Snake Coffee

Theodore Levitt’s classic article”Marketing Myopia” spoke about how firms lost hold of markets because they were product-focused rather than customer-focused.

“The railroads did not stop growing because the need for passenger and freight transportation declined. That grew. The railroads are in trouble today not because that need was filled by others (cars, trucks, airplanes, and even telephones) but because it was not filled by the railroads themselves. They let others take customers away from them because they assumed themselves to be in the railroad business rather than in the transportation business. The reason they defined their industry incorrectly was that they were railroad oriented instead of transportation oriented; they were product oriented instead of customer oriented.”

Professor Clayton Christensen, who wrote The Innovator’s Dilemma has offered a fresh perspective on the subject. He recommends that firms think of markets in terms of jobs that customers want done, rather than in tems of products and services.

VCMike has shared an example from Prof. Christensen:

A fast food chain that segmented the “milkshake” market according to the differenct types of customers who bought them, but then had much more success when it examined how and why people bought milkshakes. This company was able to market shakes much more effectively when it realized that the vast majority of milkshakes were bought either by people on their way to work who wanted an easy to consume quick breakfast that was filling and would distract them during a boring commute, or, on the other hand, tired parents later in the day who wanted to please whiny kids.

Net promoters are those customers who are likely to recommend a brand to others. This makes them especially valuable customers. They are also a very good reflection of overall customer preference and loyalty to a brand.

Martha Rogers at 121media writes:

In the high-tech space, Apple, Google, and Symantec have the most “Net Promoters,” according to a recent survey by Satmetrix Systems, which created the Net Promoter system with Reichheld. The survey was conducted in three high-tech sectors: computers, online services, and consumer software. Opt-in surveys were sent to end consumers who had direct experience with a given product or service. Replies were then ranked on a scale of 1-10. Only respondents giving a firm a 9 or 10 are classified as promoters.

I think this is a very useful metric, especially in categories such as search engines, where customers make several transactions every day, with each transaction offering the possibility of switching to a different brand. Net promoter scores (and the underlying drivers) can be a very useful diagnostic of the brand’s offering - that is, which parts are working and which ones need to be fixed.

Two articles at Cool News caught my attention recently, being about developments in advertising at opposite ends of the spectrum:

The first was about YouTube. Lee Gomes recently scraped it and discovered some interesting statistics:

• There are more than 6.1 million videos on YouTube now.
• The number is growing at about 20% per month.
• The most popular titles include the words ‘love’, ‘music’ and’girl’.
• Nearly 2000 videos have ‘Zidane‘ in the title.
• 70% of users are American.
• Nearly half are under 20 years of age.

The second was about advertising on the London Tube, which is a $3 billion, 8 year contract won by CBS, whose innovations include:

• A glue-less dust-free poster co-created with 3M.
• Cascading flat-panel TVs adjoining the escalators, which are capable of showing a series of rubber balls bouncing from one screen to another, following commuters as they ride down the escalator.
• Super-strong screens for the TVs which can withstand 5 blows from a sledgehammer.
• Lightboxes for the corridors leading to platforms.

All told, CBS has invested “about $136 million on new advertising equipment in the Tube, including 8,300 glueless poster sites, 150 projectors, about 2,000 video screens and 4,500 light boxes.” (From Reveries.com )

That’s a lot of money bet on the next 8 years. Clearly CBS expects the Tube to be generate a considerable return on this investment through advertising to the captive audience travelling to and from work. It’s a vision of the future that is quite different from the one over at YouTube. Which one do you think will come about?

Wired Magazine has an article on the most likely causes of death in the US which uses statistical analysis to show that one is 80 times more likely to die in a traffic accident than in a terrorist attack. Meanwhile, a recent poll shows that 59% of Americans expect another terrorist attack while the stats suggest they have more to fear from the flu.

I think this effectively demonstrates how people’s perceptions are different from factual reality. Somehow, politicians seem to understand this better than anyone else!

I’m a huge fan of Star Trek. I first saw the original series on a black and white TV in the early 1980s when they first aired on Sunday morning DD. Since then, I’ve given everything in the Star Trek universe a try - I’ve watched and enjoyed all 7 seasons of ‘The Next Generation’, most of the movies, hated ‘Deep Space Nine’ and ‘Enterprise’ and liked some episodes of ‘Voyager’.

I think the rise and fall of the Star Trek franchise holds some useful lessons for marketeers:

1. Unsuccessful? Maybe you just haven’t found your audience/market yet.
The original run of Star Trek was cancelled after just three seasons. But it became a cult favourite when it was re-run on late night television - a channel that helped it to find an audience that was large enough to justify further investments in the franchise such as Star Trek - The Animated Series and the first Star Trek movie.

2. Successful but ageing? Hold on to the core premise but refresh everything else.
Star Trek - The Next Generation is set in the same fictional universe as the original series, but it takes place a hundred years later. This allowed the creators to bring in an all-new cast as well as bring the special effects up to modern standards.

3. How to make spin-offs or extensions successful.
Spin-off shows like Deep Space Nine or Voyager ran for seven seasons each. Both held on to the core bits of Star Trek - strong characters with interesting back-story, intelligent scripts and good crew chemistry - while pushing the boundaries of the universe in which they existed and telling new kinds of stories in that setting. The most recent show - Enterprise - was a failure. The best special effects can’t make up for weak characters and really bad scripts.

4. How long can it last? Until the 23rd Century.
Even the failure of the most recent Star Trek movie - Nemesis - and the cancellation of Enterprise don’t spell the end for the franchise. A new upcoming movie and a fan-created series testify to the thriving equity of Star Trek. Even a couple of duds can’t keep it down so long as the franchise owners learn the lessons from previous incarnations and spin-offs.
5. What about all those hi-tech gadgets?
Well, I’ve said before that science fiction is a big source of innovation and clam-shell cellphones have been mimicking Captain Kirk’s handheld Communicator for several years now. Here’s some more Trek Tech that scientists are actively working on:

• The replicator
• The transporter
• Holodecks
• Synthehol

It’s the 40th Anniversary of Star Trek. Beam across to StarTrek.Com for the celebrations!