They DIDN’T.
Yes, they did.
Edelman’s “news trough.”
(Let the porcine puns commence! More here, btw.)
(photo credit: http://umichangallery.clarence.com/)
They DIDN’T.
Yes, they did.
Edelman’s “news trough.”
(Let the porcine puns commence! More here, btw.)
(photo credit: http://umichangallery.clarence.com/)
According to RonaldMcHummer.com, McDonald’s has given away 42 million Hummer toys as part of their most recent Happy Meal promotion. Not surprisingly, a number of individuals who view the Hummer as a symbol of rampant eco-destruction have made a shrill outcry. Some parents may find the choice of toy to be upsetting as this isn’t a suitable toy for a child to be playing with. Alternatively, parents could opt for a healthier meal elsewhere before going home and playing with their child helped by watching a nursery ryhme on youtube. This would be an educational play time compared to your child playing with a grease stained hummer.
Now, from a marketing and customer interaction perspective, the interesting bit about this brouhaha is not the outcry itself, but rather the McDonald’s response. Bob Langert, Vice President for Corporate Citizenship and Issues Management at McDonald’s, has put forth an interesting bit of NewSpeak on the McDonald’s Corporate Social Responsibility blog, regarding the promotion. Langert states:
“Our company, including my staff, is deeply committed to the whole scope of corporate responsibility issues, including environmental protection. So I polled my staff who have or had children. One of them said her children enjoy the little Hummer replicas as toys, just as many kids like toy trucks, regardless of make or model. She drives a MiniCooper, walks with her children to get groceries, bicycles with them on weekends, etc. Another said her grandchildren absolutely love the toy Hummers–that they’re fun.
Of course, there’s nothing scientific about this poll, but I think it makes an important point. Looked at through children’s eyes, the miniature Hummers are just toys, not vehicle recommendations or a source of consumer messages about natural resource conservation, greenhouse gas emissions, etc.”
Bob, you dropped the ball here. Big time. There are about a dozen comments on your blog on the matter, none of which you’ve addressed directly. You’ve given a pat, Teflon-coated response to an issue that is of concern to many of your customers. In fact, the response you’ve given isn’t even a response — it’s a mis-direction and a diversion.
Without stepping up and giving a real answer and providing some real direction, you are doing nothing more than using a new medium (blogs) to reinforce the negative perceptions that already exist about your organization. In fact, you are solidifying those perceptions further.
(Thanks to Jay Rosen for the tip.)
Others in the conversation:
http://www.emergencemarketing.com/archives/2006/09/more_people_unhappy_with.php
http://funnybusiness.typepad.com/funnybusiness/2006/09/mcdonalds_vice_.html
http://www.enviroblog.org/2006/09/mcdonalds_responds_to_hummer_p.htm
http://cityhippy.blogspot.com/2006/09/news-mchummer-ok-say-mcdonalds.html
http://www.triplepundit.com/pages/mcdonalds-responds-to-the-happ-002240.php
http://customerevangelists.typepad.com/blog/2006/09/mcdonalds_blog_.html
Barry Parr’s Coastsider reports:
“A vendor has been selected to set up a free wireless Internet service, using wifi, that is supposed to cover San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties and to stretch “west to Half Moon Bay” according to some reports.
The vendor, a partnership of Cisco Systems, IBM, SeaKay and Azulstar—still has to come to agreements with local governments.”
The San Mateo County Times adds:
“At no cost to the cities involved, Metro Connect intends to make its money back through advertisements and through charging user fees for faster connections. The service will be free at one megabyte per second downstream and 50 to 60KB upstream, and is primarily intended to be used outdoors.”
Awesome news, if it gets approval. (Although with the slow upload rates, it’s going to take Scoble a long time to upload his movies.)
Okay, here’s where customer co-creation gets interesting. (John Winsor, are you out there?) A group of students at the IT University in Copenhagen, and Superflex, a Copenhagen-based artist collective have brought free beer to the world. In their words:
“The project…applies modern free software / open source methods to a traditional real-world product – namely the alcoholic beverage loved and enjoyed globally, and commonly known as beer.
The recipe and branding elements of FREE BEER is published under a Creative Commons (Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5) license, which means that anyone can use the recipe to brew their own FREE BEER or create a derivative of the recipe. Anyone is free to earn money from FREE BEER, but they must publish the recipe under the same license and credit our work. All design and branding elements are available to beer brewers, and can be modified to suit, provided changes are published under the same license (”Attribution & Share Alike”) . The aim was to start an experiment in applying modern open source ideas and methods on a traditional real-world product (beer). At the end of the course, Superflex decided to continue the experiment and changed the name to FREE BEER.”
I look at this experiment and think, “why not?” Customers are involved in giving feedback to the product. The product continually improves and evolves to meet new market trends and ideas. (E.g. FREE BEER 3.0 contains Guarana “for a natural energy boost.”) There’s an inherent, DIY, Make-ishness about the process. And producers are free to make a profit on the product, which will be driven solely by how well they connect with and serve customers (since the product itself is not a differentiator)…and are even encouraged to improve on the product, as long as they feed back into the virtuous cycle.
I love it.
(via Lessig)
Been thinking about this one a lot recently. We all change and (hopefully!) evolve over time. As I’ve observed myself, friends and acquaintances go through this process, there seem to be two types of people.
The first are individuals who change in a directed fashion. That is, as they age, they change along a vector that goes in a single direction, and once in the new “place,” have a difficult, if not impossible, time going back to earlier “versions” of themselves.
The second are individuals who change in a subsumptive fashion. That is, as they age, they change by adding new “layers” to themselves, while still retaining (and retaining access) to the earlier layers that got them to where they are today.
Both types of individuals change over time, but their outlooks on life seem very different to me.
Bonus thought: This may apply to organizations as well…can your organization access its inner startup when it needs to? Or has it changed so much that it’s impossible to get back to the roots that made it great in the first place?
(See HP)
(Continuing the conversation started here.)
About halfway through reading The Long Tail, I was cold-cocked by a thought…I’ve read this before, but in reverse. Back in the early-to-mid 90’s, there was a a book written by Kevin Kelly (who was, interestingly enough, Editor in Chief of Wired at the time) called Out of Control. (n.b. Out of Control has been one of the most influential books I’ve read, and directly drove my interest in artificial intelligence, genetic algorithms and other phenomena at the intersection of technology and biology.)
Kelly’s writing introduced me to the work of W. Brian Arthur, who is best known for his theories around increasing returns. Brian Arthur’s work on increasing returns explains why the blogging power law (and, in fact the Long Tail shape itself) forms. Arthur writes:
“Customer Groove-In. High tech products are typically difficult to use. They require training. Once users invest in this training—say the maintenance and piloting of Airbus passenger aircraft—they merely need to update these skills for subsequent versions of the product. As more market is captured, it becomes easier to capture future markets.
In high-tech markets, such mechanisms ensure that products that gain market advantage stand to gain further advantage, making these markets unstable and subject to lock-in. Of course, lock-in is not forever. Technology comes in waves, and a lock-in…can only last as long as a particular wave lasts.”
Put more simply, increasing returns can be trivially stated this way: “Thems that gots, shall gets.” So, based on that, I would posit the following: While following a recommendation down the Long Tail drives demand down the curve — to the right — increasing returns moves a niche to the mainstream — up the curve, to the left.
So, assuming that one wants to move his or her niche to the left up the curve, the big factors to success are driven by the following:
1) What is the “metric” that is being used to define the shape of the curve; and
2) How do I get more of it?
For example, Technorati gets slammed when they create their “Top 100” lists. Their list uses a single metric, “inbound links,” that turns the “Top” list into a raw popularity contest, without taking into account other dimensions that might define something as a “top” blog. (But, it is what it is.) Now, that being said, if the “success” of your niche is tied to its findability in the tail (and it almost certainly is), then there are compelling reasons to try to move your niche to the left. The closer to the “head” of the Long Tail your niche is:
Increasing returns would suggest that both of the above items increase the chance that your niche will then be even more findable in the future, and move even further to the left. For example, this article by Dave Sifry (CEO of Technorati) gives his thoughts on how to make your blog more popular. His points echo the above sentiments.
Related:
Long Tail Thoughts
Getting found in the Long Tail: Direct
Getting found in the Long Tail: Recommendations
(Continuing the conversation started here.)
While ensuring that searchers can find you in the Long Tail is good, being found by someone who is already predisposed to a connection is even better.
What I mean by this is the following: a visitor who finds your wares via a direct link already knows what he or she is seeking. However, the abundance of the Long Tail means that there are myriad things in the tail that someone might love, only if he or she knew it existed! How do enable this kind of discovery? Recommendations and collaborative filtering.
An example might be handy. So, I think Liz Phair’s first album, Exile in Guyville, is the bomb-diggity. (Also, although I now live on the West Coast, all Chicago natives, regardless of current residence, are required to love Exile, lest their 312 credentials be immediately and unceremoniously revoked.) Now, if I go onto Amazon and look up Exile in Guyville, I find the following:
Liz takes me to Veruca Salt.
Veruca Salt takes me to Nina Gordon.
Nina Gordon’s last release incents me to go to her home page, where I find Nina Gordon doing an acoustic cover of N.W.A’s Straight Outta Compton. (Fantastic, and fantastically NSFW unless you’re wearing headphones).
So, our traversal down the Long Tail went like this:
Liz Phair > Veruca Salt > Nina Gordon > Nina Gordon’s cover of Straight Outta Compton
Now, never in a million years would I have gone to Google and done a search on “sultry-voiced chanteuse doing an acoustic cover of an anthem of gangsta rap.” Yet, that’s exactly what I found…and I love it.
The key point here: if your niche in the Long Tail is truly one-of-a-kind, it may be so unique that no one would ever even dream to search for what it contains. The only way someone will find it is through collaborative filtering (a la Amazon) or through word-of-mouth recommendations from a trusted source that traverse the tail.
Related:
Long Tail Thoughts
Getting found in the Long Tail: Direct
Moving Your Niche
Per my earlier post, have just finished reading The Long Tail, and the book triggered a couple of key questions for me. Those questions were:
The first way of being found by prospective customers (readers, listeners, etc.) is the “direct” approach. That is, through some means, the customer drops “directly” into your site, or directly finds your product, most likely by way of some type of search engine. (This could be one of the Google-Yahoo-MSN search engines, or by some type of keyword search within an environment such as iTunes.)
This type of discovery has a couple of different traits. On one hand, it may result in the highest number of “raw” visitors coming to your website. For example, in looking at the referrer logs for this blog, a vast majority of the incoming traffic to the blog itself comes not necessarily from links from other blogs, but instead is “organic” traffic driven primarily from Google, where someone has searched on a term such as “Customer Managed Relationship” which led them to this post. On the other hand, this may not necessarily be the “best” traffic, where “best” is defined as “a visitor to the site who is philosophically aligned with the ideas here, and passionate about connecting with customers.” Rather, the visitors who arrive as a result of a “direct” approach may have significant alignment with the details or topic of a particular post, but may not necessarily be aligned with the overall gestalt. In order to increase the number of these visitors that choose to access your site, you may benefit from the services of an SEO Company in London that can make your website more noticeable for search engines and give it a higher ranking so that more users are likely to visit.
Now, that being said, there is potentially significant value in having many visitors drop by a site, even if they are just “passing through.” (This is not a radical thought.) While some portion of the visitors who arrive via this mechanism may only be connecting with the details of a particular portion of the site, there will be some subset who could be classified as the “best” type of visitor, as defined above. As such, making it easy for even the drop-in type of visitor to find a site is important. There are companies like South Lakes SEO who exist to do just that – to help you establish an effective SEO strategy that will expand your reach and make sure more people find your site. The main way to help ensure that this kind of visitor can find you in the Long Tail is ensuring that all aspects of a site (or other online artifact such as a song, video, etc.) is set up to be search-engine friendly. That means writing well, ensuring that the keywords that a visitor might be searching on at a later date are included in the body and title of the pages, that posts or artifacts are tagged with keywords (if appropriate) and, in general, follows the tactics of successful search engine optimization (or “SEO,” as it’s commonly known).
Related:
Long Tail Thoughts
Getting found in the Long Tail: Recommendations
Moving Your Niche
Just finished Chris Anderson’s book The Long Tail, and had a few thoughts. The “Long Tail” concept, of course, is defined thusly:
“What happens when everything in the world becomes available to everyone? When the combined value of all the millions of items that may sell only a few copies equals or exceeds the value of the few items that sell millions each? When a bunch of kids with no profit motive can record a song or make a video and get the same electronic distribution for it as the most powerful corporation?
The Long Tail is really about the economics of abundance, and entirely new model for business that is just starting to show its power as unlimited selection reveals new truths about that consumers want and how they want to get it.”
Overall a good, quick, solid read. However, while reading through the book, it triggered two primary questions for me:
Some thoughts on those two questions in the following posts.
Related:
Getting found in the Long Tail: Direct
Getting found in the Long Tail: Recommendations
Moving Your Niche
Mike Masnick: “Lenovo has suddenly decided to start a new division ‘to focus on customers.’ This, of course, should probably make you wonder just what the company was focused on before. Customer focus isn’t the sort of thing that you should set up a separate division for. It should be a part of the entire corporate culture.”
(Lenovo purchased IBM’s personal computer division in 2004.)