why didn't it last?  Why do they need a turnaround at all?  And why now, after years of trying to figure out how to imitate the Starbucks way, has Starbucks itself moved away from it?

Starbucks is expected to spend over $100 million in marketing this year.  It is doing mass advertising.  It is aggressively dropping coupons, for goodness sakes! (Perhaps all the time everyone was trying to figure out how to be more like Starbucks, Starbucks was thinking it should be more like P&G).

And, much the same as with Britney, there are legions of business press paparazzi who are just loving this.  It's as if they have been waiting in the wings for the chosen one to falter, ready to pounce with all the power of the mighty pen as they mock, criticize and otherwise revel in the woes of the fallen giant.

Luckily for Starbucks, there is another similarity to Britney.  All she has to do is start showing progress in the right direction - which is certainly a possibility as she is still only 26.  Clean up her act, make some good music, become a more responsible adult and she could be a media darling again as she enters her 30's.  Because, as much as folks love to jump on the bandwagon when things go wrong for a star, they also love to feed off the success when things go right again.  Pundits, especially in the entertainment business, have a very short memory.

This also translates into the business press.  A successful turnaround effort by Starbucks will erase the current era of mocking and once again catapult them into the stuff of legends - even more so, probably, as they will have then demonstrated how a successful brand can reinvent itself when the going gets tough.

Recent activity on Britney's part would suggest she is finally getting the advice she needs to push herself down the right path.  Time will only tell if Starbucks is doing the same. 

A couple of lessons here:

1 - be careful who you use as your role model.  Most importantly, understand that there are very few people, or brands, that get it ALL right.  Be wary of overly simplistic comparisons and suggestions of how you should emulate the stars (i.e., "Lets be the Starbucks of xxxx").  The real way to use success stories is to capture the key aspects that are most salient to your situation and leverage them in a way that best suits you.  Peel back the layers to best understand the framework that can be used to explain success.  Patrick Hanlon has done a fantastic job of this with his book "Primal Branding."

2 - If, by chance, you are the role model - don't forget where you came from.  The moment you begin to buy into the hype is the moment you start losing your edge.  Be wary of the fact that the people cozying up to you, courting your friendships, documenting your successes will most likely be the same people who will turn on you in an instant once things start trending the wrong way.  Enjoy your success, but never let yourself become someone whose downfall would provide enjoyment for others.  Retain your humility and  understand that, as much as people would like to think you have it all figured out, you never will.  Life, as is business, is a constant learning experience with requires you to be in tune with a vast array of changing dynamics in order to succeed.  Complacency and cockiness are a recipe for failure.

If you are #1 and no one cares, are you still #1?

At last year's Brand ManageCamp conference, Carl Nichols talked about the importance of being #1 (as described in his book with Bill Schley called "Why Johnny Can't Brand").  One of his points was that if you can't be number one in the area already occupied by your competitors, redefine the area and make yourself #1 in that new space - taking advantage of the fact that, although most people can only remember one #1 brand in any perceived area of specialty, those same people have an uncanny ability to recall an almost unlimited number of specialties (and, hence, an unlimited number of #1's).  He explained, though, that just calling yourself #1 is not enough - your #1 has to be superlative, important, believable, memorable and tangible.

I am going to be at the CTIA Wireless show in Las Vegas next week, and I was checking out the exhibiting companies to get an idea of how I'd like to plan my days.  As I looked through the long list of exhibitors, I couldn't help but wonder if most of these folks had bought Carl's book - but only read a couple of lines.  Here are just a few of the hundreds of self-described #1's exhibiting at the show:

• ADTRAN - A leading global provider of networking and communications equipment with more than 1,600 solutions for use in the last mile of today's ecommunications networks.

• Agilent Technologies, the world leader in test and measurement solutions, is at the forefront of emerging communications standards.

• Airwide Solutions has emerged as the global market-leading provider of next generation mobile messaging and wireless internet infrastructure, applications and solutions.

• With more than 3 million units deployed in 150 countries, Alvarion is the world’s leading provider of innovative WiMAX and wireless broadband network solutions, designed to enable Personal Broadband to improve lifestyles and productivity with portable and mobile data, VoIP, video and other services.

• Arieso is recognized as a world leader in the development of innovative solutions that help wireless operators and service providers improve the performance of their networks at a lower cost.

• ATC Logistics & Electronics (ATCLE) is the proven leader of third party logistics and supply chain solutions for high-value serialized devices for the wireless, broadband and medical industries.

• Axesstel, Inc. (AMEX: AFT) is a recognized industry leader in the design and development of fixed wireless voice and broadband data products for markets worldwide.

And those aren't even all the world or industry leaders in the A's!!!!

A True Teaser Ad

OK, so I subscribe to GQ Magazine.  Anybody who knows me knows that I am not a "GQ" guy - my typical daily garb, in aggregate, usually costs about 1/2 of a single pair of shoes when looking at GQ fashion ensembles.  However, as a marketer and a student of consumer culture, GQ is one of the many non-business mags I read each month to stay on top of trends.

Usually, I breeze through my GQ in a matter of minutes, and without nary a complaint (although, this month it took longer as I had to flip through 82 pages - YES 82 PAGES - of ads before even reaching the table of contents!  Check out this pic that proves it.  I'm sure there is another blog post in there somewhere, but not right now...).

This month, though, I became a victim of either lazy advertising or a botched media buy.  It happened when I stumbled upon this ad for a Golf Digest contest.  "What Would You Shoot?" it asks before going on to describe a contest who's winner will get to play the US Open course at Torrey Pines and try to beat what Tiger Woods has deemed an impossible score of 100 for an above average amateur.  The ad points you to a website where you can submit a short essay describing why you should be the one allowed to take this shot - with cameras and galleys in tow.

Sounds pretty interesting - and I already start thinking about my pithy little entry.  A quick jaunt to the website, though, and all my dreams come crashing down.  There will be no US Open dream rounds for me, considering I am quickly informed that the contest entry deadline passed on JANUARY 29th.  The GQ in which I saw the ad, mind you, was the MARCH issue.

Now, an advertisement in GQ does not come cheap.  Even more expensive is the cost of irate consumers who waste time thinking up pithy entries only to find out the contest ended 2 months ago.    The extent of this mistake is only magnified by the number of people that had to mess up for it to become a reality.  Marketers, media buyers, GQ advertising and layout people...

The funny thing is that from a metrics standpoint, the ad was a success - since I visited the website, adding to the 'hit' count.  The metrics folks will probably point to all the people still visiting the site - even after the contest ended - as proof of its enduring success.  And people wonder why web stats are received with skepticism...