Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Marketing

Stanford's Entrepreneurial Design for Extreme Affordability

2009-08-30T10:32:00.007-04:00

As we talk about sustainability and global issues this week - and new product development later in the semester - I wanted to share a write-up and videos about a really cool class at Stanford Graduate School of Business: Entrepreneurial Design for Extreme Affordability.

The class is very similar to the University of Illinois, Chicago's (UIC's) Interdisciplinary Product Development (IPD) class: it includes teams from the school of design, engineering, and the business school. It's a two semester offering at both universities.

What I love about Stanford's program is that the focus last year was on developing new products that really impact people's lives in developing countries. Rather than trying to explain it all, just take a look at some of the things they did! Their projects are exemplars for how to develop really cool products that make people's lives much better at "the bottom of the pyramid." I can not think of anything more noble for using the tools and techniques we learn in Marketing.

Everyday Cases: Bing's Big Picture

2009-08-27T21:32:00.006-04:00

Learning marketing is like learning anything else: to really learn it, you need to use it. One of the best ways is to pay attention to "everyday cases:" try to understand what companies are trying to do in everyday life in the context of tools we learn in the classroom.

This week, I received an interesting e-mail regarding Bing.com, from Greg A, a participant in our Monday evening class.

First, here's the video Greg linked me to:

Second, here's what Greg wrote:

I saw this commercial this evening and I think it is a good example of The Big Picture. Considering Microsoft is going up against Google, which has such a large share of the search engine marketplace, it's a good example of share stealing I believe. I want to switch to bing but ugh, it's so hard to not automatically type Google when the need arises haha... "It's not just a search engine, it's the first ever decision engine.. From Microsoft." Great, great clincher.

I agree! To put this in Big Picture terms, I believe Microsoft's Bing.com is looking to build a viable search engine that both realizes the revenue inherent in providing search, as well as challenges Google's hegemony in search and the cash flows that allow it to threaten Microsoft in the browser and operating system markets.

To do this, Bing's Marketing Objective is to Acquire new customers and their Source of Volume is to Steal Share. Their Segmentation scheme appears to be an internet search engine as the Main Variable (the ante to play in this game), with a superior "decision engine" as the Dynamic Variable differentiating Bing.com from Google. Their target audience is (probably) something like "heavy internet search users who are frustrated with the amount of effort required to find fairly mundane things, like local restaurants, specific people, etc." Their positioning is all about the "Decision Engine," which actually ties in nicely to WHY people actually use search engines - to learn something and/or make a decision about something very specific. Their goal is NOT to search; it's to FIND! (Their 5-box positioning encompasses that thought - moving people from thinking they need to search to getting them to realize they want to find and, thus, using Bing.com would be better than Google.)

Nice job Greg. This is a great everyday case!

What's GM's Angle?

2009-08-25T08:47:00.005-04:00

Interesting bit in the New York Times today about General Motor's apparent reluctance to sell its German/European Opel Division to Magna Corporation in Canada.

While I agree that part of the Magna deal, where "G.M. might have to subsidize interest payments on Opel’s debts" is unacceptable, it seems that GM might be much more interested in either (a) keeping Opel or (b) selling it to a company that will screw it up worse. Actually, the article all but says as much.

I think GM is very worried that a well-run Opel could really hurt GM, not just worldwide, but particularly in North America (Canada and the US).

Magna is a very well-run international company that already participates extensively in the automotive market, providing products and services to automotive OEMs (Original Equipment Manufacturers). The most interesting business of Magna - to me - and perhaps the most frightening part to GM is Manga's Complete Engineering & Assembly capability. For example, Magna currently produces all of the Chrysler 300M, Jeep Commander, and Jeep Grand Cherokee models to all non-NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) countries - including the right-hand driver versions sold internationally. So Magna could probably run Opel fairly well, it would also create a new entrant into the OEM category (same brand, but controlled by a different owner), therefore increasing competition internationally. Given some Opel cars have already been modified slightly for North American markets - Magna could conceivably consider moving into the North American markets and create yet another competitor for GM's (historically) most profitable market.

Although GM is making motions to sell Opel to the Germany, I'm guessing they believe that Germany will screw up the company worse. Perhaps part of that belief is grounded in the fact that Germany's unions are pushing hard for Germany to acquire Opel. But German unions are not the same as US unions and it's not clear that Germany will hold the company for very long before letting a group of investors take over primary management responsibilities along with the unions. That mirrors the relationship Germany has with most of the German-based automotive companies - except for Opel, since it is owned by GM.

At the end of the day, though, it looks like GM's primary goal is to keep Opel, if for no other reason than to make sure no one else gets it and competes with GM. This is a classic anti-competitive move, the only difference is that instead of buying Opel and shutting it down, GM can keep it and let it die a long, slow death - all the courtesy of the US Taxpayer that's now the majority shareholder of the company.

Yes, I agree that selling the company with "strings attached" to pay for future unseen financial changes is unacceptable. However, GM needs to sell Opel and focus on the core of GM's brands that it's keeping. Consumers around the world would be better off with a well-run Opel, German unions would be better off (and more secure) with a well-run Opel, and GM's majority stockholder - the American Taxpayer - would be better off selling Opel to a company that can run and realize more value from Opel going forward.

When customers attack!

2009-08-19T20:16:00.020-04:00

Over the past week or so, I've run into an interesting confluence of things that all relate to the cultural meme of consumers rebelling against brands they were formally loyal to - or at least bought from.

The first of these was Whole Food's CEO John Mackey's rather ill-advised Wall Street Journal Editorial, titled "The Whole Foods Alternative to Obamacare." Well, this caused quite the kerfuffle among Whole Foods customers. Why? Well, Whole Foods is positioned as a place that focuses on selling "whole food" and, basically, all kinds of good stuff, like sustainability, community involvement, best practices for employees, etc.

Their actual core values can be found here. Their core values are much longer and detailed than I've summarized and, quite honestly, I'm also stating how Whole Foods's customers perceive Whole Foods, which is really the important point of positioning - irrespective of how managers might wish consumers perceive them.

Which gets to my point. Who do you think shops at Whole Foods? I'm guessing the majority of customers are progressive people: people who value organics, have higher than average disposable income, have higher than average education levels, believe in social justice causes, vote democratic or progressive, and probably voted for Obama more than the average American. (Disclosure: I actually own Whole Foods stock and I have been Whole Foods Fan ever since I found them in Chicago more than a decade ago. I actually picked my apartment in Evanston based on the fact that there was a Whole Foods between Northwestern and the apartment. That also means I have a pretty good bead on their customer base.)

Anyway, CEO John Mackey writes the above op-ed piece and, no surprise had he been thinking, his customers REVOLT! Although citing every nasty, "let's have a boycott" piece in the blogosphere is beyond the scope of one posting, here's a sampling:

Facebook has a few "Boycott Whole Foods" groups, the biggest of which is up to 19,000+ members just more than one week after the WSJ op-ed appeared (the Whole Foods page has 115,000, has been up a lot longer, and has an incredible number of people posting who are pretty ticked off),
The Daily Kos wrote a scathing review of John Mackey's op-ed, and then an equally scathing satirical bit on Whole Food's PR team to address the ticked-off customers (the "annotated version" is pretty spot-on),
The Huffington Post ran a number of pieces, summarized here, and also had a poll showing that 58% of respondents planned on boycotting Whole Foods and another 20% disagreed with Mackey's views, but didn't think they were boycott-worthy.

Although some postings on Whole Foods website, Facebook, and various conservative blogs suggests that some people are "new" fans of Whole Foods, it's not really clear how long they'll stay once they've shopped there once or twice (or ever).

Instead, it seems that John Mackey really stepped in it. What's amazing to me is that John Mackey's ill-conceived op-ed piece ironically violated one of Whole Foods's Core Values: CREATING WEALTH THROUGH PROFITS & GROWTH.

Seriously, it shouldn't surprise anyone the op-ed piece ticked off a large portion of Whole Foods customers. Assuming John Mackey has any sense of what his customers are like, publishing that op-ed as CEO of Whole Foods was like flipping off a good chuck of his customers. Which is exactly what happened.

What may have surprised Mackey - and the point of this post - is that with today's technology, a CEO can no longer assume he/she can print something in the Wall Street Journal and have only business people see it. Quite the contrary. Various social networks - and Facebook in particular - allow for an incredibly easy way for consumers to communicate and organize very, very quickly. It's not clear when the largest "Boycott Whole Foods" page showed up on Facebook, but it was instigated by the op-ed piece and, therefore, it could not have been more than eight days before it hit 19,000+ fans. That's not good if you're Whole Foods.

Related to all this, Michaela Draganska (Northwestern, PhD) turned me on to Huggy Rao's (Case/Weatherhead Ph.D. in Organizational Behavior) book "Market Rebels: How Activists Make or Break Radical Innovations," via a nice little interview published by Stanford Business School.

One of Rao's points is that the social identity of customers, as the collective core of any market, are an important factor in explaining why some innovations take off and others do not. The challenge, of course, is when a company built on a collective identity has its CEO mouth off in a way that runs counter to that collective identity and the company's customers find out. Maybe as a Whole Foods Stockholder I should send John Mackey a copy of Huggy's book? Then again, that would only be helpful if I had a time machine....

Finally, yesterday I happened upon two anti-United Airlines music videos created by David Carroll, a musician whose guitar was broken by United baggage handlers. He wasn't able to get resolution through United, so he promised to make three videos about United. After the first one - which was a HUGE hit on YouTube and currently has 5M+ views - United changed its mind. Dave said "too late" and has since published a second video. When customers attack, indeed!

Here's the first:

And the second, which has better production values:

What Scholastic, Inc. Doesn't Understand About Their Brand

2009-02-11T13:32:00.012-05:00

One of the participants in Basic Marketing asked me about the Scholastic fiasco. (See the link here if you don't know what we're talking about.)

Yea, this is a mess. On the one hand, the ethics are fuzzy. Schools approve having the book clubs and, in return, participating schools get a kickback/commission on sales. So although selling "crap" along with books is not the point of the club - the the schools are complicit by allowing it. One of my close friends, Dr. Bryant Hudson at FAU, used to have the following quote as part of his e-mail signature that seems particularly relevant for this situation:

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it."
- Upton Sinclair, US novelist & socialist politician (1878 - 1968)

Pointedly, Scholastic has 75% of schools in the U.S. signed up for book clubs!! That's an amazing market share!! And since the schools get a kickback - particularly in such tough economic times - cash-strapped schools are the least likely to complain about selling more "stuff" so they get more money. (I am, however, a little surprised the teachers' unions didn't blow the whistle on this a while ago.) This is the same reason schools were so reticent to remove soda machines from schools, even though they were detrimental to students, learning, and family budgets: the schools got a cut of the action and didn't want to give it up!! So they rationalized that it was "OK."

From a marketing standpoint, the concept is simple: Scholastic essentially has a monopoly distribution channel to target kids in school. The kids nag their parents for this stuff (both books and, more questionably, other stuff) and the school gives the whole thing legitimacy. Scholastic is trying to maximize their profits (and a review of investor information on their website confirms this) - and adding more things for the target market to buy only increases profits.....

HOWEVER, I think Scholastic has monumentally screwed up! Their brand was probably one of the purest "good for kids" brands in the world. Literally. (Multiple puns intended.) Look, I still know the brand and....well...it's been awhile since I've read a Scholastic book. Plus, access to 75% of K-8 classrooms in the U.S.? That's amazing!! But by putting junk into the channel (book clubs), Scholastic is sullying their brand meaning as valuing profit-seeking over reading! I think now that the "Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood" has released their assessment and gotten a ton of press, I think we'll be seeing a lot more schools, like The Bradford School referred to at the end of the article, terminating their relationship with Scholastic. This is going to be painful!!

The bottom lines, from a marketing perspective, are to

1) ALWAYS understand how your target customers understand your brand,

2) realize that brands are "living" constructs and a company's actions will change brand meaning, and

3) think of your brand as a reputation - which really is what most brands are - and ask yourself, "If I do X, how might that affect how customers view my brand/reputation."

By the way, lots of companies have made similar missteps. At one point Howard Schultz drank too much coffee and didn't realize what the "Starbucks" brand really meant. He announced that Starbucks could sell anything they put their name on and planned on selling furniture on-line. The stock promptly plummeted by more than 10%... It's never really recovered. The stock was at $11.20 in March 2000. Today, it's at $9.93.

Creating the T-Mobile Dance Advertisement

2009-01-31T10:54:00.007-05:00

OK, first read the prior post and watch the T-Mobile advertisement.

Then, watch this video on the making of the advert.

What's really, truly amazing is that the advertisement was all real! The producers actually staged a live, unannounced event in the Liverpool Train Station and got passerby's to join in. I love the passerby interview clips at the end! How very, very cool!!

Cultural Trends Toward More Personal Marketing

2009-01-31T09:36:00.009-05:00

Great article in Ad Age about cultural trends toward more personal marketing: "What T-Mobile's 'Dance' and Ikea's 'Du' Teach Us About Messaging," by Gunnar Brune.

Related to this week's Basic Marketing topic, the external environment, I think Gunnar's observation that cultures are moving away from a me-centric orientation to a we- or us-centric orientation is quite fascinating. And, let me (us) be completely honest: the videos are AWESOME!!

In case you can't get to the link, here's the text and the youtube videos.

In meetings with almost all our clients the same topic comes up: Will our relevant market be hit by the crisis and if so, how hard? While the specific answer differs according to the different scenarios, of course, there is one element all these discussions have in common. It is a growing sense of family, community, society or "We." It will be the most important positive word for 2009. While "We" values have always been elements of the messaging in certain markets (especially food), today it is a different story for two reasons. The first is the reflex of "bunching up" in times of uncertainty, crisis or danger, which elevates the importance of social values vs. individual benefits. The second reason is the opportunities of modern social media -- where the consumer is in control, not the brand. "We" communication does also mean communicating with the consumer on eye level.

This puts those brands that are already positioned as "We" brands at an advantage. Brands like Ikea, for example. Ikea's customer loyalty program focuses on eye-level contact: "IKEA FAMILY is different to regular loyalty schemes. We want to get to know you, our customers, and so we reward each purchasing visit you make to our stores, regardless of how much you spend" (that's an extract from the U.K. site). Some languages, like German and Spanish, offer a "We" approach in the way the brand speaks -- Ikea in Germany, for example, uses the "Du" instead of the formal "Sie" ("Sie" equals "Usted" in Spanish).
There is a recent trend for brands to go for this more personal language. Even the biggest German social campaign -- an initiative of a number of the biggest German companies -- says: "Du bist Deutschland." This would have been a great issue not long ago, as it would have been considered "improper language." A different -- but very exciting -- "We" approach is the much-discussed T-Mobile viral, which is taking the "We" beyond family into a completely new field of social interaction.
All of these are examples already in the market. We will see which brands are the first to go for "We" as a response to changing consumer behavior in the crisis. It will be an interesting thing to see which of them get this right in 2009. They will be the cases we talk about in 2010.

Really? Tasers are "great fun?" Really?

2009-01-27T09:23:00.004-05:00

Amazingly disturbing video from Ad Age interviewing the Taser EVP of (not really all that) Strategic Communications. Most amazing thing to come out of his mouth - and there is a lot to choose from - Tasers are "great fun." Really? Considering we're discussing ethics this week in Basic Marketing, I can't imagine a more interesting case study regarding whether marketing a product is ethical or not. Calling Tasers "fun" just seems insanely irresponsible! Nick Papas, the EVP, has "worked for Taser for a year." I think it's time to let him go.....

Want them to learn? Eliminate Mass Lecture Sections!!!!

2009-01-14T05:58:00.006-05:00

Great article in the NYT today regarding how MIT (yes, that MIT) has done away with the large lecture section of basic physics and replaced it with smaller class sizes that utilize hands-on learning and a lot of small assignments. This article makes ME feel great because it reinforces a lot of my own beliefs about how to teach and what's wrong with trying to teach 440 people marketing by standing up and talking! My favorite quote in the article is:

“Just as you can’t become a marathon runner by watching marathons on TV,” Professor Mazur said, “likewise for science, you have to go through the thought processes of doing science and not just watch your instructor do it.”

Awesome metaphor!! I agree!!!

M U C H Better!!

2009-01-11T10:18:00.004-05:00

Here is the REVISED poster for MyFitnessChannel.com's Model Search! (This is an iPhone photo of the flier at Xtreme Health Club in South Tampa - so there's some degradation in quality compared to the original.)

MUCH, MUCH better!

Notice how much cleaner the entire poster/flier is? Notice how the POINT is clear.
What I find most interesting is that the new version uses the exact same models with flags - and it works because all of the confusing symbols related to Barack Obama's Inauguration are gone - as they should be, since that had NOTHING to do with the point and only confused things. And look! We now know that the event is happening at the Lime on South Howard! (Pretty important clarification for any USF community members who might want to try out. And don't worry, I'm not going to try out...LOL!!!)

Anyway, just another "everyday case" of marketing - what works, what doesn't, and why....

Help David Norrie Create New Fliers

2009-01-07T16:41:00.013-05:00

Basic Marketing participants: you saw this ad on Monday night or Wednesday day. When I asked David Norrie (who runs myfitnesschannel.com) what was up with this ad, he said "It's a play on the Obama Inauguration." I said, "OK, I kinda got that -but what was the purpose of the ad?"

OUCH! To be clear, I really like David a lot and think he's a great guy. I just can't help myself when I see stuff like this - especially if I know the person and I'm worried that they won't get the outcome they desired.

So here's a challenge - if you're up to it.

Create a new flier (or perhaps a number of different fliers) given the goals that David stated he had for the event:

1. Get people to compete to be models for his website,

2. Get people to come to the venue (Lime - on south Howard, I'm assuming) to see the competition and patronize the co-sponsors of the event and, finally - and most importantly,

3. To increase awareness of and traffic on myfitnesschannel.com.

David's e-mail is davidnorrie6 at A O L dot com....

Tell him Dr. G sent you;-)

UPDATE: I misspelled "flier" about five times in the original post as "flyer." UUGGHHH. But now it's fixed. (Ironically, Firefox web browser pointed out the misspelling - but I missed it originally.)

Great Olbermann Comment on "Pro Marriage" Amendments

2008-11-12T08:41:00.007-05:00

WOW. Amazingly great Special Comment by Keith Olbermann on "protecting marriage" amendments. (Focus on Proposition 8 in California, but it's just as applicable for Florida's Constitutional Amendment #2 that passed last week.)

If only Keith had made this comment BEFORE the election! But bravo to him for pointing out the hypocrisy of the marriage amendments nonetheless!

Check Cashers Redeemed

2008-11-12T08:04:00.005-05:00

Great article in the New York Times Magazine this past Sunday on check cashing businesses and how American banks have ignored the needs of the poor - as well as ignored the huge financial opportunities in serving that market!

As I've pointed out in every class, there's something to be said for serving the world's poor, profitably. (The title, in fact, of C.K. Prahalad's Harvard Business Review article.) The amount of money charged by check cashing businesses is huge, but, as the article points out, the lack of "traditional banking" services in poor areas suggests that check cashing businesses are actually making many customers better off than if the check cashing businesses didn't exist at all. However, the fact of the matter remains that the gap between what traditional banks could do to serve the poor (at a profit) and what check cashing businesses provide (and charge, for a huge profit), suggests an enormous opportunity for banks - such as Bank of America - to serve this market with tailored solutions that are profitable and grow long-term customers. To that point, it's interesting to read some customer quotes about how loyal check cashing customers actually are, because all the traditional banks had ignored them or charged them exorbitant fees when something went wrong.

The most inspiring part of the story was that of Tom Nix - of Nix check-cashing. He sold his business to a credit union, which kept him on as president and - together - they added a credit union window at every check cashing location. Tom's goal is to convert traditional check-cashing customers to credit union customers over time - because the business could still make a lot of money serving these customers and the customers would be better off working with the credit union side of the business!! Fantastic!

In addition to explaining the check-cashing business, payday loans, the customers who use such services and the creation and on-going transformation of Nix - the story also provides some insights into how local governments are trying to create similar models for serving their poor with higher value banking services at a lower cost than the check-cashing and payday loan services. Overall, a very, very good article!

New JetBlue Terminal at JFK

2008-09-30T11:15:00.004-04:00

Yesterday, while talking about STP and the importance of making sure your marketing mix supports your positioning, I talked about JetBlue's new terminal at John F Kennedy (JFK) Airport in New York.

Here is a link to the 3-minute Ad Age video podcast on iTunes regarding the terminal and why JetBlue built it.

Adam Smith was Right

2008-09-25T09:46:00.003-04:00

As often happens, economic turmoil begets questions of whether free market thinkers were right or wrong – and whether regulation needs to be increased to preserve the country’s economic integrity. Now, even greater questions need to be asked: should the government be bailing out companies that make bad bets, and if so, who ultimately pays for these bailouts? These questions are ironic, particularly from avowed free marketers, because Adam Smith himself warned about the challenges of capitalism in his conclusion of the mercantile system in 1776:

Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production; and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to, only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer. The maxim is perfectly self-evident, that it would be absurd to attempt to prove it. But in the mercantile system, the interest of the consumer is almost constantly sacrificed to that of the producer; and it seems to consider production, and not consumption, as the ultimate end and object of all industry and commerce.

Today, we find ourselves precisely where Adam Smith said we would be.

The irony of US Taxpayers bailing out banks is that the bailout follows years of the banks insisting – and getting – less banking regulation. This gave banks the ability to branch into other businesses and freedom from oversight of financial derivatives so complex that most bankers don’t even understand what they’re buying and selling. It’s truly appalling that the U.S. Government is bailing out bankers who made outrageous bets and, now get to keep “earning” their six and seven-figure incomes while their banks are in bankruptcy. And what do consumers get? They get to pay for incompetence of these avowed “free marketers” through taxes.

The banks also asked for – and got – a new bankruptcy law that makes it much harder for consumers to discharge debt. This makes it much more lucrative and less risky for banks to extend even more credit to the American consumer. The avowed “free marketers” claimed that the new law benefitted consumers who couldn’t get loans before – and therefore caveat emptor, let the buyer beware – and somehow this was a great way to let individual consumers decide what is best for them. But that is a very naïve view of how marketing and banking work. While not perfect, banks are far better at predicting which consumers are likely to default on a loan or credit card than the individual consumers themselves. Banks have the advantage of being able to model consumer behavior using enormous databases of past consumer behaviors to understand how similar consumers will act in the future. A first-time homebuyer has no experience paying a mortgage, property taxes and upkeep for a home. So the bank has an overwhelming information advantage over the consumer, yet the new bankruptcy laws put the burden on the consumer. And what happens when the late charges and higher interest rates force homeowners to give up their homes, their down payments and their dreams? The banks take the homes and the US Government bails out the banks. And consumers get to pay again because the avowed “free marketers” got the bankruptcy law they insisted would help the consumers – but didn’t.

Trying to feed alongside the bankers at the trough of public money last week were American automobile companies. The group is led by G. Richard Wagoner, the CEO of General Motors. Mr. Wagoner is the same man who orchestrated his company’s purchase of Hummer in 2000 because he was confident GM had tremendous opportunities to “grow the brand” of a truck that yielded seven miles to the gallon. The same man who has been arguing against raising the US fuel economy standards and fervently fighting the reclassification of light trucks since at least 2001. The same man who, in 2002 when Toyota was experiencing tremendous success with the Prius, stated, “I don't think anybody's got confidence that the economics make any sense,” and then gave us the Hummer H2 – which gets eleven miles to the gallon. Now Mr. Wagoner and executives from Ford and Chrysler are pleading for subsidized loans to make more economical vehicles.

Of course the ultimate irony of all this is that the big three have been making gobs of money selling Americans gas guzzling SUVs over the past decade while their Japanese and European competitors focused on making great cars that are much more fuel efficient. Now the big three want the US taxpayer to subsidize building more fuel efficient cars so they can compete with their Japanese and European competitors – and make money by selling Americans more fuel-efficient cars to replace the SUVs they so happily sold them. So Mr. Wagoner pulls in millions a year over the past decade based on his leadership of (1) buying the Hummer brand, (2) lobbying Congress not to raise gas standards because that would make GM uncompetitive, (3) selling Americans gas guzzling vehicles, then (4) realizing that GM needs to sell Hummer because no consumer would buy a Hummer with gasoline at $4 a gallon, and (5) lobbying Congress for more handouts, because somehow items 1-4 were not his fault. And what do the American consumers get? Gas guzzling vehicles, more polluted air, greater dependence on foreign oil and, ultimately, stuck with the bill for Mr. Wagoner and his avowed “free market” cronies’ highly paid “leadership.”

Adam Smith was right. True capitalism benefits the consumer. But too often, the needs of America’s consumers are almost constantly sacrificed to the needs of America’s producers.

Social Responsibility & Ethics: Student Loans and Google

2008-09-17T13:33:00.007-04:00

Well, having just finished up our sessions on Social Responsibility and Ethics in Basic Marketing, I was surprised to see two of the topics covered show in the New York Times in the following days.

Code of Conduct for Student Loan Companies

First, eight student loan companies - seven of them were being investigated by the New York Attorney General, Andrew Cuomo for misleading students about the obligations and attractiveness of various student loans - agreed to a new "code of conduct" and put up $1.4 Million to fund efforts to educate students and their parents about the risks and responsibilities inherent in taking out student loans. [You can see the NYT's article here.]

If you go the Attorney General Cuomo's web site, you can see the kinds of things that are now prohibited under the code of conduct, which include:

using logos and return addresses that made it look like the lender's solicitation to consumers was from the federal government or the student's current lender;
mailing fake checks or false rebates offers on current loans to entice students to take out loans;
giving inducements to students, such as gift cards, iPods, and GPS devices, to distract students from focusing on the (sometimes onerous) terms of the higher education loans being promoted;
offering inducements to students to convince their friends to take out loans with particular lenders;
making false and misleading representations as to the advantages of private student loans over lower-cost federal loans;
providing illustrations of loan costs or terms that are available only to a tiny fraction of borrowers without disclosing that fact;
failing to guarantee that advertised borrower benefits, such as discounts on the interest rate of the loan during the repayment phase of the loan, follow with the loan, regardless of who purchases the loan in the future.

What's kind of amazing is how these seem like very straightforward - and commonsense - ethical obligations. But sometimes, when companies get into the thick of things in trying to compete with others, they can lose perspective of what's ethical and what's not. Also - as is clear from the code, which is based on questionable practices that already existed in the industry - is that what's best for the customer clear gets lost!! Hence, to the point made in class, having an explicit code of ethics is so critical for so many companies. If everyone knows what's "OK" and "what's not," then it's a lot more likely that everyone will act appropriately and not start down the slippery slope of doing things that, in hindsight, clearly look wrong.

Also, to the point of our conversations, it's interesting that it took the threat of legal action by the New York Attorney General to make this happen. So again, the role of government and the law have a role to play in making consumers better off.

Is Google behaving monopolistically?

Another article was fascinating because it deals with whether Google is acting in a monopolistic fashion in dealing with its customers (who buy advertisements from Google) and its channels (who sell advertising space using Google).

One source estimated that Google controls nearly 70% of the on-line advertising market through its various programs that sell and buy space on Google web searches and a plethora of other web sites. OK, by classic Industrial Organization Economic's standards, that's sounding pretty monopolistic.

Of course, the "Chicago School" would argue that just because Google does a better job than any other service of matching buyers and sellers of advertising doesn't make them "bad."

I fall somewhere in between - in kind of an "it depends" area. I agree that being successful and, therefore, controlling 70% of the market doesn't mean that a company is "bad." The key underlying concern of the antitrust laws is that a company doesn't act in monopolistic - and, therefore, anti-competitive - ways to prevent competition. (Just to be clear, that's where I think the Chicago School economists were way off base regarding Microsoft, which did use its market power to prevent competition and, therefore, maintain a monopoly in operating systems and create a new one in web browsers.)

Anyway, back to the article, I think the case against Google is without merit - at least as portrayed in the New York Times article. The key to the article was a case study of Mr. Savage, who built a business model based on the following:

Mr. Savage estimates that he was paid around 10 cents every time someone clicked an ad on his site. The difference between that and what he paid Google to advertise against search terms — usually around 5 or 6 cents —was his profit.

The article goes on to state that Mr. Savage's business model was pretty much destroyed when Google changed how it bought and sold ads.

But it doesn't appear to me that Mr. Savage has much of a case. His entire "business model" was based on arbitrage opportunities - the difference between what Google could be selling ads for and what it was selling ads for. If Mr. Savage's "service" actually had value beyond arbitrage - he runs Sourcetool.com, which is a directory of business-to-business companies - he'd be able to charge: (1) companies who wanted to be listed on his service and/or (2) people who wanted to access his directory. But since he made his service free and then made his money by buying Google ads cheap and selling ads back for twice as much, it appears that the market cleared a bit and Google finally figured out a way to leave less money on the table for arbitrators.

Well, regardless of what I think, if you read the article you'll get a pretty good sense of why policing anti-competitive behaviors can be difficult. It also highlights the challenge of when people use anti-trust laws to challenge a company, even when there is no merit to the case - whether that's the situation with Sourcetool.com or not. If people cry "monopoly" too often, I think the courts and justice department become overwhelmed and have less to time spend on actual violations of anti-trust laws.

If you don't vote, you're a moron.

2008-09-11T23:41:00.005-04:00

Great monologue from Craig Ferguson on 10Sep08!!! You need to watch the whole thing. It's a great commentary on the media, politicians and Americans. The bottom line, "If you don't vote, you're a moron!!" (It'd be great if all Americans were as passionate about voting as Craig, who's been a U.S. citizen for less than a year!)

If you don't have new customers, how can you have loyal customers?

2008-09-06T15:55:00.005-04:00

OK, executives in the airline industry have officially lost their minds. On Friday, 05Sep08, Continental Airlines decided to start charging $15 for the first bag checked - much like American Airlines and the other airlines that followed. Interestingly, the NYT article about this stated a caveat regarding the fee:

Continental, based in Houston, said the fee would not apply to elite members of its frequent-flier program, those in first- or business-class seats, customers traveling on full-fare economy tickets, or military personnel and their families traveling on official orders.

Now, two fascinating things about this development. First - as mentioned in an earlier post and updated regarding Southwest Airlines' response in a later post - is the extra fee really worth the aggravation? It certainly can't be good for the brand or customer satisfaction.

In fact, I looked up the airline satisfaction ratings on the American Consumer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) website and - big surprise - Southwest is the highest rated airline and American, Continental, Delta, Northwest, United and US Airways all are rated below average in customer satisfaction. And those ratings were collected before American instituted their baggage fee!! (Note, ACSI is the satisfaction model I discussed in class.)

Just to make sure it wasn't purely an ACSI data abnormality or something, I took a gander and J.D. Powers's website and found their most recent Airline satisfaction numbers. At first, I was surprised that Southwest wasn't even mentioned in the press release. Instead, it stated "Alaska Airlines, Continental Airlines and JetBlue Airways Rank Highest in Customer Satisfaction." What's going on here?

Well, it turns out that JD Powers separates "Traditional Airlines" from "Low Cost Airlines." (I guess calling the "traditional airlines" "full service airlines" would be too much of an oxymoron.) Anyway, although they're separated, both categories use a 1,000 point scale. So, combining the charts from JD Powers, here's what they would look like:

JetBlue Airways - 776 points (JetBlue is not rated by ACSI)
Southwest Airlines - 728
Frontier Airlines - 715 (not rated by ACSI)
Airtran Airways - 708 (not rated by ACSI)
Alaska Airlines - 684 (not rated by ACSI)
Continental - 684
Delta - 669
Air Canada - 654 (not rated by ACSI)
American Airlines - 644
US Airways - 640
Northwest - 628
United - 628

Also, note that beginning with #5, Alaska Airlines, all of the "traditional airlines" are rated at number 5 or lower in customer satisfaction!!

So, the way that the airline executives think they can increase customer satisfaction - and therefore long-term shareholder value - is to aggravate customers even more than they have already, while the "low cost" airlines eat their lunch. Hmmm...."How's that working out for you?"

OK - time for the second point, and the title of this posting: If American Airlines, Continental and the others waive baggage fees for their loyal customers (e.g., elite frequent fliers), but charge new/infrequent customers to check bags - how in the world will they ever get any new customers to be loyal? This makes no sense!! The only non-elite people who would fly them regardless of the baggage fees would not have a choice (e.g., Continental has a near monopoly on Cleveland, OH). Of course, if people don't have a choice, why give them incentives to fly you anyway? In fact, getting back to the example of Cleveland - once Southwest added Tampa-to-Cleveland connection, I stopped flying Continental and refuse to fly them again if I have a choice.

Hence, by only charging the "non-loyal" customers for baggage fees, you'll never increase the loyal customer segment of customers. I'm not sure they'll be able to replace the loyal customers they're losing!! If I believed in conspiracy theories, I'd be inclined to think that it's Southwest and JetBlue - currently the highest rated airlines in terms of satisfaction - that somehow got American, Continental and the others to institute these fees! (OK, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but how someone could possibly think that by offering crappier service and charging more will attract more customers is beyond my comprehension.)

The bottom line: before focusing on your "best customers" to the detriment of your other customers, it's always a good idea to make sure of two things. First, are you really making more money on those customers - or are you giving all the margins away by trying to keep them happy? Second, make sure you've got a way to get new "best customers." Otherwise, your "best customers" will keep declining until you have no more - and then it's too late!

I can't wait to see the next batch of airline industry customer satisfaction numbers that include the baggage fees;-)

Knowing your target market & decision-maker

2008-09-06T15:07:00.012-04:00

Over the past two weeks, we've been going over STP (segment-target-position) as part of the overview for Basic Marketing. Related to knowing your target market - and just as importantly - the decision-maker (which is not the same thing), there was a clever post on the New York Times "For the Moment Blog" last week regarding ads for men's underwear. The guest blogger (Grant Thatcher) made the observation, regarding pictures of good-looking men in underwear ads in Milan:

Do Milanese men have a preternatural desire to look at muscular, seminaked men? Well, of course in some cases, yes, but the canny luxury labels are well aware that the men’s knit underwear industry is worth a staggering $1.1 billion — and even more interestingly, the majority of these briefs are actually bought for men by women. Ding! Now you wonder what’s with all the muscle dudes. … Go figure.

Very funny! And, to the point, although men are the target market for men's underwear - it's either women (or gay men) who are typically making the purchase decision. (OK, to be clear, I mean "or gay men buying underwear for themselves," I think.) So they're the ones you need to target with promotions if you're selling men's underwear. And, apparently, it's also somewhat aspirational for most purchasers, since they think their beau will look as hot in the underwear as David Beckham, etc.

And lest any guys think this is a bad example, let's just try putting the underwear on the other....well, you know what I mean..... Who do you think spends more time looking at Victoria's Secret catalogs - men or women? How many men buy have bought "items" from Victoria's Secret for their wives/girlfriends as a "gift." (A gift for whom, is all I can think.)

And of course, taking it all away from sex (or, more precisely, talking about the consequences of all that undergarment inspired sex), even though little kids are the target market for all-things-Sponge Bob, it's Mom or Dad who's the decision maker and ultimate purchaser.

Anyway, the bottom line is: know your target market - and who the decision maker is. And you should never pick a target market without knowing who the decision maker is, otherwise, you might not have a much of a market at all.

And with that, I've just got to post this video from AussieBum. It's the same video Grant posted on his NYT's blog. The music is "Would you...?" from Touch and Go and is downloadable from iTunes. (Yea, I really like the song....):

Hurling down the low road at a breakneck pace - McCain Internet Ad

2008-07-31T11:32:00.011-04:00

While searching for a quote on Communism today, look what I ran across!

The advertisement is paid for by the McCain campaign and it opens a link to weird "petition" (i.e., campaign mailing roster) regarding energy independence on McCain's website. How very, very sad. McCain's entire campaign has become "anti-Obama" instead of why people should vote for McCain.... I actually gave money to this guy in 2000 in the hopes he'd be the Republican nominee over George W. Bush! Wow, how times have changed!!

Update: Even sadder - on two levels. First, PolitiFact.com rated this claim a "Pants on Fire" lie (a rarity in their ratings). It certainly is a "different kind of campaign" when John McCain pays for blatant lies after they've been pointed out. The even sadder bit? It was the Florida GOP that started this rumor:-(

Way too cool - but why?

2008-06-23T09:15:00.008-04:00

Reading AdAge's "Creativity On-Line" this morning, I became hopelessly entranced by a link to the "UNIQLOCK," which AdAge predicted may win one of the top awards at the Cannes Advertising Award extravaganza. Anyway, I'm just totally enthralled by this website/blog widget. Mostly, because I can't figure out how anyone makes money with it:-) The T-Shirts? Hiring the producers? I'm not sure.... Nonetheless, it is really cool. You can access the website directly - and post it's HTML into your blog/website as well....(I had to post pictures of the clock - because the widget was just getting too annoying for me. OK, maybe it's not that cool as a widget, but it is still cool to watch. 30Jun08.)

Awesome: Game Theory and Southwest Airlines' Response to American Airlines' Baggage Fee

2008-06-10T16:37:00.018-04:00

Let's hear it for the usefulness of game theory!!!

Two weeks ago, I wrote about American Airlines' (AA) bone-headed move to charge for all baggage, which included these little tidbits:

".... This is an idea straight out of an Excel spreadsheet designed by a newly-minted MBA with no concept of value propositions or game theory.
.... But what I hope happens, and is certainly possible, is that Southwest or JetBlue will start running ads that focus on "our price includes everything, including your bags." Or even better, "Why pay extra for your bags on AA if we're more likely to get them to where your going for free?" ...."

Regarding the first point, I subsequently found an AA press release stating exactly what I suspected:

Additional Revenue Initiatives
.... Today, American introduced a $15 fee for the first checked bag, given the increasing costs of transporting checked baggage.... American also said today that it has increased its fees for certain other services, ranging from reservation service fees to pet and oversized bag fees. The increases mostly range from $5 to $50 per service. The company estimates that new and increased fees announced this month will generate several hundred million dollars in incremental annual revenue....

I think we need to put that quote into a marketing textbook as the antithesis of a market-orientation!!

Hmmm...to paraphrase Dr. Phil, "How's that working out for you?"

Oh, wait, I think I have an idea how it's working out for you!!!

As I predicted, relying on rudimentary game theory, Southwest Airlines has responded with competitive gusto!! Rather than talk about it, I'll just offer the following evidence. Enjoy!

Southwest Airlines Newspaper Advertisement

Southwest Airlines' Website:

Southwest Airlines' Television Advertisements:

Flight Attendant

Coins

Two recent profiles

2008-05-30T12:51:00.007-04:00

I still vividly remember, during my employment interviews at Frank Lynn & Associates in Chicago, when John Henderson observed that I "was odd" because I downplayed my experiences while most interviewees overplayed their experiences. My recollection of his comment was something to the effect of "What's wrong with you?" After thinking for a second, I said something like "I'm from the Midwest. It's not cool to toot your own horn." He informed me that that was a rather odd strategy - particularly for a consultant. Frank Lynn & Associates hired me anyway and they were (mostly) very happy with their decision. (My tendency to be deadline driven freaked out a few people, initially, until they realized I always came through in the end and consistently exceeded clients' expectations.)

Why share that story? Well, I wanted to share two recent profiles of me posted on the Internet, but somehow felt the need point out that I'm still struggling with the Midwestern notion of not bringing attention to myself. Oh well. I have a friggin Blog, for goodness sakes! So, John, I am getting better at promoting "Brand Me" - but I still feel weird about it.

So, here we go. I have two new profiles of me that have popped up on the Internet! They're both pretty cool - if I do say so myself:-)

Here's a profile of me - ala interview style - on the University of South Florida's main webpage.

And here is a profile of me - focusing on my decision to become an academic - for Bruce Kasanoff's forthcoming book "Now Possible: Stories of People Who Successfully Refocused Their Lives."

Achtung, Achtung: BMW, was machen sie?

2008-05-25T14:20:00.007-04:00

I love BMWs. They drive great, they're solid and, quite honestly, I think they're worth the price. It really is the "Ultimate Driving Machine."

But what's really been driving me crazy for the past 2+ years is the lack of diesel BMWs in America. Ironically, BMW sells far more diesel-powered that regular gasoline automobiles, even when you include American sales. The reason BMW has not yet introduced diesel models in America is our strict emission regulations - particularly in California. But BMW finally has a solution: BluePerformance. They're planning on launching diesel versions of 335d and X5 in the Fall of 2008.

Besides the delay - I assume due to engineering the new BluePerformance technology into the vehicles - what's making me a little nuts is that BMW is missing a HUGE opportunity in the United States by only introducing these two, very powerful vehicles. Yes, BMW has gotten kudos for their reduction in CO2 emissions and having fairly fuel-efficient cars. But their obsessive belief that BMW-buying Americans only care about speed and power is clouding their vision. Every customer is NOT obsessed with having the fastest or most powerful car. Some of us actually like having a car that's fast enough, powerful enough, but really incredibly engineered and exhibits supreme handling as well. Yes, it's the "ultimate driving machine," but that doesn't need to be solely about the number of seconds it takes to go from 0 to 60.

Here's my point. I read the most incredible article recently comparing a Toyota Prius and a BMW 520d in England. (The 520d is a 4-cylinder diesel not sold in North America.) The amazing finding? The BMW 520d had better gas milage than the Prius!!!

Also, the BMW118d recently won the "World Green Car of the Year" at the New York auto show, based on it's super low emissions and 47+ miles to the gallon efficiency. But we can't buy the 118d in America because, apparently, BMW managers are worried that we're too speed and power obsessed to buy it. (Also, it has a hatchback, which BMW hasn't figured out is now a good thing in America, in contrast to their experiences with the 318 years ago. That's surprising since BMW is selling a ton of Mini Coopers in the US - so they certainly have first hand experience suggesting that hatchbacks are not the kiss of death anymore in the premium segment.)

So Americans are going crazy with rising gas prices, finally buying more cars than trucks and preferring small cars with excellent gas milage over big, heavy traditional boat-like cars. But no car company is serving BMW's traditional upscale market segment - yet. So why delay? BMW has the technology and a range of models NOW that address Americans' new found desire for efficiency. There are a whole bunch of us who can afford a BMW and would like a nice car that gets great milage. (I'm sorry, the Prius is awesome technologically, but I'm just not going to buy a car that looks and feels like a college engineering experiment.)

BMW has a unique window of opportunity to really increase their market share in America and simultaneously do the right thing - help us conserve energy. They can still sell their high powered, super fast cars as well (such as the 1-series with the 3-series 6-cylinder engine designed for America), but give us a choice. If nothing else, why not bring a bunch of the diesel powered cars to America and invite your customers to test drive them on an American city tour? How cool would that be? Plus, BMW would get first-hand feedback from current owners. Who knows, they might surprise BMW - and BMW might surprise BMW owners. And how great for the BMW brand to be known as the ultimate driving machine on all dimensions: awesome to drive, superior engineering, efficient and green as well? That value proposition seems perfect for a large portion of BMW's target market in America.

Please BMW, I love your cars. Is it too much to ask to let me buy one that I can enjoy filling up as much as I enjoy driving?

Prediction: American Airlines's Chaos-Causing Baggage Fee

2008-05-25T12:41:00.013-04:00

Wow, just when I thought the "major" airlines couldn't screw up the business anymore, American Airlines has proved me wrong by instituting a $15 per piece baggage fee. This is an idea straight out of an Excel spreadsheet designed by a newly-minted MBA with no concept of value propositions or game theory.

I can totally see how the baggage fee looks brilliant at first blush. The baggage fee is not shown on the ticketing websites and, therefore, presents an opportunity to add an additional fee on top of the airfare, which is salient when people choose a carrier/flight. Basically, American Airlines (AA) can price at perceived parity with their competitors, but then grab an extra $15-30 of revenue when the customer checks in. If no other carrier follows suit, AA can effectively charge $15-30 more per comparable flight without losing many customers by decoupling the total fee from the salient time-of-purchase posted price.

So, what's wrong with this approach? Well, three things. First, this kind of shenanigan is perfectly transparent and screams of "gotcha capitalism" - which really honks people off. My favorite (or least favorite, to be consistent) version of this is hidden hotel fees. The most exorbitant are city/state taxes/fees - particularly in New York City, Chicago and San Francisco - and are not included in the price quote when you make a reservation. I blame silly politicians for this bait and switch concept of sticking it to the tourists and business travelers - which I've got to believe has a long term negative impact on tourism (i.e., "I hate getting a hotel in New York because the actual price is oftentimes 50% more than the quoted price"). But the really maddening fees are the "safe fee" and the "gym/spa fees" which previously were included in the price of a room. Now hotels do this really slimy thing where they don't include the fees in the original price quote/reservation, but charge you for various sundries when you check out. If you say nothing, you get screwed. But even if you try fighting these hidden gotcha fees, it's hard to win the argument. Assuming no other airlines are silly enough to institute a baggage fee, people's attitudes toward the AA brand will decrease and AA's ability to charge pricing premiums or realize higher choice rates based on their brand name will decrease over time. I'm guessing that notion isn't in the MBA's awesome baggage surcharge spreadsheet. AA might lose a lot more than it gains by instituting the baggage fee.

The second reason this is a bone-headed move is that if you look at the outcomes from a competitive standpoint, none of the three most likely competitive reactions are net cash flow positive over the long term. The competitive reaction AA is most likely hoping for is that no other carrier implements the baggage fee and, thus, AA charges a net higher fee for all its flights than competitors for comparable routes. But that doesn't take into account the damage to the AA brand - which will likely increase pricing sensitivity toward the AA brand and also lower consumers' a priori preference for AA, meaning they'll sell less tickets when they go head-to-head against other carriers. The next most desired outcome for AA is probably that all the major carriers match AA's move and, thus, every carrier can charge more for their tickets than they do now. But so what? By going first, AA hurts its brand and risks that others won't follow. Even if we assume that the impact on AA's brand is minimal and other carriers follow, AA has just created the same prisoner's dilemma they created with their frequent flier program: if every carrier implements the same policy, AA has no advantage over the others. But what I hope happens, and is certainly possible, is that Southwest or JetBlue will start running ads that focus on "our price includes everything, including your bags." Or even better, "Why pay extra for your bags on AA if we're more likely to get them to where your going for free?" (I really like that one, but don't have time to see if Southwest or JetBlue do a better job at getting bags to the same place as passengers.) The bottom line of this will be that AA will need to rescind their baggage fee - which will have a net cash flow negative impact by (a) hurting the AA brand equity, (b) incurring significant set-up and tear down costs for the program and (c) enhance the brand image of competitive carriers. None of these likely outcomes is a net cash flow positive for AA.

OK, the worst part of AA's baggage fee policy will be to make air travel even more unpleasant than it already is - which is stunning!! First, I'm getting sick to my stomach just imagining all of the "amateur" travelers holding up the check-in lines at airports arguing about the baggage fee, explaining they don't have the money on them to pay for the fee, and generally spreading bad Karma everywhere. That should really help ticket agent turnover - assuming you're trying to make it higher!! Second, as if making the seats smaller as Americans keep getting bigger wasn't awful enough (another bone-headed Excel spreadsheet decision attempting to maximize capacity), AA has just significantly increased the insanity of passengers taking everything they own into the cabin. Every flight I can remember over the past five years that was 80% full included flight attendants racing around like they were playing some insane whack-a-mole game trying to shove baggage into overhead compartments, which oftentimes ends by tagging a few gigantic bags for jetway luggage handling before the plane could take off. In fact, I almost always check my luggage and just take my laptop briefcase with me anymore because I just don't want to deal with all that chaos on the plane.

So what's the likely impact of AA's new baggage fee inside the cabin? More people carrying more crap onto the jet that clearly won't fit. More aggravation for travelers. More aggravation for flight attendants and pilots. And more delays. When AA loses baggage that they've now charged extra for (and they will, because there's always some chance baggage gets lost/incorrectly routed), they'll be hell to pay by travelers who paid $15 to not have their bag show up at their destination.

And heaven forbid the other airlines follow suit with a baggage fee - we can all look forward to even more unpleasant experiences flying in America. I, for one, wish we had better trains in America because I just can't stand flying anymore - and it's only going to get worse until some airline wakes up and figures out that there is a HUGE opportunity in making flying a pleasant experience again. (And, please, make the seats bigger too.)

Why Obama is the Candidate Most Likely to Create Change in Washington

2008-05-15T10:09:00.011-04:00

A few years ago my colleagues and I studied how organizations create a greater market focus. One of our most striking findings was that change begins with a new leader who is focused on improving organizational processes – rather than focusing on a discrete monetary or market-share goals. Successful leaders focus on imbuing their organizations with six key values: trust, openness, keeping promises, respect/empathy/perspective taking, collaboration, and the market as the raison raison d'être.

Leaders forced organization members to interact and create a shared understanding of the market by sending cross-functional teams into the market (e.g., a purchasing agent, engineer and shop floor worker would visit customers and distributors together). By focusing on common experiences and a shared understanding of the market, organizations became more market-focused and, thus, more successful than before. Perhaps the best-known example of such a transformation occurred at Harley-Davidson Motor Company, which narrowly escaped bankruptcy in the 1980s to become one of the most successful American manufacturers in the 1990s and continues to exceed expectations today.

There are striking parallels between our research and the two remaining Democratic candidates. Hillary Clinton’s style is consistent with the notion of a mythical, all-knowing leader who provides all the answers for fixing an organization – a style we found unlikely to create positive organizational change. Hillary Clinton and the media consistently comment that she has more detailed policy positions and she vociferously defends those policy positions as unambiguously better than Senator Obama’s positions. Ironically, there appears to be an implied assumption that President Hillary Clinton would implement better policies and could do so because of the harsh lessons learned from her health care efforts in the early 1990s. Yet, she continues to insist that she somehow has greater insight and better answers than anyone else. This begs the question if she has, in fact, learned from her earlier failures.

Conversely, Barack Obama’s style is consistent with successful change leaders: someone who gets people to focus on common issues and who realizes that the process of agreeing on a shared understanding of a situation will lead to greater cooperation, trust and success. Whereas Senator Clinton focuses on explaining that her policies are better, Senator Obama is focused on fixing the process of developing and implementing solutions. Although some may see this as a weakness for Senator Obama, our research suggests that his approach is more likely to be successful at creating change because it allows other people to participate and take ownership in the change process.

Differences between the candidates’ styles appear fairly stable and, thus, allow voters to project which candidate is more likely to actually move America in a positive direction. Senator Clinton is well known for her ability to “fight.” Whether comparing herself to the fictional character Rocky in Philadelphia or committing to “fight” for voters in Ohio, the common theme is her tenacity in fighting for what she believes in. Unfortunately, in spite of her tremendous intellect and grasp of policy details, it’s absurd to assume she has all the answers. Furthermore, which Americans would President Hillary Clinton fight with, exactly? The role of President is to lead everyone: Republicans, Democrats, Greens, Libertarians, and independents. Historically speaking, it’s difficult to comprehend how a President who is committed to fighting with members of Congress can accomplish much at all. Sure, with majorities in the House and Senate, a President can force through controversial legislation, but that won’t change the tone in Washington. Additionally, as President Bill Clinton discovered in 1994, it can have disastrous effects in the next election cycle.

In contrast, Barack Obama has a long history of working with competing interests to find acceptable compromises that everyone can agree on. Biographical sketches of Senator Obama have included interviews with colleagues who joke that Senator Obama’s approach of hearing everyone’s opinion before working on a common solution drove them a little crazy – but it worked. Although on a much larger scale, that community organizing approach – premised on respecting the inherent dignity of every person and listening to everyone’s concerns – bodes well for an effective commander in chief. Senator Obama’s personal history as the son of an African father and a white, American mother who later married an Indonesian man appears to have nurtured his ability to empathize and understand a wide array of viewpoints, which has become extremely honed throughout his life. Senator Obama’s speech on race relations was an astounding example of his ability to empathize – and truly understand – the perspectives of both white and black Americans.

Senator Obama shares three other characteristics with successful change leaders: honesty, authenticity, and a willingness to admit he was wrong. Although empathy, honesty, authenticity and a willingness to admit one is wrong are not all that’s needed for a successful leader – but it’s certainly the first step in being able to work openly and honestly with a wide range of people to create shared understandings and work on effective solutions.

The characteristics of successful leaders in business transformations appear to be the same ones this country could use in moving us forward. When choosing a company president to transform a company, shareholders are better off choosing a leader rather than a fighter. That’s something the Democratic Party and America should consider as we choose a President for all of us.

Christmas Presents in the Spirit of Christ(mas)

2007-12-18T11:05:00.002-05:00

Well, it's that time of year again: Christmas.

It's the one holiday - particularly in America - that makes my head hurt.

Why?

Well, without going into all the particulars about the origin's of Christmas (see Wikipedia.org for a rather quick overview), which is enough to make one's head hurt, let's just stick with Christmas as the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ, Lord and Savior and Son of God.

Jesus was sent by God to save the world from its sins. One of the really big sins - based on all the stories and allegories in the New Testament - was/is materialism. The wanting/lusting/accumulation of wealth and goods on Earth - particularly when so many people go without.

So what has happened to Christmas in American Culture? Well, we SHOP!! We buy so much that Marketers call the Friday after Thanksgiving "Black Friday" - meaning that's the day most retailers actually go into the black (i.e., start making money).

This year, during Thanksgiving dinner with friends, I was astounded that Katie (18-year-old daughter of Julie and Terry) had to be up at 4AM to go work at Circuit City. They were opening at 5AM or 6AM on Friday. I saw ads for JC Penny's that they were opening at 4AM or 5AM on Friday. Why are they opening so early? Well, to beat the (now) annual ritual of throngs of people, literally, beating the shit out of each other to get into Wal-Mart stores at their 6am Friday openings - for fear all the really good deals will be gone. (Since moving to Florida, I've become much more sensitive to this ritual, as the really amazing violent film footage - shown nationally - is invariably from a store in Florida.)

Of course, the insanity of a large portion of the populace might seem like a religious ritual taken a tad too far - except that I don't get the sense that all of those fanatical customers beating their fellow consumers to get into their neighborhood Wal-Mart are doing it because "That's what Jesus would do." No, they're doing it because: (1) they think they can - and should - buy the affections of their loved ones with material gifts, (2) they hope to get even better gifts in return (unless they're passive-aggressive, in which the entire point is to humiliate fellow gift-givers by "out gifting" them), (3) they can't actually afford to be buying all these gifts, but feel they have to, and therefore need to minimize the expense, and/or (4) they see the entire holiday season as a sport in terms of time, effort and expense, with the goal being to outdo everyone else - or at least the average gift-giver.

Sadly, marketing and business have a lot to do with the evolution of Christmas from a celebration of friends, family and (if you're Christian) the arrival of Jesus, to one of the most materialistic and insanely competitive times of the year. As Max Weber pointed out in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1930):

Since asceticism undertook to remodel the world and to work out its ideals in the world, material goods have gained an increasing and finally an inexorable power over the lives of men as at no previous period in history. Today the spirit of religious asceticism…has escaped from the cage. But victorious capitalism, since it rests on mechanical foundations, needs its support no longer…

For of the last stage of this cultural development, it might well be truly said: Specialists without spirit, sensualists without heart; this nullity imagines that it has attained a level of civilization never before achieved.

Well, if Max Weber only knew how much worse it would get.

So, the point is this: If the goal is to celebrate the birth, life and teachings of Jesus Christ, rather than heaping presents on others - wouldn't it make a bit more sense to take care of those less fortunate? Instead of buying, buying, buying (often on credit) and hoping to get, get, get - how about taking the opportunity to share the act of giving to those less fortunate with our friends and family?

To this end, rather than the insanity of trying to figure out what everyone would like this year - and usually getting it right enough to seem nice, but wrong enough to disappoint - I've decided to donate $500 to the following causes in the Spirit of Christmas:

Make It Right New Orleans
This is group that Brad Pitt has been leading to build affordable and sustainable housing in the Lower 9th Ward in New Orleans. The premise is for people to donate money to build 150 affordable houses (at $150,000 each) that will be given to the families who lost a house in Hurricane Katrina.

Gift: $200 Ceiling Fan for a house being donated to a family in New Orleans (as everyone knows, I love ceiling fans).

One Laptop per Child
Given the importance of education in changing the world, I can't imagine a more wonderful and worthwhile mission than that of One Laptop per Child: "....to empower the children of developing countries to learn by providing one connected laptop to every school-age child. In order to accomplish our goal, we need people who believe in what we’re doing and want to help make education for the world’s children a priority, not a privilege."

Gift: $200 to buy one laptop for a child. (OLPC is also running a "promotion" that, for $400, you can buy two laptops - one is shipped to you and the other is donated to a child via the program.)

Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
As the foundation supporting Wikipedia.org - the internet's free community-edited encyclopedia - Wikimedia's mission is to: "....empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free content license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally." I confess, I LOVE Wikipedia.org. It might not always be right, but it is a quick way to find stuff when I'm in a hurry and need to get a "quick hint" about something I've forgotten or generally clueless about. Plus, it's available in a number of languages and it makes that laptop I just donated much more useful!!

Gift: $100

I don't know if that's actually what Jesus would do. But as a Unitarian Universalist - it's what I think he would want us to do.

So that's it for now.

Give everyone you love a big hug this holiday season (and more often, if you're up for it) and have a happy and wonderful holiday season!!

Is Amazon.com Sears of the 21st Century?

2006-07-21T10:06:00.002-04:00

What the hell happened to Amazon.com? They seem destined to become the Sears of the 21st century.

Selling books and CDs aren't enough - now they sell groceries, diapers, band saws and car tires (really). Just like Sears during the 1980s, 1990s and into their glorious redemption by K-Mart, Amazon.com is becoming so unfocused and crappy at everything, I think they're goin' down! You'll know they're in trouble when you see the catchy slogan, "The Softer Side of Amazon.com."

What has really honked me off is that I needed a copy of Ray Anderson's "Mid-Course Correction: Toward a Sustainable Enterprise: The Interface Model" for a book club kind of discussion group Walt Nord is hosting at USF. This is not your typical Barnes & Noble or Borders shelf stocker, so I ordered it and a copy of "The Chicago Manual of Style, 15th edition" from Amazon.com (just in case editing had completely changed since the 14th edition...apparently it hasn't).

The two books combined qualified for Amazon's "Free Shipping," which I don't like since the books never seem to arrive (you get what you pay for). Since I was ordering them on Wednesday July 12th and the book group was meeting on Firday, July 21st, I figured I should really pay for the shipping to make sure I get the book on time. Ironically, I thought about paying for 2-day shipping, but then I realized that would be alot more money and if there was a problem with the order (serious Alfred Hitchcock forshadowing), I'd be pretty pissed paying $10 or whatever to not get the books on time.

Well, well, well. What do you think happened? I couldn't make stuff like this up because it's just too crazy.

On Wednesday, July 12th I placed the order for two books that were in stock and "usually ship within 24 hours."

On Thursday, July 13th, I was initially surprised and pleased to see my order was being place with DHL. OK, it's not FedEx or UPS, but DHL is good too - no? The books were shipped from Allentown, PA, which is 1,108 miles from Tampa, FL. Amazon.com estimated a delivery date of Thursday, July 20th, which seemed like a pretty conservative estimate. I mean, even if it were coming via the US Postal Service, that distance is pretty reasonable for a one week delivery. DHL's gotta be quicker than that. Since I was going out of town Thursday through Sunday, I was a little nervous that the books might be delivered before I got homw.

Well, no update to the Amazon.com/DHL tracking until Sunday night, July 16th. The books were now in March Air Force Base, Riverside CA!!! WHAT??
My books went from Allentown, PA on Thursday and apparently took a 2,666 mile Greyhound Bus trip to March Airforce Base in Riverside California. (Look, a plane would have gotten there in a day. Three days? That's a Greyhound bus or Amtrack!)
The books were now 2,473 miles away from Tampa. In other words, in three days, the books had traveled 1,365 miles further from me than they were on Wednesday.

Hey, but it's DHL, right? Maybe they're like FedEx and they ship all their stuff to a central hub (California doesn't seem very central, but I'm no logistics genius). I still don't know why the books are on an Airforce base, but I did some Googling (love that that's a verb) and found out some enterprising folks turned a decommisioned Airforce base into a semi-commercial venture. Well, let's see what happens next.

Well, on Monday, July 17th, the books must have been a little tired and thought, "Why come all the way to the West Coast without seeing the Pacific Ocean?" Or maybe, "Allentown was so dull and the warehouse so dark, let's go to the beach." I don't know. All I do know is somehow the books went 76 miles further West to Hawthorne, California, which appears to be very beachy based on Mapquest. Seems like an odd place for books to go. However, Hawthorne is close to LAX - so maybe they were trying to get on a commercial flight to get to my house. (I think they were totally trying to get the chicks in LA, but I suffer from attribution biases like that.) What still seems weird is why would you fly the books into March Airforce Base and then drive them ~75 miles to LAX? Wouldn't it be more efficient to fly them into and out of LAX? Whatever, I'm not a logisitics expert.

Tuesday, July 18th, no tracking update.

Wednesday, July 19th, no tracking update. (Those books must be taking full advantage of those Pacific Coast beaches!)

Thursday, July 20th, no tracking update.

OK, now I'm kinda freaking out. The book group meets on Friday and I don't even have the book. I panic and start searching to see if Barnes & Noble finally did the obvious and put their brick and mortor store inventories on-line. Amazingly, they haven't! Damn it! (This is soooo obvious as a way to leverage the on-line and bricks-and-mortor model. But then again, I'm no logistics expert.)

Hey Jeff Bezos, ever heard of a "promise by date?"
I ordered these books and paid for standard shipping so I would have them by this week.
However, it is Saturday morning and I still don't have the books.
The tracking number was useless - as it shows the books were shipped from Allentown, PA to Los Angeles, CA and then it stops there on the 17th of July (ironically on their way to Tampa, FL).

Since the PROMISE BY DATE was July 18-20 and I still hadn't received the book on July 21st, I called customer service, who informed me DHL handed the books off to the USPS, and I "should" get them by Monday. I would like my shipping costs refunded, since I obviously I am not getting the books any sonner than if I had done the "free shipping."

"Us versus Them" Inside the Organization

2006-02-04T09:52:00.002-05:00

I am fascinated by individuals' psychological processes defining groups of people. From a marketing, marketing strategy and organizational performance perspective, this process affects the assessment of other individuals, individuals' activities and the activities of the group. In an October 2005 post I explained how this process can blind marketers to the opportunities in front of them.

From a theoretical perspective, attribution theory is the most basic notion of this: individuals perceive they are successful because of their hard work and unsuccessful because of factors out of their control; but the successes of others are due to luck and failure is due to personal shortcomings. This notion has been extended to groups, with similar attributions occurring when people are randomly assigned to a group with no inherent meaning (e.g., the "blue" group). In my research on creating market-oriented organizations, every successful change included a redefinition of primary group membership from functional or other subgroup (e.g., accounting, west coast, executive-level) to the organization level. Specifically, everyone was part of the effort to make money by serving the needs of the market.

Well, it's been a tough week, because I've been distracted by a very real example of how important these effects can be for group cohesion and performance. Specifically, the faculty union is pursuing domestic partnership benefits and the administration is beginning to research the options. There was a story in the Tampa Tribune on this development and an op-ed written by USF Professor James Stock suggesting a limited pool of money exists at USF and providing domestic partnership benefits was less important than a number of better uses. If I didn't know Dr. Stock, I would never have known about his letter. The rub is I do know him. He's a full professor in the marketing department, whose office door is a virtual billboard for Christian events on campus and around Tampa. I'm an assistant professor in the marketing department, a Unitarian Universalist and I happen to be gay. Juxtaposing our differences versus what we have in common highlights the importance of group definition within a larger group of people who have a set of common objectives.

Before going on, it's helpful to define the mission of USF. My understanding is USF is defined by two overriding goals: performing world-class research and facilitating learning and understanding through education. The best way to fulfill our mission is if every stakeholder's efforts are directed at contributing to that goal. Anything not contributing to that goal is a waste of resources and a potential threat to fulfilling our mission. That means every professor is working on world-class research and/or doing an exceptional job of educating people. Every "back stage" person should be focused on encouraging and supporting these efforts.

By defining USF by our common mission of research and education, rather than by college, department, location, tenure, role, etc., individuals within USF can work together much more efficiently and effectively toward our common goals. An exemplar of this approach is Alberto-Culver, which requires each and every person at the company to annually write and memorize their own Individual Economic Value statement, which ties the efforts of that person to the goals of the organization. Every person knows exactly how they contribute to the long-term profitability of the company by addressing the needs of the market. Harley-Davidson accomplishes this by incorporating their company mission and goals into each individual's annual plan. Everyone at Harley-Davidson knows how they fit into the organization and why what they do matters.

This brings us to domestic partnership benefits at USF. Would they contribute to accomplishing our common mission? How?

First, Dr. Stock states he opposes domestic partnership benefits on financial, rather than on moral or religious grounds. While not sure of the costs, he states no one else has offered cost estimates either. (There is a reason the Provost is looking into this, the cost/benefit tradeoff is complicated. HRC offers some broad numbers showing significant returns for such benefits based on the experience of world-class companies.) Assuming there is a cost, Dr. Stock suggests the money would be better used elsewhere. Since Dr. Stock did not offer to give up USF's subsidy of healthcare, life insurance and other benefits for him and his family, I assume he specifically means providing healthcare benefits to domestic partners would be a suboptimal use of USF resources. If, indeed, he is suggesting that eliminating all benefits for spouses and family members would be a good idea, well, I don't agree. If we want to attract and keep world-class employees, I think family-related benefit packages are important. Fortune magazine's "The 100 Best Companies to Work For, 2006" certainly suggests that benefits are important for attracting the employees which make a company great. (There's also quite a bit about the importance of a common mission for achieving a common goal.) I assume we can all agree that benefits are an important attribute for highly sought after employees. Hence, benefits contribute to the mission of USF by attracting the best employees, all other things being equal.

Domestic partnership benefits do matter for gay people. Whether straight or gay faculty, considerations for moving to a new university and city include the impact on an entire family. For married people with children, these issues typically revolve around schools for the kids and finding an appropriate job for the spouse. For gay people, the lack of domestic partnership benefits makes the decision much more complicated. If my partner can't find a job in time, how will we pay for his health care? If he does find a job, what if it doesn't offer benefits? If USF doesn't offer domestic partnership benefits, how likely are they to help find him a job?

This is not a thought experiment. When I joined USF I was in a relationship with an assistant professor at the University of Chicago Medical School and one of the top three pediatric neuropsychologists in Chicago. We discussed the possibility of him moving here, whether as a professor at USF or building up a private practice in Tampa. The private practice option was too risky and complicated for us. Since I didn't have domestic partnership benefits, we'd have to find a third party to cover his health and insurance needs. Given he worked at one of the top medical schools in the world, finding him a position at USF would seem straightforward. Instead, we were nervous about how my colleagues would react and whether USF was open-minded enough to facilitate an interview. In spite of our concerns, we did pursue getting him a job at USF by asking people at the business school to route the information in the same way it does for straight couples. He also applied for/inquired about positions in a number of departments for both posted and the possibility of non-posted jobs. In every communication he explained our situation. None of my requests were ever formally acknowledged or formally or informally followed-up on. None of his inquires or applications were ever replied to. Given the lack of help from USF, we investigated options for me returning to Chicago or both of us getting a job at some third university. Since I was just starting out my academic career, we didn't get very far - I would not be attractive to other research universities until I established a track record. Today, he is in Chicago and we're no longer a couple. As relationships go, I can't pin the dissolution of our relationship on any one thing. But trying to build a life together in Tampa was hindered by the lack of benefits and other opportunities offered to straight employees and potential employees at USF. Domestic partnership benefits are important for attracting and retaining talent.

The final and most overlooked way partnership benefits contribute to USF's mission is the signal it conveys about what's important. If our raison d'être is performing world-class research and facilitating learning and understanding through education, then everything the organization does, prints and supports should be judged against the mission. This means accolades and rewards are given to those who support that mission. Domestic partnership benefits equal to married couple benefits are a public acknowledgment that what matters to USF is research and education and how well employees perform or support those activities.

Conversely, when employees are treated differently for performing the exact same activities equally well, that suggests that we're not all really part of the group. It also suggests that what's important is not the stated mission of the organization, but some other hidden agenda. There is a long stream of cultural work in sociology and anthropology explaining how the symbols of a culture become disconnected from the underlying assumptions of that culture and the impact. Within an organization's culture, this decoupling leads to dysfunctional activities and political rivalries which waste time, effort and impede achieving the mission of the organization and, typically, the goals of any one subgroup.

Regarding USF, offering some benefits to straight employees and not gay employees sends a signal that gay employees are not as desirable or important as straight employees, all things being equal. It creates group differences that conflict with the stated mission of the organization. (This extends far beyond domestic partnership benefits. When people are recognized for the length of their employment rather than continuing to publish in A-journals or the number of careers they've launched, it sends a signal that "hanging on" matters. When tenure is seen as a reward for past research rather than a license to engage in more risky or controversial research, it sends a signal that history is more important than active research. )

So what? Well, research is pretty clear on what happens. Given the chance, employees who were attracted to the epoused values of an organization, but find the values-in-use are different, will leave in pursuit of an organization that better fits their goals. Ironically, for those people who do not care about the espoused values or can not leave - they end up staying. That's how organizations implode.

The people who leave will go off to find an organization that better matches their objectives and an organizational culture that values them and their colleagues as people contributing to a common goal. Perhaps the most encouraging and insightful moment this week occurred when a straight colleague offhandedly commented on being one of the 20 people who wrote to the Provost in support of the benefits. I hadn't written, but this person had. This is an example of how such signals are not only important to the explicitly marginalized group, but to people who see it as a signal regarding what's important to the entire organization.

Now on to how all this ties together. Since I found out about Dr. Stock's Tampa Tribune op-ed piece, I can't help but be bothered. The day before, Dr. Stock had mentioned working together on a project. I was excited. We were colleagues with overlapping interests and talents and common goals who would work on something that leverages what is different about us. However, after reading the op-ed piece, I feel very uncomfortable. I sense there might be a limited pie and I need to get mine instead of assuming the system will make sure things are equitable. In his op-ed piece, Dr. Stock clearly stated his view that my partner's health and safety are less important than his wife and family's health and safety and less important than a myriad of other under funded opportunities on campus. If my personal life is categorically less important than any straight researcher's personal life, I question what kind of a place I'm working at. I came here to do research and help people learn. It turns me on. That's what I thought mattered at USF as well. Now I feel like some kind of second-class citizen in an organization that wants and expects world-class research and education, but would prefer it from straight people.

In closing, I had not written my support for domestic partnership benefits to Provost Khator because I felt too overwhelmed with my research and teaching to write a cogent letter. Reading Dr. Stock's op-ed piece has taken away far more time and effort than writing Provost Khator would have ever taken. Having my colleagues talk about his op-ed piece has been equally distracting. Thinking about all this, getting aggravated and feeling generally marginalized as a member of USF has been both distracting and depressing. I can't imagine working any harder on my research or my classes. If I am to be judged and rewarded not by the outcome of that work, but by whom I love, perhaps I need to find an organization that does value me as a person and judges me by my performance. And that is a very real example of how group definitions within an organization impact achieving the organization's mission and, specifically, why domestic partnership benefits are important for those of us interested in fulfilling the mission of USF.

P.S. If you are part of the USF family and you believe domestic partnership benefits matter in what we're collectively trying to accomplish as a university, I suggest you share your thoughts and opinions with Provost Khator and President Genshaft.

Thank you, IKEA, for my new West Elm Table

2005-11-23T09:50:00.002-05:00

In, what I hope is the final chapter of acquiring a table for my home office, I wanted to thank IKEA for being so impossible to deal with, for such a long time, that I found a much better table at a very reasonable price. My objective has been met.

As you can see, here are some pictures of the dining room table I bought from West Elm, which serves as my second work space in my home office. West Elm was having a close out sale on this model, for a mere $300. Including shipping and white glove delivery (people assembled it, set it up and took away all the containers), the table cost me $500.

Actually, when I discovered this deal in a West Elm catalog, while eating breakfast and reviewing the previous day's mail, I first called IKEA one last time. It was about 9:30 am on a weekday and I got through all the pushbutton calisthenics required to get to the specialty group in charge of the table in question and then I got an answering machine!!! I couldn't believe it!!!

The message said something crazy about being busy and that I should leave a name and number. In the way that a deer at night is caught in the headlights of an oncoming car, I left my information in a stunned monotone and hung up. And then I went to my computer, looked up the West Elm web site, clicked the picture of the table, entered my information and AMEX card number and wha-la, I had a very nice table on the way.

If only it had been so easy to buy the IKEA table, I would have had it two months ago - but then I would never have gotten such a good deal on the West Elm table. Thank you IKEA! I love my new table!!

P.S. The people from IKEA never returned my phone call. As one Marketing Strategy participant pointed out, "They're self service. Maybe they wanted you to call yourself back."

Dialing for Dollars and Other Idiotic Sales Actions

2005-11-23T08:43:00.002-05:00

Carol Osborne, one of my USF Marketing colleagues, showed me some interesting books on selling from Jeffrey Gitomer the other day. Jeffrey Gitomer has quite a little collection of books on selling and whatnot, some of which have been best sellers. (Those of you familiar with Cialdini's Social Proof know that just because "everyone's" buying the book, doesn't mean the book is good - just that more people keep buying it because they think it must be good, because other people bought it....)

Anyway, I was curious about Jeffrey Gitomer and Carol mentioned he had a web page. Cruising around, I stumbled across a wonderful article about "Dialing for dollars, and other idiotic sales actions." (Note that this is a weekly column, so it will have likely changed if you read this more than a week after I posted it.)

The column is/was brilliant! Gitomer goes on about how absurd it is to outsource your prospecting, questioning what kind of impression you make when someone who knows nothing about your product/company calls random (or not so random) people to get a lead. What a charming first impression. Good luck to the sales force trying to follow up on the mess the telemarketers left behind! He also points out that any information about your customers that doesn't conform to your a priori script writing is most likely lost.

Although I have some issues with some of his recommendations for making prospecting calls, as I think they are a bit presumptuous, his main point is spot on!! Nice job!!

Pick a Position, Any Position. But Please, Just Pick One!

2005-11-13T10:53:00.002-05:00

Following the movie last night, Victoria, Lou, Bryant and I went over to Timpano Italian Chophouse, in Old Hyde Park Village. This bar/restaurant/raw bar/club has incredibly good food and often has exceptionally good live music...and two large flat screen TVs hanging from the ceiling, visible from anywhere in the place.

What's so puzzling about this place is they appear to be trying to have something for everyone - and it doesn't really work very well. It reminds me of Hairy Buffalo Parties we used to have when I was (very) young. The concept is everyone brings whatever liquor they have and you mix it all together with some punch and whatever to have some Hairy Buffalo Punch. I stopped participating when I realized that the color of the punch going down was freakishly similar to the color coming back up - which was usually the end of the party.

Victoria and I had eaten at this place one other time, sitting in the "dining room," where we could hear a Sinatra-esque piano player and singer perform, watch a football game, look out the glass wall and see people eating at the outdoor cafe, watch the 20-something Goth kids come in for a drink next to Sinatra-lite, watch people eat at the raw bar, watch an older couple out on a date or three Sex in the City impresarios eating the smallest deserts ever seen outside of a doll house.

What struck me as odd both times is this place has some really awesome potential - but it's trying too hard to be all things to all people, and I don't think that's working out too well. Of all the places in Tampa that have large screen TVs - why at a Sinatra bar? Why have live jazz music AND a game, all inside a chop house with a raw bar? OK, the chop house and raw bar can be together, and even combined with live music/jazz/big band motif - but what the hell is with the large screen TVs? Isn't Whiskey Park about 2 blocks away?

This reminds me of the final act of insanity at Harbour Island Athletic Club, before I quit to join a real gym, when Harbour Island installed three similarly garish flat screen TVs in the weight room. Here's an idea, I don't want to be bench pressing 275 lbs in the same room that people are transfixed by Oprah...

Pick a value proposition and stick with it.
Pick a position and stick with it.

The best way to win and keep customers is to identify a segment of the market that has unique needs, target them with an attractive value proposition and then implement like it's no one's business, making sure everything you do is consistent with and supports that value proposition.

Big screen TVs are not unique or a compelling differentiator in Tampa.

However, I would love to meet the person who's managed to sell every business in Tampa gigantic flat screen televisions...

Good Night, and Good Luck

2005-11-13T10:17:00.002-05:00

Last night, Victoria, Lou, Bryant and I went to see "Good Night, and Good Luck," a fascinating movie about how Edward R. Murrow, Fred Friendly and others at CBS television turned a bright, shining light on the "anti-communist" activities of Senator Eugene P. McCarthy. The movie is incredible and, in today's environment of "for us or against us," provides a sobering reminder that efforts to limit the freedoms and rights of people are not consistent with the American ideals such efforts are espoused to protect. It's easily one of the best movies I have ever seen.

Screw IKEA: When marketeers overshoot the torment sweet spot

2005-10-26T08:50:00.002-04:00

I finally decided that I don't really need a new table for my home office.

At least not now.

I have too much stuff as it is and it's just too much work to try and get IKEA to take my money for a cheap table.

I'll make due, save over $300 and keep paying off the credit cards I used to buy some of the other material possessions I so desperately wanted two years ago...

Sorry Stephen, sometimes when you torment a customer, they just give up. The problem is most managers don't know where the optimal sweet spot of torment lies. Maybe there's an opportunity for some dominatrix consulting somewhere in this market.

You might be a self-deluded manager when...

2005-10-26T08:04:00.002-04:00

Very nice essay in the New York Times today: "Scare Yourself Silly, but the Real Terrors Are at Your Feet" by Abigail Zuger, M.D.

Although I'm not familiar with the underlying psychology of such self-delusions, I think I should do some research on this. Do managers do the same thing? It strikes me that they often do. When your business isn't running like you think it should or things get so overwhelming that your positioning statement is "we suck less" (a client actually said this once, in front of his new CEO, who was not the least bit entertained): you're probably self-deluded.

Hey, we could do a "You might be a self-deluded manager when..." that's like Jeff Foxworthy's "You might be a redneck when..." schtick. Let's give it a whirl:

You might be a self-deluded manager when you get paid $10 million a year and think the problem with your business is the union, union wages or employee health care costs.

You might be a self-deluded manager when you explain the failure of your product on end-users who are just too stupid to know how to use it.

You might be a self-deluded manager when you design a product for people you've never met and never want to meet.

You might be a self-deluded manager and a bigot/racist/troglodyte when your new product philosophy is "well, that's what those kinds of people like."

You might be a self-deluded manager when it's easier to identify people not in your target market segment than people who are in your target market segment.

You might be a self-deluded manager when you insist that on-line education is the way to go, even though every two-bit competitor is thinking the same thing. All of you might be self-deluded if you think you can charge more for all of your on-line classes than local live classes with no proximal competition.

You might be a self-deluded manager when you charge your employees $260 a year for parking, but wonder why they don't buy your customized state license plate for an extra $50.

You might be a self-deluded manager when you forbid employees or customers to have coffee in your organization's new building, but you have a coffee maker in your suite.

Wow, I think this dog can hunt. Either there's a fun paper here or a good start on material for my stand-up comedy routine when I don't get tenure...

Ironic: An hour of Steve Jobs (via QuickTime) talking about video entertainment (TV)

2005-10-15T08:34:00.002-04:00

OK, this is weird, given my last post. I watched an hour of Steve Jobs presenting new Apple products last night. I did this on my iMac, using QuickTime.

I was soooo excited. I thought everyone in my marketing strategy classes should watch this really cool video. Then the irony hit me. He primarily unveiled products with advanced video capabilities.

So there I was, an anti-TV kind of guy, staring into a vortex of electronic pixels, watching one of my heroes talk about selling people really cool products, so they could watch more TV.

Who would've thunk the killer app for computers would be TV? Hmmm...I thought irony was so over....

Regardless, here's the really cool link!!! Your really must go see it!

Do Donald Trump and Oprah Watch TV?

2005-10-11T23:50:00.003-04:00

TV is a lot like cigarettes.
I used to be addicted to both.
I kicked both habits multiple times.
Why do people applaud when they find out I quit smoking and gasp when I tell them I don't have TV access?

Did I do something wrong?

OK, participants in my Marketing Strategy class were beside themselves tonight when I "came out" as not having a TV. (I do have a TV. It's quite nice and I watch DVDs from Netflix once or twice a week.)

OK, OK. I know it's weird for a Marketing Professor not to watch TV. Well, I understand that people think it's weird. So here's some of what that's all about.

First, I have a very short attention span. Actually, I have been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD/ADHD) - which is nice to know I've been categorized into some lame DSM manual. I think this makes me highly entertaining. Most of my friends agree that I find myself very entertaining... TV and short attention are not a good combination. Cable TV and a short attention span are, well, really, really bad news.

I have cancelled cable twice in my life. About ten years ago I cancelled cable after I realized I had spent an entire weekend in my bedroom watching either a Soap or an Absolutely Fabulous marathon on the Comedy Channel. On Monday I realized how pathetic that was and cancelled cable. That was a good idea all the way through my graduate studies. When I got my first academic job at USF, I got digital cable, with, like, 200 stations and a DVR (digital video recorder). This was sooooo cool. Then I threw out my old (perfectly good) RCA TV that I bought from my parents in 1985 and splurged on some Dell Widescreen HDTV. I then had to get the new HDTV cable and DVR boxes so the HDTV would be, well, HDTV. Well, I was not happy. And, I wasn't publishing. I wasn't really doing much, cause I had to get home and see what was happening on "The Apprentice." And heaven forbid I missed Jon Stewart on "The Daily Show."

One day, I realized something really, really weird. I never saw anyone on "The Apprentice" watching TV. How many people are we talking about? Twenty or so? All high potential, young executives - none of them were watching TV. They were too busy working, having fun, drinking and goodness knows what else. I'm all interested in these "real" people on TV, none of whom watch TV. Weird.

And Donald Trump. He was always on this show or that show saying that "The Apprentice is H-U-G-E. It's the biggest thing ever to hit TV. I'm the best thing to ever happen to NBC." This hyperbole seemed classic Trump at first. Then I realized, Trump doesn't watch TV either. I mean, he's the king of hyperbole, but still, he doesn't even know what's on TV. He's not hanging out on Thursday nights watching some show called "Friends." He's out with his friends. Or people he pays to be his friends. Or his model girlfriend/wife. As a matter of fact, other than Baywatch and whatever soap opera Joey was on, did the people on Friends ever watch TV?

Oprah once had some of the women from the Apprentice on her show. (OK, I was really into The Apprentice. Purely as a pedagogical tool for my classes, of course.) Anyway, Oprah said some really crazy stuff. She didn't seem to understand what had happened on the show. Then I realized that's because she doesn't watch TV either.

Trump doesn't watch TV. Oprah doesn't watch TV. People who make things happen, have friends, play with their kids, play sports, read books, write books, build skyscrapers, win Nobel Prizes - those people don't watch TV.

None of the people I know who are successful academics or businesspeople watch TV.
What the hell was I doing?

Finally, I read a New York Times article that confirmed my worst fears. It was called "Brother, can you spare some time." It had a distribution of how average Americans spend their time during an average week. Cable TV and broadcast TV combined were 34 hours a week. Assuming I sleep an average of seven hours a night, 34 hours is two extra days of 17 hours each in awake time!!!

Bottom Line:
What are you getting out of your time with TV?
Is there a better way to get what you think you're getting from the tube?
Need news? Get a paper or subscribe to a magazine.
Want entertainment? Go to a movie with a friend. Watch a play. Play with your kids or your friends. Play chess. Invite a friend for coffee. Give someone a hug. Look deeply into the eyes of someone you love and give them your undivided attention. Make love.
Just turn off that damn tube and live your life.

There's a saying, "No one ever said on their deathbed that they wish they had worked more."

I don't know if that's true, but I sure as hell hope no one ever says on their deathbed, "I wish I had seen another hour of TV."

Turn off your TV and do something that turns you on.
Connect with someone.
Make a difference.
Change the world.

IKEA: Torment your customers and they'll love you?

2005-10-08T11:01:00.002-04:00

Stephen Brown, one of my favorite fellow academics whom I adore and admire personally and love to hate professionally, wrote an October 2001 Harvard Business Review article "Torment Your Customers ( They'll Love It)." I find this whole thing appalling, although I begrudgingly admit he has a point. Right now I'm cursing my friend (if I can be so presumptuous), as I am sure someone at IKEA as become an disciple of Stephen...particularly the bit about "Retromarketing eschews the modern marketing proposition by deliberately holding back supplies. You want it? Can't have it. Try again later, pal."

I have been trying to buy a 63" GALANT table from IKEA for almost two months. I know, I know, Yoda says, "There is no try. There is only do." Well, there's definitely lots of doo-doo involved, but not the young Jedi Knight type.

All I want is a nice long table for my home office. Currently, things get a little crazed when I'm working on an article, as I don't have nearly enough room to be spreading stuff out in an organized manner. My fancy desk/armoire thingy is very cool, but the iMac is in it, along with printer, etc. No real room.

Tables aren't cheap, but the little 63" number at IKEA is only $169.00. With shipping, it'll be $300+, but that's OK. I love IKEA products for their simplicity and, ironically, the table is still cheaper than any comparable table I can find locally.

On August 19th, I ordered the table on-line. I received an e-mail that stated, "Your order information appears below. Due to a high volume of orders, we will contact you to confirm your order with the details about your delivery and total cost within 5 - 7 business days." OK, this is not exactly Amazon type interaction here...but I'll wait.

Then, exactly 7 business days after I placed my order, I received a note from Barb at IKEA:

Hello Gary, [excuse me, isn't this a bit familiar Barb?]

Thank you for your recent e-Shop order.

Unfortunately, as of 8/30/05 13:42:00 the following items are out of stock: Galant frame 63"

Since we are unable to complete your order as it was submitted, your e-Shop order has been cancelled. For information on how to place a backorder, please contact Home Shopping directly at (800) 434-4532. A Sales Advisor in this department will be more than happy to assist you.

We apologize for any inconvenience, and we thank you for visiting IKEA online.

Best Regards,
BARB
IKEA e-Shop Sales

Hmmm - yea Barb, that's a bit inconvenient. Actually, I am not a happy lad.

Today, thirty-nine days later, I'm trying to rewrite an article at home and I'm thinking, "Get over yourself. How about calling IKEA to get that table?"

One ringy-dingy, two ringy dingy... OK, I'm in to the phone system. This isn't getting any easier, I've got a perky Scandinavian sounding young person telling me to push this button or that button. I think it was a guy, but he/she was so damn perky, he/she is kind of generic...no worries...interactive voice response (IVR) systems don't have a gender anyway. (Note to people who insist on making their customers play number puzzle games in their IVR system - I have a damn wireless phone without a Borg Bluetooth headset, so please let up on the thumb calisthenics...)

Anyway, I somehow got lost enough to be placed in the clueless people queue, waiting for a customer service representative...for twenty minutes!! This is definitely not going well...

I finally get a very nice customer service lady on the phone. I ask her if my order number from August 19th, with all my data in it, would expedite our time together. She says it definitely would help. I read it off and - of course - it's not in her system! OK, I think there's a conspiracy.

So, nice lady asks me what I would like to order (thank goodness she didn't take all my data first). I tell her about the 63" GALANT table.

Pause...

"I'm sorry, I can't order that for you. You must call the business group to order that. They don't work weekends, so you'll have to call back on Monday."

AAGGGHHHH!!!

I respond, "Wait. Seriously. There is only one number on the IKEA page and the GALANT stuff comes up with with everything else. Are you telling me you can't sell it to me?"

Nice lady says, "No, I cannot sell it to you. There are options I don't know about. You'll need a specialist."

Exasperated, I ask nice lady, "Well, is there a specific number I can call to get a hold of these people on Monday? I've been holding for twenty minutes. I'd hate to have to do that again on Monday."

Nice lady states, "No, there's just one number. The phone system will ask you whom you want to speak with. Is there anything else I can help you with?"

I think I said, "No, thank you. Have a nice day." But I may have said something really snarky, like "Apparently not."

Will I call on Monday? Stephen Brown would think so. Unfortunately, I think he's right... I still need a table and I've become completely insane about a 63" GALANT table from IKEA...

Automatic Renewals: Everyone's Doing It (and a Bit About Two-Part Tariff Pricing)

2005-10-07T08:48:00.002-04:00

OK, I can't believe this!!

Downloading my Citibank records, I found a charge for "RoadRunner Club Renewal." Apparently, much like GQ magazine, RoadRunnerSports.com has taken the initiative to provide me a "service," automatically renewing my RoadRunnerSports Club membership. The membership provides faster shipping, a "free" return of shoes and 5% discount.

Here are three possible reasons people need to be renewed automatically:

1) The deal is very good if you order enough stuff to pay for the membership fee right off. If you are a real runner (which those of you who have seen me in person know is not the case at this point in my life), it's probably a decent deal. However, if you want to optimize your spending, it would make more sense to lump as many purchases together at a time and then be "inactive" until you need the discount/fast service again.

2) The economics for someone like me don't really make sense unless I buy a lot of stuff. Last year it was a heart monitor, about three pairs of shoes and some other things people find interesting if Mark Wahlberg (aka Marky Mark) was buying them. However, if you do the math, you'd have to buy a whole lot. The annual fee is $24.99 and this entitles you to 5% off your purchases, which means you'd have to buy $499.50 ($24.99/5%) to break even. For $38.98, you can save 10% on every order, but then your breakeven is $779.60. No wonder they had to automatically renew me!!

3) It's not really a club. Why do amateur marketers insist on calling everything a club? Who's stupid enough to think a two-part tariff pricing scheme is a club? It's a purely economic relationship.

Note that two-part tariff pricing, where you have an up front fixed price coupled with a per unit price, is very effective in the right situations. For RoadRunnerSports, it's really a way to get people who are buying a lot or expect to buy a lot to make a commitment to buy at least $500 worth of stuff (assuming they do the math). Industrial companies to this all the time. So do wireless phone companies when they charge a larger monthly fee up front and then give you more free minutes and lower per minute charges. Amazon does this when they charge you $3.00 to ship the first book and $0.99 for each additional book. This creates an incentive for the customer to buy more than the one thing they came for by effectively lowering the price of other items they might not have bought at a higher price.

The problem with the folks at RoadRunnerSports is they took a good idea (two-part pricing via the RoadRunner Club) and messed it up by automatically renewing membership.

Lesson: If you don't know why something works, you'll probably screw it up by trying to make more money off of it.

How Us vs. Them Comparisons Blind Us

2005-10-05T06:13:00.002-04:00

One line of discussion in last night's marketing strategy class was "cultural differences" among countries.

As expected, I completely went off on the ignorance of managers in this week's case who, when developing their strategy for the Italian market, focused on the notion that Italians are more fashion conscious and less educated than Scandinavians. (Note: I appreciate these case-embedded examples so we can talk about them in class. The examples are actually much less offensive than the lazy thinking I've encountered in business and academic organizations.)

My point is that stereotypes are not segments. Nor are they markets. In fact, the Italian market is very heterogeneous overall. There are poor people, rich people, fat people, skinny people, and even people with chickenpox (there's an Oscar Mayer Wiener jingle in there somewhere).

At the end of my rant on how stereotypes - even good ones - can blind us as people and marketers, a participant asked, "Are you saying that there are no cultural differences?"

Hmmmm...a very good question, indeed.

Yes, there are cultural differences among people all over the world and even (and here's my point) among Americans. Even among Tampa residents. Even among those of use within USF. Even among those of us in the class last night.

It's always amazing to me when my Canadian, European or Asian friends comment about "Americans." Why do we drive Hummers? Why are we all so fat? Why are we all so selfish? Well, that's not quite right. Certainly it is a uniquely American fact that the Ford F-Series has been the best selling vehicle in the US for the last 10 years and outsold the best selling car, the Toyota Camry, 2:1 in 2003. However, if you assume all Americans are truck-driving fatties, how do you explain the success of the Toyota Prius, the Mini Cooper, the Scion? Well, Americans may be different than other cultures and our economic and tax policies may lead to very strange consumer behaviors, but we are all, in the end, unique. That's true of any country or any culture or ANYTHING.

The key to effective segmentation, targeting and positioning is delineating among buying segments based on attributes which we can create a distinct competitive advantage versus our competitors. What can we, as a collection of managers working for an entity, offer a given segment that no other group can? Those opportunities are not visible among stereotypes of consumers, countries or cultures. Opportunities to create a MEANINGFULLY differentiated value proposition rest on our true understanding of the target segment. Stereotypes almost never offer that verstehen.

Do cultural differences matter? Well, sure, in many ways. But opportunities to create superior value internationally do not exist in the stereotypes or aggregate statistical differences between Us and Them; opportunities for superior value creation exist in the true understanding (verstehen) of meaningful differences among people within a given market, country, culture.

Give 'em a taste of the good stuff: simplehuman sure-fit trash liners

2005-09-15T06:01:00.001-04:00

I just finished buying some simplehuman sure-fit trash bags for my simplehuman trash cans at simplehuman.com. What a cool, market-oriented company. Three points to this posting: (1) I gush about how simplehuman does great design based on the needs of their markets, (2) I highlight how simplehuman promoted their products better during my second purchase experience by giving me a "taste" of how good their custom "sure-fit" trash bags are and letting me know where the heck I can buy them easily, and (3) bottom line takeaways about consumers, risk and pricing.

First, what is simplehuman? Well, it is a brand of simply awesome trash cans. Yes, that's right, simply awesome trash cans. Their awesomenss is all about design and simplehuman people actually understand how people use trash and made a whole damn business out of it. (They are now diversifying into other design-impoverished household products.) I found out about simplehuman from some magazine article - which I'm really not in the mood to find right now, so if you'd like the here is the "about" section of their website explaining their design philosophy for trash cans:
http://www.simplehuman.com/about/trash-can-features.html

They also have a blog...
http://simplehuman.typepad.com/blog/simplehuman_humans/index.html

I bought the 38 liter rectangular kitchen can within the last year because I HATE the smell of kitchen garbage more than almost anything. Living with only Milton the Cat and spending most of my waking hours at the university, the kitchen trash can get pretty rank over a week of intermittent use. Simplehuman's awesome design does a great job of maintaining a seal on the can so I don't have to smell anything I threw out five days ago. Given the awesomeness of this product, I recently bought a smaller 20 liter teardrop version for Milton the Cat's bathroom. Now Milton the Cat's refuse doesn't clog up the toilet in his bathroom.
This second purchase has created an annuity of purchases for simplehuman, which I explained to them in the comments section of their order form when I bought really awesome sure-fit bags this morning on simplehuman.com:

They asked:

"How did you hear about simplehuman.com:"

My Response:

"The web address on the free bags included with the 20L teardrop can I bought from Williams-Sonoma. Oddly, I had bought my 38L can a year ago at Restoration Hardware - but didn't realize (a) how much better the sure-fit bags were than "regular" bags or (b) how to get sure fit bags. Including a free "starter set" of bags in the 20L can made me realize how much better they are than regular bags and where to get the darned things;-) "

It is interesting that my morning started by replacing the simplehuman trash bag in Milton the Cat's bathroom. I saw the website address and finally realized that I could buy the bags at simplehuman.com. (I had looked for the bags before at some retail stores and could not find them.)

The Bottom Lines:
1) By including some sample bags (20) with my second purchase, simplehuman overcame my reluctance to spend twice as much on their trash bags than the generic Hefty bags I buy at the grocery store. Once I used the sample bags they included, the superior value of their bag-can design was clear. Using the custom-made sure-fit bags makes the overall design more integrated and, thus, the seal more tight. That is one of the three most important features of "trash consumption." (Second is that the bag be sturdy, i.e., no leakage in the can or on the way to the dumpster. Third is easy to handle, particularly some type of tying mechanism for the trip to the dumpster - so I don't hurl from the smell.)

2) The promotion of simplehuman.com was as brilliant as it was obvious. Where better to let the customer know where to get more bags than to BOLDLY print the website on the container of sample sure-fit bags?

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should

2005-07-23T07:18:00.002-04:00

Here's a note I sent to Bank of America today. It speaks for itself:

I just spent 3:30 minutes on the phone activating my new (physical) credit card. I am deeply offended that you forced me to listen to over 2 minutes of advertising for a service that is unnecessary and, quite honestly, borders on a scam. [I am referring to the "credit protection" service banks offer for a couple of bucks a month.]

I was only annoyed, but I can't believe you would take money from people who TRUST you, and then turn around and sell them a service which they legally can get for free. [https://www.annualcreditreport.com/cra/index.jsp]

Isn't your customers' trust worth more than another dollar of margin a month? If your customers don't trust you - you'll lose a lot more than $1/month.

However, the bottom line for me is that I find it deeply offensive that I have to listen as a captive person on the phone to a slimy advertisement when all I wanted to do was activate my credit card.

Just because you can play a commercial, doesn't mean you should. Next time, I will cancel the card instead of putting up with your inane advertisements.

Appreciate my business instead of insulting me or I will take my business to a company that does appreciate it.

Automatic renewals: When your magazine sucks, trap the customer

2005-02-12T11:48:00.002-05:00

In yesterday's mail, I received a rather strident note from GQ magaine. The note came with an invoice - stated as the 3rd one they've sent - and threatening to send me to "outside collection" and asking me "For the small amount you owe, is it worth it to delay?"

I was kind of embarrassed and figured I should write the check immediately. I could have also paid my invoice on-line, but I don't typically do that for a simple reason: too many magazines are running a scam where they take your credit card number and - as a convenience - automatically bill you every time your subscription runs out. Hence, I am writing out a manual check when I realize, "Wait a minute! I've been thinking lately that GQ magazine kind of sucks. It's huge, but has little about fashion, style or upkeep anymore. Instead, the thing is chock full of advertising and articles on the most bizzare innane topics - like that damn mob family that has a reality TV show. I made a mental note that I wasn't going to renew my subscription."

I then realize I may not have actually renewed my GQ subscription - but the bastards are threatening to send me to a collection agency for not paying a subscription I didn't renew. After looking through my financial notes, I see no record of renewal, which is a bit odd for me not to have recorded.

I call GQ's customer service number, and they inform me that they did, in fact, renew my subscription "as a service" to me!! Unbeleivable!! I said one word, "unacceptable." The lady, keeping her composure, which isn't a total surprise, since I'm probably the tenth call like this she's received today, tells me she's canceled my subscription (which again, is odd, since I didn't renew it myself). I feel kind of weird about how cool she's being, particularly stating that "March will be your last issue and, if you receive another invoice, just ignore it and throw it out." (I think that means one is on the way. But still, she was really cool about it.) Overcome with her niceness, I explained that "I know you probably don't work for GQ, so I don't mean to be so curt to you. Thank you so much for your help and have a great day." Of course, this was insane - mostly on my part. Ms. Wonderful manages to not miss a beat and state, "Are you interested in golf? We have a special deal today on Golf Digest for only $12." Stunned by her opportunism, I could only mutter, "No thank you. Have a nice day. Goodbye."

***
Do you think GQ was really renewing my subscription as a service to me? I think not. I think it is a service to them. I figure some bonehead at GQ figured out that the best way to keep renewal rates up - and thus, subscribers - was to not let them leave. I might be wrong, but I doubt it. I find it very hard to believe that GQ (or their publisher, more accurately) did a market study and found subscribers beside themselves with regret for not having renewed their GQ subscription. All those customers just dying to get their hands on the latest story about the Gotti family and screaming for GQ to solve their problems with something really creative - like an automatic renewal service. (I love that they call this a service. The Orwellian double-speak is admirable.) No, this is a service to the publishers who have figured out that automatically renewing the subscriptions of indifferent subscribers is more profitable - since a large percentage probably don't dispute it - than trying to keep customers by addressing the editorial content. Of course, eventually advertisers will figure out that the response to ads in a magazine run this way is lower than advertising in a magazine people actually want - and the whole thing will backfire. Until then, the bonehead who thought this up gets a promotion and will fire the poor sap in charge of solicting advertisers a couple of years from now.

Hmmm...a good 45 minutes and a voided check later, all I can think is, "Thanks so much for your service. I can't imagine what I'd do without it. OK, I can, I'd be showered and shaved already instead of sitting in front of the computer ranting about your service..."

Facts versus Knowledge: The Role of Education

2005-01-24T06:25:00.002-05:00

Cleaning up my home office, I just ran across a New York Times Book Review piece from October on "The Know It All," by A.J. Jacobs. The reviewer, Joe Queenan, has an interesting comment about facts vs. knowledge:

"The Know It All: One Man's Humble Quest to Become the Smartest Person in the World" is mesmerizingly uniformative. But this is hardly surprising, because the premise of the book is completely wrong. The animating idea of this misguided endeavor is that corralling a vast array of unrelated facts will, in and of itself, make a person more interesting. This is idiotic. Facts absorbed without context merely magnify the intellectual deficiencies of the autodidact, because a poorly educated person does not know which facts are important.

First Posting...Testie

2005-01-05T20:17:00.001-05:00

This is my first posting to my newly created blog. I have always used the slightly odd (to others I assume), yet highly self-entertaining shorthand of "testie" for system testing. It is something that started back in my days as a Price Waterhouse consultant and I've never kicked. Well, now that that's done, time to check the testies.