little yellow blog

Back in February my husband and I were up in Yosemite for the weekend and stayed at a lovely B&B, The Blackberry Inn.  In chatting to the owner one morning over breakfast he told us the story of someone who had given him a negative review on Yelp.  It turns out that this person had not even contacted the Inn, let alone stayed there.  Despite the Inn owner’s attempts to resolve the situation and his request that the person remove the review, it was to no avail and now he has a “one star” black spot against his name.  Now, of course, that is only one negative review amongst many very positive ones, but it was clear to see how much it pained the owner of the delightful Blackberry Inn.

It got me thinking about the challenges for businesses, both large and small, in managing their online reputation.  Who should own this within an organization? How do you keep track of all the different channels? How much do you sanitize feedback? How much does this feedback matter to consumers?

One business that is trying to make this challenge simpler from a practical perspective, at least for the hotel business, is Revinate. I am lucky enough to count their head of Product, Chris Fox as a friend and so I have seen how the product works and how powerful it is.  It lets the business see what people are saying about them about both an individual and trend level and act upon it.  It doesn’t answer the conceptual questions above, but at least it makes it makes things a little easier.

As for answering who should own this “channel”, I believe it lives within the Marketing organization.  Why? Because these channels are one of the most powerful word of mouth marketing tools.  Handled correctly, it can build the brand.  Incorrectly, it is a disaster. Coincidentally, this is also why I have always believed that Customer Support should be “owned” by Marketing. The way you respond is just as important and as public as answering a question posed by a reporter or any ad campaign you might run.

To continue the parallel with PR, much as I always believe in “honesty is the best policy” in press interviews, I believe the same here.  If someone criticizes you in these public forums, own it. Don’t delete it, face it head on. In fact, there are multiple studies that say a consumer needs to read the negative reviews in order to believe the positive ones. Much as you can’t believe any person is perfect, it’s pretty hard to believe any business is either.

Finally, how much does this feedback matter to consumers, how much is it driving purchase decisions.  I have no data here (still searching for that), but I can speak personally.

Last year as we were planning our honeymoon to the fabulous Turtle Island, Fiji I became obsessive about checking reviews on Trip Advisor.   Most of them were stellar, but there were a couple of negative comments.  Given how much we were spending, I was a little concerned, to the extent that I asked about those comments when booking.  I was really impressed with the reservationists response.  She was completely honest – she told me what was true and what they had fixed as a result; she told me what was true and hadn’t changed, but in that case it was all about expectations (I think the reviewer wanted a more upmarket, gold sandals type restaurant, rather than one wear you go barefoot or in flip-flops).  Net, net we went ahead and booked and things were exactly as I expected.  I thought it was a brilliant response from their staff.

So to summarize beyond the anecdotes above, I would say that online reputation has become both a form of consumer research and customer support that should be part of the job description of someone within the marketing function.  I also look forward to hearing of more innovation in the same space as Revinate (who currently only serve the hotel business).

Over the last couple of months I have given a presentation that I call “the new face of social” a number of times both via webinars and at events and it seemed about time that I shared it here.

The basic premise of the presentation is that the tools that today we dub “social” aren’t genuinely social. Twitter, Facebook, YouTube (to name just the heavy hitters) are actually tools that enable a one way “broadcast” from brand to consumer or consumer to consumer.  They don’t encourage the interaction or the dialogue that lies at the very heart of social.

You can take a look at the whole presentation on SlideShare, here.

The presentation poses more questions than it does answers, but would love to know your thoughts on answers in the comments below.

This past weekend, my husband Melih and I went with our friend Saket to Maker Faire in San Mateo. A sort of arts & crafts meets technology and innovation expo. There were all kinds of people showcasing their inventions – the man with the robotic giraffe, replica R2D2, 3-seater bicycles and more. However, the company that captured my imagination the most was iFixIt.

iFixIt describes itself as the “free repair manual that you can edit”.  They deconstruct products to show how they can be fixed and empower their community to do the same. Now, why did that capture the attention of a marketer who has always called someone when things go wrong (in fact, as I write this someone is in our kitchen fixing our washing machine)?  Here’s why.

1. They have a clear cause. In fact, they even publish their manifesto.  They stand for something more than simply fixing gadgets  – they help the little guy get one over on the big guy.  They help the every day gadget-teer fix their gadget without having to spend a fortune or having to buy a new one. By attaching themselves to a cause they are always going to have a passionate community who speaks out for them.

2. It’s on trend. In addition to taking on “the man”, they have also adopted a green message (the ultimate in recycling) and also a economical one.  Perfect in times of boom or bust.

3. They appeal to the little boy inside (aka they tap in to a clear consumer insight). They speak to that stereo-typical kid who takes apart his dad’s watch/clock/radio. But this time, the kid not only knows how to put it back together, but how to fix it AND if they have worked out how to fix it themselves, the iFixIt community gives them the opportunity to showcase their prowess.  Genius. Again.

4. They will always have a growing market. Manufacturers are always bringing out the latest and greatest product, one-upping the last one, so there will always be a new gadget for them to fix.  The other genius part of what they do is sell the specialist tools that people might need to fix them, think specialist screwdrivers. And yet again, they will always need to produce new versions of these as new products come to market.  It is the quintessential cat and mouse game with big manufacturers.

5. There is a clear business model. Whether it is in selling the tools needed or setting up a franchise of endorsed outlets to take your product to, it seems this business can maintain it’s “causal” approach whilst also making money from these much needed products and service.

It’s a while since I have seen a business who can hold all these things to be true.  Now, I am off to invent one for myself

Someone told me this week that ‘Breakfast at Tiffany’s’ (1961) was the first time that the wardrobe for the movie was take from the high-street rather than the confection of a wardrobe mistress.  I have no idea whether that is true or not, but it did start me thinking about the evolution of product placement and the role that both marketers and content creators have played in that.

As I was researching for this blog post, I found this article from earlier this year that points to the potency of product placement. Almost 50 years later, the black Givenchy dress that Audrey Hepburn wears as Holly Golightly in the ‘Breakfast at Tiffany’s’ movie tops consumer wish lists.  You can see every marketing mind out there trying to work out how they can do the same for their product or service.

But here’s the thing.  It is completely credible that Holly, as a self-confessed follower of fashion, would wear this dress and wear it well.  Unfortunately, as product placement has evolved in to a business (even giving rise to product placement agencies) such credible placements and integrations are few and far between.

I believe that successful product placements fit in to one of two categories:

1. The product or service is already completely mainstream and/or dominates their market and as such it is entirely credible that the character/celebrity would use it.

For example, Trish helping Andy sell his action man collection on eBay in ’40-year old Virigin’; the integration of AOL in to the Tom Hanks/Meg Ryan movie ‘You’ve got mail’.

2. The character/celebrity is as much the target audience as the person watching i.e. it is believable that they would use it

For example, Aston Martin in the Bond Movies, Ford in Desperate Housewives (although I wish that Ford hadn’t sponsored the show too) the use of Apple Computers in what seems like every TV show or movie I can think of.

Where I think it starts to go wrong is when it is disingenuous and goes completely overboard. At that point product placement becomes advertising, I believe that it loses much of it is value as it causes consumers to dismiss it as gratuitous product placement.  The blame for this lands at the feet of both advertisers and content creators.

One startling example of this I believe is Project Runway, which apart from the integration with Mood (the fabric store), appears to have gone off the rails with product placement.  Everything is a placement – the salon, the accessories wall, the computers they design with, the prize money.  I just don’t believe that these designers would choose to use ‘Garnier’ products for their catwalk looks; most of the designers seem to actively avoid their HP laptops, or at least seem awkward with them; the accessories make little to no statement despite Nina Garcia’s insistence on ‘styling’.  Mood is really the only thing that makes sense in the context of the show, because it is believable.

At the end of the day, there is no doubt that product placement, when used wisely is a powerful tool in the marketer’s arsenal, but it has to be credible.

My first interview for my current role at TokBox was a coffee at a local Starbucks with the indomitable Timmy Wenzel. It was a warm day and Starbucks had not long launched their Vivanno smoothies.

As we were stood in line, I said to Tim something along the lines of “I don’t understand why they felt the need to create a brand name for those smoothies. Their smoothies and I’m at Starbucks. Why aren’t they just Starbucks Smoothies?” Tim didn’t make much comment at the time, but subsequently he told me he was struck by how brand marketing oozed out of me, even when in line at Starbucks.

As I was thinking about topic areas for this blog, I realized that I wanted to write about how being a marketer impacts how I see the world – whether its brands at Starbucks, politics (Obama is a marketing machine, Gordon Brown less so) or even how I think about the experience at my local dry cleaners. This will be a whole category of posts, but I’ll start with one that may seem a little strange, about my dry cleaners.

It is called Clothespin and is in downtown San Francisco. It is run by a girl called Em. Em is a marketing machine without even knowing it. She remembers every person’s name after their first visit, she remembers mine and my fiance’s and even remembers our wedding date (incidentally that is 10/10/10, which I guess has its own marketing ring to it!). When something gets broken, she fixes it. If something is going to be later than she tells you it is going to be, she calls you. She even came out to the car to say ‘hello’ to the fiance last week as she hadn’t seem him in a while.

Yes, the quality of cleaning is good, but probably no better than anywhere else. But, that doesn’t matter. I am fiercely loyal. Even though she is not the most convenient for me any more, I wouldn’t dream of going anywhere else.

Of course there are lots of lessons in here for marketers about customer service, but also a lot about personalization and how those two things, used wisely can take a product or service from good to great.

Last week I was asked by Kade Dworkin, TokBox fan and follower, to participate in his show “Meet my Followers”. In his podcast Kade, an asute marketer and business man, attempts to get to know his followers in more than 140 characters will allow.

Kade and I have sparred in the past on TokBox video conferences with the ToBox community on subjects ranging from social media to branding, so it was good to catch up again and get to know each other a little better. I hope to meet him in person soon, rather than just via TokBox.

You can listen to the podcast here.

Not so long ago I was at a conference about boldly entitled “Finding Your Fans: Building Your Brand by Fostering a Following”.  The good and the great were there from LinkedIn, Twitter, YouTube and even David Kirkpatrick, author of the Facebook Effect.  As I sat and listened to the conversation unfold amongst these panelists something struck me.

They were using the words “social media” to refer to these platforms that, to my mind were intended to be “social networking” sites.  To be fair to them, they were talking to a room full of marketers and publicists, but even so, I realized that this shift in language may be subtle to some, but to me it pointed at a somewhat concerning trend.

As brands infiltrate social networking sites with everything from Facebook Pages to LinkedIn Groups, and treat them as social media (or more simply said, as a place to promote themselves), do they actually turn off the very consumers they are trying to engage with?  Will consumers turn away from Facebook and other platforms if they see more brands on their ‘wall’ or in their twitter stream than friends?

 As is often the case, I believe the answer is ‘it depends’.  It depends not only on the controls and mechanics that social networking sites put in place but also on the way brands respect the environment and share relevant content, rather than just bombarding consumers with self-serving messages.

 All that said, the linguist in me finds it fascinating that marketers have been able to appropriate and rename a whole genre of websites in this way.  No wonder marketers often get a bad name.

Today my fiancé asked me if my resume reflected my own personal brand.  A completely fair question to ask someone who has spent their career building other people’s brands.  I was ashamed to answer no.  While my resume may have a few turns of phrase that hint at who I am and what I stand for, in general it is pretty run of the mill.

So, that led me to think about how I do express my own personal brand?  Is it through my wardrobe? No, that’s more Banana Republic than Micky O’Brien.  It is through our home decoration?  Again, more Crate & Barrell meets Restoration Hardware.  And then it dawned upon me, our wedding.

Our wedding on 10^th October this year is probably the purest manifestation of my brand.  I have definitely (to the amusement of many) approached it like a marketer launching a new brand.  A mood board, color palette, font, logo, specific choice of materials and more.  Then I realized, that this was not a launch, it is a re-launch -  re-launch of myself as Michelle Onvural.  See, there is even a new brand name to go with the event.

I guess it just goes to show that you can take the girl out of marketing, but you can’t take the marketing out of the girl.

In my early days working at L’Oreal and Kellogg’s I never once said this. It was inherently understood that the brand and the business were one and the same thing. The title ‘brand manager’ was used interchangeably with ‘product manager’. The brand manager’s job was to manage the brand, but ultimately to be responsible for the bottom line.

Since I made the move to work in e-commerce/technology/consumer services I have heard myself say this time and time again.  Most often I have said it when people have posed questions that put brand and business in opposition to each other or suggested that what is in the best interests of the brand is not in the best interests of the businesses.  I fervently believe that it is not a choice.

So, why does this happen?  I believe that the primary reason is organizational.  In e-commerce/technology/software companies an individual or a small team is given the title “brand marketing”.  This has two potential outcomes.

One is that ‘brand’ becomes marginalized to become the responsibility of this team/individual rather than that of the whole company. Alternatively this team has no authority to ensure that the brand is executed throughout the user experience, but instead their sphere of influence is limited to marketing communications, which is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to building a brand.

So, what is the solution? Good question. When I look at brands in the e-commerce/technology/consumer services category and consider who is doing it well, I am left with very few options. Apple and Virgin to name only two. In this case it is pretty easy to find an answer – strong vision and creative leadership in their CEOs, Steve Jobs and Richard Branson. Obviously not every company is lucky enough to have CEOs like that, but is the answer to have an executive at the highest level who is obsessing about the brand?

The alternative is about disseminating the brand effectively throughout the organization – a role for internal communications, then?

I am pretty sure there is no single answer and that a lot is dependent on the culture of the organization, but one thing that I am sure of is that the brand is the business and the business is the brand.

Update:  I just read, with more than a degree of irritation, this quote from BMW :”BMW has identified very early on that, next to our products, the brand is the second strongest pillar for our success.” How on earth can BMW separate the brand from the product?  Without the product there is no brand and without a clear brand identity, how do they know what makes a BMW a BMV vs. a Skoda?  Frustrating.

The topic of the intersection of culture and brand has come up a lot recently. My friend Dave Kashen, is currently organizing a conference, Unleashed Culture, about building powerful cultures that unleash the potential of their people; I was lucky enough to tour Zappos last week, a shining example of a company where culture meets brand; and today I was talking to a fellow VP Marketing at another start-up about how to engage their whole company in the brand vision in order to stand a chance of executing against it.

I have always believed “If you live it on the inside, it will show on the outside”. What this means to me is that, in order to be successful, every single person in an organization needs to be personally connected to the brand vision. Of course in a small company of say 5 – 50 people that’s pretty easy, particularly if the owner/founder(s) have a strong vision and are still present. It gets much tougher once the company grows, or indeed if the owners/founder(s) are no longer there. So how do you keep everyone connected in those situations? And why does it matter?

First, why it matters. If you think of everyone that comes in to contact with anyone in your company – every person who interviews with HR (accepted or rejected), delivers a parcel to reception, calls your customer helpline, services the photocopier – as a potential customer you start to see that every one of those interactions is actually a “marketing” opportunity. The impression those potential customers form is probably more impactful than any marketing campaign you can conceive of, because it’s personal. That can work in your favor if your culture and your brand are connected, or against you if they’re not.

So how do you connect every member of your team to your brand and make sure that it oozes from everyone’s pores? I think there are a few key principles:

1) Brand needs to come from the top down

If the people at the top aren’t bought in, don’t care, or don’t measure people against delivering the brand experience in everything they do, it will never happen.

2)  Brand should be celebrated every day

If it oozes from the walls, the presentations, the company values then it will become ingrained in the culture

3) Brand is everybody’s job, not just the marketing teams

This is probably the most important point.