I like making new year's lists and my list for my work as a marketer this year is pretty simple and short. It is to "be real". What do I mean by this? What I mean is that I believe too many of us in marketing use systematic techniques that generate a lot of activity but are not really in the best interests of your market. Here are two examples of not being real:
1. Sending unsolicited email to people that don't know you about events they have exhibited no interest in attending. How do you react when people do this to you?
2. Using marketing speak. People don't use these words in the real world.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Branding can work in B2B
Branding case studies abound in B2C but do not in the B2B world. I'm talking about real branding, not what many people in the B2B world mistake for branding. The best case study I have read so far is one from SAP and dates back to 1999-2001.
Click here to download the case study.
This was published by Center on Global Brand Leadership at Columbia Business School under the direction of Professor Bernd Schmitt.
Click here to download the case study.
This was published by Center on Global Brand Leadership at Columbia Business School under the direction of Professor Bernd Schmitt.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Marketing metrics
Most metrics developed by B2b marketing teams tend to not be used over the long term. I think this happens for a few key reasons:
1. Marketing people tend not to be operations or engineering-minded.
2. The demand for metrics tend to be driven from outside of the marketing team so once the urgency dies down, the metrics do too.
3. Teams make the mistake of trying to measure too many things.
With that said, most people buy into the simple premise that you should use metrics in marketing or any discipline as it is easier to improve performance of you measure it. It also becomes much easier to protect or increase your budget if you can point to real results. We are going through an effort to come up with metrics that we will use over the long term. Here are the characteristics of metrics that I believe make sense.
1. The need should be driven from within the marketing team - from the VP or CMO to start with
2. The metrics need to be truly within the control of the marketing team
3. You should use one metric for all of marketing or one metric for each core area e.g. demand generation/nurturing; awareness and sales team enablement.
4. The team should be empowered to develop their own metrics
5. They need to be used
I'll come back on this with a report of how things turned out.
1. Marketing people tend not to be operations or engineering-minded.
2. The demand for metrics tend to be driven from outside of the marketing team so once the urgency dies down, the metrics do too.
3. Teams make the mistake of trying to measure too many things.
With that said, most people buy into the simple premise that you should use metrics in marketing or any discipline as it is easier to improve performance of you measure it. It also becomes much easier to protect or increase your budget if you can point to real results. We are going through an effort to come up with metrics that we will use over the long term. Here are the characteristics of metrics that I believe make sense.
1. The need should be driven from within the marketing team - from the VP or CMO to start with
2. The metrics need to be truly within the control of the marketing team
3. You should use one metric for all of marketing or one metric for each core area e.g. demand generation/nurturing; awareness and sales team enablement.
4. The team should be empowered to develop their own metrics
5. They need to be used
I'll come back on this with a report of how things turned out.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
B2B branding - what's important
We want to update our positioning and I have been doing a lot of reading, talking and soul-searching about B2B branding. Here is a list of things that I think are important. Some of them are obvious and some of them are not.
1. Positioning is what you would like people to think about you. Your brand is what they actually think about you.
2. It can work for B2B
3. Brand = emotion
4. Brand does not = logo
5. The natural tendency in B2B marketing is to come up with conservative, "me too" positioning. I think the primary reason for this is a fear of failure.
6. To come up with a unique, credible position takes a lot of things but, above all, courage to follow your conviction.
7. Marketing's job should be a coach when it comes to branding. The key supporter has to be the CEO. If you don't have that don't start. It will not be embraced.
8. The most important area to focus is your employees not external parties. If your employees don't buy in you have failed. The majority of your customer touch points will be with your employees or with tools created by your employees.
9. You should use a vendor to help you as they are unbiased. You cannot be.
10. You should choose a vendor that specializes in branding and choose from at least three firms.
1. Positioning is what you would like people to think about you. Your brand is what they actually think about you.
2. It can work for B2B
3. Brand = emotion
4. Brand does not = logo
5. The natural tendency in B2B marketing is to come up with conservative, "me too" positioning. I think the primary reason for this is a fear of failure.
6. To come up with a unique, credible position takes a lot of things but, above all, courage to follow your conviction.
7. Marketing's job should be a coach when it comes to branding. The key supporter has to be the CEO. If you don't have that don't start. It will not be embraced.
8. The most important area to focus is your employees not external parties. If your employees don't buy in you have failed. The majority of your customer touch points will be with your employees or with tools created by your employees.
9. You should use a vendor to help you as they are unbiased. You cannot be.
10. You should choose a vendor that specializes in branding and choose from at least three firms.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Differentiating the team
I've been thinking recently that our industry (enterprise software) does product marketing in a certain way. We all strive to differentiate ourselves but we hire the same type of people and with few exceptions we "do" product marketing in a certain way. I thought of this because we are considering hiring someone who has never worked in "enterprise software" before and I really hope it works out because I think he will help us out think differently.
Think about this, if you buy a Toyota car this weekend, and you're lucky, you'll talk with a knowledgeable sales person, he/she will probably talk with you about your needs. You'll be able to find out all you need to know about the car on the Internet. You will be an empowered buyer and this is for a $20,000 purchase. Our industry markets and sells software for millions of dollars and generally do a poor job of empowering our buyers.
Think about this, if you buy a Toyota car this weekend, and you're lucky, you'll talk with a knowledgeable sales person, he/she will probably talk with you about your needs. You'll be able to find out all you need to know about the car on the Internet. You will be an empowered buyer and this is for a $20,000 purchase. Our industry markets and sells software for millions of dollars and generally do a poor job of empowering our buyers.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
If you can't market yourself....
Yesterday I interviewed a candidate for a product marketing manager position. This person made it through a recruiter's filter. My first question was whether he had any questions for me. He had to think of one on the spot. Not a good sign. I then noticed that most of the job titles and highlights on his resume were for an inbound product management position. He noticed my concern and said that he hadn't updated his resume as he was using one he prepared for another company. So, within the first 5 minutes I know I wouldn't hire him and I invested a further 55 minutes in order to be polite. Everyone's time was wasted. I think he's just looking for any job. If he does indeed want to work here then he did a lousy job at marketing himself which leads to the question: if you can't market yourself why do you think you can market a product?
Friday, August 8, 2008
Does branding have a bad brand?
I wrote this post for an internal company blog and have re-posted here. I wrote this in the first place because the vast majority of people in high tech think of logos and colors when they hear the word "brand". When trying to communicate what branding really is and the power it can have, people's own first impression is a significant obstacle, which does lead one to question whether "branding" itself has a poor brand in B2B circles. Here's the post:
--------
I like Starbucks coffee but lately I have started going to Pete’s. It’s a little closer to where I live and has a better atmosphere. For me, and apparently many other people, Starbucks has lost the essence of, well... “being Starbucks”. When Starbucks was founded it strove to be the “third place” (after home and work). It was meant to have great coffee, knowledgeable baristas, and be a place where you could hang out and talk with friends or co-workers. Many people scoffed at the notion of $2 or $3 for a "cup of joe" but they succeeded because they lived up to their promise to the consumer. Today, if you walk into a Starbucks you will see vitamin water, lunch sandwiches and a team of frazzled baristas who are trying to serve hot meals in addition to poring coffee. Starbucks has become something not special.
In the mid to late 1990’s PeopleSoft went from a HR software specialist to being one of the top ERP vendors. There is no way that SAP and Oracle should have “allowed” this to happen. To compete against formidable foes, PeopleSoft positioned itself as the alternative. Where SAP was the stiff, hierarchal German software that insisted customers reengineer their businesses to fit its model, PeopleSoft was the flexible, friendly software more easily customizable to the customer's business. Where SAP's implementation approach was an expensive, "Big Bang", multi-year process, PeopleSoft stressed a speedier app-by-app rollout for more rapid return. It also lived this position internally. You will often hear people today saying that they loved working for PeopleSoft or “for Dave Duffield” during that era. Some of these people work at [my company] today.
Thanks to Michael Teeling’s blog “Buyer2Brand” for the PeopleSoft story:
http://buyer2brand.typepad.com/buyer2brand/top_tech_brands/index.html
PeopleSoft and Starbucks had great brands.
What does “brand” mean? Your brand is what people in your market think of you (regardless of what you would like people to think). Think emotion rather than rigorous logic. Companies can attempt to change their brand. To do this they need to figure out what their brand is today, what they would like it to be (assuming this is credible) and truly live up to what they promise every day. We are planning to figure this out in the year ahead and, if done right, I think it can have a big impact on [my company's] long term success.
There are many opinions as to what makes a successful brand. An article titled “Branding in Canada" (published in March 2004 by Interbrand) answers this question well. The article describes great brands as having the following characteristics:
• Possesses a distinctive positioning and promises a unique experience.
• Represents a resolute core purpose and supporting values that guide employee behaviour to consistently deliver the unique experience.
• Acts as the central organizing principle of the company, guiding decision-making and direction as to what is “on-brand” and what is “off-brand.”
• Fosters increased sales and captures a price premium by creating an emotional link that results in customer loyalty (selling more, more often, to more people, at a higher price).
• Attracts and retains the best talent because everyone wants to work with a winner.
• Is not complacent. The brand stays relevant, credible and constantly seeks new points of differentiation.
--------
I like Starbucks coffee but lately I have started going to Pete’s. It’s a little closer to where I live and has a better atmosphere. For me, and apparently many other people, Starbucks has lost the essence of, well... “being Starbucks”. When Starbucks was founded it strove to be the “third place” (after home and work). It was meant to have great coffee, knowledgeable baristas, and be a place where you could hang out and talk with friends or co-workers. Many people scoffed at the notion of $2 or $3 for a "cup of joe" but they succeeded because they lived up to their promise to the consumer. Today, if you walk into a Starbucks you will see vitamin water, lunch sandwiches and a team of frazzled baristas who are trying to serve hot meals in addition to poring coffee. Starbucks has become something not special.
In the mid to late 1990’s PeopleSoft went from a HR software specialist to being one of the top ERP vendors. There is no way that SAP and Oracle should have “allowed” this to happen. To compete against formidable foes, PeopleSoft positioned itself as the alternative. Where SAP was the stiff, hierarchal German software that insisted customers reengineer their businesses to fit its model, PeopleSoft was the flexible, friendly software more easily customizable to the customer's business. Where SAP's implementation approach was an expensive, "Big Bang", multi-year process, PeopleSoft stressed a speedier app-by-app rollout for more rapid return. It also lived this position internally. You will often hear people today saying that they loved working for PeopleSoft or “for Dave Duffield” during that era. Some of these people work at [my company] today.
Thanks to Michael Teeling’s blog “Buyer2Brand” for the PeopleSoft story:
http://buyer2brand.typepad.com/buyer2brand/top_tech_brands/index.html
PeopleSoft and Starbucks had great brands.
What does “brand” mean? Your brand is what people in your market think of you (regardless of what you would like people to think). Think emotion rather than rigorous logic. Companies can attempt to change their brand. To do this they need to figure out what their brand is today, what they would like it to be (assuming this is credible) and truly live up to what they promise every day. We are planning to figure this out in the year ahead and, if done right, I think it can have a big impact on [my company's] long term success.
There are many opinions as to what makes a successful brand. An article titled “Branding in Canada" (published in March 2004 by Interbrand) answers this question well. The article describes great brands as having the following characteristics:
• Possesses a distinctive positioning and promises a unique experience.
• Represents a resolute core purpose and supporting values that guide employee behaviour to consistently deliver the unique experience.
• Acts as the central organizing principle of the company, guiding decision-making and direction as to what is “on-brand” and what is “off-brand.”
• Fosters increased sales and captures a price premium by creating an emotional link that results in customer loyalty (selling more, more often, to more people, at a higher price).
• Attracts and retains the best talent because everyone wants to work with a winner.
• Is not complacent. The brand stays relevant, credible and constantly seeks new points of differentiation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)