Great Customer Service Builds Brands

Last year I ordered a free-range turkey to cook for family Christmas dinner. I'd never cooked a turkey before and had some small disasters (another story) but the end result was fantastic and a number of our guests commented on what a great turkey it was.

So this year I decided to repeat it and just placed an order from the same supplier (I've had no dealings with them before last year and no subsequent dealings). I also ordered a ham.

I placed the order via email at 3.24p.m. At 3.42p.m. I received an email back from the CEO (and son of the founder):

Hi Tim,

Thank you for your order.

It’s great to have you back buying from us again this Christmas.

Take care and all the very best.

Regards

Anthony Puharich
CEO

What a great way to endear yourself to a customer; what a great way to build a brand. It is no wonder they have built such a successful business and it is clearly no accident.

Hats off to Vic's Premium Meats (and I can genuinely recommend their turkeys)

SME Technology Summit

You can find the slides (available for download) from my presentation this morning at the SME Technology Summit by following this link to Authorstream.com

Web Denizens

I am shortly to be involved with an initiative designed to get more small businesses using web search engine marketing. Part of the key to this is that it is available even to those businesses who don't have a website.

Many small (or micro) businesses are stuck in an outmoded paradigm where they have turned their back on the web. They are often fearful of it because they don't see themselves as part of the web generation; sometimes it is because they feel it is unnecessary for their business; sometimes they are mystified by it and don't really know how to approach it. There are myriad reasons (or excuses).

Part of this outmoded paradigm is to continue to allocate the majority of their advertising dollars to the good old yellow pages.

During conversations to plan for this initiative I was asked by those behind it what one thing I could say to small business owners about why they should be concerned with the web. My answer was simple - Even if they are not denizens of the web, the vast majority of their potential customers will be. You make it difficult to for them to access you at your peril.

If you are going to fish in a pond, fish in the one where the most fish are. Get onto the web.

Business Lessons Through Tragedy

We can't fail to be moved by the tragic story of 17 year old David Iredale who lost his life on a bush walk which went wrong in 2006.

The greatest tragedy of the entire story, emerging during the inquest, is that it appears his death could have been avoided. It has been reported that his repeated calls to the 000 emergency number were met with sarcasm, insensitivity and slavish attention to an ill-conceived script. Vital information from the calls, which may have helped pinpoint where David was lost, was apparently not passed onto police until some days after the calls were made.

According to reports :

"The court heard a major failure of all calls was that relevant information David provided about his whereabouts was not recorded or passed on to police rescuers. The operators had been "fixated" on asking for a street address because it was in accordance with their training and the steps they were to follow within the computer program."One particular call, the last call we received from Mr Iredale, the calltaker's demeanour appeared quite uncaring, not responsive to information received and the distress that was evident from the caller," Superintendent Payne said."

The operators were 'fixated' on a scripted call procedure and they allowed this fixation to override their common sense (and perhaps compassion). In this case this slavish adherence to procedure my have helped contribute to a death. Most of us can understand that no street address can be provided for a walker lost in dense bushland - it is common sense.

Perhaps there are factors here which might mitigate the actions of the triple-0 staff - maybe it has been proven that deviation from procedure in emergency calls causes more tragedy than it averts - after all in many emergency situations, such as the evacuation of an aircraft, failure to observe procedure may risk other's lives.

Most of us in business don't live in a world where our actions have life or death consequences (thank goodness), and this blog is about business. But, there are business situations where systems and procedures are allowed to overrule common sense in the same way as occurred in the David Iredale case, and it is generally to the detriment of the customers of the business.

How many times have you bumped into a futile conversation with a call centre operator which defies all common sense; or tried to fill out a web form which demands a field which you can't fathom before you can move on?

I once had a situation where I had four separate accounts with a major corporation. I had always wanted one consolidated account but after some of months of trying to organise it I gave up - their systems just didn't allow it. Apart from the fact that this meant frustratingly that I had four separate monthly payments to make rather than one it wasn't much of a bother - until I moved and had to change the billing address. I phoned to change the billing address and first had to "identify myself" to the operator. We went through the long list of questions and my responses until I heard the magic words , "OK, thank you sir, I have identified you so now I can update your address details.", which he proceeded to do for the first account. I then asked him to change the details for the next account and the first thing he said was he would have to ask me some questions in order to "identify me"! On the same phone call to the same operator, for four separate accounts in the same name, I had to go through the same identification process four separate times. As I got increasingly annoyed, he kept on telling me "it was procedure" and he had no choice other than to go through it. I kept on pleading it was nonsense and it was clear to me that he agreed but he had to do it anyway.

Common sense and empathy are the two most valuable attributes any business can apply when dealing with it's customers - unfortunately so many businesses mistakenly don't allow them to come to the fore.

Organisations, particularly larger, distributed ones, need procedures and some rules if they are to function efficiently. But if you really want to satisfy and delight customers, and even potentially turn them into evangelists for your brand, you need to make sure you build 'escape hatches' into processes which allow common sense to override dogma.

It shouldn't be an afterthought. It is fundamentally important in engineering a customer experience in a high growth business.

Kochie's Business Builders Bushfire Special

A special edition of Kochie's Business Builders was aired on the Seven network yesterday. It was an episode about the plight of business owners affected by the Victorian bushfires.

We were filming in the area for three days and unfortunately the final program was only a half hour episode so there was much that was filmed that couldn't be aired.

Fortunately you can find it all in the "Video Extras" section on Kochie's Business Builders website - "Surviving a Disaster Extended Version".

There are some key insights which struck us all as we spent time in the affected region:

• There probably isn't enough focus on businesses when it comes to support - both charitable and government. In regional communities it is small businesses who provide employment. In the case of Marysville, for example, there was one business premise left standing in the main street - the bakery. All the businesses will need to rebuild and re-establish themselves and until they do there won't be a great deal of employment in the town. Much of the support thus far has been directed (appropriately) at re-building homes, but unless the local economy is rebuilt concurrently there won't be much for the residents to do. A separate focus is required to getting businesses back on their feet.
• This is no time for solos solutions. The community needs to work as a community to get back on it's feet. Sticking with the Marysville example, many businesses are waiting to see whether other businesses will rebuild and reopen before deciding what they will do. Most are waiting to see whether the residential accommodation providers will re-establish first. Many business operators leased their premises and landlords are waiting to see whether other businesses will re-open before they make a decision to re-build. It is easy to understand this waiting game - many of us would do the same - and it will be easy for the business community to fall into paralysis as a result. Everyone needs to move together and that requires leadership and an openness to embrace (figuratively) other business operators, even erstwhile competitors.
• The importance of business interruption insurance was very clear. A number of businesses had insurance for their buildings but not for their business continuation. It may take months or even years to rebuild and re-establish and it will be virtually impossible for those who don't have an income stream to sustain them until they get back on their feet.
• Some sort of rudimentary disaster recovery planning is vital for all businesses. In the US about 55% of businesses who experience a 'disaster', and have done no disaster recovery planning, fail within 12 months. This is significantly higher than the failure rate for businesses who have done some planning.
• Recovery for many businesses is going to require some lateral thinking and perhaps some strategic shifts. For Buxton Trout Farm, for example, it will mean diversification of revenue streams; a shift away from holiday maker customers to day trippers; and some pretty clever concomitant marketing.

If you are in business I encourage you to think now about how you would cope if a disaster strikes. As I say in the program, you don't want to be doing that thinking in the stressful post-disaster environment when you judgement might not be as acute as it is now.

What looks like a problem can become a marketing coup

When nudie was subjected to a devastating arson attack which destroyed the factory and office, we were obviously set back. But I believe every dark cloud contains a marketing silver lining. I used the nudie fire as the basis for a concerted media campaign which positioned us as an underdog and effectively put nudie on the map.

These days, in moments of black humour, I joke that I wish every business I am involved with had a lucky break like an arson attack to propel it into the stratosphere.

I read today about the plight of Damien Tscharke, a vigneron who for the last five years has been making "Girl Talk" wines using albarino grapes - of Spanish origin. They have proven to be so popular that other wine makers have raced in and planted albarino grapes as well. And now it appears that the albarinos are not albarinos at all. They may in fact be a French varietal -savagnin blanc - which is not the same as sauvignon blanc. Apparently those tricky Spaniards exported the wrong root stock and all the Australian vignerons who planted albarinos have been duped.

As I read he story I imagined much figurative cursing and gnashing of teeth amongst the growers as the cry has goes out - "Ruination!! Oh woe is me! Its the wrong grape!"

Indeed Mr. Tscharke is quoted as saying, "It's the largest volume wine we make, we have several hectares under cultivation, and I'm facing significant financial losses potentially."

Initially I was tempted to dismiss it as a storm in a teacup. So, its the wrong variety of grape - who cares? It looks the same as it did yesterday before they knew, it tastes the same, it makes the same wine it has done for five years now. What's the big deal, it all seems like humorless nonsense to me.

And then it struck me that this is Mr. Tscharke's fire! What fun he can have with it on his "Girl Talk" labels - "Girls, have you heard? They're keeping schtum at head office, but there's a rumour we aren't who we think we are. The French sabotaged our Spanish sugar daddy's and we aren't albarino we're trashy savagnin blanc instead!"

There is an endless stream of marketing creativity and publicity which can be generated from this slip up. Far from being the undoing of the enterprise it could be the making of it.

All that is required is to look at it as an opportunity rather than a threat.

Wine Clubs

It seems that out of every second envelope I open these days spills a letter, brochure or flyer for a wine club associated with the initiator of the post. I decided to count them up.

Apart from the monthly mailing I get from the Wine Society, and the bulky post I get from Cellarmaster, both of whom are in the solos business of selling wine, I have received another eight entreaties to participate in wine buying from other organisations in the last fortnight alone.

They come from credit card companies, retailers with charge cards, airlines, industry and professional associations, and a whole host of others. Newspaper publishers even want to get in on the act and insert invitations with the renewal notices for my newspaper deliveries. Today I received a letter announcing the National Trust was launching a new wine club for it's members. What has wine got to do with the position or brand values of the National Trust?

It strikes me that almost none of the myriad wine club offers can demonstrate a point of difference. They all claim to have wine no one else can get, from boutique little wineries that are so small that they can't supply the majors; they all claim to be able to provide wines which I can't find in any high-street retail shop; they all claim to know more about wine than anyone else, or to have a more extensive selection or a better selected range. The fact is that to an average punter like me they all appear the same and the clamour from them is deafening.

This seems to be analogous to how many business operators get into business in the first place. Rather than thinking about customers, and what they want or need, they think about what they can do.

You can imagine the thought process behind some of these wine club launches. They sit down and think along these lines - 'We might be a professional association, but we have a database of university educated professionals, who have high disposable incomes and in surveys of our member base we have found 6 out of 10 have an interest in drinking wine; they trust us and are affiliated with our brand. We could provide them with wine and it would be seen as a 'value-add' and will generate some incremental revenue for our association. Most importantly we like wine ourselves.'

And so they get into the wine business. And how do they do that? Of course they need scale to make the economics work, and they don't really know anything about procuring, selling and distributing wines, so they outsource their wine club to one of the handful of providers who also supply wine club services to all the others. So they have the same offer as everyone else differentiated merely by the badge of their association.

They get into the wine club business because they can. Not because they have a startlingly different proposition or perspective; not because they have spotted an unmet need, an opportunity to step into a gap; probably not even because they have abiding passion for wine.

Powerful, high growth businesses are those that do something differently and better than anyone else does or can do in favour of their customers. By innovating and creating value for their customers they build at least a temporary monopoly which allows the creation of enterprise value. This is what nudie did when I created it and this is why it grew like a weed, carried along by the energy and enthusiasm of it's delighted customers.

If you are going to build a business don't do so just because you can; ensure you stand out from the crowd and deliver something to your customers they can't get anywhere else. Otherwise you risk being just more junk mail.

More on value and efficiency (and Picasso)

Apropos my comments on value. Particularly the notion that value of input does not necessarily equal value of output. In actual fact powerful and profitable businesses are obviously those where the value of the output is significantly more than the value of the input - these businesses are highly and effectively leveraging their inputs.

Putting some numbers around this might help to illustrate this.

The traditional services business model works like my painter in the previous post.

Let's say he takes 100 hours to do something and he charges out at $60 an hour. This means the job is invoiced at $6,000. But if my perception of the value of the finished product is only $4,000, the business has problems. There is a $2,000 value deficit. It may be an inefficient business and, because of the perceived value deficit, it is producing frustrated and unhappy customers. This is unlikely to be a high growth business.

What if there was a business which took 40 hours at $60 an hour to produce an outcome that was perceived to be worth $4,000 to the customer. Instead of $4,000 or $2,400 the business invoices $3,500. In this case there is a value increment of $500 perceived by the customer. This business has a highly leveraged value creation process and can effectively make what economists would call a 'super profit'. It is also creating happy customers. This is very likely to be a high growth business.

It reminds me of a story, supposedly true, I heard some time ago about Picasso, whose reputation was already secure at the time.

Picasso was apparently meeting someone for a drink in a tapas bar in Barcelona. His companion was running late and whilst he was waiting for him to arrive Picasso began doodling on his napkin. As he put his pen down one of the other patrons in the bar, who had recognised Picasso, boldly approached and proffered - "Maestro, I couldn't help but notice your doodling on the napkin. I would be very happy to purchase the napkin from you". "Certainly", replied Picasso, "the price will be US$10,000".

"How could you possibly charge $10,000?", blustered the would-be buyer, "I watched you and it took but a few minutes of your time to create".

"Yes", said Picasso, "But I AM Picasso and it has taken me 40 years to arrive at the point where I can create a work of art, worthy of bearing my name, in a matter of minutes".

Whereupon one of the other patrons in the bar who had been observing the exchange leapt to his feet and said "Picasso, I'll give you $12,000 for the napkin if you'll just sign it".

This story illustrates a number of points including the power of brand (in this case Picasso); the apparent disconnect between effort (input) and value creation (output); the customer perception of value; and the value of wisdom and experience.

Clearly by the time of this story Picasso was already a very effective, efficient and valuable business.

Focus on Value

Value is something which is created by businesses in the work they do (how often do we talk about "value add"; "added value"; "the value creation process" and so on?) . A bit like beauty, it is also in the eyes of the beholder - it is a perception. The art and process of selling and marketing is to create, for customers, a positive perception of value.

Interestingly this notion of 'value creation' means that value is an output or an outcome from a business process. In the current "down market" (as our American colleagues have been quick to euphemistically call our situation) customers are more focused on value than they have been in many, many years.

And yet so many businesses seem blind to this customer need; to the requirement to deliver real value. In fact many don't seem to have any concept of how their customers might perceive value.

I seem to have had a few of these tough and frustrating conversations with service providers in the last few months where I have very clearly felt that they have not delivered value. There is a common theme in the way they deliver their defence - they fall immediately back to two points:

1. "But look at the amount of "input" (which is usually time or materials) we have used in creating the outcome",
2. "You should have intervened earlier to prevent the inputs (costs) mounting up"

I'll come back to the first point in a moment, but to address the second point, it is my contention that there is no point having a dog if you are going to do the barking! It is not my role as a customer to police the input process of my service providers.

To provide some context for this, my concerns have ranged from situations at home, such as one involving a house painter, to work, such as various marketing services providers.

For example, my house painter did some touch up work around the house over an extended period of a few weeks. Some days he was there, others he wasn't; some days he started early, others later. Mostly he worked alone during the day when we were at work and was long gone by the time we arrived home. We were pretty relaxed about the arrangement both because we had no time pressure to complete and because we have used this painter for a dozen projects over the last 8 or 9 years. When he finished the bill was presented and it blew me away. It was thousands and thousands of dollars. I simply didn't believe that the output represented many thousands of dollars of value, so I queried the bill.

The response was that he had arrived at the bill by looking at the number of hours spent on the job and that if I had been concerned about the possible cost I should have called a pause earlier in the job (in other words I should have monitored and policed the hours involved).

Now I could have possibly averted the price 'sticker shock' by getting a fixed price quote and, perhaps if we didn't have such a long standing relationship with the painter, I would have, but that misses the point.

I don't believe there was thousands of dollars worth of value in the work that was done. I am the customer. The service provider is responsible for my perception of value. Telling me the number of hours spent doesn't cut it as a solution. The number of hours are an input to the process and they are a measure of efficiency not a measure of the value of the output. We all know of people who are more efficient than others - some painters might do twice as much in an hour as others.

There are ways the painter could have changed my perception of value. For example, he could have taken me around the house and shown me places where there was intricate cutting-in work necessary which was extremely time-consuming but vital for the quality of the finished job; or he could have shown me places where extraordinary surface preparation was required before painting; or he could have shown me places where there were 5 coats of paint and so the surface was so hard it could resist minor scratching unscathed; and so on.

Instead he told me the number of hours involved multiplied by an hourly rate. Since this is only a measure of efficiency that leaves me with a perspective that he must have been inefficient and I am paying the price - ergo, the output is not valuable. Despite my many attempts to get him to see things from my point of view, the painter simply couldn't step into my shoes as a customer.

When customers don't see value they don't come back and they don't spread positive word-of-mouth (even worse, they often spread negative word-of-mouth).

The key lessons in this for successful business are:

1. It is necessary to focus on, understand and deliver value to customers. What value is your business delivering?
2. It is your responsibility to manage the customer's perception of value.
3. Value (i.e. as an output) is in many instances divorced from the quantity and value of the factor inputs.
4. It is vital for businesses to be able to stand in the shoes of their customers if they are going to understand customer value perception.

The law of large numbers

I don't know whether it was the weather or simply a potentially slow week but I received three unsolicited telemarketing calls today.

Let me disclose my bias up front - I hate telemarketing. My view is, if it is important and really interesting and different, put it in an email to me where I can study, digest, assimilate and use it as a springboard for web research before making a considered decision. I have joined the 'do not disturb' (a.k.a 'do not call') register, but I still seem to get calls anyway (and let me forestall those who might quickly point out my right to report or complain - I know).

Clearly some people respond positively to an unsolicited phone call or they wouldn't do it. But this is the same as the fact that spam email works for some people. Apparently about 30% of web denizens have responded to spam email. This type of marketing relies on the law of large numbers - if you spam, or call, a large enough number of people sooner or later you will get a positive response.

It might work but it really does nothing to build brand or relationship.

One of the things that really sets me off with the telemarketers is the lack of transparency; the truth is often hidden behind a wall of obfuscation. How can a meaningful customer relationship be built on a foundation of lack of truth?

My first call of the day was point-in-case. A cheery voiced person told me she was calling on behalf of my (large and pervasive) credit card company (the "on behalf of" is the giveaway). She asked me whether I had time now to chat about a particular "benefit" the magnanimous card company was making available to card holders such as me. I responded in a very guarded manner because I was already fearing this was another attempt to sell me some sort of credit insurance policy (I've had numerous calls on the subject in the past).

Despite my temporising she charged on. Before she got into the meat of the call, which she hoped I didn't mind would be recorded, she wanted to check the contact details she had on file for an annual travel insurance policy I had previously taken out.

My heart sank because I realised this was a very scripted attempt to establish relationship and empathy - a sort of 'you have bought insurance from us in the past so we are trusted and close allies'. I was certain now she was going to try and sell my some credit protection insurance.

This prompted me to ask her - 'where did you say you were calling from again - are you from (leading charge card) company?'. "Mr. Pethick, I am calling on behalf of XYZ insurance and your (leading charge card) company but I work for custom call centres". "So you want to sell me some sort of insurance policy?", was my response. "Sir, I want to talk to you about one of the benefits you get as a valued card holder".

I'll spare you the pain of a much longer call. The bottom line was she was trying to sell me credit protection insurance, but it took some time to extract the information from her.

This is all just lies and deceit. She certainly wasn't calling from my charge card company and the opportunity to buy a useless insurance policy at a normal market rate certainly isn't a "benefit".

Why, oh why, couldn't the whole conversation have some honesty and integrity to it - "Mr. Pethick, I'm calling from a telemarkeing company engaged by your credit card company; my mission today is to sell you an insurance policy which you can charge to your card, and, before you hang up on me, at least give me an opportunity to try and convince you it might be useful to you. This call will take about 5 minutes and I know 5 minutes is probably precious to you but I reckon it will be the best 5 minutes you'll spend today", and so on.

The reason they can't have an honest and open conversation like this is because they are engaged in 'law of large numbers' marketing and that largely relies on bamboozling unsuspecting people with scripted pseudo-benefit speak.

I am guessing we get the marketing we deserve. If we all said "no" to such approaches we may quickly train companies to stop patronising us; to start dealing with us openly, honestly, with good grace and good humour, and we might all start to do some mutually beneficial business.

Let's start a revolution by saying 'no' more frequently when we are being patronised.

And there is a great opportunity for a business to create a "purple cow" by pursuing an open, honest and refreshing dialogue with their potential customers.

More on 2GB

Apropos my much read (thank you Tim Burrowes) posting on the surprising, but well appreciated, result from the Sultry Sally 2GB campaign, I've had an email from an old mate of mine - Chris Smith - who is their afternoon presenter (and I note he again increased his share in the latest rating survey). Chris's wife and mine were 'pram buddies' and we have known each other for a few years as a result.

Chris has had a go at thinking about why the campaign has been so successul. I particulalry like his thought about talkback radio being a verbal blog:

Hey Tim,
One of those jocks here: Chris Smith from 2GB.
Good to see that some of you new-age types have been humbled by the real secret of AM talk radio and 2GB.

It's about a growing younger audience thirsty for talk and information;
It’s about live testimonials, to a wide audience, who want to hear about products … that’s why they tune to commercial AM.
And, most importantly, they have faith in their hosts… which is why they ask for a 3 hour non-stop earful everyday.

At Singo's request we all went gangbusters for Nick, and with almost all our shows at number 1 in their timeslots, it was always going to work...
We had the actual chips to devour on-air as well.
In fact, as the radio market dropped 10% last month, we increased our ad share by 10 plus. All due to results on-air.
It’s not all that old… and sometimes the tried and trusted means to send a message, are just as relevant in a more modern era.
After all, talkback, could be regarded as the most effective and direct blog in town!
Cheers mate
Smitty

Credit Cards

When the official rate has been cut to 3% and mortgages are now at 5.25% why are we still paying 18% to 21% on our credit cards in Australia?

Why is no one asking the question? I have seen no public commentary.

Oaths

I've just had to fill in a statutory declaration and had the usual problem finding a Justice of the Peace, Notary Public or Practising Solicitor to witness it. Apart from the difficulties of finding one there is the frustrating time commitment required to do so.

For many, many years I was a Justice of the Peace. I was sworn in as one at my local courthouse on my 18th birthday. I had no training or special qualifications, in fact I hadn't even completed my first university degree. I was simply a callow university student with pretensions. I did receive, at my swearing in, a booklet with tips for being a JP, which I studiously read and referred to subsequently.

In thinking about these things I wonder why a JP (or the like) is still required to witness a legal document such as a stat dec. Why couldn't one of the people in the office do it? Some years ago it might have been me witnessing someones signature and let's face it, I didn't really add any value to proceedings.

I imagine it is a now anachronistic throw-back to the days when JP's and notary publics were the landed gentry and the only ones who could be entrusted with such an important task - we couldn't have the rank-and-file stepping above their status to do such a thing.

Surely in 2009 we could do away with it all and allow fellow citizens to witness? Why don't we? I suspect no one is challenging the status quo.

The starting point for any creative innovation is a challenge to conventional wisdom. Entrepreneurs and innovators are continually challenging.

Manage your communication

All communication - internal and external; explicit and implicit - can impact the way your brand is perceived and need to be effectively managed.

Two bits of poor communication from this week.

A leading professional services firm has just laid off 200 workers as it tightens it's belt in the face of the current crisis. The CEO, in an internal email to staff, apparently said:

"While I am unable to guarantee that we won't need to make further difficult decisions as events continue to unfold, I would like to reassure you that the overall health of the business is very sound."

Let's remove the corporate double-speak. With this message he is effectively saying - 'no one's job is safe but we're [the partners] alright jack'!

What was this message supposed to do? It certainly isn't reassuring to staff, if anything it is quite the opposite. It comes across as cold, clinical and unfeeling - perhaps even a little insensitive.

The same message could have been delivered in a far warmer, more effective way which built equity in the brand. The starting point might have been to ask whether email is the correct medium for this message. Perhaps staff meetings and a chat might have been more effective.

But if email it had to be, how about something along these lines:

"In common with most businesses whose focus is on financial services, the current global crisis, has knocked us about a bit. Thankfully ours is still a healthy and robust business, and that is in no small part as a result of the efforts of everyone in the team. We recognise that all of you are who make us who we are, and so we are working to preserve jobs against an eventual upturn in conditions. But we can't hide from the fact that a downturn in revenue has meant we have had to let some people go. This impacts us all - both those who have gone and those remaining - and is always difficult and regrettable. We can't guarantee that there will be no further job losses if the crisis continues to bite, but we can guarantee we will do everything we can to make sure further job losses are a last resort."

With some time I could polish this and even streamline it, but you get the idea - human, warm, honest, transparent and empathetic communication, builds brand and culture. It does however require some thought (and of course it must be true).

The second poor communication is implicit. As the TV stations enter the non-ratings Easter hiatus, one of the first actions from the 7 network was to pull is regular 'hit' programming (after all, why squander a good program when it doesn't count for the ratings). But they did so without really telling anyone. So many people sat down to their regularly weekly fix (of whatever) only to find a repeat from a couple of years ago. So much for the resolution to last week's cliff-hanger ending - and when will the regular programs be back?

This is all a little bit patronising for the viewers and sends a very strong message - 'we don't value or care for you; you are simply a set of eyeballs we can use to sell advertising to; we'll be back to you in a few weeks when we need you again'.

It does nothing positive for the 7 brand.

Don't erect barriers

I was passing a local shoe store this morning and spied the notice in their window:

This is an e-store

We only accept eftpos or credit cards

Hang on; You mean - 'we don't accept accept cash, coin, our legal tender'?

The swift confirmation was received. Correct - you are not welcome to pay with anything other than cards. Wow!!

Now I am the card carrying member of the 'e-society', and in fact 9 times out of 10 I will pay bills with eftpos or over the Internet, but why place a limitation on how people can pay you? Particularly when the payment method you are ruling out is the one that the vast majority of the populace are most comfortable with??!!

There are a number of cardinal rules with small business:

1. Maximise your sales (and sales opportunities)
2. You can't get paid unless you invoice (so make sure you invoice as soon as you can)
3. Convert your sales to cash as quickly as you can

A subset of rule number '3.' is - allow your customers to pay in any way they choose as long as it is economically feasible.

The shoe shop is placing unnecessary barriers between their potential customers and a sale. They will put people off buying in the first place and they are making it difficult for customers to pay. Why? Business is difficult enough in the current circumstances without introducing further unnecessary difficulties.

I pay almost all of my bills now over the Internet. I notice that I receive all of my payments in the same way. Yet, as I have previously commented, I am astounded by the number of small businesses who fail to put their bank account details on their invoice. Make it easy to pay and people will do so. Make it difficult and people will use it as an excuse to prevaricate.

No business should erect a barrier to a sale or to receipt of a payment - particularly in the current climate.

I was wrong - I succumb to conventional thinking sometimes

Sultry Sally chips are available nationally in Woolworths. Woolworths launched their own (Select) brand of low fat chips in direct competition. I actually welcomed their entry because two of us makes a "Better For You" category. Years ago when I did my MBA we talked about the "Ice Cream Sellers on Bondi Beach". One ice cream seller on Bondi Beach is a vendor; two is a market. Two ice cream sellers will generate more revenue each than one will.

But Woolworths supported the launch of their product with more than $2m of advertising support including prime time TV. The result was that we have been suffering a sales decline for a number of weeks as people switch to the Woolies low fat offering.

The rub here is that if we are to maintain the Woolworth's listing we need to increase sales to demonstrate our worth - difficult when our 'landlord' is also our competitor. It seemed that some traditional advertising was required on our part and in fact Woolworths almost implicitly demanded it.

I am not a huge fan of traditional advertising for new brand launches. I believe people are too busy and not really listening (another blog pot will be necessary to explain why). So to be forced into a position where I have to take a traditional, main media approach is anathema.

This was quickly compounded. I guess if most marketers were asked to focus on traditional advertising these days (and TV was too expensive) the focus would quickly shift to online, and specifically to either search or social media. I have some partners in the business who are most definitely 'old media' types and wouldn't countenance online in a month of Sundays.

One of my partners (Nick Moraitis) has a great relationship with an old advertising war horse - a inductee into the Australian advertising hall of fame - John Singleton (AKA 'Singo"). Singo owns an AM (!!) radio station in Sydney - 2GB. Nick decided, "Timmy, we need to go and see Singo; he'll help us out on 2GB and everyone listens to 2GB".

My heart sank. Strategically, I couldn't think of anything worse. We are talking radio; worse, AM radio; worse still, talk-back radio; even worse, a radio station that everyone knows is only listened to by a few old punters - way, way off target and brand for us.

But I met with Singo and Nick and Ray Hadley, one of their Jock presenters. Most of the discussion revolved around race horses ( a shared interest for all of them), but the bits that didn't and were comprehensible to me, were equally scary - sort of a "Trust us mate, we'll see what we can do" approach.

No, no, no thought I, this is all wrong. But Nick persisted and prevailed. "They are mates", he said, "Everyone listens to 2GB; it's the highest rating station in Sydney".

I braced for the impending disaster as the ink dried on a 6 week deal with 2GB.

I couldn't have been more wrong.

Our phones have been ringing off the hook; NSW Woolworths stores have been emptied of product. It is working like nothing I have seen before. I have been forced to eat my words and humble pie and I couldn't be more grateful.

Every bit of conventional thinking says this can't work - wrong demographic; wrong for the brand; wrong medium; just plain wrong! - but it has.

I love the fact that some old dogs can still teach us 'young 'uns' some old new tricks; I love the fact that the old ways still count for something; I love the fact that I can still be surprised, be wrong and learn from it.

The lessons? Respect and value your elders; be open minded; be prepared to try different things; don't be instantly dismissive; and finally - you are a champion Ray Hadley!

Rethink 2009 - Barcelona

My old friend Martin Lindstrom recommended me (thanks Martin) and, as a result, I was fortunate to be invited to provide a keynote presentation at a marketing conference in Barcelona this month. The conference topic was "Rethink - The Basis of Communication" and was generally about how businesses can deal with marketing in the face of the global crisis.

It was a fantastically interesting event which was made so by the calibre of my fellow speakers.

Martin Oetting, from trnd in Berlin, is an international expert in word-of-mouth marketing (in fact he has just completed a doctoral dissertation on the subject).

Nigel Barlow a British, fortunately now reformed, erstwhile lawyer, had coincidentally written a book called 'Re-think" some years before and was an inspirational proponent of creative thinking. I enjoyed immensely his company and his stimulating ovation.

Steve Hatch is the Managing Director of mediaedge:cia in London. They seem to be doing some very creative and different work (to me, surprisingly so, since they are part of WPP).

Jose Molla, originally from Argentina, but now living in Miami was a swarthy, straight from central casting, Latin American, advertising creative with his own agency called la comunidad.

But I am going to devote most of this post to a professor of economics. Dr. Kjell (pronounced 'Shell') Nordstrom, hails from Stockholm where he is an Associate Professor at the Institute of International Business at the Stockholm School of Economics. We all know that economics is generally impenetrable to all but economists - I have a Master of Economics degree and still my eyes glaze over usually - but Kjell is not that sort of economist. He is best described as a 'Rock Star' economist because that is how he looks and presents. He was riveting! In fact at the end of his key note speech the room erupted with a standing ovation. I challenge anyone to recall the last time an economics presenter received such approval (even adulation) at a business conference.

Perhaps his talk resonated with me because he gave more articulate voice to many of the views I have long held - he even managed to serendipitously identify as an opportunity, one of the nascent business ventures I have been working on for a while now. With Dr. Jonas Ridderstrale, Kjell is the co-author of Funky Business and Karaoke Capitalism. Both are worth reading and provide a very different perspective on the state of the world and how to make money in business.

I'm not going to try to paraphrase Kjell's analysis or words of wisdom because I simply couldn't do them justice - in fact I will endeavour to get him here for an Aussie tour. But some stimulating thoughts from him:

1. The art of making money is not just to have a great idea but to ensure that idea provides a temporary monopoly; there is no money to be made in competition.
2. The world is dramatically changing - not just in the face of the current economic storm - and those changes will have a profound affect on how we do business. For example, we are becoming more urbanised than ever before in history and urban conurbations are developing cultures of their own. An example - the US is not one market it is a number of cities with very distinct personalities and cultures.
3. How about this one - more than 2/3rds of uni students today (the world over) on average are women. Young men have become emasculated - they have given up. This will have a profound impact on the leadership (and culture) of organisations in the future.
4. The family unit is breaking down. Increasingly (and it is accelerating) the majority of households in cities around the world are sole person households. For example, in Stockholm this is 64% of households. This will have a dramatic impact on the shape of business.
5. Many people have, as result of the crisis, written off the USA as a global economic super power. This is a mistake. The US will continue to dominate as one of the top 3 wealthiest nations on earth because it is the only country in the world which is a true meritocracy and is available to anyone regardless of birth. For example, Arnold Swartzeneger, born in Austria, can become Governor of the 5th largest economy of the world; 86% of people working in Silicon Valley were born outside the US; 9 of the top 10 universities of the world are American.
6. There has been a dramatic shift of power (in everything) from the centre to the periphery. This is demonstrated so powerfully with the web which has empowered (well, let's face it) everyone. This changes fundamentally the nature of business.

And on and on it went. If you can, read his books. Even better, if you can, hear him speak. He throws out pearls of wisdom.

One thing is certain to me. We should not expect the world has changed and will change back again. The world has changed. There is no going back. Businesses which will thrive are those that recognise the change is forever and come up with customer inspired solutions to the new world order.

Bureaucracy (Vodafone) Gone Mad

I have recently travelled to Barcelona to speak at a marketing conference about how marketers can deal with the global crisis (more on that later).

As is usually the case I travelled with a laptop, iPhone and Blackberry (actually two Blackberry's). All worked extremely well at keeping me in constant touch. One of the Blackberry's was a Bold provided by Vodafone which I have been using for a few months now. The other was my old Blackberry (clunky) provided by Telstra.

I love the Blackberry Bold and choose it over the iPhone for email. The Bold was provided to me by Vodafone as part of a wider deal (involving a number of staff phones) I have with them, and, despite the initial problems getting it provisioned by Vodafone, has previously functioned flawlessly.

I went the long way to Barcelona across the top of Europe, via Helsinki, and had no problems with the Bold working in Bangkok, Helsinki or Barcelona. Things fell apart though on my return journey.

I arrived for a 7 hour layover in Bangkok and there was no service on the Bold. I tried rebooting a number of times but still no emails despite the fact that it was clearly showing a network connection and signal strength.

Annoyingly I had to resort to email on my iPhone (I had packed the backup Telstra Blackberry in my checked luggage figuring I wouldn't need it, so I had no choice). One of the emails was a transcribed voice message from my office phone system, from Vodafone, asking me to call them on an Australian 1800 number (which was of course not accessible from overseas). I guessed I knew what the problem was and thought, since I had 7 hours to kill anyway, I might as well try and resolve it.

The problem I envisaged was that I have NEVER received a bill from Vodafone and therefore have never paid them. I knew sooner or later I would have to pay but figured it wasn't my role to beg them for a bill. I had given them all my contact details (home and office) when I signed up, and clearly they at least knew my office phone number, so I wasn't trying to avoid them or my fiduciary duties.

I found a way to get my laptop online in Bangkok airport and went digging on the web for a Vodafone contact number I could call from overseas. I finally tracked one down and made the call.

I got through to "Laura" their inept human interface to an IVR system. I, like almost any sane consumer, hate IVR systems and I hate them even more when they dress them up with a faux helpful and cheerful human voice interface who asks me to simply 'say the thing I need'. I speak perfectly good English and I have a well remunerated public speaking career which attests to it, yet 'Laura' and her ilk never seem to comprehend my requests. The result is an increasingly frustrating farce where 'she' repeatedly tells me "I'm sorry I didn't understand that, can you say again what you want - it is a good idea to speak slowly and simply'. Grrrrrr!!!! There is never simple enough language to make 'Laura' understand.

This sort of obfuscation is fine when you are calling them on their 1800 number, and it is not costing you anything, but it is maddening when you are calling from overseas and it is costing you global roaming charges.

Eventually I got through to the right sort of IVR option but Laura wasn't going to put me through to a real person until I had provided my PIN number security code. When 'Laura' asked for my PIN number my heart sank because I had no idea at all what it was. I have a great head for numbers and knew it wasn't just a case of my forgetfulness - I have never had a Vodafone PIN. I vainly tried a few of the 'old faithfuls' only to be told in a very condescending manner by 'Laura' that the numbers were incorrect.

Thank heavens (or so I thought) 'Laura' gave up in frustration and put me through to a real person. The first question I was asked by the real person - "Tom" - was, you guessed it, my PIN number. "I have no idea at all", was my plaintive reply. "Well try guessing", said Tom. "I've been guessing for the last half hour and Laura tells me all my guesses are wrong, what's the point in trying again with you Tom?" was my response. "Try anyway". So I did. Of course, all my guesses were incorrect.

Tom refused to talk to me unless I could identify 'myself' with a PIN number - he was concerned about my privacy. Well, I wasn't going to let it go at that. I told him I was in Bangkok and my beloved Blackberry wasn't working. He managed to confirm that for me. I suggested that the reason might be because they had cut it off because I hadn't paid the bill. He was more cagey with that one because he didn't want to reveal anything to me but it was clear that was the case. I played my trump card - "But Tom, I am returning your call - you called me to talk about this". He begrudgingly admitted he (personally) had called and left a message but he still couldn't talk to me because I couldn't identify myself. I asked him how on earth I would know he called me unless I was the person who he called but he still wouldn't budge.

I tried a different tack - "Look Tom, I'm happy to pay any outstanding bill to get my Blackberry working again, just switch the Blackberry back on and email it to me and I'll pay it - I don't know where the bills have been going but I have never received one." He admitted that he could "see, from the files at least 3 potential reasons why my bills weren't getting to me, but [he] still couldn't discuss it [with me] because I couldn't provide the PIN" and so he didn't know who I was. He offered to talk to to his supervisor if he could put me on (expensive) hold for a couple of minutes.

He came back and said that his supervisor had told him that if I could fax him, on Company letterhead, a letter signed by a Company director, requesting them to release to me my PIN he could do so and then I could call back and talk to him. I lost it at this point and suggested common sense should prevail - I was in Bangkok airport, not near a fax machine or printer and in any event I didn't have a letterhead (at all - who does these days?) . This brought us to a grinding impasse.

He went back to his supervisor who proposed a cunning plan - 'How about I nominate a $ figure I would be prepared to pay to have my Blackberry service reinstated and, if that was acceptable to them, I could pay it via credit card over the phone and then we could both sort it all out when I got back to Australia.' I dismissed this for the obvious nonsense it was.

I suggested a number of alternatives - how about I email you a letter including my company ABN? How will you do that said he - from my Optus iPhone of course! That might work, he admitted. Is there any other way I asked - how about you ask me for my date of birth, the colour of my eyes, my mother's maiden name, the name of my first pet or first car? No, Tom wouldn't have any of that.

So, after nearly 2 hours on the phone, I hadn't gotten anywhere with Tom. I tried the only thing which provided a glimmer of hope and sent him an email from my iPhone. I didn't receive a response.

And still haven't! It has been a week now since I have been back. I've tried emailing and calling but they still can't talk to me because I still don't know my PIN, which to the best of my knowledge, I have never set up in any event.

I still have received no invoices anywhere and my Vodafone Blackberry is still down for the count.

The day I arrived back in OZ I popped around to Telstra and upgraded my old, spare Blackberry for a Bold. So for the last week I have been happily using a Blackberry Bold again but with a different carrier.

I guess I'll wait and see what Vodafone does. At least I know they correctly have my office telephone number but I haven't received any calls from them. Even if I did I am sure the first question they would ask is my PIN - stalemate again.

There are so many things wrong with Vodafone evident from this story that I don't know where to begin to summarise them. I would have thought that in this challenging economic time it was more imperative than ever to apply common sense; collect cash from your customers; provide exceptional service and so on. Not Vodafone. Heaven help them - if you have shares, sell!

March 2009 Already!!??

No excuse I know, but I have been extraordinarily busy and I note my last post was December 2008. Perhaps I need a March New Year's resolution (there surely must be some form of New Year kicked off in March - if not I'll settle on St. Patrick's Day) to be more diligent in my attendance.