You are currently browsing the Chausse.org archives for September, 2006. Please visit the home page for the latest posts.

Balloon Marketing - My Take

Someone on Flickr hypothetically asked what Seth Godin might think about balloons being used to sell cars. Seth not so hypothetically responded on his blog, basically saying: “Because it looks like [they’re] trying.”

Not a bad answer, but I think it goes a little deeper than that.

Where does one usually see balloons? At special events. Balloons imply that a special event is currently happening. At a place of business, “special event” usually implies “really good sale.” A car purchase is a huge expense, and most people would like to think that they’re smart enough to hold out for a really great sale before buying a car. Of course, the balloons don’t always mean any particularly great sale is actually happening (what car dealership would ever claim there is NOT some sort of sale going on when you walk through the door?), but the subconscious response could easily be enough to get the prospective customer onto the lot - old fashioned high-pressure sales tactics can take it from there.

HP Has No Idea What It Can Sell You

I clicked on a banner ad regarding the HP xw8400 Workstation. It sent me to a cutesy Flash promo, which then sent me here:

HP xw8400

If you click “Buying Options”, it tells you “This product is not available for purchase from HP’s online store”.

Well, that sucks. So I went to Google to find out who WILL sell it to me. A bit of searching led me to this page - a page in HP’s store. Where you CAN buy it.

Then I did a seach for the workstation via HP.com’s own search engine and came to this page, where I’m told the system will be available in 30 days.

Right hand, meet left hand, meet… middle hand?

Selling Products vs. Selling Solutions

When I looked at BuzzLogic.com yesterday, it reminded me of Groove.net, the site I spent years maintaining, but am no longer involved with. Groove, for those who don’t know, is a “fat client” application that enables really unique forms of collaboration - and it was intended to be as revolutionary as the web browser.

Sorry to say it, but Groove Networks failed as a company. Sure, they were bought out by Microsoft, but they were bought at a bargain basement price. Why didn’t Groove catch on? Because the company sold it as a solution, not a product.

But wait - isn’t conventional wisdom that you’re supposed to sell solutions, not products? Well, that depends. It depends on who’s making the decision to purchase. How many digits are in your product’s cost? If there are five or more, you’re selling to a company - in the form of an executive board, and “ops” committee. If there are four or less, you’re selling to a flesh and blood human being.

Human beings are not persuaded by bullet points or buzzwords. They want to see something cool. And don’t force people to “self-select” what their role is - so they can receive a stripped down subset of information about what you think matters to them. Just show them what it does, and let them decide how they can best make use of it. Some of the most successful products became successful because they were used in ways never intended by their creators. Lotus Notes was NOT created as an email system, but email is what made it successful. MySpace was originally created as a site for promoting independent rock bands. Groove was originally designed around using specialized collaborative tools - but it ended up being used 75% of the time for simple file sharing. And, of course, duct tape and WD-40 - ’nuff said.

And if you’re a company nobody’s heard of, you are definitely selling to flesh and blood human beings - because the only people who are going to know about it are the bleeding edge early adopters. These people have heard about the product not because its an efficient business “solution”, but because it’s cool technology. These people are the least likely to be impressed by bullet points and buzzwords, and the most likely to be impressed by live demos and “30 day trials.” Even if what the product does has nothing to do with their job, these are the people who will spread the word to the appropriate person in their organization.

So, when do you sell solutions? Well, you sell solutions if you’re actually selling solutions. Solutions have many moving parts. If your company is in the business of assembling multiple tools in ways uniquely tailored for each customer, you’re selling a solution. An eCommerce platform is a solution. An .EXE file is a product. Also, you sell solutions if you are truly selling - as in cold-calling, Glengarry Glen Ross style - to people who have no idea who you are or why they want to talk to you - but are easily swayed by slick pitches over the phone. Of course, this style of marketing is slowly going the way of the door-to-door vacuum cleaner salesman. I doubt BuzzLogic is cold calling to get customers.

“Champions” within a company - usually early adopters - buy products. Ops committees buy solutions. Ops committees are in the business of defining problems and allocating resources (primarily money) to get the problems solved. They do not have time or inclination to learn about the gory details. They just want to throw money and a human resource or two at the problem and know that it will be resolved. Buzzwords, bullet points, and “marketecture” are totally appropriate ways to sell to this audience. However, unless you’re Microsoft, Oracle, or SalesForce.com, you’ve got a problem. Throwing large amounts of money around to solve complex problems is a very risky venture. Companies mitigate this risk by buying solutions from known, big players, who have proven their capabilities with other large, successful companies.

Groove failed because they sold solutions as if they were Microsoft or Oracle. Groove made some huge deals, but most of these deals were not made with Groove Networks, Inc., but with “that new company from the guy who made Lotus Notes”. Groove had Ray Ozzie as an unfair advantage, and still failed. If you’re a tiny startup without a Ray Ozzie on your board, and you try selling solutions in this manner, you will fare even worse.

Summing up: If you’re just starting out, just sell the product. Make it cool, make it easy to use, make it sexy to geeks - these are the only people looking at it! Once you’ve grown big enough that executives are reading about you in the Wall Street Journal, then start selling solutions - and tack a couple zeroes on the price. You’ve earned it.

BuzzLogic at DEMO

Entire web companies seem to be springing up as quickly as pre-fab blogs these days. If there’s one shining beacon through all that clutter, it’s DEMO, the annual conference about new technology that is truly innovative. One company I’ll be keeping an eye on is BuzzLogic. BuzzLogic is peddling software that helps you track “influence” in blogs and social networking services. In other words, who is talking about what, and more importantly, who - exactly - you need to talk to to get your product talked about. Interesting stuff. Unfortunately, their site is heavy on marketese and low on specifics right now, despite its glossy Web 2.0 sheen. More on that in my next post.

Gucci.com - Flash without Flash

Luxury brands are usually the last folks to care about web standards - a great many are 100% Flash-based, but the new Gucci.com, recently relaunched by Wolzelle, proves that, these days, the “luxury brand” aesthetic and web standards are no longer mutually exclusive.

Gucci.com certainly feels like a typical luxury brand web site, with big sliding panes of fancy photography, multi-layered graphics fading in and out, and ultra-minimalist layout. But the amazing thing is that it was done with no Flash - or other browser plugins - whatsoever. The magic was done entirely with Script.aculo.us, the web-standards based JavaScript UI library/system/API/what-have-you. And it looks gorgeous.

Kudos to Gucci for seeing the value in web standards, and kudos to Wolzelle for pulling this off.

Cruel 2 B Kind - “Street Games” and You

How do you get random New Yorkers to be nice to each other on the streets? You make a game out of it. Players of Cruel 2 B Kind “assassinate” each other by by using kind phrases as weapons - and they’re getting plenty of attention.

It used to be that the Internet was about creating social interactions that paralleled the real world. But now, as the reach of social networking sites has expanded far beyond archetypal “basement-dwellers” and into hyper-social communities such as college students and clubgoers, the name of the game is using the Internet to enhance existing real-world social interactions - and to create uniquely new ones (Meetups, Flash mobs, Team Dating).

Cruel 2 B Kind doesn’t really have much of a commercial interest behind it, but if you have a brand to spread, you could do worse than associating yourself with a low-to-no cost social event involving thousands of people. Facilitating memorable real world social interactions will do far more for your brand than creating the one billion and fifteenth wacky Flash game.

The Come Out And Play Festival, a three day event featuring nearly thirty different games like these, happened this past weekend. Funny, I don’t see any corporate sponsors involved. Why weren’t you there?

TMX 2 - Judgment Day

OK, after seeing TMX Elmo in action, I realize I may have been a bit too quick to write it off. This thing is mighty amusing. Consume, everybody! Consume!

The Return of Tickle Me Elmo

I can’t believe the Tickle Me Elmo craze happened a full 10 years ago, but it did, and Mattel is making a big deal of releasing a special new version, called *sigh* Tickle Me Extreme. Its new behavior sounds cute, and fun, but to whom are they targeting this product?

First of all, it’s nearly impossible to duplicate the success of an unexpected mega-fad like the Tickle Me Elmo craze of 1996. In fact, I can’t think of a single example. So, they have that going against them. But, more importantly, 10 years on is actually an awful point at which to try to pull this off.

Tickle Me Elmo - the original, and now the so called “Tickle Me Extreme” - was, and is, a cute toy. But that alone did not cause the consumer stampedes. It was the unintentional scarcity which fed off itself to create the insanity. So, who truly wanted the toy for non-pathological reasons? Two to five year old and parents of two to five year olds.

The two to five year olds of 1996 are now 12 to 15 year olds. I don’t think a teenage kid would be caught dead with a stuffed Elmo (unless they’re prematurely tuned into the 21st century phenomena of hyperspeed nostalgia). And those parents of 2 to 5 year olds who missed out the first time around? Well, they’re now parents of 12 to 15 year olds. Perhaps they had more kids, but I think by the time your first or second kid hits the teenage years, you’re wise and/or jaded enough to know that toddlers can be just as easily amused by a cardboard box than by a battery-draining, vibrating, $40 toy. People halfway between those age groups, who are now 20-30, mostly sat back and watched the insanity from the sidelines - and won’t be likely to fall for it this time around.

Prediction: “TMX” will meet an intial rush of purchases by those most prone to consumer frenzy - who will leave the toy boxed up on a shelf, forbidding any toddlers wandering by from touching it. Then, sales will taper off quickly, as Mattel’s hoped-for secondary rush of consumers stop, take a deep breath, and say: “It’s just a toy” - maybe buying one, maybe not. Inventories will pile up, the price will drop 40-50%, while shoppers gravitate to some other totally unexpected toy obsession.

Stay the Hell Away from Amazon Unbox

There’s DRM and then there’s DRM. Amazon’s new Unbox digital movie service (which I will not even dignify with a link) enables you to buy purchase rent license send money to Amazon and hope they let you do something with a movie, under the right circumstances.

Absolutely everything that’s bad about DRM is right there in their terms of service, and Cory Doctrow of Boing Boing has a great line-by-line analysis. It’s like they took every possible complaint about DRM ever mentioned, made a checklist, and made sure to violate each one.

I won’t go within a hundred miles of this service, and I’ll definitely think twice about doing business with Amazon.com in general, just for being associated with this garbage.

Here Come the Networkers

TIME.com has a great article about a new generation of writers becoming celebrities by publishing amateur news reports online:

Just as radio and television spawned new personalities and stars, the rapidly growing computer networks […] are breeding their own celebrities.

Oh, did I mention the article was written in 1985?

(Via evhead)

Dogster.com raises $1M capital

This is a mindblower. Dogster.com, a site which started out as dog-oriented spoof of Friendster, has just raised $1 million in venture funding. A spoof site. A site created as a joke. Has just raised a million bucks.

Back in the day, people ridiculed Pets.com for trying to sell things to pet owners. Now a company that sell nothing to pet owners is getting venture funding. Bubble 2.0 anyone?

Told You So

Apple announced a lot of new goodies at their media event today - I’m so excited that they’re building Cover Flow into iTunes. In my brief phase where I used a Mac at home regularly, I fell in love with that app. Album view and automatic album cover downloading are a huge plus as well - lately, that’s the one feature I’ve felt iTunes really lacked - the visual experience of flipping through your CD collection. I recently moved into a rather small house and decided I’d fully embrace the MP3 revolution and keep the CD’s packed. This development will make that decision a lot easier to live with.

Anyway, not only did Apple not announce a TV tuner, they actually announced a forthcoming set-top box device called iTV that doesn’t have a TV tuner. If there’s any doubt that Apple will never integrate with cable TV, hopefully that doubt is now fully quashed.

Oh, and “one more thing”. Am I the first person to comment on Steve Jobs’ first wardrobe change in, like, 15 years? This is truly shocking - seriously. Steve just threw away a whole lot of cult figure status with one brown shirt.

Why Apple Won’t Bundle a TV Tuner in a Mac

With a major Apple event happening tomorrow, rumor is running rampant (as always) about products to be announced at said event. One perennial favorite is that Apple will integrate a TV tuner in the Mac mini, or perhaps in all Macs.

This isn’t going to happen. Not while Steve Jobs is in charge.

Steve knows the Apple brand is all about “the complete experience”. Anything that doesn’t “just work” does not belong in a Mac. This does not only apply only to hardware and software, it applies to media itself. And what does “just work” mean when applied to media? It means that you see and hear what you want to see and hear - and nothing else.

TV is an ugly medium. That’s different than saying TV shows are ugly (some of them are, some of them aren’t - the ratio depends upon your personal preferences). Television shows contain advertising and promotional “TV bugs” that now sometimes take up half the screen (or more). TV programming is not inherently well organized - your TV doesn’t break shows down by category, then show, then episode. TV listings are programmed according to the desire of programming managers to attract the viewers their advertisers want, when the advertisers want them. Even if you use a DVR, you still have to wait until someone decides to “air” a program to record it.

When Apple realized people wanted to listen to music on their computers, they didn’t set out to simply create a great CD player and make it easier for people to buy CD’s. Instead they thought beyond CD’s, and beyond everything that makes listening to CD’s an “ugly” experience.

By creating the iTunes store, Apple eliminated the need to physically obtain discs (a major chore with hard to find albums), by mainstreaming “ripping” (Windows users were still using geeky tools like Audiocatalyst when iTunes came out), they removed the need to insert and remove hunks of plastic every time you wanted to change what you were listening to. By creating the iPod and AutoSync technology, they removed the need to tediously copy music - and even to decide what to copy - when you wanted to take some music with you.

Apple redefined the music listening experience by refusing to accept the limitations and annoyances built into the medium by its “legacy” business model. In the process, it tapped into what people truly want, and nearly destroyed the old business model.

When it comes to television programming, Apple will not settle for an experience that simply makes it easier to play by the networks’ rules. Even though people enjoy DVR’s (which they’ve proven with Tivo), Apple will not allow their software and hardware to be responsible for displaying advertising and TV bug-laden shows on their Macs. Apple will not force a user to wait until two weeks from Tuesday at 2:30 PM to see or record a certain episode of their favorie old program. To allow these sorts of intrusions into the television viewing experience would be to diminish the essence of what the Mac is all about - a digital world where the user is God, and nothing the user doesn’t enjoy does not belong.

Steve Jobs has never let his magic boxes simply serve as conduits for existing, flawed business models. This is why there is no radio tuner in the iPod (why listen to arbitrarily sequenced, staticky music?). This is why there is no “iPhone” (why allow carriers to strip out features they don’t like, and nickel and dime users for accessing games and bits of media that would otherwise be available free online?), and this is why Apple will not build a TV tuner into their Macs.

When you are regularly watching television on your Mac, it will only be after Apple has reinvented what television means. That’s what “Think Different” is all about.

Home Depot and LCD Screens - Driving Customer Satisfaction on the Cheap

I’ve been doing a LOT of home renovation lately, and because I’m too lazy busy to track down quality independent contractors, I’ve been making most of my major purchases via Home Depot. It’s been a mixed bag. Some jobs were done well, and at least one was a horrible, spectacular failure.

As you may or may not know, when you go to Home Depot and arrange for flooring, cabinets, decks -what have you - you don’t actually get Home Depot employees doing the work. All work is done through subcontractors. You pay Home Depot, and Home Depot pays them when you sign off on the work.

I’ve been told that this is actually a pretty good setup for the consumer. Since Home Depot is a humongous corporation, they can afford to eat the cost of fixing a botched installation now and then. Also, contractors do NOT want to lose their contract with Home Depot, so if they get caught screwing up, they’ll be eager to fix things to please their corporate master.

Lucky me, I am now in the process of finding out if this is actually how things go down. I had Pergo laminate flooring put in by a subcontractor called AAA Carpet of Wilmington, MA. The job was horribly amateurish. The contractors showed up 4 hours late (that is, AFTER the late end of the four hour range given for their arrival), changed crews in the middle of the job (a 5 hour job, not a multi-day job), installed all the transitions wrong, knocked holes in my walls, walked off with over $100 of returnable unused materials, and were, all-around, totally incompetent.

So I wrote a letter (a physical, dead tree letter)to the local Home Depot management and CC’ed the owner of AAA Carpet. The management at Home Depot has been very sympathetic and responsive so far, and the Install Manager of AAA apologized profusely and is sending over a supposedly more qualified “inspector” to figure out how to set things right. IMHO, it is now AAA’s job to just get the damn floor up to par, and then it’s Home Depot’s job to give me a little something for my troubles. Then it’ s up to Home Depot whether or not AAA get paid, and if so, how much. Not my problem. Good.

Anyway, I was talking to a friend of mine who is an accountant. He said that he’s done financial work for several Home Depot subcontractors, and he said he has a pretty good idea of what Home Depot’s subcontracting strategy is:

  1. Hire the cheapest contractors possible
  2. Go out of your way to fix the screw-ups

This makes a lot of sense for them, if you think about it. If you send in the cheapest possible subcontractor to do a job, one of four things will happen:

  1. The contractor will do an OK job - Home Depot just saved a lot of scratch.
  2. The contractor will do a crappy job, but the customer won’t really care, or won’t bother to complain - this type of customer won’t usually spread the negative word to others.
  3. The contractor will do a crappy job and the customer will complain. Then, Home Depot gets to spring into action, fix the problem with what amounts to pocket change from their bank accounts, and look like a hero.

    Whichever happens, Home Depot wins.

    What’s the lesson here? Well, one, it’s always good to have deep pockets. But, aside from that, it shows that you can get away with a mediocre product if you have stellar customer service. Ideally, as a professional, you’d want to provide an always perfect product. This strategy, however, can only be profitable at a very high price. For most customers, for most services, cost is a significant factor. In this case, you simply must lower your quality standards. However, as product quality goes down, customer service quality must rise. Seems pretty simple, but look at Dell’s history as of late. Dell’s aggressive cost cutting simultaneously reduced product quality and customer service quality, as a result their reputation plummeted.

    For an interesting study of this delicate quality/service balance, look no further than the LCD monitor industry’s “Dead Pixel Policies”. LCD monitors consist of so many delicate transistors that a perfect screen is nearly impossible to guarantee. So, what do you do? Well, according to this Tom’s Hardware article, no one has quite managed figured this out. What would you do?