Redefine “Conversation” to Better Facilitate Consideration … and Purchase

The Conversation of the Future?

Over the holidays, my 12 year-old son went shopping for a present for his mom on his own. After browsing around in Borders bookstore, he sent me a text which listed the things he was considering. I suggested he send me a photo of his favorite option. He did, I approved, and I can still recall the feeling as if I participated in the decision, even though he was exercising his independence. What a great experience and a nice connective moment for us both.

This got me thinking about what it means — or doesn’t mean — to have a conversation in an age of mobile ubiquity.

Humans have long enjoyed the art of the conversation. These days, we “talk” in many ways, including in person, over the phone, texting and tapping social media applications. What if brands spent less time prying their way into those conversations, and more time adding value by making it easier for us to converse about our brands and products?

Social Media types love to use the word “conversation.” So much so that now the phrase “Participate in the conversation” is cliché —and even derided.

Call me old school, but I think it’s important to revisit the notion of conversation before SMS texting, Twitter, Facebook and other non-verbal platforms. Merriam-Webster defines conversation as “oral exchange of sentiments, observations, opinions, or ideas.” In other words: talking; dialogue; banter; chin wag.

Remember the good old days when you caught up with friends by placing a phone call? You could hear their happiness, or sadness, laughter, inflection. Even better, how about a face to face encounter, say lunch or a drink, where one can truly ascertain mood, nuance, and body language. These, combined with environmental factors allow both parties to reap the rewards of a meaningful conversation. Commenting on someone’s Facebook status or twittering 140 characters of #thoughtsonthetoilet doesn’t replicate the true definition of conversation. Perhaps there is a narrative created by the stream of comments and tweets, but how connective is it compared with a traditional multi-sensory conversation?

Or should we redefine it?

Or, perhaps this new age just means that we need to redefine the idea of conversation so that it’s not limited to “oral” but to also include visual and text inputs. With this expanded take on things, brands can better understand the role of public conversations and do a better job of facilitating. Again, Merriam-Webster tells us that to facilitate means “to make easier.”

Start with a basic understanding of how people are having conversations when thinking about brands and making purchases in a store. Last week, Motorola released their 2009 Holiday Shopper Report. According to the study, this past holiday season 64% of Gen Y used their mobile device for shopping IN-STORE¹. Gen Y are the generation that has redefined our view of a traditional conversation, and they are almost twice as likely as Boomers (33%) to use their mobile phone while shopping. These are the types of primary conversations they’re having:

• 38% called a friend to ask their opinion about a considered item purchase
• 31% texted a friend to ask their opinion about a considered item purchase
• 23% sent an image to a friend to ask their opinion about a considered item purchase

The types of secondary conversations are:

• 21% used a mobile phone to access the Internet for product reviews or other product information
• 21% used a mobile phone to access the Internet to compare prices
• 14% searched for a coupon relevant to a considered item purchase

10% actually made a purchase using their mobile phone while they were standing in a store (and presumably a purchase with a competitor).

While the report doesn’t clarify the implication of that last statistic, retailers can either ignore what consumers do in their house, or they can strategically embrace these growing mobile behaviors and make it easier for consumers to have these conversations with the objective of converting consideration to purchase.

This seems like a pretty simple strategy to execute. Some thoughts on how:

• Display products so that they are easy to photograph.
• Leverage POS signage to encourage sharing by creating text codes for picture sharing or accessing specific product reviews.
• Empower sales associates to encourage image capture and MMS sharing. Salesperson: “You look great in that outfit; I could take your picture and so you can send it to someone for a second opinion.”

And with new solutions providers developing share utilities for shoppers (e.g. www.inmarkit.com), it is increasingly easy to create wish lists and capture data not only on what people are sharing, but to monitor the conversations. “Participation” has potential to be meaningful and relevant, not intrusive and promotional.

¹ Motorola Enterprise Mobility Solutions: Business and Market Intelligence. 2009 Retail Holiday Season Shopper Study, Key Findings Report – January 2010.

This is also posted on Ogilvy’s re:direct.

Direct Mail Done Well Is Magic

David Ogilvy famously claimed, “Direct Mail: my first love and secret weapon.” Increasingly, I hear marketer’s claims that direct mail is DEAD. Humbug I say. I am, of course, biased after 20+ years in the direct marketing business.

No doubt direct mail’s role as a mass medium for credit card solicitations has dwindled, thankfully. But what has always made direct mail so powerful is the connection of the written word: personalized, tailored, individual. Direct mail, when done right (and it rarely is), is like a love letter. I can think of few examples. Drayton Bird’s classic letter for American Express that begins “Have you ever paid a little more for a better seat at the theatre and thus enjoyed a far more memorable evening?” is one. In fact, it’s a three-page letter that worked for what seemed like decades attracting new Cardmembers to the American Express franchise.

Gone are the days when we, Twittering, texting, Facebooking consumers that we are, will stop to read a piece of personal correspondence on paper (much less write one. Even a Thank You note would be nice). Gone are the days of ink and parchment. Even pulp fiction and literary classics are an easy 30 second download with the Wi-Fi enabled Kindle 2.

Maybe direct mail is dead. Or, so I thought until I received a letter from my old friend Johnnie Boden. I actually know Johnnie and worked with him back in London in the mid 90’s when he was really getting his catalog business going. Because of this, his letter did speak to me differently. I could hear him as I read the letter. Even so, the honest, sincere – dare I say – humorous – tone shone through and made a connection. So much so that I read the entire letter. Every word of it!

You see, direct mail works best when it is written by a person, not a corporation. This letter uses all the DM tricks like the big $20 voucher with bright colors and made up terms like “Quick Service Number” so they can track me, but make me feel important. It even the uses of the word “Free” at least three times.

But, it also employs the key ingredient of the Boden Brand: wit and charm. Combined with brevity on one page, it’s a winning combo. In the opening paragraph Johnnie informs me that he’s “been hopping from foot to foot like an incontinent uncle waiting for that elusive first order.” He then acknowledges these are indeed “grey and miserable times” (I appreciate the dose of honesty) and asks for the order.

He writes, “It’s been colder than a polar bear’s toenails, and houses are now worth less than a packet of chips, but that’s no reason not to look fabulous. It’s time to just say ‘Sod it’.” Spoken like a true Englishman. He even uses the adverb “sartorially” which is an early 19th Century word relating to good tailoring. When was the last time you received such an erudite piece of direct mail that also contains colloquial vulgarities like “sod it”?

It worked for me. And this is my point. If you want to succeed in personalized communications, know your audience and know your voice. Don’t be afraid to proclaim your undying love for your customer or share common trepidations that will connect you with your audience.  It’s even acceptable use words that others may not know. If the letter is good and genuine (as opposed to attorney-speak and pompous), the reader may even look the words up (online, of course). Hopefully they will buy something at best, or at least tell a friend (on Facebook) and perhaps even Blog about it. Too often the humanity of today’s direct marketing communications (and this includes email) is over thought by marketers and lawyers afraid to expose any “personality.” I suppose the worry is that being oneself, warts and all, might offend a small few with disregard for potentially connecting with the many more who care.

So check out Johnnie’s clothes. Sartorially speaking, they’re nice threads.  www.bodenusa.com

Job Status: “Overqualified”

If you’ve got 20 years or more of professional work experience and you’re looking for a job these days, no doubt you have been told more than once that you’re “overqualified.”

I will use a friend and former colleague as an example. Lisa, like so many people I know, myself included, is a seasoned marketing professional. She has dedicated her career to advertising agencies and corporate clients. She has sacrificed so much of her life helping others make money. No doubt, she’s been able to provide for her family, but not without a significant personal toll.

Like so many of us “ex” agency people, what Lisa brings to any professional environment is deep communications experience: strategic, integrated marketing insights, multi-channel creative management, results based business acumen. Experience that goes deep: managing individuals and teams, managing budgets, managing “up,” managing under pressure, solving problems, initiative. Plus, she’s nice AND smart.

So yesterday she learns, after her seventh (7^th) job interview with company A, that she is a great candidate, but she’s considered “overqualified.”

What does that mean, overqualified?

• Perhaps it is a euphemism for “we can’t afford to pay you what you used to earn.” Let me just clarify that most of us would just be happy with a paycheck and some health insurance.

• Perhaps the concern then becomes that if this overqualified individual takes the job for a lesser salary that they’ll be happy today, but by 2010, when the economy supposedly starts to turn around, they will want more money or leave. Mr. Prospective Employer, you could have worse problems. Take the experience at a reduced rate while you can get it. Think of it as a trial run. If they are that good, then they will have made you enough money so you can afford to pay them what they deserve. If not, let them go.

• Perhaps the concern – and this is valid – is that this person isn’t a “doer” because they are so senior. I share this concern, but I think in this economy you will find plenty of very senior level people that will happily take on project management roles and do them with great skill and efficiency (which means happier clients and improved profitability). Remember that point about a paycheck and health insurance?

• Perhaps the problem is that the “overqualified” employee will report to an “under qualified” manager. Now we’re getting somewhere. Good, smart people apparently ruffle the tenure structure.

The point I want to stress is that the term “overqualified” is relative to something or someone else. If an organization passes over really great talent because of formidable qualifications, what does that say about the organization? What message does it send to clients?

Sure, we need structure, and sometimes even hierarchy, but brains and experience tend to develop better strategies and solutions for success.

David Ogilvy would have loved today’s hiring environment. He would have embraced the tremendous pool of talent available today and I imagine he would use the opportunity to clean house. I learned early on in my career at Ogilvy about the Russian Dolls. Every so often, Ogilvy would send each of his directors a set of Russian nesting dolls, where inside the largest doll would be a small one, and then a smaller one, and so on. In the smallest doll, he would place a piece of paper that read: “If we hire people who are smaller than we are, we will become a company of dwarfs. If we hire people who are larger than we are, we’ll become a company of giants.”

Now, I am off to my therapy group. “Hi, my name is Hugh Allspaugh and I am overqualified.” Please hire me.

Transformed Santa won’t deliver for Palm this Christmas

T’is the season for a new twist on Santa.

Credit should be given to Palm centro for the transformative effect their phone has on Santa Claus. Our traditional Santa discovers the Palm centro smartphone and apparently a whole new world is opened up for him. He cuts his hair, ditches the shabby suit and antiquated sleigh and becomes a hip (hop) character named Claus (which rhymes with “blouse”), smartly dressed in a designer suit traveling to places warm and sunny – far away from the North Pole – which he easily finds using his GPS navigation app on his centro (and presumably a little magic).

There are a lot of spots in this campaign, each supporting a key feature of the smartphone from music to photos. For example, the Rooftop DJ spot opens with Claus in front of an enraptured circle of young people where he’s discussing his amazement that he can keep his “list” on the centro rather than those “big parchment scrolls.” Claus, where the hell have you been for the last 12 years? I mean, didn’t you deliver the original Palm Pilot 1000 and Pilot 5000 to tech geeks everywhere for Christmas between 1996 and 1999?

He’s likeable, this Claus character, although I prefer the fat, jolly old man Coca Cola made famous; or at least the tech savvy version of Santa in his Grotto managing his naughty and nice list on his IBM ThinkPad – a brilliant print execution created by Ogilvy & Mather in the ‘90s. (If anyone has the jpg of that ad, please post it).

This campaign, however, is not that well executed online. If you search “Palm centro”, for example, you don’t get a link to the official campaign site (http://www.palm.com/claus/). The organic results direct you to people like me blogging about the campaign – and it’s not all good. There’s no paid search results that I have seen. Why spend all this money on television and not add a little more to the place where people will ultimately go to form an opinion about this device. Seems really short sighted.

Claus has his own Facebook page too with just over 1,600 friends (http://www.facebook.com/claus). For all of the advertising money being spent, I would have hoped for at least another zero, if not two. That would be a better Christmas present for the brand manager and the agency. Even worse, if you search “Santa Claus Centro” in Facebook, you find some rather pornographic groups based in Santiago, Chile who apparently like to show their raw materials.

Palm did a great job with the narrative hook on this one, but they haven’t detailed the threads too well. Beyond the ads, this story falls flat. And even at $49.99, I’m not sure it will deliver what I am sure Palm wants for Christmas – sales in a very competitive iPhone dominated space. I’m keeping my eye on the Blackberry Storm, thanks.