Beyond

One simple reason why B2B video marketing is dying

2013-02-11T11:16:21Z

2011 is the year of video. Actually, no - it's 2012. Or rather 2013.

Let me give you some news. It's never going to be the year of video. And this is why.

It's all about time. And the lack of it. Look around you in the B2B marketing space and you get a pretty clear picture what is happening. Everyone is talking about content marketing. The majority of marketers have stopped investing in interruptive marketing (advertising etc) and started putting their cash into creating content. I don't have to tell you why. Buyers are in control. Searching for information on their own terms. Self-selecting targeting, etc etc.

There is little doubt that this is a good idea right now.

And strangely enough this is the very reason why video, as a content tool for lead generation, is getting weaker, not stronger.

]]> Red Warning: information avalanche imminent
It is getting so difficult to find GOOD content that buyers are getting frustrated. In short, there is too much crap out there. Flimsy whitepapers written by inexpert writers, as campaign managers crack the whip demanding quantity over quality. We need another content piece. Quick. Get it out. 5 ways to improve... Three things you should know about... The secret to...

The information avalanche is well documented by commentators like Mark Schaefer, Doug Kessler and Jay Baer.

But take their views on information overload to the next stage, and you realise that buyers will lose patience because it will become too difficult to find the content they want. They may find an interesting link that promises much but, as the amount of "crap" (© Doug Kessler, 2013) increases, the chance of that link fulfilling their information needs is getting smaller. Like the dying man in the desert, they will find mirage after mirage, each promising to quench their thirst for information, and each revealing itself to be a cruel hoax. Instead of useful information, they get flimsy, hastily prepared 'prospect bait'. Hopes dashed time after time.

The result?

Video will be squeezed out because it takes too long to assess its value.

People skim-read headlines
This is the big problem: video is a format that you cannot skim-read. The busy user has to quickly assess whether they will gain from investing their time in a piece of content. Expecting a busy person to choose a 10 minute video over a piece of text/image they can scan in seconds? Forget it.

There are good videos out there. And video is such a great format, bringing multimedia personality and engagement that a flat page cannot. But there is an increasing amount of very poor videos out there. And as everyone reads more and more articles predicting how brilliant video is as a marketing tool, the percentage of decent videos will reduce to almost nothing. We will drown in a mire of B2B B-movies that are not worth the data center space they occupy.

This is why video is becoming less powerful, not more. Unless we start to think about reputation instead of content...

Interviews with a nobody?
One consequence of information overload (and downward quality spiral) will be a huge loss of faith in the random web, and a return to trusted channels. Why risk Google and a fruitless search for decent content? Marketers need to do one of two things:

• create the "go to" place
• connect with the "go to" people

We know influencers are important. But they are about to become even more important - especially where video is concerned. A video promising insight from a recognised individual, or found on a trusted source will still work - and it will work well because video is such a powerful format, provided you can convince people to invest their (irreducible) time in consuming it. Try to use an interview with a nobody as something to generate leads and you're backing a loser.

Friend of a friend
A possible alternative is of course personal recommendation. If the nobody interview is recommended by a respected colleague, they are no longer a nobody. Google searches already reflect the opinions of your peers (if you let it). In fact, if marketers continue to 'game' Google by SEO-optimising their content, personal recommendation will be the only way to separate the wheat from the chaff. (As an aside, this is not SEO-optimising but SEO-gilding, in the case of the valueless content that will swamp us very soon, because the search terms do not reflect the usefulness of the piece - SEO is often nothing more than a Google-readable veneer.)

As Google increasingly appropriates our personal lives and assumes the role of friend manager, it will tell us if that content is any good. Initiatives like Google Authorship (https://plus.google.com/authorship) are also emphasising the importance of knowing and recognising the people behind the content.

No recommendations? No recognition? Forget it.

So what is video good for?
I don't mean that video is not a great format for B2B. In later stages of the buying cycle, or in situations where your audience trusts you enough to devote an incompressible period of their precious time to you, it can be immensely powerful. People like movies as well as books, after all, and there is every indication that producing video-based marketing material will help you towards your objectives.

But it is not the panacea that video production companies claim it to be. Its Achilles heel is that it is not suited to the unfathomably complex information landscape where potential consumers have milliseconds to assess its usefulness. So if you are hoping to use videos to generate leads - unless you are preparing to invest in respected channels and respected people - be prepared for disappointment.

2013 is not the year of the video - it's the year when we woke up to its limitations.

POSTSCRIPT:

Vine and the 6-second video

What I failed to note in the above post is the arrival of Vine, the new video service from Twitter, which is key to addressing this problem. For those who don't know it, Vine is a way of sharing video in the same way that Twitter shares text - ie in bite-sized pieces. By forcing video producers to compress an idea into 6 seconds, Vine helps alleviate the problem of 'scannability'. If it is only going to take 6 seconds out of your precious time - many people will take a look (whereas they might not have bothered viewing an incompressible 10 minutes video). Clearly, a six-second 'taster' could lead onto a fuller video. A trailer, if you like.

The jury is still out on Vine (it's only been around since January) but I think it is very interesting that Twitter sees a market for videos that are so short that they get around the scannability issue.

B2B Marketing in 2017: five years on

2012-10-16T12:15:13Z

What will the world be like in 5 years' time? What will we be doing? These are the questions we tried to answer in our most recent webcast.

A fairly brief but intriguing exposé of future possibilities, we look at ideas such as:

big data (what is a yottabyte, and why does it matter?)
human-centric planning (and why brands will be pretending to be human)
the new world of work (easier commuting, but no one to talk with round the water cooler)
how we will be doing marketing that focuses on the individual more than ever before

Have a listen and tell us what you think...

Dinosaurs, dynamics and the downside of digital

2012-08-17T15:51:48Z

Are we just too digital for our own good?

One of the interesting insights to come out of our recent Buyersphere Report, a survey of the behaviours of 800 business buyers, was the suggestion that we may be overestimating the importance of digital technology. I'm not suggesting we abandon email marketing and go and live in caves, but the report highlights a very interesting development that may be hindering the effectiveness of our marketing.

]]> The pendulum effect

It's all about the pendulum effect. Let me explain.

When a new idea comes along - whether technological, social or commercial - and when that new method proves effective, people naturally adopt it over time. And that is precisely what marketers have done with digital marketing techniques. But this shift from one method of working to another doesn't happen uniformly.

Instead it acts like a pendulum, swinging with increasing speed, as more and more people embrace that new idea, towards the point where it should be at equilibrium. But then it doesn't stop. Typically, it continues past that point for a while before eventually finding the point of balance. In effect, people get over-excited and 'over-adopt' the idea, taking past the point where it is most effective, with the result that, at some point, they need to go back a little.

The return of print?

The example that comes out of the Buyersphere report refers quite simply to the idea of using print instead of digital. For the last 15 years, marketers have been increasingly wowed by the low cost, ease of use and effectiveness of digital marketing. And rightly so. But when you look at what B2B buyers actually do with the marketing information that we create and distribute, you see that we may have reached the point where we have overestimated their appetite for purely digital information.

The statistic in question revealed that one in three buyers shared information internally by printing it out, stapling it and handing it to a colleague. Of course they used email to forward documents too, or they put the digital file in a place where others could find it, but it made me wonder if we are taking this into account when we decide, as marketers, what kind of information to send, and in what format to send it.

According to IDC we print enough pages every minute to cover 18 football pitches. In Europe, this amount is declining by just 1% each year; in emerging nations it is increasing by 14%. Print is not going away.

So as I think of the many digital campaigns I have worked on in the last year or so, it made me think about the marketing scenarios where we might be guilty of 'over-digitising'. Here are a few of them:

•   The IT-illiterate influencer. Of course, there aren't many people in the modern workplace who are not touched by digital channels - but there are some. And if you are not providing information that can conveniently be printed, you will not get your message in front of them. While there aren't many who eschew digital channels, you can also bet that a large proportion are senior figures who carry a lot of weight in the buying decisions.

•   Legibility. Even though information is accessed digitally, it is not always consumed on screen. A clean printed page is often considered more legible and often more portable (or disposable?) than the screen-reading option. Research from Michigan State University shows that people read 20-30% faster from the printed page - mainly because they find it more comfortable to do so.

•   Video. There are great advantages to creating and distributing marketing materials and thought-leadership content in video format. Research consistently shows that it helps people absorb information more readily and presents a much richer and dynamic experience of the brand. But it is unprintable by its very nature and the only way it can be shared and consumed by others is by digital methods - which means you may fail to get the attention of some of your audience. The benefits clearly outweigh the disadvantages, but a simple answer would be to ensure that a text version is produced alongside the rich media formats.

•   Brand. If something is printed, how does it look? A pdf document will usually look fine, projecting the kind of image you would want. But what if a central part of your communications is email? We've all printed emails, and we've all seen how page breaks and font issues make the transition from screen to print an unhappy one. (And don't forget the lengthy email trail that you inadvertently print at the same time.) If you send out information that you want to carry your brand, don't forget that the printing process can undo all your good work if you're not careful.

•   Competitive clutter. This is the big one. Now that the typical business inbox is chock-full of invitations to webinars, exhortations to buy, and weekly updates that you signed up to but never got round to cancelling, it is very hard to stand out. Unless of course you get out of the inbox and onto the desk. Real-world, physical direct mail has never been more effective than it is now. OK, it's more expensive. And it's less green. But if you have a good idea, nicely executed and targeted to the right people at the right time, it works.

Time to rethink?

So do you believe that the pendulum has stopped swinging, and that we have reached the perfect blend of digital and analogue marketing? Or are you guilty of doing digital because everyone else is?

Each target audience will have a different point of equilibrium and it is not for me to say where it lies for your business. But the figures from the Buyersphere research remind us that digital is only part of the answer, and the smartest marketers are the ones who get the blend just right.

The Great B2B Social Media Collapse?

2012-07-18T10:50:31Z

This year's Buyersphere Report on B2B buyer behaviour shows a remarkable decline in social media usage amongst B2B buyers - but also compelling evidence that this is only temporary as younger 'digital natives' begin to make their mark. These are only some of the findings of this major report into B2B buyer behaviour - you can download the full report here.

Buyers are still hungry for information
The 2012 Report showed an increase on the previous year in terms of the sheer amount of content sought by buyers in the course of the buying process.

This is good news for all those marketers who are investing in content programmes and thought leadership campaigns. Buyers want content more than ever and they will find you via Google. A solid, well-planned content strategy and best practice SEO is a pretty safe bet right now.

But social media is down - which begs the question: are we over-hyping social media? Let's not forget that this survey asks the buyers themselves whether they actually used it. This is not marketer opinion; it's what the buyers actually did last year when they were wondering whether to spend money with you or with your competitors.

Let's look at why this might be happening...

]]>
We don't know why. But we can see that, at least in the short-term, there is something of a counter reaction against social media within the buying community.
So were those brave campaigns to establish a presence on Facebook all in vain, considering only a third as many people used that as an information source?

Are we getting bored of social media?
When we asked buyers if their usage of a certain channel has increased or decreased over the last 12 months, Twitter and Facebook showed a similar marked decline (see graph below). For every B2B buyer who is greatly increasing their use of Facebook and Twitter, around 4 are greatly reducing it.

However, it would be wrong to pull the plug on the social media budgets. There is greater evidence to suggest that social media is here to stay, and it comes from looking more closely at the ages of the respondents.

The Millennials are coming
As the graph below shows, the over-30s are not very likely to use social media as a source of information - and it is their weight of numbers that is probably driving the results we saw in the previous graphs. Above the 30-year threshold it varies comparatively little. 14% of the over 60s used it, compared to 26% of the 31-40 bracket. But Generation Y are almost twice as likely to use social media as those born only a decade earlier.

This does not prove that the under-30s are somehow strange or remarkable. They are simply products of their times. What is remarkable is the trend itself. In a short space of time, buyer behaviour has changed drastically.

And as Millennials find themselves with greater amounts of corporate money at their disposal, social media campaigns will suddenly start reaping fruit. If we extend these results and consider the people who will be making B2B buying decisions in just 5 years' time, the difference will be remarkable.

Social media is the only way forward. So, whatever the current crop of B2B buyers think, you'd best start planning now.

It's good to talk
But the frequency of use of social media is only part of the story, because social media can be used in two very distinct ways. It can be a channel through which to find published, static information eg whitepapers, or for direct dialogue. Naturally, marketers will respond to these behavioural trends in very different ways. When business buyers do use social channels, direct conversation is shown to be a very important factor, as shown in the graph below.

Of those that used LinkedIn, for example, as a source of information during the buying process, 58% used it to find published information, 81% used it for direct conversation. Facebook too, showed similar figures.

There is a tendency amongst B2B organisations to use social media mainly as a platform for publishing information. Embracing the conversational side of social media is much more complex - and scary - for many marketers. They have to unblock access for a start. And then there are confidentiality risks, revised job descriptions, legal ramifications, policy guidelines, training etc etc.

For now, liberating the workforce as an army of social media brand champions remains a problem that many marketers would rather avoid, but the case for addressing the conversational side of social media is getting stronger with each passing year. And, as always, the brands that embrace it first will have an advantage...

These are just some of the findings of the 2012 Buyersphere Report. To read it in full, download it here.

Buyersphere report 2012.pdf

Guidelines on guidelines: how NOT to create a brand tone of voice document

2012-05-18T13:48:25Z

It all makes perfect sense.

When a company is going through a branding exercise, it is excellent practice to put together a guide to how the brand should speak - otherwise known as a "tone of voice" document. The idea is that anyone involved with the brand - whether it is the CEO giving a talk to shareholders or a marketing exec creating an email blast - should be confident that they are helping the brand to communicate in a tone of voice that is consistent with the agreed brand.

It's a straightforward idea. So why do so many companies do it so badly?

]]>
Teaching grandma to suck eggs

Fine so far. The problem I have with these documents is that many of them then lazily go on to suggest examples of the style of English you should use. Happily patronising the reader within an inch of his or her life, these guides make the same sweeping generalisations about writing style which are at best misleading and restrictive, at worst, simply wrong.

The problem is that these GCSE-level writing tips have no place in a brand guide.

The aim of a branding strategy is to differentiate - and any guidelines document should help the brand to reinforce its difference. Not to make the same old patronising recommendations about style.

This is why I ask you - whether you are a copywriter, brand strategist, brand manager or student of best-practice branding - to avoid the following 'default' recommendations that appear in every such document.

1. You must avoid jargon.

Most guides will tell you that jargon is an obstacle to communication, and that you shouldn't use it. Rubbish. Using jargon can be an extremely useful shorthand provided your audience is familiar with that jargon. Jargon is a form of language - a sub-set of phrases and terms adopted by certain groups - because it aids communication (otherwise they wouldn't have bothered adopting it).

Of course, using heavily technical jargon when talking to a financial audience - or vice-versa - is not a good idea. But you may as well recommend that you don't use German when speaking to the Italian delegates. Jargon can improve communication as well as hinder it; the decision of whether to use it is not one that the "brand police" should be making.

2. Never say "endeavour" when you mean "try"

Another favourite recommendation is to dictate that English writers should use conversational English whenever possible. Say "now" instead of "at present". Say "talk" not "communicate". "Say 'truth' not 'veracity'. There are many examples. A multitude, even.

But again, is it really the job of the branding team to tell you what words to use? Do they know your audience? Do they know what you're writing about? Of course not. One of the reasons for the popularity and versatility of English is that we have so many options to choose from. We have Latin, French, Anglo-Saxon, Celtic influences. We have a palette of synonyms with which to colour our writing that other languages can only dream of.

So, do we owe it to our brand to use our language to the full? To be expressive? Or to allow ourselves to beaten into using English 101 because someone at the branding agency told us to. Come on...

3. Use short sentences.

This has some merit. Short sentences can be punchy. Ungrammatical, sometimes. But punchy. But you know what? It gets tiring. And if anyone tells you. That you should. Do it. All the time. They. Are . Wrong.

4. Use active not passive voice.

"Your writing is appreciated by a lot of people."

"A lot of people appreciate your writing."

But you know what, more people will appreciate your writing more if you choose the active or passive voice because it suits (or doesn't suit) what you are trying to communicate. It is true that there are subtle differences between them, and that the active voice can be more direct and concise. If that is what you are aiming for, you will probably choose it yourself. And not because of the edict handed down from the Head of Branding.

Everyone should write well; only you should write like your brand

Now don't get me wrong. There may be a perfectly acceptable reason for including one or more of the above points in your brand guidelines. But be aware that the aim of any branding exercise is to help your brand to reveal its true identity. Not to teach people how to write. And in any case, if you recommend to employees, agencies and partners that they sound the same as everyone else, you're simply undoing all the good work you did in your brand strategy.

If you want to offer general advice on how to write professional-sounding copy, that's fine. Just call it a writing guide, not a brand guide because it does not do anything to make your brand distinctive.

And be careful who you talk down to, just in case they are an English graduate who is higher up the pay scale than you...

How Starbucks overestimated the English...

2012-04-30T11:00:03Z

Let's face it: we are not a socially adept nation.

It is well documented that we English lack social skills. That is to say that, although we crave the company of others just as much as the people of any national culture, we are just not very comfortable with dealing with other people. This has been most eloquently described by anthropologist Kate Fox, who writes very entertainingly about the English social 'dis-ease'.

She explains that this can be seen in a number of instances:

]]> Weather-speak
We are not actually fascinated with the weather. It is an accepted pretext because we are uneasy about starting up conversations and are too reticent to introduce ourselves directly to a stranger. So when we say "It's turned out nice again today" to a stranger at the bus stop, we are really saying "I'm available for conversation - would you like to talk".

The English are known for talking about the weather. It's not because we have great weather (we have horrible weather) - it's because we're not very good at being sociable.

Handshakes
In the corporate context we lack the natural social confidence of other cultures. How many times have you been uncertain whether to shake hands or not? Or offered a hand, retracted a hand and been left with it half-outstretched but ultimately ignored?

And do you kiss people on the cheek? Once? Twice? Or do you get it wrong, inadvertently turning your head the same way, and end up greeting the colleague rather more intimately than you intended. This is typical of our social gaucheness - something that many other cultures simply take in their stride.

Humour
Our social 'dis-ease' means that we prefer to joke about things than deal with them directly. Not funny "ha ha" humour, but gentle irony that allows us to express ourselves in a roundabout 'unearnest' way, which we are far more comfortable with.

Think about it: could an English businessperson get through a nervous meeting with a new client without making the odd self-deprecating joke? Of course not. Other nations do this too, but few rely on it as much as the English.

You give me your name, I give you a free latte
Anyway, all of this Englishness - and the cross-cultural issues that are associated with it - were brought into sharp relief last month with Starbucks' ill-judged "Tell Me Your Name" promotion. I have been involved with a number of international marketing projects with US-based clients in the B2B world and have always tried to avoid the assumption that the US campaign will automatically work in different cultures. It won't - and I'd say that Starbucks have made the same mistake.

The campaign went like this. Determined to promote the friendliness of their barristas and the welcome that you get in every Starbucks store, they offered various freebies on the condition that you give them your name.

One problem. This doesn't work in England!

In my local Starbucks, I noticed repeatedly that customers were either embarrassed at the prospect of sharing their name in a commercial context, or refused. Add to this that the Starbucks staff, aware of the impertinence of their question, were frequently too embarrassed themselves to ask.

Now, in other cultures - notably the US - it is far more acceptable to ask for someone's name. A New Yorker might start a conversation with a stranger by announcing his name first. Not so in England. In my experience, English people can talk for hours with strangers, yet only learn their name on leaving. "Sorry mate, what was your name?" "Oh, it's Dan" "Ah, great to meet you. Bye!"

One size doesn't fit all
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the feeling that this particular campaign was cooked up in the US, and UK marketers got railroaded into implementing it. (Either that or they were simply too shy to refuse.)

It's a small thing, but crucial if you are investing thousands of pounds/dollars into a marketing campaign that hinges on the understanding of such nuances.

Here at Base One, we often handle international marketing campaigns, and do all we can to take cultural considerations into account. Give us a ring if you want to talk about it. Just ask for John.

A negative outlook for Google+

2012-04-12T08:02:23Z

I was astonished to see a recent piece of research from Experian that showed how little impact Google+ is making.

According to The 2012 Digital Marketer: Trend and Benchmark Report (a study that is as long on detail as it is in its title), the top 10 social media sites are not what you would expect.

The list is below, but the interesting thing to me was that Google+ is really not making the waves we all thought it would. With 61 million visits in March, it achieved a fraction of Facebook's traffic (7 BILLION in the same period). It is narrowly ahead of MySpace (!) that is hanging on in there with 43m, yet trailing in the wake of Pinterest (104m) and even Tagged.com (72m). No - I hadn't heard of that one either, but it's outperforming Google+. And that got me wondering.

Marketers are sensible enough to know that Google will give search prominence to Google+ posts, and we all flocked towards it. The web was full of posts and whitepapers explaining how to formulate a Google+ strategy.

But all the strategy in the world isn't going to help if it is a ghost town. I wonder how many of the 61 million visits were from marketers, posting stuff in the hope of getting some kind of SEO benefit.

Maybe I'm wrong, but we've already seen Google Wave level out, and Google Buzz quieten down. Maybe there are only negatives in store for Google+?

Image courtesy of birgerking via Creative Commons and Flickr

Are iPads for serious business? Or just Angry Birds?

2012-02-01T12:25:36Z

While a PC might still be the centerpiece of most business desks, we are increasingly working on laptops, netbooks, smartphones and tablets, which now allow us to work outside the confines of the office.

Of these technologies, the tablet stands out as the most rapidly growing - the hot topic of the past 18 months or so. With the Apple iPad, what started out as a consumer 'must-have' is now creeping in as a business tool, and there is now some solid research to show that a switch is underway from smartphone-wielding commuters to those armed with considerably more conspicuous tablets.

In my household (an environment where iPad usage is largely dictated by a 5-year-old) it is mainly an Angry Birds display mechanism or a digital doodle pad. But the evidence is growing that tablets are commonplace business tools - and that marketers should be aware of this if we are to effectively target business buyers.

]]> this report from IDG Connect. The latest trends show that 54% of IT and business professionals with iPads 'always' use them for work communication. This is considerably higher than the respondents who use their iPad for personal communication (42%) and even for entertainment (31%). The amount of iPad users who use their device at work rises up to 70% in Africa and South America, with a low of 33% in Asia.

It also seems that consumers aren't just buying iPads for personal use and bringing them to work. In fact, many of these are actually being provided by employers. Throughout the global research, the numbers vary from 47% of devices provided by work, to 10%. It seems that where employers would traditionally give out a laptop or phone to keep up with email, they're now providing iPads.

It's clear that the iPad is making waves as a business device. But another great takeaway from IDG Connect's research is the effect that the iPad is having on the use of other devices. A number of respondents said their iPad has at least partially replaced their smartphone, laptop, PC, mp3 player, TV and games console. With 54% saying their iPad had replaced their laptop and 43% saying it had replaced their smartphone, the tablet is having an impact on everyday lives as well as business practices. This is a key consideration for marketers, who now have some insight into which areas tablets are penetrating.

For example, an important consideration is the design of online assets. Are they optimized for tablets? It's one thing making sure your landing page or online resource centre works on a regular laptop browser, but what is the experience like on an iPad? The message "this content requires Flash" will not come across as a failing of the IOS platform, but as a failure of your brand. Bear also in mind that users of tablets are likely to be more sensitive than most to the user experience; these are the early majority of business users and likely to be more demanding/critical of the technology they use. The attention you give to this platform will either position you as out of touch with new technology, or as a leading light in your industry.

In summary, the research makes it clear that these devices are making an impact as a business tool. They're on the way to becoming as important as the laptop and the smartphone. And this research gives us a little more substantiation to the argument that we should be developing for these platforms. Hope you find it useful.

What are the 5 things that B2B websites always get wrong?

2012-01-25T09:23:09Z

As B2B marketers, we invest a big lump of our marketing budgets in our websites. Of course we do. But with so much investment going into them, you would have thought that we would have learned by now the pitfalls that lie in wait for the team planning it.

I was recently talking to Paul Hatcher, our Head of Digital Planning, who surprised me by saying that the same mistakes get made time and time again.

Which means websites end up costing more, taking longer, and delivering less.

So I asked Paul if he would spend a little while writing up these mistakes and explaining how digital marketers could avoid them. Paul has been central to hundreds of B2B website projects over the years and has seen it all happen, and I was keen to share Base One knowledge with our friends via the Beyond blog. He explained that he's made his fair share of mistakes too, but the point is that we're trying to learn from the experience!

Two days later a comprehensive and splendidly written whitepaper dropped into my inbox - and this is my chance to pass it on to you.

Download The Big 5 Mistakes: How Not To Make An Effective B2B Website here. And I hope it helps you get more out of your next project.

Is marketing honourable?

2012-01-18T10:39:00Z

Ever wondered what marketing is really all about? When I did my CIM (Chartered Institute of Marketing) Diploma, the first session was dedicated to defining the term. Officially, according to the CIM at the time, marketing was "the management process responsible for identifying, anticipating and satisfying customer needs".

Fired up as I was with all the enthusiasm and rebelliousness of youth (I was 27, I think), I took issue with this. Come on. Let's be honest.

That's simply not true.

Marketing is about helping to sell more. It's doing what you need to do in order to make it easier for the sales guys to close the deals. It's greasing the wheels of commerce by creating desire for products, communicating in a certain way that makes more people like your company and your brand.

Isn't it?

]]>
But this purist definition still annoys me because we don't live in a perfect world, and such clean definitions don't really work in practice. And I was reminded of this when I visited Starbucks this morning.

We all know that Starbucks is held up as a shining example of the "customer comes first" ethos. If your coffee is slightly imperfect or late, they swiftly give you a voucher for a free cup next time, no questions asked. They allow you to stay in their nice warm store for as long as you want. They give you free wi-fi. They smile and generally look after the customer. They're nice people.

But dig a little deeper and look at the marketing machine behind the smiling barristas, and there is a more brutal commercialism at work.

Free drinks - and benefits galore!

A large sign greeted me on entry at my local Starbucks in Teddington. "Free drinks and benefits galore" it says. Now I already had a Starbucks card, because it meant I got a few perks. A free drink when I bought coffee beans. Free whipped cream. All the important stuff.

So I was keen to find out how my experience of Starbucks was going to improve. But it soon appeared the new scheme put me back to Square One in terms of accumulated loyalty benefits. Not only did I have to buy a million coffees before reaching 'Gold' status, but even then I couldn't get the same benefits. Sorry Sir, we're not doing those any more.

Now I don't have a problem with this. Of course, Starbucks has to turn a profit. And if tweaking the loyalty scheme is the tool they use to improve the success of their business they can and should do it. Reduce the cost by giving less away, boost revenue by making people pay for the whipped cream instead of giving it away as a perk.

But does this count as marketing?

Thinking back to my CIM lecturers, I can't help wondering what they would say. Did Starbucks identify, anticipate and satisfy my need? Or did they take a long hard look at what they needed to do to keep me satisfied enough to keep buying coffee?

Let's not be naïve. Marketing is about meeting needs. But that's only part of the story: it's also about the planning, the comms, the technology and all the other tricks that we can put in place to make the customer comfortable with the idea that your brand is meeting their needs more effectively than the competition. And if this involves a bit of smoke and mirrors in order to create the impression that you're giving something when you're really taking it away, that's OK.

Or is it? Part of me wants to be honourable, ethical and transparent at all times. But part of me wants my role as a marketer to have a real impact, which means not being afraid of commercial realities.

Or maybe the CIM just did a great marketing job on me ...

What do you think? As a marketer, do you represent the customer's interests? Or the brand's? Or do you cheerily start each working day, confident that you are doing both? I'd love to know.

'The unwitting spammers': the death of email design and the consequent defacement of the brand in front of the customer's very eyes.

2011-12-02T16:57:13Z

Marketing Automation and DIY marketing tools are great. Powerful tools for the marketer that directly enable you to communicate in a more frequent, relevant and timely manner with customers and prospects. No need to rely on an agency to send out every email (still smiling!). I am an absolute advocate of these tools - if used correctly.

Yet when in untrained hands these tools can quietly erode your brand right in front of your customer's eyes in a way that almost goes unrealised if your antennae is pointed elsewhere.

I write following recent experience as a recipient of a series of emails as a customer of the sending business (I'm not going to name names).

The basic fact is that you send most emails to people you already have your best relationships with: customers. Don't underestimate this. These are the most important people in the world to your business. Yet email is often delegated as focus put on other 'higher impact' comms.

Why?   Because we 'now have a template', and with that QA seems to go out of the window. Yet systems and users have a habit of managing to break templates pretty quickly. 'Those 1000 words will fit.' 'That 1200 pixel wide image will CAN be a thumbnail.' 'Over-compression - they love it!'

Templates are incredibly useful as they let you send out frequent comms without the need to re-invent the wheel each time. But how thought-through and tested are they? How understood is their use? Does your sender understand good communication design principles? Are these being tested across all email clients using tools such as Litmus? Just whose hands are you putting them into?!

So here's the recipe: a lack of understanding of the brand or good design, consequent template abuse, and the desertion of QA. Put these in a pot and stir.
Let's see what you get:

So I get an email... here's what happens in about 5 seconds.

I recognise the sender so I open it.
First impressions: it looks like spam.
There's an heavily over-compressed logo. Why has someone turned that into a JPEG?
I can't believe that image has come from an approved library. 
Poor text formatting: can hardly read it. Margins and spacing are everywhere.
Too much content. Too many links - unstyled.
Nothing stand-out.
And didn't I get this before last week?
Delete.
My opinion of the brand has just gone down a few notches.
I will probably just hit delete if it arrives again.

Maybe the primary concern of the sender is about 'just getting it out'.  That's a phrase I hate.

So what's the point of this rant?   I suppose I'm trying to point out that even activity deemed 'routine' should be crafted with as much care and attention as the sexy stuff.
When you consider the audience who receive it, you could easily argue its impression and effect matter far more.

Coffee culture v social media: a quick theory on why business behaviour varies across Europe

2011-10-12T10:19:17Z

This piece first appeared as the European Perspective column in the print version of B2B Marketing Magazine October 2011.

Ever wondered why the British and the French use social media differently? It's all a question of context, apparently...

Anthropologists will tell you that Europe can be broadly divided into high- and low-context cultures. France and Italy, for example, are high context cultures, where routine communications are often based on experiences and expectations understood by all members of that culture.

This reduces the need for detail, and increases the tendency for verbal story-telling over factual description. Low-context cultures, such as the UK, Germany and the US make fewer such assumptions, preferring fuller communications and more detailed descriptions.

These two dimensions have a very direct influence on how people share and communicate their knowledge. High-context cultures may use stories and metaphors in explaining a learning situation whereas low context cultures may uses tables and figures for underlining arguments. Tables and figures are much more easy to share via online media, whereas stories and metaphors are more suited to face-to-face conversation.

Which may explain why business meetings over a long lunch might happen more in Paris than Berlin. And this may in turn contribute to the slower adoption of social media sharing in such cultures. Whilst LinkedIn is great for sharing infographics, it doesn't serve very good coffee...

Image courtesy of sh0dan, via Flickr and Creative Commons

B2B Content Marketing: a bulletproof methodology

2011-10-06T13:59:18Z

According to a recent blogpost I read (and I can't remember whose, or I would have credited them fully), content marketing is a little like High School sex. Everyone says they're doing it, but the truth is very few really are. And those who are doing it, are almost certainly doing it wrong.

With this in mind, I thought it was worth sharing the methodology we use at Base One for helping clients to derive the maximum benefit from content marketing.

I couldn't possibly suggest that it is the only way of going about this. But it is a structured approach that you may find useful: it describes in five sensible stages what you need to do in order to identify the correct course of action for your company, as well as outlining a few of the tools that you might use along the way.

Even though we are an agency - and although this is a methodology designed to be applied to our clients' situations - I believe it is equally useful to B2B marketers who are working independently and internally. The same principles apply. (Although of course, if you want any more help, just drop us a line...)

(By the way, the webcast was managed by Brighttalk, and I have simply embedded it here. They may ask you to register to use the service. Otherwise, it is free.)

2B or not 2B?

2011-09-30T09:15:44Z

Although the Base One Beyond blog has until now always been written in English, our operations now extend across Europe, with offices in Amsterdam, Berlin, Paris and Milan. So we are delighted to feature a debut post in Italian from Alessia Di Domenico, Principal at Base One Milan (English readers may wish to use Google Translate):

Fino a qualche decennio fa, le aziende del b2b, protette o limitate (a seconda dei punti di vista) dalle dimensioni più ridotte dei mercati, dalle logiche distributive, da brevetti e tecnologie proprietarie, dedicavano pochissimo tempo e risorse sia al marketing che alla comunicazione.

Convinte che la qualità di prodotti e servizi, i margini che potevano assicurare ai propri clienti e l'esperienza nel settore bastassero a creare un "buon nome", a far crescere di anno in anno il fatturato e a convincere i clienti a ricomprare sempre da loro. E sia proprietari che dirigenti all'interno di aziende b2b spesso si vantavano di essere degli "operatori" anziché degli uomini di marketing, quasi ad indicare che la comunicazione nel b2b non fosse indispensabile per il successo. Oggi non è più così.

]]> Non solo per i brand consumer, ma anche per i brand b2b la competizione sul mercato è talmente forte che esperienza nel settore, qualità, brevetti da soli non bastano più a dare un'esclusiva e a differenziare dai concorrenti. I competitor in grado di assicurare un'offerta simile, se non migliore, si sono moltiplicati, anche perché il confronto avviene oggi su scala globale. E ad ogni angolo del mondo c'è un'azienda altrettanto agguerrita, o addirittura di più che cerca di conquistare una sua quota di mercato, soffiandola magari a chi in quel mercato c'è già da anni.

La comunicazione è diventata allora un'arma sempre più strategica per creare e mantenere nel tempo un vantaggio competitivo, tramite la gestione della propria reputazione (il famoso "buon nome") e il mantenimento delle relazioni commerciali.
Questo però non vuol dire che b2b e b2c oggi si equivalgano.Tutt'altro.

In primo luogo perché continua ad essere molto diverso il processo d'acquisto e non solo per i volumi e l'ammontare dei beni. Un esempio banale. Mentre io sto utilizzando un computer e ho bisogno di una sola macchina, un'azienda compra decine quando non centinaia di computer. Cosa che dà al cliente business un valore superiore, considerato anche la maggiore frequenza d'acquisto. Mentre nel mio portatile c'è solo una ventola di raffreddamento, un'azienda che produce portatili avrà bisogno di milioni di ventole. Mentre io gestisco il mio acquisto in tutte le sue fasi da sola, benché mi informi tramite diversi canali (amici supergeek, colleghi, siti, riviste), in azienda chi conclude l'acquisto domanda ad altri la scelta (un IT manager, un ingegnere o comunque un personaggio molto competente) e deve farsi comunque approvare da altri il budget di spesa.

E le motivazioni d'acquisto?
Personalmente sono un po' scettica rispetto alla distinzione scolastica e anacronistica tra consumer e business. Ovvero, l'azienda dà priorità alla funzionalità e al contenimento dei costi, a scapito dell'emotività, mentre il privato si lascia condizionare di più da criteri estetici, mode, gusti personali.

Io credo che siamo tutti consumatori e che difficilmente una persona parcheggi la sua emotività fuori dall'ufficio. Anzi, al contrario, credo che dare un tocco umano alla comunicazione b2b sia un modo per renderla più efficace e per portare il business un passo avanti. Magari anche un passo avanti agli altri che continuano a trascurare questo aspetto.

Se anche le aziende b2b non investono nel loro brand, rischiano di doversi confrontare sempre e solo sul prezzo. Cosa che le costringerà a ridurre la redditività e ad arrancare faticosamente nella fidelizzazione dei clienti, rischiando di perderli e peggio ancora, di perdere molto denaro per trattenerli o acquisirne di nuovi.

Perché un cliente decida di ritornare, ripetere il suo acquisto, consigliare un'azienda o un prodotto, è necessario che la sua esperienza sia complessivamente soddisfacente. È necessario che si crei una relazione positiva e coinvolgente. E quindi che ci sia qualcosa di...personale, di unico, di speciale. È necessario che chi compra percepisca un valore che va un po' oltre. Altrimenti si può benissimo acquistare altrove.

Per sopravvivere nel tempo e creare un business sostenibile, bisogna continuare ad essere unici, agire diversamente dai concorrenti, stupire, innovare, essere creativi. E in questo tra b2b e b2c non c'è proprio differenza.

Why B2B companies need a Chief Content Officer

2011-09-26T10:15:24Z

Who is the Chief Content Officer in your company?

I ask the question because it is a role that is increasingly common, particularly in the US.

In case it is new to you, a CCO is the single person who is responsible for the whole company's content output. He or she marshalls a company's internal army of writers, bloggers, technologists and amateur film-makers ensuring that everything that is posted in the company's name is of a quality and relevance that customers would expect.

And in this age of instant publishing and information-hungry, Google-happy buyers, the content made available is vital to maintaining a share in the market and a presence in the hearts, minds and bookmarks of the target audience. So I thought it was about time we asked (and answered) the question: what benefits does a CCO actually bring to a B2B organisation?

]]> The growing need for CCOs
But even though there is plenty of talk about CCOs, the reality is that creating content is still the job of many people, frequently operating in isolation from each other.
It stands to reason, because every customer-facing division needs content. Responsible for the website? You need content. Responsible for new business? You need content to generate leads. Customer retention? Web? Channel support? The need is the same, so it is not surprising that each division goes about it in their own way.

This raises two issues, both of which would be solved by the Chief Content Officer: quality and efficiency.

Quality of content
From the quality point of view, the CCO is able to take a broader perspective of the material being produced. He can ensure that brand values are being applied and that shaky hand-held videos don't clog the company's YouTube channel (unless that is what is expected of your brand). He can ensure topicality and accuracy of information and should have a better idea than anyone where the subject experts are within the organisation.

But he (or she) is not just a guardian. Their role is also to encourage content creators. They should be both evangelist and enabler, giving people within the company the skills and the confidence they need to contribute meaningfully to the corporate effort.

Efficient content production
The second issue of efficiency is perhaps the easiest one to sell at board level. If there is a central figure overseeing the company's content needs, it is easy to avoid duplication. Resources can be directed at creating content once and simply repurposing it when necessary instead of reinventing every time.

But what if you don't have a CCO? I believe the point is simply to recognise that, because content is more important than it has ever been, it is worth taking a more strategic approach to it. This trend has been driving the emergence of best practice resources, such as the Content Marketing Institute, which has its own 'Chief Content Officer' online magazine (you can see the cover of the latest issue at the top of this post). Which all points to the need for someone to take on the role of coordinating resources and making sure both the quality of content is kept up while the cost of producing it is kept down.

This person could be called a CCO but the title doesn't matter. In fact, it doesn't need to be anyone within your company at all, since agencies are increasingly taking on this role.

With in-house writing and production skills, as well as an external viewpoint, they are able to serve different divisions of the company with equal enthusiasm, providing an efficiently produced stream of content with minimum disruption to internal structures. And of course if it doesn't work, it is much easier to undo...

Whether you hire a CCO or outsource the whole job is not really the point. A centralised content strategy is becoming essential, and the longer we wait before recognising it, the more time and money we are going to waste.

This article was first written on behalf of the Association of B2B Agencies in B2B Marketing Magazine in the UK in September 2011. Image courtesy of the Content Marketing Institute.