User-review sites, when shills go wrong

Urbanspoon, the user review site and social network for foodies, has been running a contest to find the "most romantic restaurant" in cities across America. Great idea with Valentine's Day coming up, this could guide a lot of people to try new restaurants they may not be aware of. The problem is that many of the results across the nation are indeed not at all romantic.

I first noticed the problem in Salt Lake, where a bar was leading the vote for several weeks. Not a romantic one by any means. After discussing with many of Urbanspoon's prime members (users who make significant contributions in each city) it was discovered that the problem was very widespread, and frequently due to restaurants inflating the votes themselves by encouraging customers and employees to vote for them. Now I totally condone restaurants asking customers to make their vote, or write a review on these sites. But employees are definitely crossing an ethical line, and asking for a vote that is truly undeserved is not only unethical, but it will backfire on the restaurant, the site, and the credibility of the users.

Shill reviews are always a bad idea. A shill is a positive review for your own business, or posting a negative review for a competitor. People often take advantage of the anonymity of the web, thinking they can say whatever they like with no consequence. The problem is that it is really easy to spot a shill, and once discovered you will feel a worse fate than just a few bad reviews.

In regards to this Valentine's Day contest, if someone looked to this poll to make a decision on a date-spot, then found themselves at a very unromantic place, it's not going to sit well in their minds. There are few experiences in life that carry worse feelings than a failed date. When a restaurant is a factor in a bad date, the customer typically won't give that spot another chance because of how disappointed they were on their visit. The total experience matters when customers are trying a new business, and a bad first impression is a lasting feeling that is not easily cured.

You may think it's all out of fun, or believe that some good attention may get you new customers, but if you get customers under false-pretense the backfire can spread quickly and will turn that target audience against you.

Ranting about the snake-oil sellers

Search engine optimization has been a major buzz-word for a number of years now. While there are a handful of good practitioners out there, there are also a great number of people who are the equivalent of yesteryear's snake-oil salesmen. They know all the keywords, they have all the answers, yet they haven't worked a day in an actual brand-marketing environment. Once you're at the top of the search results, are you actually delivering anything to keep the customers thinking positively about you?

The barrier to entry is low for the internet, which attracts all of the get-rich-quick crowd. It can be very frustrating for a business who is looking for help, when so many seem to have all the right answers. These snake-oil pushers are now excitedly entering the social-media market. They can set up a Facebook fan-page, a Twitter account, and tell you about sites like Urbanspoon, Yelp, and Foursquare. They have quick-tricks with tools to get you thousands of followers. But once you get past the talk, have you really made a meaningful connection with anyone?

There is a great likelihood that they can make you feel great about everything you are paying them for, and they likely can tell you all about the thousands of businesses they have helped. Just like the street-side vendors who could make your hair grow, cure leprosy, and fix all of your problems with a simple elixir, these SEO or social media "gurus" will be quick to sell you tools and tactics to promote your business and get you to the top of Google.

The problem is, being a top result on Google doesn't pay your rent and overhead. A communication strategy is needed, products must meet customer expectations, and customers must want to interact with you. Social media and SEO are a piece of the puzzle, but if that is the only focus of your consultant, you may be left with an empty bottle of snake oil.

Losing control in the social media jungle

For any company who resists getting involved in social media, because they don't want to lost control of their brand, you should know that you are likely being talked about out there already.

If you don't establish your own presence, that doesn't shield you from being on the internet. It only means you have no idea what is being said about you. People have always talked to each other about brands, but now we can monitor much of that conversation. Jacob Morgan has a great post titled Do companies have control over their brands that you should read.

Get criticized, respond correctly to your critics, and use that exchange to make a better business. It's another tool in your toolbox, you may as well use it to build something great. I'm not telling everyone to start a Twitter account, or a Facebook fan page, those are not for everyone. But there are many other directories, user review sites, and other ways to connect with your customers. Google yourself, see what happens.

Addressing sports fans

I love to see business owners addressing their customers. Putting yourself in front of the public is a difficult thing, and hearing their feedback gives great insight to help understand what is important. Not every comment on a blog post will be productive, and a business certainly cannot change their strategy simply because one customer thinks everything should be different.

Utah Jazz owner Greg Miller addressed his fans & critics this week. He stated his love for the team, and a commitment to be a winning team. He also pointed out that the payroll is at its highest level ever, that doing business in the NBA is complicated, and that the team is working towards long-term goals.

It is true, I am pretty sure 99% of sports fans do not understand the intricacies of sports as a business. Just like most restaurant patrons don't know what goes on from the kitchen through the management of a restaurant, and shoppers don't know the life cycle of a product. But the owners and staff do need to understand how the business works. It obviously is not impossible to make trades and staff changes, other teams are doing it all the time. So the problem with Greg's explanation is that it just gives his critics more fuel for their fire, and the faithful fans will continue to be faithful regardless. It is nearly the same outcome as no message whatsoever.

It is tough to communicate to your customers, especially when there is general disdain towards your product. Something needs to be said, but it takes a very skillful person to come up with the exact message. I applaude Mr. Miller's concern to address the fans, it was a good move considering the situation the team is in. My only caution is to think deeply about every word and be sure the intended outcome of the communications are achieved.

Does Redbox exist anymore?

Of course I am kidding. But there is definitely a lot less talk about the DVD rental kiosks lately. It is still a household word, but could it be that like all new retail concepts, people have gotten used to it? Or, could this be an early indicator of another business destined for the declining revenue train?

Right now, Redbox kiosks are still being installed everywhere. It is the best deal in movie rentals in nearly every city across America. But recent changes to their promotions are not only causing increasing frustration among customers, it has also stopped the conversation about the brand.

Customers subscribed to receive emails and mobile updates so they could receive free rental codes every Monday. The codes worked for every customer, which prompted people to forward the SMS messages to everyone on their phones, post on Facebook, and post to Twitter. The codes were spread so quickly and frequently that you could count on Redbox as a trending topic on Twitter each Monday.

Then the free Monday rentals were cut-off. Redbox announced it would only offer their mobile subscribers one free code each month. Shortly after, the codes became personalized, so that each code could only be redeemed once, not just once per customer.

Understandably, it can be hard to make money when giving your product away. The problem is that Redbox cut off too much, too quickly. Then they followed that up by eliminating their best advertising program when they made the new codes unsharable.

Customers can understand when prices increase. We are not happy about it, but we know it happens. However, Redbox needed to find a way to increase revenue without throwing this many disruptions into their customers' behavior. Especially considering that they are in a business that is increasingly threatened by new technology.

I'm sure Blockbuster could tell them what happens when the customer base is no longer talking about them.

Keep your fans & subscribers

Every day we see or hear ads from companies that want us to sign up to receive emails, SMS alerts, facebook updates, tweets, and more. But what does the consumer get in return? Sales pitches, irrelevant updates, and repeated messages from their many methods of advertising.

The value exchange is out of balance. The advertisers get what they want, but too often the consumers don't often get anything of significant value in exchange for the opt-in. Companies assume that when people opt-in, that they want to hear everything from that brand. This may not always be the case, which results in unsubscribes and consumers who just ignore and delete.

When a customer opts-in, this is not traditional advertising where you broadcast the same message everywhere and hope for a small percentage to act on it. This is your time to show these customers you truly value them. Offer your text-message subscribers something more than the general public will receive. Give your "fans" a reason to follow your facebook updates. Most importantly, encourage these opt-in customers to talk about you and share with their friends.

It's about building business, right? So make these fans of your business fanatics. Don't just buy your time with them until they give up on you.

Trust: desired by you, required for you

When you have a problem with Amazon, they send you a replacement before they get your returned item. They trust you.

Zappos does the same, if the shoe doesn't fit, they replace it immediately.

Popular retailers are the ones who treat their customers with respect, and trust. They don't give them problems or hassle them when a return is being made.

Would you let an issue of trust destroy your reputation and lead you out of business? Instinctively, everyone would say no, but more often than not their behavior does otherwise.

When you have a disagreement with a customer, do you send them away upset? I have been watching the unfolding of a dispute between a local restaurant and a group of disgruntled customers who believed they were lied to, then subsequently treated poorly. At issue: a $60 cover-charge added to the bill for a pay-per-view event. What that $60 got the restaurant: a horrible rating on UrbanSpoon, Yelp, and throughout the internet; also 12 former customers who will now tell everyone they encounter to avoid the restaurant.

Is it the end of the road for this establishment? Probably not, but would they be better off today by forgiving the customers and making everything peaceful? Definitely. There are situations when customers are truly taking advantage, and you have to walk away, but your business needs to establish trust with your customers to become the business everyone loves. Especially today, where every upset customer can reach more people, faster than ever.

Domino's is rolling the dice

Domino's Pizza is taking a couple of big risks. First, the chain will change the recipe of its pizza from the crust up. Second, it will promote the change by gathering bloggers and others who have criticized the taste of their product, asking their opinion in a live tasting.

Can a major chain change the recipe of their product? According to Russell Weiner, marketing chief at Domino's, "We weren't winning against everyone at taste." One consultant cautioned, "It's like McDonald's changing the ingredients in the Big Mac. Risks are akin to Coca-Cola's change — undone after a fan revolt — in Coke's taste." While Coca-Cola failed to understand there is more to a brand than blind-taste-test preference, this assumption implies that Domino's customers are primarily concerned with the taste of the product.

Domino's ranks first in convenience and price. The delivery pizza industry has declined 6% over the past year, and Domino's feels the crunch. While some may believe that a recipe change is admitting that what the brand stood for was wrong, would you rather ride a sinking ship until you've drowned, or get that boat to dock and make repairs? The essence of Domino's brand is hot, convenient, and affordable. Why wouldn't they make an effort to add delicious to their brand?

The only risk I foresee is their challenge to get reaction from their critics. Asking for live feedback does have a chance of backfire. The bloggers could taste the new recipe, claim it's still not great. Honestly, what do they have to lose? The people who have a poor perception of the brand will have not changed, but if Domino's is confident with their recipe they could get those very people who advocate against their brand to give it a nod of endorsement. Sure, it's a bold chance they're taking, but one which could pay off for them.

It's not unprecedented for a chain to make recipe changes. Adding enhancements to your product helps gain new customers, and satisfy existing customers to keep them longer. Domino's enhanced their brand to include hot with the introduction of their heat-wave bags. No one will complain when their convenient, affordable pizza arrives hotter and more tasty.

You've built a monster, please don't feed it

This is my open letter to Ted Gilvar - CMO of Monster.

Dear Ted, you've made it about 18 months in a big role and continue to have an even bigger challenge ahead of you. Unemployment is high, which means a couple of things. You have a lot of potential users who need your service. But, there are fewer opportunities for those people to find on your site. So what do you do when there are too many customers looking for too few products? You need to make it the best damn experience those people have ever had.

You've already built a monster, please don't feed it anymore.

As someone who has frequently utilized Monster and many other job search boards, we hate them. For the most part, job boards are just a necessary evil that we endure. Painfully gnashing our teeth and cringing as we type every letter of the URL. To be fair, Monster is infinitely better than CareerBuilder, and I do prefer it over HotJobs. But no one is getting excited to use your site.

We don't need any more advertising. We don't need clever promotions. We don't need banner ads, search ads, a social media presence, or interface updates. We don't need a logo redesign, website refresh, or anything like that. We need a brand we can trust.

Why does a marketing executive of over 10 years get search results for a "home health nurse," "finance & accounting manager," or "administrative assistant," all of which could be disastrous. But even worse, there are somewhere around 2,000 ways to say "door-to-door commission salesperson who will never earn $1" and you have them all wonderfully camouflaged as legitimate job listings that we have to sift through to find something that may even be remotely relevant to us.

I understand that you don't create the jobs, and there is a natural urge to not turn down money from advertisers. But a bit of quality control and categorization to help users find relevant jobs would make you the uncontested number one job site and make your brand the one and only household name anyone would ever think about using when they need a job. It is time to improve your product. It's called brand management. Make a product that people won't stop talking about. If every user was able to upload their resume, fill in a profile, and see nothing but relevant opportunities, hiring managers and candidates alike would love you forever.

You've got $250 million to spend. Certainly it would take a lot less than that to make it happen, and you'd never need to advertise again. It is time to improve the product in a big way. It's not as if we don't know what Monster is, we just don't want to use it.

Are consumers gaining power?

A report from the Chief Marketing Officer Council states that out of the 91% of consumers who opt-out or unsubscribe from email marketing, 46% are driven to brand defection because the messages simply are not relevant. Don't worry about those who unsubscribe? Perhaps you should be a bit concerned about those people who hit the unsubscribe button. They may be opting-in to your competition permanently.

A blog post from Facebook founder, Mark Zuckerberg, provides additional interesting insight into the future if you read between the lines. Facebook originally created networks by region and school. While the community was small, this worked to achieve what people wanted. It connected those students who wanted a way to connect and communicate to others around them. Now that seemingly everyone is on Facebook, people do not necessarily want to share their information with their bosses, family, and advertisers. The connection of living in the same region is not necessarily relevant to all consumers.

What do these things have in common? Consumers exercising their voice to make real changes in new media. This is not a new concept, it is likely that consumers have been defecting due to irrelevant messages since the first time a cobbler hammered an advertisement on a lamp post. This puts some information in our hands that we need to use in communicating.

Traditional wisdom was to create a message and broadcast it to the largest number of people possible. It was known that not every person would react positively (make a purchase) to the communication, and only in the event of accidentally insulting people would that communication result in negative reactions. What this information shows is that a very large number of consumers may actually gain a preference for the competing brand if they feel your communications are irrelevant.

Putting it all together now. Facebook is an example that shows people want to communicate and belong to a community. They are willing to become "fans" of their favorite brands, join in discussion groups about products and services, but that does not mean they want to connect to everything. Consumers who actually opt-in to communications from a brand they use, then defect to a competitor because of irrelevant communications shows that what we say and do can have positive and negative effects. Even if the communication was simply an offer that was not relevant to that consumer.

What you say matters. A lot. It is not safe to assume that you can bombard people's inboxes, television sets, Facebook pages, Twitter streams, etc. with any message, as often as you want. People watching may not just unsubscribe or change the channel. You may be sending them right into the arms of your competition.

Every time you communicate with your customers, think carefully about what you want to say. Make an offer that people will appreciate. Be relevant.

We don't want to hear from you

Companies have been communicating via e-mail for over a decade, so why do customers get so excited when they are contacted via twitter? Why do we crave companies with a social media presence? Because we are not used to getting a response, and we have been trained to believe email is a one-way street from companies.

One simple mistake: Do-not-reply@CompanyWhoWillNotAnswer.com

First things first, if you email customers you need to dump the "Do not reply" addresses. Also, you must make it easy for customers to contact you, and you need to reply to them.

When a company has an active Twitter account or Facebook fan page, it makes them approachable and customers like to feel like they are on even ground with the company they do business with. When they see Do Not Reply in every email, the message they receive is "we want to talk at you, but will not listen if you have anything to say."

With that said, if your social media plan is just to "build a Facebook fan page" or get on twitter, please don't. Your plan should be how you plan to communicate with your customers. Not just set a page, and forget it. Customers will either learn that you don't listen there either, or they will just forget you are there.

Just like with all advertising and marketing, why spend money telling people about your company if your potential customers will just feel disappointed once they find you.

Will you pay for an online newspaper subscription?

I am actually not going to enter the debate over whether newspapers should or should not charge for access to their online material. In the end, some will, while others will not.

Online subscriptions will provide revenue for some newspaper companies. The restriction of access will cause some newspapers financial grief.

What I will say is this, if the management of a newspaper company is too preoccupied with this decision of whether to charge or not, they will fail.

Why will people pay for information from one source versus another? Content and reputation. Otherwise known as their brand. If we know the brand of the news source represents the very best information, and what they provide enhances our lives, we will pay. But if your paper is just kicking out basic information that was covered by a dozen other sources, you lose.

Rather than debating "do we charge, or don't we," it is time to evaluate how your media source is different and what value can you provide the readers that they cannot get elsewhere. When you have a valuable, trusted brand, you can more easily find your income.

Did I ask to be spammed?

There are a lot of ways to connect with your customers, they can be a fan on Facebook, follow you on Twitter, or even the classic opt-in to receive email updates. The important thing is knowing what to do with those customers once you have them. How do you communicate with them, how often, what do you say? These are even more important than the campaigns to attract the customers to opt-in to your marketing efforts. Not only because of "unfollows" and unsubscribing, but the long-term damage to your brand.

Open your email anytime and it is sure to have a message or two that you simply do not find useful. All too often though, there are companies sending messages that make you ask, "did I ask to be spammed?" I like to have updates from the brands I use, it is helpful, helps me remember what is going on, and hopefully provides monetary benefits to being one of the customers who is on the list.

Take a look at the messages you are sending your customers. Ask yourself honestly, does the content represent a significant value to them, or to you? Most of the time we will find that the message is more about us than the customer. This will often result in the customer feeling we are just providing spam.

You may not see that perception from the number of lost fans or customers leaving your mailing list. Many will just ignore, delete without reading, or hit the "mark as spam" button on their email program. So it is always important to remember who keeps you in business and put yourself in their shoes. Your brand reputation depends on it.

Do I intervene?

Funny how the human brain works, isn't it. For some reason I just thought about an experience from just over a year ago.

I was trying a new restaurant with some friends. We lived out in a remote suburb, and it was exciting when something new opened that was not a franchise chain. The menu was quite eclectic, southwest fusion and gelato. Big rewards for creativity and focus on some of the hot food trends of the time. The woman helping us made mention of the owners having a meeting that night. There were six individuals at a table, having big ideas and discussions about marketing tactics.

I really could not help overhearing their discussion. It was a small dining room and they were pretty loud. As they discussed their ideas I just sat there nodding in disappointment. My friends could see what I was thinking, and said I needed to drop them my name and offer to help. I thought that would be a bit presumptuous of me to interject and try to tell them their ideas were money traps that would not make a difference in their business.

The meal was predictable. Not bad by any means, but didn't offer much of a compelling reason to come back. Within a few months they had gone out of business.

What would you have done? If you were a small business owner, do you want someone to politely interject and offer ideas?

Listen to your customers - but not that way

You need to be listening to your customers. Success is that simple, as long as you remember what to do once you have heard them. A business also needs to acknowledge what their purpose is, to provide for, solve, or otherwise make our consumer's life better. Why else would they part with their money if your business did not provide something of value to them? We need to listen to our customers, but if we are not the experts who solve the problem, rather simply facilitating the literal translation of what they asked for, why would they need us?

Henry Ford once said, "if I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses." Asking a customer exactly what product they want will not yield the innovation that will make you the market leader. You need to listen to your customer's goals, desires, and aspirations to develop a product that they did not know they needed.

Focus groups and other consumer feedback help us understand what is important to people. However, as Ford learned with Edsel, consumers all loved the features of the car but that did not turn into an overwhelming success. In fact, despite the consumer feedback, Edsel is often referred to as a colossal failure. Where Ford went wrong was determining what was most important to the consumers, which was a more affordable car.

Coca-Cola made a similar mistake with a cola formula that was preferred in most taste tests. Despite the positive reaction they received in blind-tasting results, New Coke became a disaster for the company.

Conversely, Dietrich Mateschitz hired a market research firm to test his new soft-drink and received bad news. "People didn't believe the taste, the logo, the brand name." But he launched his drink anyway and Red Bull has been a tremendous success.

The lesson is, if you present product options to consumers, they will pick what they are familiar with. This is not because they are uncreative or resistant to change, but that they have to base their opinions on what they know. It's your job to introduce them to the next thing they will want.

Istanbul, not Constantinople

I've been debating where to write this post. Is it politics? is it branding? It's both, but ultimately it puts me on my branding soap box to point out that many "marketers" have no clue what a brand actually is.

Throughout history there have been several nations, cities, and other geographical locations which have changed their names. Most of which have had to do with a change of government structure or independence from a former ruling nation. Little known fact to the citizens of South Salt Lake City and the surrounding areas is that former Salt Lake City mayor Deedee Corradini seized control of South Salt Lake during her term and controlled it as a puppet city. Rocky Anderson continued this oppression over the neighboring city for an additional 8 years, depleting it of its natural resources and using its prosperity for the benefit of the master city.

When South Salt Lake finally gained its sovereignty in 2009 it decided that a name change was necessary to raise the spirits of the formerly oppressed city. No longer would they be the plaything of that oppressive Salt Lake City...

Don't believe the story? You shouldn't. But it is only as outregeous as the city hiring a marketing firm and wanting to rename itself to improve its image and strive for future prosperity. The project could cost the small city of approximately 22,000 people $6500-$600,000 to complete the name change. Steve Aste, a developer whose Market Station development is on hold for financial reasons, even suggested that city hall be relocated to create a more downtown feel.

All of this talk about big spending while the city is trying to balance its 2009-2010 budget and cannot provide raises to its employees. Sounds like the right time for useless wasting of the public's tax dollars, right? Since they seem to have money just sitting around in this extremely prosperous city.

I am not insulting the economic plight of the residents of South Salt Lake, it is unfortunate that this happens to be an area plagued with poverty and crime. The point is that a city's leadership should not be looking at ridiculous temporary marketing antics rather than solving the problem which is South Salt Lake City's brand. The brand is not the name, changing the name to New Millcreek or any other sweet-sounding moniker is not going to end the crime. It will not provide prosperity to its residents and make everyone wealthy enough to tear down their old homes and allow Ivory Homes to rebuild the city to become North Draper.

The real brand work is to help the city reach its potential of being a perfectly located suburb of a busy downtown Salt Lake City. Spend the time and money on encouraging modest affordable housing to fill the empty lots and shopping centers. Provide grants to unique small businesses that can add character and prosperity to the neighborhood. Clean up the blighted areas and provide playgrounds where families can feel safe. Help the residents who live there overcome the crime and poverty.

South Salt Lake has a prime location to be a great city. But the "leadership" needs real strategies on how to make the South Salt Lake brand great, not paint a new name on the city that will still be known as the bad part of Salt Lake County.

In your face...book!

Can Facebook be the Twitter killer? Recent changes have suggested that is the new direction for the popular social networking site. Tweetdeck users can even combine their friend's status updates with their twitter stream. But is this a good thing? Is Twitter being killed?

Doubtful.

First, they are different products. Facebook grew as the safer, cleaner alternative to MySpace. It started slow, with an emphasis on privacy. Originally restricted to college students, it still maintains more privacy as you have to be a member of Facebook to browse the users. Advertisements are minimal, and the primary use of the service was communicating to your friends. 

Along came "social media marketers" who embraced the platform, speak loudly, and gather thousands of "friends." This is not inherently a bad thing, as people are still opting in who they consider to be a "friend" and has access to their family pictures and conversations on the wall. The downside to this, is the death of what a friend is on Facebook, which slowly whithers away the engagement that people have with the service. When they are no longer communicating with their close friends, Facebook is losing that valuable data they can mine.

But recent months have shown that Facebook is more concerned with making a more public service, and reaching out for devices that investors and advertisers love, yet users do not. There was the change in the Terms of Service which ignited outrage among users who spoke loud and clear "change this back, or delete my account!" Rest assured that they have only reversed that policy to think of an easier way to introduce it so people will not resist.

Now, the most recent change was not just a design change, but an entire usability and focus change which makes Facebook look more like... Twitter. Also, speculations of search tools and other "enhancements" meant to more closely mimic Twitter are showing the likely future. Add to that, the overwhelming noise going on with the countless apps and you see this:

The Social Media experts are quick to point out that users can block apps, and customize the information that comes through your news feed, but the point is that people used Facebook because it was easier than e-mailing and keeping a personal web page. They do not want work.

The outrage is sure to keep stirring as Facebook plans more monetization, and less user enhancements. Is Mark Zuckerberg concerned with the customer base being unhappy? No, he has actually said that companies who listen to their customers are stupid. 

So what's the score? Privacy: disappearing. User base: increasingly upset. CEO: doesn't care.

That doesn't sound like an up-and-coming market leader.

Facebook sold itself to the 185+ million users as one thing, and is now trying to convert those people over to something else. Good luck. This brings us to what Facebook seems to want to be: Twitter.

Twitter has never sold itself as a place for privacy. It is near digital anarchy. But that is exactly what their user base seems to want. It is helpful to many because of the engaged real-time user base is always talking. Simply, they are different products. Facebook is still growing subscribers, but users are tending to be less engaged with the service. In the meantime, Twitter is growing quickly, and their users simply do not shut up. Twitter has a very high engagement. One of the best comparisons I have seen about these two services:

Am I saying that Facebook will fail soon, and Twitter will take over? No. Facebook will continue to exist in some form or fashion, but what will be missing as they continue down their current path will be the engagement of the users. They will survive, but they will never be Twitter.

Twitter, providing they can maintain funding, will continue to grow and evolve. The future is wide open to them because they have never claimed to be something they are not. The user base is highly engaged, and has been guiding them to be the service they want it to be. 

If you call yourself a marketer, you must remember first and foremost: It's all about the brand/customer relationship.