Marketing Dissector

Hey NewEgg: lose the "Shell Shocker" lingo

[Disclosure: I am a happy customer of NewEgg.com, the computer and electronics mail order supplier. I've been buying stuff there for years. I even like them enough not to protest when they send a few too many emails each week offering new deals. But here's the big BUT...]

NewEgg, I've got a big complaint. Does anybody in your marketing department know what "shell shock" means? Did it ever occur to you that you're promoting your products with metaphors about deadly bombs that kill people? Do you think you're talking about pretty little sea shells with shiny, lustrous smooth surfaces like the ones in your emails?

And by the way, have you noticed that the country is involved in a war right now? (Two, actually.) Some of our neighbors and family members are fighting those wars and some of them aren't coming home alive.

Do you suppose that maybe--just maybe--it might be more appropriate to pick a new theme for your weekly email promotions?  One that doesn't involve military "shock and awe"? Isn't your timing just a wee bit off?

Or are you hoping to ship a lot of video cards, wireless mice and USB drives to the Middle East for all the troops?

You've been riding this pony for months now. It's time to get off. You're giving some good customers saddle sores. Whatever the cause of this giant blind spot of yours -- it's time to TERMINATE that campaign and start fresh.

How about a recession-crusher theme with a WWE motif? Just a thought. "Put high prices in a headlock--don't miss these bone-crushing deals"? Or maybe a touch of NASCAR? "Shift into high gear with fast-track performance that blows by the competition." Whatever.

I can't believe someone in authority actually registered a trademark for this. What were they smokin'?

Dissecting the risk inversion dud

One of my tweeps posted a link to Seth Godin's recent blog post--a replay of an 8-year-old post of his actually--about making choices in college and how "safe is risky."  Now Seth is a master at using witty syllogisms like "small is the new big" to grab our attention and try to teach us something. But occasionally, as in the case of "safe is risky," he lays an egg. If I'm going to call myself the Dissector, then let's get dissecting.

His statement assumes that we all agree that up to now, safe was safe and risky was risky, but that safe was not risky and risky was not safe. OK so far. On that premise, his assertion that safe is now risky introduces the idea that some radical change has occurred, so that safe now means its polar opposite.

Logically, this assertion fails two different ways. One renders it meaningless and the other generates a false conclusion. First, since safe and risky are opposites, then "everything" more or less falls under one or the other (and parsing it by degree doesn't alter this). As a result the practical meaning of Seth's assertion becomes "everything is risky." As such it fails to shock or instruct us. It's banal but harmless.

The second way may not be harmless. If you take away from his statement the corollary that "risky is safe" is also true, then you've reached what can only be seen as a false conclusion. It may be true in rare circumstances, but is it generally true--most of the time? No.

So my complaint with "safe is risky" is, it either a) says nothing or b) leads you to believe the falsehood that therefore risky is safe (or if you prefer, "safer"). Verdict? A dud on both counts. I don't know about you, but I have higher standards for words to live by.

People who actually take big risks for a living (and are successful at it) have no such cavalier attitude toward risk taking. They are expert at measuring it with exact precision. To them, the idea of taking a risk that was avoidable represents failure--not success. The suggestion that they ignore risk because they're so superior is pure hero-worship BS. If the pros take risk assessment seriously, what do you suppose amateurs and first-timers should do? Blindly take every risk you can, feeling safe and cozy in the warm glow of your favorite business guru? Wear your love of risk as a badge of honor to prove you're cool?

If you're going to take big risks--and there are plenty of good reasons to do so--you need to do it with your eyes open. You need to make the effort to understand, if not mitigate, the probable consequences. Failure to deal appropriately with risks does not make you a hero. It only makes you a dummy. The kind of dummy who dives into an empty swimming pool or drives the economy into a ditch dreaming up phony mortgage instruments based on bad loans. In the end, there's no glory in that.

Who's afraid of the big bad A-Listers?

Do you secretly disagree with a big name marketing or social media guru? A best-selling author? Keynote speaker? Start-up revolutionary? Are you all lovey-dovey with them on your blog and in your tweets--but do you privately pop a blood vessel every time they spout some idiotic idea or other that drives you CRAZY?

If so, you're not alone.

A lot of us think that some of the smartest and most famous experts we follow totally veer off the rails at least once in a while. They offer up completely deficient, bonehead thinking as if it were as good as their best. We know it--but we're afraid, VERY afraid, to tell anyone--let alone them.

[Please note: I'm not talking about Internet trolls ... there's sure a glut of them. I'm referring to thoughtful commenters.]

Do you know what that means? It means link lust is not good for authenticity--at least when it comes to disagreement and debate. The Link Economy is starting to do for the social media world what lobbyists and PAC money have done to Congress. No one should want a link, favor, handout or leg up (real or imagined) so bad that they compromise their principles or identity or genuine opinion. Those things are who you are.

The bravest among us sometimes do manage to fire off a post or two: a carefully couched, narrowly focused, tepid critique stuffed with as many qualifiers as possible so our followers "don't think we've taken leave of our senses." And how do we muster this courage? By offering the most submissive, qualifying, apologetic drivel disclaimers that state up front something like "I know you're a famous guru and all, and you're the smartest expert ever born, and you get to travel the world and everywhere you go crowds pay big money to exclaim how your turds are rose petals, and I'm know I'm just an insignificant gnat, but ..."

Why do we do this? These are just people, not idols to be worshiped. No.

The cliche is still true: we need to learn to disagree without being disagreeable. We need the ability to have honest and open debates. We need to give and get permission to question and be questioned. To have civil discourse and honest dialogue, without personal attacks. If we do that, then there should never be a care in our minds about whose opinion we analyze, accept, defend or assail.

The Web would be a much better, more interesting and more useful place with a lot more disagreement and lot less kissing up and brown-nosing. It's not like you're fooling anyone--everyone can tell when you're doing it. Plus, there's no real advantage for anyone except perhaps the influentials--and even then, they lose out on the added attention of a little controversy.

This is not good. And the thing is, it's so needless and pointless.

Consider:

• Is it really a conversation in the total absence of disagreement?
• Have you ever learned anything important from a yes man or yes woman?
• Did you ever stop to think that your disagreement might be the impetus for a great, talented leader to grow, and become even better?
• If you won't assert and defend your own opinions, who will? And what are they worth?
• Ambiguity is normal. Embrace it. It's quite possible to agree with 70% of another person's opinions and vehemently disagree with the other 30%. You're still sane.
• Do you really believe there's safety or security (or anything much worthwhile) in just believing what everyone else does?
• Have you yourself ever learned something by being challenged?

So the next time you get pissed off at a big giant guru, take a breath. And then let 'em have it. But in the right way. High reason, low rant, non-personal and well stated. You might be surprised at what you and they learn.

They might even thank you for it. At Mixergy, Andrew Warner interviewed Seth Godin recently on Linchpin and basically asked the author if he tires of having people question or misunderstand him. Godin's reply,

"This is such a gift you’re giving me. So few people are willing to stand up and say, 'I read what you said, I respect where you’re coming from, let me tell you where I’m stuck, where I disagree. Teach me.' Very few people are that generous and that brave and it means the world to me that you’re doing it."

Shift 2.0: same old shift in new crocks?

You may have noticed I’m no fan of change-mongers.  But that doesn’t mean I’m opposed to change.  Actually all the high points of my career have been deeply rooted in sweeping changes, including for example the personal computer, electronic and Web publishing, object-oriented software and the Internet itself.  I have always been and continue to be a change agent in many ways.

But I strongly oppose the embrace of change for its own sake and without regard to whether or not it constitutes improvement.  I just can’t imagine anything dumber or more harmful.  To be sure, big changes in how business utilizes IT continue to stream at us every day.  But before signing on for the Next Big Thing, sometimes called Shift 2.0, we should take a close look at what’s being offered and whether it’s either new or improved.

Manic obsession with innovation is a slippery old devil if ever there was one.  Now it’s being replaced with an even more fervent insistence that nothing short of game-changing disruption will do.  And no, not just any old disruption.  It must be CONSTANT DISRUPTION.  Constant!  Man, that can really wreak havoc with even the most agile, flexible Gumby of a business model.  

I can't wait for the first business book entitled, "Secrets of Monetizing the Constant Disruption."  It'll be a scream. Maybe even an infomercial, where we'll learn how to visualize new business models in five-minute increments to calibrate for the new real-time imperative.

Apparently we're all about to hop on a centrifuge of business change and fire it up to Warp Factor 9.  In this world speed is its own justification.  There simply isn't time to question anything at all.  Who cares if we’re careening off the cliff as long as we’re doing it faster than everybody else?

In keeping with the times, Shift 2.0 ideas often rely on viral marketing-powered peer pressure in an attempt to steamroll over evaluation, objections or scrutiny.  Anyone daring to question the revolution and its do-or-die-think is labeled a dinosaur and derided by the echo-mob.

As Firesign Theatre might have said – “But this is really good Shift, Mrs. Kresge.”

We learned from Shift 1.0 what happens when IT consulting firms oversimplify the world in terms CEOs think they understand.  It was not pretty. Some basically solid ideas for improving corporate IT and business processes were invoked in many cases as a guise for selling snake oil.  Where do you think all those multi-million dollar CRM and ERP failures came from?

When actual working business IT consultants roll up their sleeves and dive into this, what kind of advice results from the new shifty thinking?

Organizations must:

• be more nimble, adaptive, flexible and agile and move more quickly (we knew this in the '80s--CHECK.)
• listen to their customers and be responsive ('80's--CHECK.)
• become better at learning ('80's--CHECK.)
• become better at collaboration ('80's--CHECK.)
• be more driven by knowledge and information management in the future ('80's--CHECK.)

Is this really revolutionary?  Or just the refrain of recycled Web 1.0/Internet Bubble business authors, scoping out the chance to ride the social media wave back to the top of the New York Times best seller list? 

Is this whole Shift 2.0 thing authentic?  Real?  Practical? Or is it another crock of shift--designed mostly to sell books, generate Google juice, promote celebrity "authorities" and mop up speaking circuit fees? After all, who'll make more money than those who get to say in effect, "shut up and get on the centrifuge"--and then charge us for the privilege?

We need to see Shift-think for what it really is. It's a vehicle designed to package and promote change as both a) inevitable and b) always resulting in improvement. These are assumptions. Sometimes they're false. More importantly, if we fail to scrutinize change beyond a superficial glance, then we won't know whether it's an improvement or not.

We should never give up our right to say, “stop the shift I want to get off.”

Shift works better as a slogan for selling cars.

The top 10 marketing mistakes of 2009

Sorry, this is not a LMAO list of specific, individual embarrassing moments in corporate infamy. Rather than select a few sad sack companies and highlight their foibles, instead we look at some all too common mistakes from 2009.  Here's an aggregate, in hopes that somehow, they might be avoided in 2010. (The first step is to admit you have a problem.)

1. Measuring marketing -- including social -- by counting anything but outcomes that map to organization-specific goals.
2. Insisting that social media gets a free pass from ROI consideration, or is somehow diminished by being included in ROI calculus. Of course ROI shouldn't be imposed as a speed bump, but smart marketers use ROI not as mere cost justification, but as a tool for gauging effectiveness and aiding continuous improvement. Again, tied to goals. 
3. Thinking that email is dead. Done right, email marketing remains highly effective, and among some audiences, a preferred way to interact. No one else's definition of "best" or "newest" can ever trump the customer's "preferred" choice. (Or are you planning on better "engagement" by insisting on YOUR preference over theirs?)
4. Believing that high-risk stunts are the only safe choice. We've been gorging on remarkable and binging on awesomeness that often is unrelated to the business brand. A little moderation might help. Offering valuable, useful knowledge instead of skateboarding dog videos or wardrobe malfunctions will help you get found. "As long as they spell my name right" buzz only works for cheap commodities, and even then not always or very well.
5. Bowing too often to the SEO gods.  While important, any approach that places too much emphasis on SEO will fail to produce consistently. One, because the best practices change so rapidly, and two, because if you write copy intended for machines, you don't always attract people.
6. Acting as if relevancy and authenticity mean the same to everyone and are commodity terms. Sorry, they only matter in the eye of the beholder and their context, and the beholder gets to be the judge. Are you a walking keyword?
7. Viewing PR as nothing but an outdated method of having relations with a dying mainstream media. PR is going to rock in 2010 for many reasons. But I'll give you just one that's so big it's all you need to know: PR is the mother of all inbound and content marketing techniques--it all flows from PR. Non-PR people are clueless about this. But that's understandable, it's outside their experience.
8. Falling in love with faulty opposites logic. Although Seth Godin had a good point with "small is the new big," there are so many of these sayings floating around that are just empty suits. Nearly all began life as a cheap trick subject line to get you to open an email. Put a pin in them, and they fly around the room. Whee! There seems to be an assumption that the pithier or cuter they are, the more valid. That idea is bogus. They are full of fraudulent shock and awe.
9. Failure to connect the dots between privacy and trust. You cannot disrespect your customer's privacy and at the same time earn and keep their trust. It's fine to advocate openness and view that as the norm, but with any system or policy must have real opt-in and opt-out.  Otherwise, it's as if you decided not to vote, then the government casts one "for" you. Bad.Very bad.
10. Thinking that you can disrespect your audience, or member, or prospect or customer by wasting their time as long as you do it via the cool/new/social/latest/awesomest form of new media. Not. Waste is waste, and neither media form nor artificial scarcity compensate for lost time.

These are my top 10. Surely I've missed some biggies. What would you add?