About six weeks ago I started working more out of my home office. Because my wife and I’s mobile phones are the only household phones, it meant more conference calls, more phone meetings with my boss in New York and with my partner in crime, Christopher, in Grover Beach. Suffice to say, the service is awful. Calls are dropped. Some never ring through to my phone. Others are unintelligible because of the “Luke, you know I’m your father” Darth Vadar voice.

So, I called Sprint. Oh wait, the service is so bad that the call kept dropping. Wait, maybe if I hold onto a sheet of tinfoil in my backyard with my right arm raised at 45 degrees above my head I can get a signal…nope. Ok, I’ll email them. I get the automated “Thank you for contacting Sprint Online. Customer E-Care has received your email and will respond to your request within 24 hours.” Ok, fair enough. I wait two days and never receive a response. I write again and get the same automated response. 25 hours later I get an email asking me when this problem started, was it just on my phone, and was it just at my home or everywhere? I responded to the questions and waited another 22 hours for a response. This time “Harold” called me. He asked me the same questions the previous person had asked me in email and said he would have to consult their technical team and call me back in 15 minutes. I waited for his call and after two hours received a voicemail stating that he couldn’t get through to me (no signal) and that I should call their 800 number for support. Again, because I can’t make a decent call from my house, I email again explaining the problem. Wash. Rinse. Repeat. This goes on and on for 10 days and 15 emails.

I finally reached my breaking point and asked to be let out of my contract. I have a year and half left on a service plan that I can’t use 99% of the time. They have conveniently ignored that request and have continued to promise me tech support and resolution of my issue within 24 hours.

We all have horror stories with companies we deal with everyday. So why do I bring this one up? I think Sprint is missing a customer relations opportunity and one for positive branding. Here’s what I think Sprint has done badly in this situation:

1. They impose a deadline on themselves of getting back to you within 24 hours. In the flurry of emails that have been sent, they’ve only honored that timeframe twice. The rest of the time I had to send follow-up emails asking when I could expect to receive support. Don’t set an arbitrary goal that you can’t reach. It makes your service look bad and it gives customers a false sense of hope.

2. After a customer has exchanged 15 emails with you, offer a direct line to a supervisor instead of the general service pool. I’ve already spent 3 or 4 hours of my time answering questions. Don’t make me waste another hour sitting on hold. This is especially true in my case where I may have to drive to a park or somewhere that I can find a signal to make the call. Respect your customers’ time.

3. Assign a service rep to a complaint and let them own it. If that’s not possible, at least keep better records of the interaction thus far. Every time I emailed I was assigned a new case number and a new rep that asked me the same questions. This meant I had to respond to them and then wait 24 hours (or more) for someone to get back to me. We’re now 11 days into this mess and I’m not a single step closer than I was after the first email.

4. When a customer is in limbo for a long period of time with unusable service, offer them a refund or significant credit. When I asked for something like that I was given 40 bonus minutes. Seriously? I pay for 2000 minutes a month, unlimited data, text messaging, and my service is dead in the water and you offer me 40 bonus minutes? I was beyond insulted.

5. No carrier wants to let customers out of a contract, but if you can’t resolve a customer’s service issues, let them out of their contract. I realize in the fine print they have every legal right to make you pay a termination fee, but that’s not ethical (especially since I paid nearly full retail price for my phone, not the subsidized promo rate). Plus, there are really only four major carriers in the U.S. With number portability there is a good chance that you may see this customer sign up with you in the future. Don’t make a bad situation worse by holding them hostage and insuring that they’ll never do business with you again.

How will this all turn out? I have no idea. I do know that the economy is in a downturn and businesses are hurting everywhere. You need every advantage you can get to position your brand in the best possible light. Handling a situation so poorly so that it ends up on a blog is certainly not helping Sprint in the eyes of potential consumers.

In the end, I believe that if companies just did the right thing and acted in good faith, the rest would probably take care of itself. Sprint, do the right thing.

ShareThis

At MediaTrust I am the “social media guy.” There are still factions of my company that don’t get what it is I do exactly. Social media is not an exact science and trying to explain it to someone that doesn’t understand services like Facebook or Twitter is going to have a hard time wrapping their mind around the value of things like podcasts and blogs. This applies to pretty much every company doing business today. For the past few years, I have been banging the drum on the importance of having a corporate blog strategy to everyone I meet. Yesterday Idris Mootee wrote a post that pretty much EXACTLY sums up what I have been trying to impress on people. He lists four key points that are key to your success:

1. You need credibility

2. You need to have a distinct perspective

3. Timeliness of relevant content

4. Balancing the corporate legal and strategic risks of posting vs. not posting

Check out his blog for more detail on each, but these are the bullet points. A successful blog has to have genuine intent. It has to be real, and it has to offer something other than the “me too” bandwagon-jumping I see too many companies fall prey to.

One final nugget of information I’d offer is don’t expect to make money off your corporate blog directly. I know, your business has enough cost centers, it doesn’t need another one, right? Wrong! If you follow the tips above and you put real effort forth, the amount of positive traction you will gain for your brand will be well worth it. Customers want to feel a connection to the companies they do business with. Offering a genuine perspective and a mechanism for your customers to provide feedback will be worth it’s weight in gold.

ShareThis

The subject of good design has been popping up a lot recently both in our business and out on the web.

In 2007 Apple went from 0% to 27% market share in the smart phone market via the introduction of well designed hardware and intuitive software that the average person can access and utilize. Further, through both software and hardware design differentiation Apple maintains a gross margin of 33.6% versus Dell’s GM of 18.5% .

A nice visual analogy of Apple’s design approach versus Microsoft’s is depicted below:

An even more interesting stat comes from a January Reuters article:

In data provided to the New York Times, Google disclosed that it received more traffic from iPhones this Christmas than from any other mobile device, despite owning only 2 percent of the smart-phone market and less than 1 percent of the overall mobile-phone market. That means that while fewer people own iPhones, those who do possess the device use it to access the Internet much more than those with competing handsets.

Apple is essentially a design company. Their hedgehog principle is good design. They innovate and command market share by making technology simple to use by everyone. The simple fact that both of my parents are making active use of the web, web services and multiple (and synced) devices illustrates that with good design, you can teach an old dog new tricks (sorry Mom and Dad!).

As the world becomes more technically complex, design is commanding a more important role in our lives. Tech has been notoriously bad at making its amazing advances and productivity tools accessible by a mass audience. This is changing rapidly. The devices of yesterday are becoming real products before they come to market by necessity…the market is demanding it. William Davidow wrote a great book about the difference between devices and well designed products years ago…and its a worthy read for any marketer, product manager, engineer or CEO.

From a January article in the Journal:

With all the fuss, PC makers have begun hiring more people with degrees in industrial design and related disciplines — and listening to their opinions. “We found people designing from the outside in, not the inside out,” says Mooly Eden, vice president and general manager of Intel’s mobile systems group. “This was the revolution.”

So as we go about marketing our customers campaigns and offers via our Advaliant performance marketing platform, we are seeing the fruits of this ‘differentiation by design’ ethos.

Our customers come to us with a simple goal in mind: acquiring new customers. Many of them have their own creative that they wish to use and some of it is very well designed and the user experience is well thought out. Generally, we have seen these campaigns perform better than the lesser designed ones that make their way onto the platform.

Recently, we have been taking some of the offers that don’t convert well into our design studio and creating an alternative design direction and user experience (with client approval, of course). We then split-test these offers versus the original. Nine times out of ten the re-design performs better. The reason: we have taken the time and effort to make sure each campaign is designed to more simply communicate the benefit to the customer.

Not surprisingly, our expertise in the area of helping our advertisers generate more appealing campaigns has kept their loyalty and engagement with our platform. Further, because the campaigns perform better, our affiliates and publishers are happier because better designed campaigns help improve their bottom lines.

While direct response performance marketing can be a complex process, the same principals in the use of design to differentiate has enabled us to deliver our business constituents more value from our platform.

Got any other examples of good design making a “direct to bottom line” difference? Please share below!

ShareThis

I reference Robert Scoble a lot on this blog. After all, he is a pioneer in this space and if you want to know which way the wind is blowing in social media, you BETTER know what he’s up to. That being said, I’ve been following his new gig over at Fast Company pretty closely. Obviously Fast Company is a well-respected brand in traditional business circles, but their foray into social media is fairly new. Bringing Scoble into the mix was a move that has been watched by a lot of people.

Scoble produces several shows for them. The one I’m focusing on for the purpose of this article is Workfast TV with his co-host Shel Israel. The premise of the show is a familiar format - Robert and Shel start off with some back and forth banter about what they did this past week, then they introduce their guest and proceed to have a discussion for the next 30 minutes or so.

It’s a trainwreck. First off, the vibe of the show is totally off. You have Scoble as the only one dressed in a suit and tie, while the rest are dressed more casually. Additionally his laptop is covered in tech stickers which totally negates any business look he’s trying to create. Second, the banter between Israel and Scoble is painfully hard to watch. Instead of being friends, you’d swear they met 5 minutes before the show. Attempts at jokes fall flat and are awkwardly laughed off. As a viewer it is uncomfortable to watch. Finally, the format is flawed. They sit around a table with the guest. While they’re bantering back and forth, the guest is sitting there uncomfortably wondering what to do with themselves. By the time they start referring to the guest in the third person, you start to cringe.

On a positive note, the production values are top-notch.

Ok, I know this was a very long-winded way to get to my point, but it was necessary for context. I posted a condensed and gentler version of the above critique in the comments of Workfast TV a couple of days ago. Guess what? The comment was deleted. Then, I started to see the bulk of the other users in the thread complaining that their comments had been deleted for being critical. Fast Company then chimed in… (Wait, I see they have now deleted their initial comments defending the deletion of user comments). So not only are they deleting unfavorable comments from users, they have seen fit to pull their initial defense of doing so. Wow.

That last piece just really cements my argument. Fast Company doesn’t get what social media is about. They thought that hiring Scoble would bring them instant audience and credibility - and it did. But now that is eroding quickly. After all, one of Scoble’s key mantras is that companies should be engaged with their consumers on the web. Fast Company has essentially thrown that way of thinking out the window.

I realize that Scoble and Israel have little or no say in Fast Company’s practices. I also understand that business is business, and they have to put food on the table. However, how do you build your career as a transparent blogger, then sit back and watch your personal brand be tarnished by a company using tactics that are the antithesis of your view of social media ? I reached out to Scoble on Twitter and Israel on his blog, and as of this posting there was no response from either of them. Are their hands tied? Does their silence mean they condone it?

I applaud companies for taking the leap and putting some money into the social web. The benefits can be tremendous for your traffic and your brand. But, you have to be willing to have a genuine conversation. You can’t put out a show about how companies are effectively using the web 2.0 world to their benefit, then turn around and censor unflattering feedback. Now, before Fast Company removed their corporate comment yesterday, they stated that they only removed negative attacks and said they were open to critiques of the show. That’s complete BS because my comment was deleted and it was a genuine piece of constructive feedback. Where is the two-way dialog in that example? Amazingly, Fast Company is actually going to be worse off in the web 2.0 space than they were before they started their social media initiatives. Instead of this being a brand-building effort, it’s now turning into brand repair.

What should you take away from Fast Company’s mistake?

1. Don’t jump into emerging media unless you really want to engage your customers in an open dialog.

2. Welcome and encourage genuine feedback in your forums and blogs. Don’t delete something because it doesn’t fit with your tightly-controlled marketing message.

3. Listen to feedback. Most of it is genuine, and although it may be painful to read, you may be able to learn from it and make something in your organization better.

4. Reward feedback, whether it’s negative or positive, by engaging participators with a response.

Scoble and Israel know these things. I bet they tell this stuff to companies everyday when they interview them. So is it not bizarre that they would work for a company that so clearly seems to hold an opposing view?

ShareThis

You can’t swing a dead cat in the blogosphere these days without hitting a post touting the benefits of Friendfeed. Scoble’s been using it for months. Now Calacanis is pushing it almost as much as Mahalo. I decided to see what the fuss was about.

First, the interface is much cleaner than Twitter. The more people you follow on Twitter, the harder it becomes to actually make sense of the information coming through. The noise to signal ratio goes way up. Unless you use a service like Summize, you easily miss content aimed at you. Friendfeed has threaded conversations. The ability to reply and comment in an orderly, easy-to-read way is huge.

Next, the process of following people on Twitter is tedious and time-consuming. Friendfeed integrates with your facebook account so the people you are friends with on facebook automatically become part of your Friendfeed network. Friendfeed also integrates your blog, YouTube, SumbleUpon, and yes, even your Twitter account.

The final feather in Friendfeed’s cap is it’s reliability. By many estimates they have half the users and traffic that Twitter has, and so far, haven’t had any of the scalability problems that have plagued Twitter since their inception. I’m not an IT guy and have no idea what it takes to keep a site like Twitter stable. BUT, I do know that they are sitting on a goldmine. The only thing killing them is their crappy infrastructure. Why on earth wouldn’t you make this your top priority and hire the right tech team to fix this issue once and for all? I know these things don’t happen overnight, but in 3 or 4 months it’s only gotten worse, not better. What’s the deal?

I haven’t quite rang the death knell for Twitter yet. They were the pioneer in the micro-blogging movement and they have a great brand. That will keep their head above water for a short time, but if they don’t resolve their tech issues soon Friendfeed is going to continue to poach their user base. Then, it will be too late and whale will have permanently failed.

ShareThis

What’s one thing that advertisers and customers can agree on? Advertising Spend?

Some control shifts that are happening in this age of customer empowerment are being classified as Vendor Relationship Management (VRM), which is basically a movement to enable customers to have more control in managing their relationships with companies who are attempting to sell them products or services. The idea is very much tied to the data portability/ownership movement and is increasingly being tied to pay-for-performance marketing.  Harvard Law School is organizing initiatives to move VRM forward for a host of reasons including privacy, control and economics.  These are obvious benefits for customers.  Conversely, advertisers are reluctant to give up their control.  But there is one thing that both Customers and Advertisers can agree on – a better way to spend $1 billion of wasted money.  Here are some interesting views of the costs associated with ineffective advertising and the increasing role that pay-for-performance online marketing will play in the new world.

At least $1B of what’s spent on online advertising is completely wasted and is unsustainable. Advertisers are going to eventually wake up and recognize that unless it’s a highly visible placement, banners get you largely nowhere.

Some claim this number is actually as high as $100 billion throughout all channels.
 
The Cost-Per-Action/Pay-for-Performance business model of Affiliate Marketing is likely to continue to transform the ad industry, significantly reducing billions in unnecessary expenses, including the $1B wasted on unseen display ads in Rubel’s analysis.

Perhaps this money could be spent on adding value to a customer’s lives and on truly building win-win relationships. Well, customers and advertisers have long accepted advertiser money for funding enhancements to customer’s lives – so this isn’t a stretch.  The question is, how do we track it to a specific customer reward level in this fragmented media environment?  Just to think a bit out of the box — would there ever be a complete flip, where systems track what advertisers are doing for customers – all from a customer-centric POV?  What would that performance model look like – advertising and loyalty per enhancement?  How could customer-owned data models enable more effective advertising/loyalty programs and an exchange of what customers and companies both want in a relationship? Tracking is a unique feature of online media – but customers hold control over advertisers by limiting how and where they are tracked.  Customers owning their own tracking/data and embracing performance exchanges is potentially much more efficient for both companies and customers.

Just food for thought.  

Check out more on VRM on Harvard’s website.

ShareThis

The integration marks the beginning of the next evolution in affiliate marketing through consolidation and innovation. The industry needs to evolve as performance marketing becomes a very important channel for advertisers and publishers. Additionally, current economic conditions have mandated the need for more effective spending. I think this will create a new round of industry consolidation as it moves from ad networks and exchanges into the affiliate marketing community. Accountability is king right now, and performance marketing offers the best ROI across multiple distribution channels such as email, search, display, mobile and social media.

The most important aspect of this announcement is that it moves the industry away from the “network” and closer to being platform-centric. We firmly believe the next evolution of performance marketing is about open, modular and multi dimensional platforms as we move away from one dimensional networks.

Here is the announcement from Chris Henger, group product manager for the Google Affiliate Network.

We are pleased to introduce Google Affiliate Network . Effective Monday, June 30, 2008, DoubleClick Performics Affiliate will operate as Google Affiliate Network. The integration with Google’s brand is a reflection of efforts to quickly assimilate our business and teams, as well as reinforce Google’s commitment to the Affiliate channel. Together with our new colleagues at Google we are creating new opportunities for monetization, expansion and innovation in Affiliate Marketing.

Within the next couple of weeks you will see some exciting changes to the user interface reflecting the new brand. The platform will continue to be hosted at www.ConnectCommerce.com, but will eventually migrate to a google.com product url.

As noted in earlier communications, DoubleClick Performics’ Search operations are being spun off and sold to a third party. While many advertisers have relationships with both DoubleClick Performics’ Affiliate and Search, there have always been separate account teams and product-specific specialists servicing clients’ search and affiliate programs. These teams remain intact. While the formal separation will occur when the Search business is sold, the businesses are functionally separate today.

We are proud of what we achieved as Performics and this name change signals a new milestone. Google provides world-class resources and enables us to continue to attract the best talent to support our advertisers and publishers. Now as part of Google we have an exciting and unprecedented opportunity to advance our industry. We remain committed to ensuring you receive the quality service you have come to expect from us.

We appreciate your business and look forward to doing great things together.

Sincerely,

Chris Henger

Group Product Manager
Google Affiliate Network

ShareThis

“Do not concentrate on the finger or you will miss all that heavenly glory”

Too often we have tight timelines, many moving parts, multiple contributors, and general the general chaos and distraction of life surrounding us while we are getting our go to market plans ready.It is very easy to focus solely on the tasks at hand with out stepping back and looking at the big picture. Often that picture is pretty fantastic, even while the current project you are working on may be a pain in the ass. Don’t forget that you are part of a team, and a business unit, and company all striving for the same thing - success in business and a great quality of life, however that is defined by both your industry, your company, and your family. Look up from your desk, take a walk, talk with a colleague and acknowledge the goodness in your efforts.

“Boards don’t hit back”

Practice. Practice. Practice. and then practice some more. Run your presentation by a group of peers before the keynote. Double check that persona one more time before running the scenario. Go back through notes, your email, your gut checks. Because there comes a time when you will be faced with real competition and must respond in real-time, to real threats, and must fight real battles in your market space, or at a closing meeting with a new client, or with the CMO of your company about how you think that a solution based positioning isn’t really an advantage for the market pentetration of the product and wont differentiate it in an already over crowded…. anyway. I digress.

Han: “Your style is unorthodox”
WIlliams: “But effective”

Many times we have to look deeper than our established bag of tricks, especially in a market that is fast moving, constantly changing, and that requires creativity, confidence and stamina to win. And not just win once, but to win repeatedly. I have always considered myself to be a bright guy, and the smartest thing that I do is to surround myself with people smarter than me. (or is it I. Smarter than I.. have to call my wife on that.)

Anyway, the point that Williams was making is that one should strive to be effective no matter what the method of action may require. I call on those around me to shake up my snow globe of ideas and see if they find patterns or data or insights that I may have missed. The way we finally get to a result may be a little odd, but those results are not.

“Never take your eyes off your opponent, even when you bow”

You never know the exact moment of opportunity and must be ready to either strike or defend in real-time. Defensibility in the market space is a one of the primary reasons certain startups don’t get handed their lunch by the fourth week of school. Great companies are constantly looking to defend and strengthen their position at every opportunity. And its not so much the “best offense is a good defense” mentality. It’s more to the point of be aware of your surroundings. If you are looking to gain a position in the market, you are damn certain your competition is looking to do the same. Just be sure not to get caught looking. Be prepared to act.

“Provide your customers with products they need and, uh, charge a little bit to stimulate your market and before you know it customers come to depend on you, I mean really need you. “

Ok, so in the flick they were talking about drug smuggling and corruption, but its the classic case of creating a need in the market, fanning it with desire, and capturing the trust of your clients. During my storied career as a tech sales guy I never really sold the product (which might be why I eventually was fired.) What I did sell though was need - need for the product or service that we could provide. And I would compare that to my competition, noble warriors all, but just not quite as good as what we had to offer. And then I would show them how they could trust me, and that I had our mutual best interest in hand. Oh, and if they bought now I would take off an additional 12% on signing. Need + desire + dependency. Its not just for romance novels anymore.

“You must attend the morning ritual in uniform.”

Come prepared. Most reasons we miss that window of opportunity is that we don’t recognize it as it is coming toward us, see it only as its passing by, or see it early but just cant get ready to anything about it. Come to work ready to work. Go to a house party ready to party. Be present and appropriate and provide both context and content for whatever you are doing. And that goes for your marketing plan as well. A key word here is ritual. Practice, reverence, and habit can be key to developing a winning marketing strategy.

Enter The Dragon is only one of many examples of films that provide nuggets of introspection and learning within the dialog. Now its up to you. I would love to hear about your movie insights and how they align with your industry. Post them in the comments. If they are especially good, I’ll send you the movie of your choice as a “thank you”.

Bonus points if you can define Market Readiness from The Big Lebowski. Have fun.

ShareThis

Someone who’ll watch a 30-minute video is HIGHLY ENGAGED. They are far more likely to become a customer than someone who just watches a two-minute entertaining video.

Here’s why: long videos are a filter. Only the most passionate and most interested people online will watch such a video. Those who aren’t interested wouldn’t even consider watching a long video.

It’s a nice theory, but I don’t buy it. First, I believe that a large chunk of people that consume online video do so at work. That environment allows you to watch a 2-5 minute video and then get back to what you are doing. It also allows for more interruptions, while still being able to finish the video. How many times are you going to tolerate being interrupted at work by co-workers, phone calls, or email before you throw in the towel on a 30-minute video?

People just don’t watch long-form video on their computer. My own video work has fallen victim to this as well. I’ve done many videos that were 15 minutes long and after watching them with colleagues or with an objective eye, it was clear that people get antsy after 7 or 8 minutes. It made me cut deeper during the editing process and really get to the meat of the content. My productions are better for it.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that it is impossible for a long-form video to find an audience online. After all, Scoble does just fine with viewership of his pieces - although it doesn’t hurt to have his brand name and the weight of Fast Company behind him. Additionally, sites like Hulu that archive complete TV shows and movies will find an audience because they are serving up content that already has a traditional media audience of millions. It’s hard enough for unknown prosumer / UGC / pro content to find an audience with short, well-paced pieces. I believe that becomes an even bigger challenge when the content starts getting into the 30-minute range.

The other side effect I see of YouTube allowing video longer than 10 minutes is increased piracy. They can barely police their network efficiently now with a 10-minute limit. This opens up their network to people adding complete TV shows or movies. That means their copyright department is going to be working lots of overtime.

Advertisers want engagement. We know that. To me, that is better measured by how many people comment on a video or link to it, rather than making the assumption that committing to watching a longer video makes them a better potential customer.

ShareThis

The session led to this video interview with Larry Joseloff, VP of content at Shop.org talking about the state of affiliate marketing, where it’s going, and how it needs to reinvent itself. He makes some valid points but for the most part seems a bit out of touch with the inner workings of the affiliate marketing channel. He also didn’t really offer any thoughts on ways to improve the channel.

This issue is nothing new to the industry and is actually one that is being addressed with the formation of the PMA “Performance Marketing Alliance”which will be working with affiliates, merchants, networks and service providers to set standards and govern this very large and valuable marketing channel.

The disturbing part of this recent event is how the panel was poorly led by its moderator George Michie -  who not only led this unethical and irresponsible style of panel moderation, but then continues to speak out of both sides of his mouth with a backhanded apology that instead re-bashed affiliate marketing without one shred of data to substantiate his rant. This not only demonstrates how a panel should not be moderated, it also demonstrates poor leadership that creates a negative image of the entire online marketing industry’s integrity. Here’s an excerpt:

Finally, I implied in my talk that most affiliates were “bad guys”. That was wrong. I apologize to those I offended. However, I do believe that the vast majority of the $3 Billion in affiliate commissions that will be paid out this year will go to cheaters, and other programs that add no value for retailers.

Does this not put him in the same ethics category as the few affiliates (out of the many) who he rants about? Is it not a moderators job to be a leader and provide an objective platform on all sides of the panel discussion? Why was there no representation from the affiliate marketing side of the business to speak about the channel? It seems that he was instead more interested in taking the opportunity to self promote his PPC channel and services.

Shawn Collins has posted a sound response on his blog “Consultants Can Fix Affiliate Marketing” that challenges and counters George Michie’s childish BS! There is also a good affiliate discussion in ABestWeb regarding the panels lack of affiliate representation. 

You can read my response in the comments HERE.

ShareThis