Recently I was talking with a business owner about his e-mail newsletter. His organization does a great job using e-mail – they have opt-in and opt-out, use a professional service that provides them with design, database management and reporting, and (most importantly) they send good content.
E-mail is one of the key means this organization uses for connecting with its suspects. I define “suspects” as people we identify as potential prospects – they may want or need our product. (“Prospects”, in my lexicon, are defined as those we know want or need our product…we just haven’t convinced them it is from us they should buy!)
E-mails are sent to suspects about opportunities to attend events and free tips and techniques – sample snippets of this business’s services that the reader can use in their business life. The owner’s question concerned how often e-mail newsletters should be sent and with what type of content.
The owner laid out the options his team had discussed:
1) sending a series of e-mails during the course of a month with invitation to an event and then switching the suspect to the “tips” email, or
2) sending one invitation monthly to an event, and then switching to the “tips” email and they receive both
This is a new twist on a question that I hear fairly often: how much is enough and how much is too much?
As we discussed the options, many issues were uncovered:
- we want to get the suspect to the next step in the sales process
- we want to show them the value and quality of our services through the sample snippets
- we don’t want to inundate them with e-mail
- we don’t want them to miss our offer because of they are busy or get a lot of e-mail
Since the “tips” email is also used with customers (past and present), an important first step is deciding if there should be a separate contact stream for customers. If so, the content will differ in a couple ways. It will:
- reinforce the purchase decision by providing information as added value
- promote new offerings and add-ons the customer did not previously buy
- it will ask for referrals
To this end, we discussed a new alternative on the contact stream:
1) Suspects and prospects would receive a series of emails inviting them to an event
2) If they did not respond (attend) the event or otherwise move forward in the sales process, they would be left off the event invitation list for a couple months, but receive a cutdown version of the “tips” e-newsletter
3) Customers (past and present) and friends would receive the full “tips” version of the newsletter including a reference to the event that asks for referrals or to come and bring a friend
By creating two streams of contact, one for suspects/prospects and the other for customers, the content can be better managed and offers more likely appropriate. By “oscillating” suspects/prospects between event invitations and “tips” samples of the services that have real information of value, the number of contacts can be increased. Since a minority of those are direct solicitation (come to an event), the perception of the level and value of the contacts remains higher.
Quantity and Quality are both served.
SLE
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Friday, September 19, 2008
Quality vs. Quantity
I was talking with a business owner about his sporadic efforts at reaching out to his customers and prospects regarding his company, products and new offers. He was in agreement that his organization had to do a better job getting information organized and out. We targeted developing a process for managing the outbound communications.
As we (and I without the owner) talked with other members of the management team about the gaps in the process or where things got jammed up, it became apparent that process wasn’t the only issue. It seems that lots of work was done organizing product information or new offers, developing outbound communications and routing them for approval. Yet these tactics never launched (at least on schedule). You can guess where the logjam was – the owner.
Business owners often have two traits that make them successful…and can be their undoing. The first is a vision for what needs to be done – this often is why they are in business – they saw a market opportunity and fulfilled the market’s need or want. The other trait is a touch of perfectionism. In their vision, things are “just so”.
When it comes to marketing communications, we all want to put our best foot forward. After all, our communications are often the first way a prospect “meets” our organization and we know that a good first impression…
No doubt quality delivery is a key to success in business. In that same way, our marketing communications should be of quality – clear, logical and concise in the explanation of the unique selling proposition.
In this case, the owner’s zeal for quality (with a contributing factor of an owner’s busy schedule) were undermining the health and wellbeing of the marketing effort at the organization. When a new offer was developed, it would take weeks or months for the prospect and customer to learn of it. The communications (and the okay for the sales team to discuss the offer) were under scrutiny at the owner’s desk. The result was a longer development to sales close cycle and sporadic at best delivery of the marketing message.
To overcome this, the marketing and sales team took extra time and care to make the marketing “perfect”. They then submitted a “finished” product to the boss. With predictable results…”Can I change this?”…often came up in the ensuing conversation. Or “Why didn’t I see this earlier?” Or “I had a new idea for handling this sort of thing.”
By trying to meet the “perfect vision” of the boss, the team spent even more time rendering multiple versions of “finished” work.
The solution (in theory) was easy. In practice, well, it takes practice. Here’s what we did:
1. Reviewed the company’s standards for communications – graphics, design, copy/content, logo use, etc. This addressed the issue of meeting the owner’s vision for marketing. Once there was solid agreement for what was permitted and expected, a checklist/cheat sheet was developed.
2. Time on the agenda of team meetings was set for a quick discussion of the standards and new ideas – this was done quarterly, not at every team meeting.
3. The review process for new communications was reworked to a multiple step process. First a manuscript (copy/content plus description of design) of the communication was approved, then one layout for markup and approval. The third and final approval was an FYI that included the “finished” product plus detail on dates for release to the audience. It also included copies of the changes submitted at the manuscript and layout stages.
4. Triple deadlines for each approval step were set. The date when the item will be submitted for review/approval, the deadline for review/approval and an earlier closing date for the owner (or anyone on the management team) to submit ideas before the item is submitted for review. (Yes, that last one is tough in practice.)
5. The final (“finished” product) review is for information only unless there is an error, omission or some other critical change. (Defining what is “critical” is also a work in practice!)
It took effort and the team “speaking the truth” about what the issues were. The result of this process change has resulted in a more consistent communications schedule while maintaining the desired quality of the communications. Plus, more confident action and trust between the team members and owner.
SLE
As we (and I without the owner) talked with other members of the management team about the gaps in the process or where things got jammed up, it became apparent that process wasn’t the only issue. It seems that lots of work was done organizing product information or new offers, developing outbound communications and routing them for approval. Yet these tactics never launched (at least on schedule). You can guess where the logjam was – the owner.
Business owners often have two traits that make them successful…and can be their undoing. The first is a vision for what needs to be done – this often is why they are in business – they saw a market opportunity and fulfilled the market’s need or want. The other trait is a touch of perfectionism. In their vision, things are “just so”.
When it comes to marketing communications, we all want to put our best foot forward. After all, our communications are often the first way a prospect “meets” our organization and we know that a good first impression…
No doubt quality delivery is a key to success in business. In that same way, our marketing communications should be of quality – clear, logical and concise in the explanation of the unique selling proposition.
In this case, the owner’s zeal for quality (with a contributing factor of an owner’s busy schedule) were undermining the health and wellbeing of the marketing effort at the organization. When a new offer was developed, it would take weeks or months for the prospect and customer to learn of it. The communications (and the okay for the sales team to discuss the offer) were under scrutiny at the owner’s desk. The result was a longer development to sales close cycle and sporadic at best delivery of the marketing message.
To overcome this, the marketing and sales team took extra time and care to make the marketing “perfect”. They then submitted a “finished” product to the boss. With predictable results…”Can I change this?”…often came up in the ensuing conversation. Or “Why didn’t I see this earlier?” Or “I had a new idea for handling this sort of thing.”
By trying to meet the “perfect vision” of the boss, the team spent even more time rendering multiple versions of “finished” work.
The solution (in theory) was easy. In practice, well, it takes practice. Here’s what we did:
1. Reviewed the company’s standards for communications – graphics, design, copy/content, logo use, etc. This addressed the issue of meeting the owner’s vision for marketing. Once there was solid agreement for what was permitted and expected, a checklist/cheat sheet was developed.
2. Time on the agenda of team meetings was set for a quick discussion of the standards and new ideas – this was done quarterly, not at every team meeting.
3. The review process for new communications was reworked to a multiple step process. First a manuscript (copy/content plus description of design) of the communication was approved, then one layout for markup and approval. The third and final approval was an FYI that included the “finished” product plus detail on dates for release to the audience. It also included copies of the changes submitted at the manuscript and layout stages.
4. Triple deadlines for each approval step were set. The date when the item will be submitted for review/approval, the deadline for review/approval and an earlier closing date for the owner (or anyone on the management team) to submit ideas before the item is submitted for review. (Yes, that last one is tough in practice.)
5. The final (“finished” product) review is for information only unless there is an error, omission or some other critical change. (Defining what is “critical” is also a work in practice!)
It took effort and the team “speaking the truth” about what the issues were. The result of this process change has resulted in a more consistent communications schedule while maintaining the desired quality of the communications. Plus, more confident action and trust between the team members and owner.
SLE
Friday, September 12, 2008
Election Ads
Someone asked me what I thought about all the election ads running. The great thing about election ads is that you don’t have to wait to see which ones are working. If you see one today and see it again in three or four days, you know it has had an effect. That’s how keyed to response the election managers are these days.
Ads are also interesting because they can give an inside look at the candidate’s and campaign’s mindset. Ads should reflect (just like your company’s ads) the unique selling proposition of the candidate and campaign. Some do, and some don’t. Even so called “negative” ads – pointing out the foibles or failings of the opponent – should reflect the unique selling proposition.
Coming out of the two party conventions, it seems that one campaign is right on its unique selling proposition and one isn’t. The theme of the Democrat convention was change. It’s speeches and ads during the week were all about the change that Senators Obama and Biden would bring to the White House.
The Republican convention was about the concept of reform. It’s speeches and ads focused on how Senator McCain and Governor Palin will take on and reform the Washington status quo.
No matter how you lean politically, you must admit that these selling propositions were clearly communicated at the conventions. However, since then, there has been a shift in the advertising messages.
From the ads I’ve seen (and I am not a TV or political junkie, so know this is based on my exposure…) Senator McCain’s campaign remains more closely tied to its selling proposition (reform) than Senator Obama’s campaign (change). The Obama campaign has shifted off its main theme in response to the Republican convention and its theme.
This is a mistake. Just like your organization must stay on its unique selling proposition, candidates must, too. This is not to say good marketing excludes comparisons with the competitor product. Comparisons in marketing can be used to help further establish the differences between products and thereby reinforce the unique selling proposition. Afterall, differences from other products is part of what makes the selling proposition unique!
However, using your marketing to talk about the competition can also promote the competition. Remember the old adage – any publicity is good publicity as long as they spell your name right. If you spend too much time in your communications talking about the competition, two undesirable things may happen:
- some of the prospects will learn of and about your competition (when they may not have known previously)
- some of the prospects, with this new knowledge, may like the competition’s proposition and consider it
In other words, whether running for office, or selling a product, be careful when talking about the competition. Your communications should explain YOUR unique selling proposition, not your competition’s.
SLE
Ads are also interesting because they can give an inside look at the candidate’s and campaign’s mindset. Ads should reflect (just like your company’s ads) the unique selling proposition of the candidate and campaign. Some do, and some don’t. Even so called “negative” ads – pointing out the foibles or failings of the opponent – should reflect the unique selling proposition.
Coming out of the two party conventions, it seems that one campaign is right on its unique selling proposition and one isn’t. The theme of the Democrat convention was change. It’s speeches and ads during the week were all about the change that Senators Obama and Biden would bring to the White House.
The Republican convention was about the concept of reform. It’s speeches and ads focused on how Senator McCain and Governor Palin will take on and reform the Washington status quo.
No matter how you lean politically, you must admit that these selling propositions were clearly communicated at the conventions. However, since then, there has been a shift in the advertising messages.
From the ads I’ve seen (and I am not a TV or political junkie, so know this is based on my exposure…) Senator McCain’s campaign remains more closely tied to its selling proposition (reform) than Senator Obama’s campaign (change). The Obama campaign has shifted off its main theme in response to the Republican convention and its theme.
This is a mistake. Just like your organization must stay on its unique selling proposition, candidates must, too. This is not to say good marketing excludes comparisons with the competitor product. Comparisons in marketing can be used to help further establish the differences between products and thereby reinforce the unique selling proposition. Afterall, differences from other products is part of what makes the selling proposition unique!
However, using your marketing to talk about the competition can also promote the competition. Remember the old adage – any publicity is good publicity as long as they spell your name right. If you spend too much time in your communications talking about the competition, two undesirable things may happen:
- some of the prospects will learn of and about your competition (when they may not have known previously)
- some of the prospects, with this new knowledge, may like the competition’s proposition and consider it
In other words, whether running for office, or selling a product, be careful when talking about the competition. Your communications should explain YOUR unique selling proposition, not your competition’s.
SLE
Monday, September 1, 2008
Gold Medal Marketing
I, like anyone who watched, was amazed by the Olympic spectacle that was Michael Phelps. As I watched him win gold after gold, I couldn’t help but think about all the other guys in the pool. It was interesting watching their reactions. Many were very happy, even though they lost the race. While NASCAR legends may say that the second place racer is “the first loser”, the Olympics shows that competing well and being one of the top competitors is fun, too.
I relate this to marketing in that often times I hear business owners and executives lamenting what their organizations are not doing in marketing and sales. As I work with companies, it seems this angst over marketing success always comes up. My response is usually this: if you do the things we’re working on, your company will be one of the top marketing organizations in the marketplace.
Is that because I know the ads and direct mail and sales calls will result in 100% response rate - a win every time ala Michael Phelps? Obviously not. It is because their marketing and sales process will be functioning in a healthy, proactive manner. And this is not the case in the majority of organizations.
Marketing is a lot about consistency and trial and error. Trying things, testing things and continually serving up the proof points of your unique selling proposition. Most companies chase after marketing and sales – throwing money at tactics or people at the marketplace to make sales happen. Some stuff works, some doesn’t. Success may come, but it can be tenuous. Changes in the marketplace or turnover in the sales staff can cause a plummet in sales. The owner or management team gets busy and nothing happens because there is no marketing process or accountability system.
The real key to consistent sales is a strategic approach to marketing. Researching and targeting the market, building strategies, testing tactics, consistent communication. Building a process and running the process. Sounds kind of hard and maybe even boring. Like training for a race. Yet if done, it will make your company a top marketing organization.
You may not win every race, but you’ll be in the pool for a shot at a medal.
SLE
I relate this to marketing in that often times I hear business owners and executives lamenting what their organizations are not doing in marketing and sales. As I work with companies, it seems this angst over marketing success always comes up. My response is usually this: if you do the things we’re working on, your company will be one of the top marketing organizations in the marketplace.
Is that because I know the ads and direct mail and sales calls will result in 100% response rate - a win every time ala Michael Phelps? Obviously not. It is because their marketing and sales process will be functioning in a healthy, proactive manner. And this is not the case in the majority of organizations.
Marketing is a lot about consistency and trial and error. Trying things, testing things and continually serving up the proof points of your unique selling proposition. Most companies chase after marketing and sales – throwing money at tactics or people at the marketplace to make sales happen. Some stuff works, some doesn’t. Success may come, but it can be tenuous. Changes in the marketplace or turnover in the sales staff can cause a plummet in sales. The owner or management team gets busy and nothing happens because there is no marketing process or accountability system.
The real key to consistent sales is a strategic approach to marketing. Researching and targeting the market, building strategies, testing tactics, consistent communication. Building a process and running the process. Sounds kind of hard and maybe even boring. Like training for a race. Yet if done, it will make your company a top marketing organization.
You may not win every race, but you’ll be in the pool for a shot at a medal.
SLE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)