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.

Does the type matter?

Typophiles have been up in arms over a furniture retailer and its choice of typeface. If you're missing the controversy, type "verdana" into Google to see how much talk is circulating about Ikea's choice of fonts for their new catalog and in-store signs.

If you're not familiar with the typeface, Verdana is a font developed for easy on-screen reading at very small size. It's not an attractive typeface, and immediately drew massive criticism by designers, marketers, and type developers.

Ikea, please get rid of Verdana.

But according to Ikea spokesperson Camilla Meiby, "We're surprised. But I think it's mainly experts who have expressed their views, people who are interested in fonts. I don't think the broad public is that interested."

True, designers, typophiles, and marketing experts will know why they do not like this move, but just because the general public does not know what the typeface is does not mean their opinion does not matter. By the end of the week I began seeing comments on Twitter from people who visited Ikea and mentioned the signs in the store were unpleasant.

According to the AP, Ikea said that in order to reach many people in many different ways, it needed a font that works in both digital and print media. Read between the lines and we see the novice brand management mistake that nearly every marketing firm makes. The belief that design consistency is brand management. While it is important to have consistent elements to your brand design, it is your product (which includes customer experience) that matters most. Put another way, Ikea was more concerned with a consistent use of a typeface rather than asking their customers what they like.

Does typeface matter? Yes. Your printed materials need to be pleasant to the consumer. First & foremost, your customers need to be happy. There are elements of your design that should be consistent so that customers make the connection and feel the trust you have established with your brand. But getting wrapped up about the ease of website text and trying to make it consistent across all mediums is ignoring aesthetics.

Just because your customers are not graphic designers, does not mean their tastes don't matter. Never underestimate your customers.

Social technology, antisocial?

The darling of story of editorial writers lately seems to be the criticism of Facebook, Twitter, SMS messaging, and similar technology that is supposedly filtering people from actual interaction.

The Wall Street Journal reports on how Facebook Can Ruin Your Friendships, while USA Today publishes the story that Twitter haters see no point in tweeting. Reporters and bloggers discuss how people are increasingly hiding behind their computers and cell phones to avoid personal contact. Does this happen? Most likely. Is it the norm? I would disagree that we're facing an epidemic of antisocial behavior.

If Facebook and other communication tools are filtering you from human interaction, you're doing it wrong.

Since I began using Twitter, I have met many interesting people that I spend time with regularly "in real-life." I have made business connections, met clients, and made lasting friendships. I will admit that I don't chat frequently to all my Facebook friends, but to be honest I can sometimes be a bad friend and neglect people. My fault, not Facebook's. The point is, these are communications tools that should be used to improve communication rather than replace human contact. If you don't find them helpful then it is either not your audience on that site, or it is a tool outside of your comfort zone. Either way, don't blame the media.

Think of these as channels on television. Not every channel works for every person. That doesn't make the content on that channel worthless, just not relevant for the user who doesn't enjoy that programming. Is it really a news story that journalist John Doe thinks Facebook, or Comedy Central pointless? Surely there are more important and/or entertaining things to talk about.

These tools can be used to enhance social interaction and increase face to face time. Try to make the most of your interactions.

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.

Sci-Fi catches syphilis

Okay, so the Sci-Fi Channel didn't really catch syphilis, but it did catch an equally horrible disease: Marketing Myopia.

There are very few reasons to change a brand name, most of which revolve around having such a poor public opinion of your brand that customers will not trust you. In the case of Sci-Fi Channel, I don't believe their viewers were running away from the station.

No, the powers that be wanted a name that they could trademark. Sci-Fi is a generic term that refers to the genre, and therefore they cannot trademark "Sci-Fi." Also, their programming has always been more than just science fiction, so they wanted something that was not so limiting in perception. The first point, ownership, is a nonsense reason to pursue a name change. They had legal protection for the name "Sci-Fi Channel" and the related logo. Now, I can give them a little credit on the second point. It is important for customers to hear your name and instantly know what it stands for.

But here is the problem, their customers already knew what to expect from them. Brand equity existed with the old name, and ultimately it made sense. Not everyone on earth strictly defines science fiction the same way. There was no need to change the name to broaden their scope. Even if the argument was to attract new viewers, what is the sound they will hear? It still is pronounced the same, but now they have lost the inherint definition of what viewers can expect from the channel.

What has the name change accomplished? Likely made some design firm money to design the logo and change their collateral material, added confusion, and gave their loyal customers a reason to have a grudge against them.

Fiscal irresponsibility and angering customers. Hmm, isn't that the opposite of what marketers should be doing for their firm?

For a great counterpoint in support of the name change, read SUb's post on Why Syfy is a Good Idea.

Twitter fail? Let's see how they handle a brand disaster

Twitter Blog: Small Settings Update

The platform that helped facebook users rise up against changes in their epic "Terms of Service" debacle has made a ridiculous change that is upsetting users. 

So, let's see if @biz pays attention to his customers and reverses this position. Or is Twitter suffering from the myopia that they have some magical ability to know everything without their biggest customers' input.