Advertising Fail

There are many types of advertising fail – confusion about what the product is or does, not knowing or addressing the target audience, offending potential customers, etc, but the topic today addresses a different type: assuming that your audience either doesn’t have a brain or at some point won’t engage it.

The first example is actually kind of funny; it’s for a Toyota dealership in Northern California. Here’s the tagline – “we’re moving around the corner and we’d rather sell them than move them.” Well, that makes sense – wait, these are cars, right? Mattresses, washing machines, dining room sets – sure, but cars? How hard can it be to move cars? Around the corner no less?

Although it isn’t done in jest, it’s just so stupid that it’s funny.

The next one bugs me a bit more, probably because it straight out insults your intelligence. I’m sure you’ve heard this one or one similar – “if we can’t beat their price, we’ll give you the ____”. The particular ad I’m talking about now is for mattresses but I’ve heard a similar ad for cars. “So let me see, I can either beat my competitor’s price by a dollar or I can give away a $500 mattress. Hmm, which one will I choose?”

Now, I get the point that this place will ensure that they have the best price and I guess the normal tack of “we’ll beat any competitor’s price by 5%” probably wasn’t good enough, so they came up with this.

Maybe, I’m too sensitive (maybe?) but hearing this ad makes me think so much less of this store that I’m not at all inclined to shop there and would instead opt for one of their competitors. As mentioned – advertising fail.

Corporate Cluelessness – part 3000

I’ve written about Fidelity before, as they are the repository of my kids’ 529 plans (through no fault of my own).

Now the thing that used to set me off was the convoluted phone system that required me to eventually hit “0” and speak to a representative every time I wanted to withdraw money (about 8 times a year, with two kids in college). So I’d go through this procedure and they would transfer the money to my linked checking account about two days later, so I could pay the bills.

About a month ago I get an e-mail telling me they now have on-line withdrawal capabilities. Yippee – no more convoluted phone system!

Naturally the first two times I try to enroll – it won’t let me, but third time’s the charm. I enroll both accounts and make my first withdrawal. Wait, what’s this? You’re going to mail me a check and I’ll get it in about six days?

Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t the on-line experience supposed to be easier and faster? The frustrating part is that they already have my checking account info – they’ve been transferring money to it for two years. All they had to do was add a “transfer to checking account on file ending in xxxx?”

So my choices are these: use the frustrating phone system and get the money in two days or use the not-so-frustrating on-line system and get it in six? Or just move the 529 plans to a less clueless institution – yeah, that might be the way to go.

Why do companies hate their customers?

This is one of those “well, duh” issues, I guess, but the dichotomy between what companies say and what they do is simply astounding to me. Much like what the dichotomy between what politicians say and do. And we all hate politicians, but we can vote against companies (and their practices) with our dollars and yet, apparently, we don’t.

If you look at virtually any company’s website or annual report, you can find their mission statement and after you get done with the junk about “empowered employees saving the earth” you will find out that they really, really respect and cherish and love their customers. Turns out what they really, really respect and cherish and love is their customer’s money. And they will lie and cheat and deceive to get it.

Now you’d think that all this lying, cheating and deceiving would be kind of a turn off for customers, not to mention kind of illegal. But no.

For instance, how are rebates not a “bait and switch”? Did we say that was $49.95? Well yeah, you pay us $150 today and if you complete these seven steps in the exact order we tell you and slice and dice the box it came in just so and send the whole mess in before midnight tonite to Young America, MN, we might send you a check for $100.05 in 4 to 6 weeks. So obviously the $49.95 is a lie. If the real cost, across the board was $49.95, that’s what you’d pay at the store and be done with it.

People don’t complain about this because they’re all sure that they’re gonna do the seven steps, etc. But we all know that the only reason companies do this is that some good portion of the populace won’t do the seven steps before midnight tonite, so the company gets to keep the $100 and 50 cents. If you really loved and cherished those folks would you be trying to hose them out of $100.50? You would not. Clearly your money is more important than you are.

My last point on rebates is this: it’s not like just one or two companies are doing them, there’s hundreds. And they ALL think you’re a schmuck. How does that make you feel? Cherished?

OK, rebates are an easy target, but there’s tons more proof that there are companies that hate you and will do virtually anything to get a few more bucks from you, while at the same time proclaiming their love for you.

OK, time to name names (but just for illustrative purposes):
Macy’s – my wife is a fine and long-term Macy’s customer and constantly gets 15% or $10 off coupons. Can she use them? Of course not, because the things she’d actually like to buy are excluded from the coupon’s discount. Would it kill Macy’s to give out a 15% off coupon with no limitations to its good customers? It would not. But why do that when you can lure them into your store and wring out a few more dollars?

Wireless Companies – I was gonna say AT&T, but they’re all the same. Is there a real problem with offering a plan with 1500 minutes for, say, $99,95 month, all in? Of course not. They advertise $99.95, but is the actual bill ever $99.95? It is not. If you respected your customers, you’d actually give them what you advertise. And make sure that you let them know before they ran up a bazillion dollars of overage charges. I’ve gotten text messages from AT&T advertising stuff but never to alert me that I’ve gone over my monthly allowance. Technologically impossible? I think not.

Credit card companies. You probably think I’m going to rail against 20% interest rates or the fact that years of loyal card-ownership go out the window if you’re three days late one month. Well there are those things, but frankly we all know those things going in so they don’t really fall into the “screwing your customers with malice aforethought” category. But this does: You know those checks you get, monthly, offering low, low interest rates if you use them to pay off other high-rate cards? Turns out that this is not the great deal you’d think – it’s a ploy to insulate, and increase, the debt you owe (at 20%) from ever getting paid off. How’s that work? Here’s the fine print - the debt you roll over at 2.99% gets paid off first, so that $500 you send in every month doesn’t reduce your high-interest debt at all. The highest rate debt gets paid off dead last. Nice.

Now believe me, I get the profit motive (business major!) and I also know that these companies have probably done cost-benefit analyses that support, on paper, screwing over your customer base to make a few bucks.

What I just really just don’t see is why companies feel they’ve got to lie to be profitable. And here’s my real problem – there are people (not companies) making these decisions. Do the people making these decisions know the people who write the mission statement? My fear is that they’re the same people.

It just goes to prove that Mencken’s phrase “no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public” is, sadly, still true and that, sadly, there are still people willing to exploit that fact.

Sales vs. Ethics

I know this topic doesn’t really come as a surprise to most people (especially any non-sales people who may be reading) but seeing it firsthand kind of did shock me. In the field I work in, financial services, the by-word has always been Ethics and even more so since Mr. Spitzer came on the scene a few years ago. Every year each of us has to take a continuing ed course, three hours or so, on Ethics where we are presented with various scenarios regarding “questionable” ethics and the right actions to take in them. Like most continuing ed courses the general feeling most of us get is “this couldn’t be more lame” and/or “what kind of idiot doesn’t know this?”

Well I’ve seen the idiot and he is us.

Over the years I’ve seen many situations where, although there may not be any real malice involved, the thinking is “we can make the sale, so we should make the sale” with very little thought as to how the client is impacted. Does the sale always come first? Shouldn’t there be some tangible benefit to the customer? We all think our product and our service and our company are better than the competition, but unfortunately that isn’t always the case. Some customers have perfectly good deals with other perfectly good vendors and what do we make of those situations? Isn’t that what the Continuing Ed classes are really supposed to be teaching us?

I’ve got an ethical issue with selling a product just to generate new commissions but due to the pressures of the job (or whatever) I don’t think a lot of sales reps see it that way. In certain industries (like Life Insurance) there are specific regulations prohibiting replacing products in this manner. Many of us have to put up with onerous laws and regulations that, for the most part, we think are unnecessary, overdone and a hindrance to our selling ability. If we don’t start policing ourselves and actually think about what we’re doing, there will be more and more and more such regulations.

We apologize for any inconvenience …

Really.

Feel badly, do you?

This "We apologize for any inconvenience" phrase is rapidly becoming meaningless, seeing as how it’s both overused and usually immediately follows someone telling you the corporate equivalent of “go pound sand”. The truly irksome thing is not the insincerity of the sentiment, it’s that most of the time the inconvenience is, if not intentional, certainly not causing any sleepless nights over at the XYZ Company.

If you want to be truthful, the response should be “Yeah, we know it’s a pain for our customers. What of it?”

I imagine there really are some firms that are sincerely apologetic, it’s just the two I’ve recently been dealing with (Chase & Vonage) clearly aren’t. But it’s not just them, I see this phraseology all the time and virtually always with the same preceding “shove it”.

Listen, don’t fake sincerity. If the customer is wrong, you can point out their error, apologize for the misunderstanding and offer solutions to fix it. If the customer isn’t wrong, you need to make it right for them.

Case in point is the Chase situation. Their interpretation of their fine print (define “may”) and mine vary. Their corporate policy is to define “may” as “will”. Legal issues aside, they should either change their disclosure wording or acknowledge my understanding. Instead their response is “This the way we do it” (go pound sand) and “We apologize for any inconvenience”. It’s not inconvenient – it’s wrong and you should offer to fix it.

How about “We’re sorry you misunderstood what we meant, but you’re gonna have to live with it.” At least it’d be honest.

It's 2007, dammit!!

One of the most egregious things that companies do to hamstring their sales efforts is having numerous computer software systems that do not inter-operate; they don't speak to each other.

Let's assume for a moment that it's true* that there isn't one system that you can use in your company that can:
• automate the sales process (CRM)
• send and receive e-mail,
• calendar, and
• track customer and product information for your particular widget.

Even if that's true, there's no reason on God's green earth why you would consider saddling your sales reps (or internal staff for that matter) with software that can't share data. It's 2007 for god's sake!!

I'm sure there are some companies that have it together, but judging from what I see every day, there's not many. A company I'm working with right now uses a CRM system and Lotus Notes. While these two programs can share contacts and appointments (not automatically mind you; you have to specifically force the link and the procedure is different in each program), neither of them can share data with the separate customer/product database**. In other words, once someone actually buys a product, their data and product specs go into this separate silo never to be linked with the sales CRM system or Notes again, unless someone does it manually.

Cross sell much? What happens if you want to sell them something else, or the contact person changes, or they move? Again, it's 2007 - how can you not deploy a unified customer/client database that is one central depository for prospects, clients and their current or future product information?

And I'm not saying this because it sounds like a nice thing to do. Not doing so wastes time and resources, is costing you sales and is frustrating your sales force.

If you want to maximize sales, you should get with the program. It's 2007.



* and I don't believe this is true in 95% of companies. Software can be customized to handle just about any configuration of any product. This process is further aggravated because firms often don't deploy the latest versions or all the capabilities of software they have.
** not to mention the issues with mobile electronics which sync only with Notes, so you've got to remember to sync everything twice (CRM to Notes, Notes to Blackberry) before and after every outing.

Lose the Attitude or Lose the Client

I want to share something that happens to Sales Reps waaaaay too often.

I have a client with a billing problem and she's been trying to work it out with the Home Office for 2 1/2 weeks. This is not a little billing problem, this is a really big billing problem and it's an important client. Here's my first concern - guess how I found out about this? That's right - the client emailed me. I should not be finding out about these things from my clients. Too much trouble for the HO to shoot me a note or call me to say "We've got a problem on XYZ Co., this what it is and we're working on it and will let you know if you need to do anything"? Now, I don't want to hear about every little problem but please use a little common sense to say "Rich needs a heads-up on this" for the big things. This lack of communication makes us both look like idiots.

But wait - there's more. We had a conference call, me, the client and four (count 'em) Home Office staff. Good thing I was there to referee, because the HO people were very defensive about how they'd done things. Apparently, it was the client's fault for not understanding how we were charging them. Notwithstanding the fact that a lot of the charges made no logical sense or that nowhere did we attempt to explain how we arrived at these odd numbers. Clearly, the client was wrong and they should just take our word for it that the charges were correct. Guess what didn't happen.

OK, let me make this perfectly clear: the client is not lucky that we let them do business with us, we are lucky that they have chosen to do business with us. I have seen this attitude for years, at many different companies, that somehow our clients should be thrilled that we allow them to buy our products. Where does that come from and how does it possibly make sense?

We shouldn't put people in a position that they need to change their procedures to match our internal processes. We should know what the clients need and expect. We should be accommodating to them, not the other way around.

There are very few companies in the world who make or do something so unique that a client can't go elsewhere, and get something just (or almost) as good without the condescending attitude. Everyone does it all the time - Bank of America treats you badly? Well, Washington Mutual is right down the street. Is Cingular constantly overcharging you? Switch to T-Mobile. The point is that if your employees are doing that to your clients, your clients will leave. And my reputation gets tarnished in the meantime and, really, that's all I have.

</rant>

I know I'm not saying anything new here. Everyone knows you're supposed to treat your clients well, right? Well, apparently everyone doesn't know this because this little scenario happened just this week and I'll bet it happened a thousand other times this week to other reps.

Think this doesn't happen in your company? It does. Call any one of your sales reps right now and ask. That's OK, I'll wait. Do do do doooo do. See, what did I tell you? Maybe it doesn't happen a lot, but it shouldn't happen at all. Make it stop!