Yesterday, after a long day at work, I visited a local convenience store to pick up some shopping on my way home. This store is part of a national chain and prides itself on its ethical approach to business (yes, you know the one). Dashing in after work I didn't have a bag with me and I as I queued a feeling of dread came over me. I knew what was coming, and found myself seriously considering going somewhere else to avoid the embarrassment of the interrogation from the cashier.
In this particular chain, it seems that part of the standard script for staff at the till is now - 'have you brought your own bags with you?' A phrase that strikes a guilty fear to the heart of some of us hypocrites who try to be good but are simply very forgetful (yes that's my excuse!). If you answer no to this question the follow up is 'would you like a bag for life for 10p?' There is only one answer to this question for a decent human being; and this is pressure selling at its best.
So - here's what happens. The store sells me a bag for life every time I forget my own. The bag for life goes in the cupboard. The store makes 10p. I feel guilty, and begin to dread going there to be publicly branded as a waster.
But it doesn't end there...
The cashier follows up the stabbing suggestion that you are ruining the planet with your profligacy with a twist of the knife by asking you if you have one of the store's membership cards. 'No, I don't. I'm not part of the team. I am a social pariah,' I feel like saying. More psychological trickery. I am now guilty of being wasteful and not participating in society. Clearly I do not belong here.
So, I now have three choices.
1. Play the game, join the club and carry a 'bag for life' at all times (perhaps I could attach it to my car keys...just for ironic effect), and so be able to hold my head high when buying over packaged intensively produced goods from the ethical retailer in question.
2. Continue to run the gauntlet of derision every time I shop there and just ignore it.
3. Shop elsewhere. Somewhere where I can use a self-service checkout for example, or maybe a friendly local grocer. Somewhere where no one is going to tut me for forgetting my bags.
These are the decisions consumers make every day - and the decisions it's so difficult to identify and watch out for. Sometimes we make purchase decisions based on rational thoughts, but often it is our emotions that drive us. Retailers should not underestimate the social and emotional buttons they push - even if they are for the best of reasons. There are ways of encouraging shoppers to behave more sustainably, but I don't think the hard sell and the guilt trip are the best in the long run. Customers will just go elsewhere - and there will always be a competitor waiting who will make them feel a little bit better about themselves.
So, what I'd say to my local store is - if your really want to see a change, ditch the script and give away some bags for life. Reward customers for using them, don't punish them for not.
Sometimes the carrot is more effective than the stick...
Tuesday, 29 March 2011
Thursday, 24 March 2011
Penny Power: A penny off fuel has serious PR power
Yesterday's budget was a bit of a PR triumph in my view. Public Relations is the very core of politics - our Prime Minister is, after all, a former PR exectuive himself - so is it any wonder that the spin machine, although perhaps less commented on than during the early days of the last government, was working at full speed in yesterday's announcements? Of course there's the important business of the economic wellbeing of UK PLC to consider when preparing for such events, but there's also the popularity of the party and public opinon to bear in mind, and this was very much in evidence in Osborne's presentation yesterday.
A masterclass in public relations, there were surprise gifts for both business and the consumer in the form of a higher than billed cut in corporation tax and the headline winning penny off fuel duty. Whatever you think about the coalition government, their communications strategies have, in my view been extremely savvy (Andy Coulson's influence, or the PM himself?).
So, what are the top three PR lessons businesses can learn from the first year of our new government?
1. Underpromise and overdeliver
Delighting your customer by giving that unexpected little bit extra is a winner. See Rory Sutherlands' brilliant TED talk (below) on why you should sweat the small stuff, for more on why the little extras are what make you stand out from the crowd.
2. Do the difficult stuff during periods of transition
When everything is changing, people are more likely to accept difficult decisions. In politics it makes sense to do the tough stuff when you can blame the last incumbents and before you're likely to have to win votes. The latest budget appears surprisingly generous - but only because many of the big cuts had already been announced much earlier.
3. Be human
Gordon Brown's biggest problem as a leader was his awkwardness in dealing with people. His actions spoke of a man who was caring and compassionate, but his public persona didn't quite get this across. David Cameron has that something that enables him to connect with people, and despite being unashamedly posh, he manages to present himself in a very 'human' way. Appearing on the One Show and taking part in Comic Relief does masterchef recently were master strokes.
Having a cute baby of your own to kiss also helps...
So, there you go. Under promise, overdeliver, do the difficult stuff during periods of change, and most of all, be human. A recipe for good PR, and perhaps a recipe for good leadership too?
A masterclass in public relations, there were surprise gifts for both business and the consumer in the form of a higher than billed cut in corporation tax and the headline winning penny off fuel duty. Whatever you think about the coalition government, their communications strategies have, in my view been extremely savvy (Andy Coulson's influence, or the PM himself?).
So, what are the top three PR lessons businesses can learn from the first year of our new government?
1. Underpromise and overdeliver
Delighting your customer by giving that unexpected little bit extra is a winner. See Rory Sutherlands' brilliant TED talk (below) on why you should sweat the small stuff, for more on why the little extras are what make you stand out from the crowd.
2. Do the difficult stuff during periods of transition
When everything is changing, people are more likely to accept difficult decisions. In politics it makes sense to do the tough stuff when you can blame the last incumbents and before you're likely to have to win votes. The latest budget appears surprisingly generous - but only because many of the big cuts had already been announced much earlier.
3. Be human
Gordon Brown's biggest problem as a leader was his awkwardness in dealing with people. His actions spoke of a man who was caring and compassionate, but his public persona didn't quite get this across. David Cameron has that something that enables him to connect with people, and despite being unashamedly posh, he manages to present himself in a very 'human' way. Appearing on the One Show and taking part in Comic Relief does masterchef recently were master strokes.
Having a cute baby of your own to kiss also helps...
So, there you go. Under promise, overdeliver, do the difficult stuff during periods of change, and most of all, be human. A recipe for good PR, and perhaps a recipe for good leadership too?
Thursday, 17 March 2011
Economic Tsunami
When, a few weeks ago, I prepared a lecture on the global economy titled 'Economic Tsunami', I had no idea how darkly prescient it would be.
Such forces as we've seen in Japan over the past few days remind us that, despite our best attempts to predict, define and control our world, there are some things we cannot plan or strategise for. Things that are beyond human comprehension, and in this case a lethal combination of nature's strength in moving earth and water with the consequences of humanity's nascent experiments with the atomic building blocks of life.
I suppose I should be commenting on the likely economic impact, the effect on global markets, supply chains, food safety scares, panic buying and the strength of the Yen against the Dollar, but in all honesty I can think of little other than the thousands of people whose lives and bodies may simply have been consumed by the sea.
Doing what we can to help Japan recover is important at both an individual and global level, but I also think we have a duty to reflect on our own lives in this context. What is business for if not to sustain life?
So many people spend their lives trying to accumulate wealth - piling up money for a rainy day. Well, what if the rain doesn't come but a Tsunami does? Everything gone, and what life have you lived? A big house full of empty rooms and seven digit bank balance won't save you from disaster.
I'm a big fan of using your money to live...and with this in mind, I've just bought myself a (Japanese) piano. Read into that what you will.
Such forces as we've seen in Japan over the past few days remind us that, despite our best attempts to predict, define and control our world, there are some things we cannot plan or strategise for. Things that are beyond human comprehension, and in this case a lethal combination of nature's strength in moving earth and water with the consequences of humanity's nascent experiments with the atomic building blocks of life.
I suppose I should be commenting on the likely economic impact, the effect on global markets, supply chains, food safety scares, panic buying and the strength of the Yen against the Dollar, but in all honesty I can think of little other than the thousands of people whose lives and bodies may simply have been consumed by the sea.
Doing what we can to help Japan recover is important at both an individual and global level, but I also think we have a duty to reflect on our own lives in this context. What is business for if not to sustain life?
So many people spend their lives trying to accumulate wealth - piling up money for a rainy day. Well, what if the rain doesn't come but a Tsunami does? Everything gone, and what life have you lived? A big house full of empty rooms and seven digit bank balance won't save you from disaster.
I'm a big fan of using your money to live...and with this in mind, I've just bought myself a (Japanese) piano. Read into that what you will.
Friday, 11 March 2011
Has the Internet Killed the TV Star?
TV has been a dominant source of popular entertainment for decades, with mass audiences and mass advertising revenues. But has the Internet made it obsolete? The fragmentation and divergence of the media at the same time as convergence of electronic devices are two of the defining features of the 21st century so far. So, has the Internet killed the TV star? Or is there still some life in the old box yet?
Well, let's take a look at those two defining features in turn. Firstly, the fragmentation of the media. More choice, more channels, more information; the volume of content being generated and made available to us seems to be growing exponentially. We are all publishers now. I write a blog, I post it, and it becomes part of that huge pile of content out there that is doing what exactly? Instead of the old problems of not being able to get enough information, the problem now is in finding the right information, the credible, useful information, amongst the stacks of rehashed and regurgitated trash.
This creates new challenges for society in managing that information, and it's no wonder that those organisations that help us do this (e.g. Google, Facebook) have been some of the greatest success stories of our generation.
How does all of this affect TV? Well, it gives us other options, other ways to find entertainment and particularly in the case of the Internet, the flexibility to take what TV does and enrich the experience further by making video just one part of the entertainment experience. The Internet enables us to watch an entertaining piece of video (e.g. a TV programme), and discuss it with people around the world while we watch. It enables us to comment on it, rate it, find out more about the creators, actors, issues, all while we continue to enjoy the content itself. For a generation that has grown up doing four or five things at once this is the norm, and right now your average TV experience doesn't even come close.
So, does this mean the end of traditional TV programming and viewing? Well, not necessarily. The way I see it, the lines between the TV and the Internet are becoming blurred. Interactive TV (or Internet TV) is starting to reach the stage where it can offer us the sort of rich experience we get online, but on our TV screen. Imagine watching your favourite TV programme and seeing a band you like playing a song from their new album. What if you could click on that band on your TV screen, opening a panel or pop-up where you could see more information about them, compare prices and buy their album with a single click (or press of your remote button). What if you could download the album right then and play it straight away on a single machine?
You might say, well I can do all that on the Internet. Yes, but what I'm talking about here is a seamless, single screen, single device experience, which brings us to the hardware in question. Right now we're at a time of transition when it comes to the devices we use to access the Internet and to store our information. Tablets (like the iPad) have attempted to bridge the gap between the laptop computer and the mobile phone, and PC TVs are starting to appear in our homes. The screens we use, their locations, and how we physically interact with them have never been more important. The company that predicts correctly how we'll be interacting with screens in-home, out of home, and in the workplace will win big. I don't know how it will go, but right now there are opportunities to transform the way we use technology.
Who says we have to have a separate screen for our TV consumption, Internet consumption and for interacting by voice? Who says TVs have to be operated by a 'remote control' (see the X-Box Kinect). Our lives have become cluttered with too many screens and too many devices (I regularly sit at home with a TV screen, two PC screens and a mobile screen all on, all in use - too much!). Working out the ergonomics and aesthetics are as important as the technology right now. I for one don't want to be carrying a mobile, a tablet, an e-reader, and a laptop around with me forever.
So, is the TV dead? Well, maybe the rigid, scheduled programming and switching channels with a remote control is, but the screen itself, at the heart of the home, but doing more and integrating our experience, is very much alive...
Well, let's take a look at those two defining features in turn. Firstly, the fragmentation of the media. More choice, more channels, more information; the volume of content being generated and made available to us seems to be growing exponentially. We are all publishers now. I write a blog, I post it, and it becomes part of that huge pile of content out there that is doing what exactly? Instead of the old problems of not being able to get enough information, the problem now is in finding the right information, the credible, useful information, amongst the stacks of rehashed and regurgitated trash.
This creates new challenges for society in managing that information, and it's no wonder that those organisations that help us do this (e.g. Google, Facebook) have been some of the greatest success stories of our generation.
How does all of this affect TV? Well, it gives us other options, other ways to find entertainment and particularly in the case of the Internet, the flexibility to take what TV does and enrich the experience further by making video just one part of the entertainment experience. The Internet enables us to watch an entertaining piece of video (e.g. a TV programme), and discuss it with people around the world while we watch. It enables us to comment on it, rate it, find out more about the creators, actors, issues, all while we continue to enjoy the content itself. For a generation that has grown up doing four or five things at once this is the norm, and right now your average TV experience doesn't even come close.
So, does this mean the end of traditional TV programming and viewing? Well, not necessarily. The way I see it, the lines between the TV and the Internet are becoming blurred. Interactive TV (or Internet TV) is starting to reach the stage where it can offer us the sort of rich experience we get online, but on our TV screen. Imagine watching your favourite TV programme and seeing a band you like playing a song from their new album. What if you could click on that band on your TV screen, opening a panel or pop-up where you could see more information about them, compare prices and buy their album with a single click (or press of your remote button). What if you could download the album right then and play it straight away on a single machine?
You might say, well I can do all that on the Internet. Yes, but what I'm talking about here is a seamless, single screen, single device experience, which brings us to the hardware in question. Right now we're at a time of transition when it comes to the devices we use to access the Internet and to store our information. Tablets (like the iPad) have attempted to bridge the gap between the laptop computer and the mobile phone, and PC TVs are starting to appear in our homes. The screens we use, their locations, and how we physically interact with them have never been more important. The company that predicts correctly how we'll be interacting with screens in-home, out of home, and in the workplace will win big. I don't know how it will go, but right now there are opportunities to transform the way we use technology.
Who says we have to have a separate screen for our TV consumption, Internet consumption and for interacting by voice? Who says TVs have to be operated by a 'remote control' (see the X-Box Kinect). Our lives have become cluttered with too many screens and too many devices (I regularly sit at home with a TV screen, two PC screens and a mobile screen all on, all in use - too much!). Working out the ergonomics and aesthetics are as important as the technology right now. I for one don't want to be carrying a mobile, a tablet, an e-reader, and a laptop around with me forever.
So, is the TV dead? Well, maybe the rigid, scheduled programming and switching channels with a remote control is, but the screen itself, at the heart of the home, but doing more and integrating our experience, is very much alive...
Tuesday, 8 March 2011
'Mercy offers' for state school kids add insult to injury...
Arrangements for fair access to Higher Education and the possibility of measures (such as differential offers, quotas, even personal letters from the Education minister!) aimed at getting more of those educated at state schools into the (so-called) elite universities are very much in the media spotlight at the moment. This is a complex issue with many conflicting arguments, but one area of concern that I feel has been missed by the media and many of the policy makers is the potential for profound negative impacts (socially and psychologically) of 'positive discrimination' policies on those they are supposed to benefit.
Before I go on I feel I should state my own position of personal bias. I was educated at a state comprehensive; a school with its problems, but also many excellent and inspiring teachers. As part of the first generation of my family to even consider going to university I was utterly clueless about the way things worked in terms of University application. I applied to most of the northern Russell Group universities on a whim. There was little advice for me and I was very much on my own in making university decisions and preparing for the changes ahead. I did have enough sense, however, to realise that Oxbridge was not for me! In practice it was immaterial as I went to one of those northern red bricks on my own merit and still felt like an outsider amongst my better-off peers.
And therein lies the problem. What kind of blinkered world view would think that making 'charity' offers to poorer kids like me is going to do them any good in the long run? You're just setting them up to feel like second class citizens at University and for the rest of their lives. I certainly wouldn't have wanted to accept a university place on the basis that I hadn't achieved the same standards as the other students on my course - this is a recipe for low retention rates, low self esteem, and high rates of depression amongst our students...
This is not a case of levelling the playing-field, this is a cover-up. Asking universities to apply 'positive' discrimination principles to their admissions process doesn't solve the real problem here - the fact that our state schools do not have the resources to support young people from poorer backgrounds to achieve the grades they can. To me it all boils down to lazy, short term, 'pass the buck' politics...
Thanks to @macquarieVC for sharing the link to the Telegraph piece on Twitter.
Before I go on I feel I should state my own position of personal bias. I was educated at a state comprehensive; a school with its problems, but also many excellent and inspiring teachers. As part of the first generation of my family to even consider going to university I was utterly clueless about the way things worked in terms of University application. I applied to most of the northern Russell Group universities on a whim. There was little advice for me and I was very much on my own in making university decisions and preparing for the changes ahead. I did have enough sense, however, to realise that Oxbridge was not for me! In practice it was immaterial as I went to one of those northern red bricks on my own merit and still felt like an outsider amongst my better-off peers.
And therein lies the problem. What kind of blinkered world view would think that making 'charity' offers to poorer kids like me is going to do them any good in the long run? You're just setting them up to feel like second class citizens at University and for the rest of their lives. I certainly wouldn't have wanted to accept a university place on the basis that I hadn't achieved the same standards as the other students on my course - this is a recipe for low retention rates, low self esteem, and high rates of depression amongst our students...
This is not a case of levelling the playing-field, this is a cover-up. Asking universities to apply 'positive' discrimination principles to their admissions process doesn't solve the real problem here - the fact that our state schools do not have the resources to support young people from poorer backgrounds to achieve the grades they can. To me it all boils down to lazy, short term, 'pass the buck' politics...
Thanks to @macquarieVC for sharing the link to the Telegraph piece on Twitter.
Wednesday, 2 March 2011
TFM&A - Notes from an Exhibition...
I visited TFM&A yesterday and ran the gauntlet of tall young men in suits selling email marketing to make it to a few of the keynotes and seminars. As I'd promised my final year undergrads a briefing session on the latest trends, it forced me to reflect on some of the key themes at the show.
It seemed to me that there was a heavy 'data' bias this year, which is unsurprising considering the likely squeeze on budgets and push for performance metrics that most marketing professionals will be facing at the moment.
It was also a classic case of lingo-bingo in many of the sessions. Put the word 'social ' in front of any marketing term you can think of and you've made yourself a buzz-word.
Social CRM
Social Gaming
Social TV
There, we've created three new industries! What a wonderful world 'social' is; far better than those single letter prefixes like 'i' , 'e' and 'm' eh?
In all seriousness there was some interesting discussion about how Twitter, Facebook and the also-rans can be integrated into CRM systems and processes.
Tablet inertia seemed to be another problem. The day before the iPad2 launch there was a distinct lack of any clear direction where tablet optimised advertising was concerned. Wiser to sit on the fence!
An area where I did see some really good work was in 'in-text' or contextual ads. Less controversial than behavioural targeting, there appears to be some really thoughtful customer-centred work going on in this field. I was particularly impressed by the folk from Vibrant Media who presented some compelling work.
The Microsoft / Experian keynote was something of a disappointment. Clearly they are able to offer an integrated approach through the combination of MOSAIC and online profile data, but I remain unconvinced that anchoring everything to postcode is going to continue to work as our family structures and approaches to home-ownership become more complex.
Just a few random observations for now; if you're interested in the slides from my briefing session today, drop me a line or tweet me @lgsmu.
It seemed to me that there was a heavy 'data' bias this year, which is unsurprising considering the likely squeeze on budgets and push for performance metrics that most marketing professionals will be facing at the moment.
It was also a classic case of lingo-bingo in many of the sessions. Put the word 'social ' in front of any marketing term you can think of and you've made yourself a buzz-word.
Social CRM
Social Gaming
Social TV
There, we've created three new industries! What a wonderful world 'social' is; far better than those single letter prefixes like 'i' , 'e' and 'm' eh?
In all seriousness there was some interesting discussion about how Twitter, Facebook and the also-rans can be integrated into CRM systems and processes.
Tablet inertia seemed to be another problem. The day before the iPad2 launch there was a distinct lack of any clear direction where tablet optimised advertising was concerned. Wiser to sit on the fence!
An area where I did see some really good work was in 'in-text' or contextual ads. Less controversial than behavioural targeting, there appears to be some really thoughtful customer-centred work going on in this field. I was particularly impressed by the folk from Vibrant Media who presented some compelling work.
The Microsoft / Experian keynote was something of a disappointment. Clearly they are able to offer an integrated approach through the combination of MOSAIC and online profile data, but I remain unconvinced that anchoring everything to postcode is going to continue to work as our family structures and approaches to home-ownership become more complex.
Just a few random observations for now; if you're interested in the slides from my briefing session today, drop me a line or tweet me @lgsmu.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)