The true value of brands in our changing world

At last I've managed to get enough time to share the presentation that myself and Tom Farrand created for the Financial Services Forum in October 2009.

For those of you that followed the presentation on my Twitter feed and asked for the presentation here are the charts and an audio commentary from me.

True Value Of Brands

View more documents from Justin Basini.

In reality the presentation took about 45 mins so I've had to rush to crunch it down to 17 mins. You can just click through the slides if you don't want to listen to me!

And for those that don't even want to view the presentation or listen to the audio here are the key conclusions:

1. There is a brand bubble being created between valuation and consumer value
2. Consumers are increasingly getting frustrated with brands and business
3. There are disruptive changes which are causing this:
4. Consumption based economic growth is now compromising our well being
5. Consumption based economic growth is unsustainable
6. Connectivity and access to information can help facilitate change
7. Social and power structures are changing

The opportunity for brands and their businesses is:

1. Engage in the debate
2. Adopt a point of view and foster conversation
3. Be points of consistency in a changing world
4. Become the ideas around which businesses can adopt a more balanced approach to delivering not just for shareholders but for the common good
5. These social imperatives are a powerful way to deliver a brand's commercial imperative - and this will constitute brand leadership going forward.

There are lots of big themes and trends here - get involved - please comment on this blog.

What do you think the future of brands is? Comment and share your ideas.

Justin (and Tom Farrand)

P.S. Apologies for the silence from my blog over the past couple of weeks - I've been working on various ideas which took my focus away from the blog.

Email me: justin@basini.com
My website: http://www.basini.com/
Read my blog: http://www.blog.basini.com/
Follow me: www.twitter.com/justinbasini

Did you know you can sign up for updates from Justin Basini? Click here

If you liked this blog then please share, digg, and bookmark! Click on the icons. Thanks.

The pizza of innovation

I'm a huge fan of Pizza Express (for those non UK readers Pizza Express was the first sit down pizza restaurant chain in the UK established in the 60s). Both my sons were born soon after Pizza Express visits!

And despite now having a growing family we still love Pizza Express because over the past few years they have stepped up their innovation and much of it is based on really good insight into their customers.

After a recent visit a few lessons struck me on what pizzas reveal about customer led innovation:

1. Understand the desired experience not just the product attributes. My wife and I still like to spend an hour or so in a restaurant having a simple dinner. That hasn't changed now we have three kids. We've learnt, as many parents before us have, that the art to keeping that hour pain-free is keeping the kids occupied. Increasingly kid-friendly restaurants dole out the crayons and paper but Pizza Express have taken it to another level. They have tailored their kids menu to be multiple small courses over the space of an hour. So you quickly get garlic bread or dough balls for the kids to munch, then comes a small pizza, then an ice cream, then a really cute idea - the Bambicino - which is a frothy cappucino style milk. This means whilst we eat a starter and pizza the kids meal is paced to keep them occupied. Pizza Express have understood what I want and, more importantly, what my kids want so that we all get a good experience.

2. A well tried foundation is the best starting place for new ideas. Why is the pizza such an enduring food? Because it is a solid foundation from which to add and adapt. This is true for much innovation (and indeed solid incrementalism) - start with a good process or product, understand what is great with it, and then improve. A strong foundation also allows you to engage the customer through customisation...

3. Customisation was, is, and always will be a powerful way to engage. From its earliest origins the pizza has been a customisation engine. One of the reasons almost everyone can enjoy a pizza is that the solid foundation allows personal expression and the adaptation to personal taste and creativity. This is what I love about Apple products, a great base product facilitating creativity, for example, through the music you put on them or what you create on them. Dell were the masters of mass customisation but on attributes that were intrinsic rather than 'tasty'. Only now are they realising that allowing customisation on the surface is as important.

4. Innovation isn't always about adding things - it can also be about taking things away. Most companies that I've worked with start from a foundation of their current product or process and then think about features or benefits that can be added in order to innovate. This isn't a bad path to innovation but it can be illuminating to think about what to take away from the product. Pizza Express have a new product called the Leggera. This is a pizza with the middle taken out with salad replacing it. This fills a need for those who want a lower calorie option. I admired Vodafone when they launched their Simple proposition. A simple phone and tariff for those that wanted just a phone that worked like a traditional phone not a computer. Dyson took away the vacuum cleaner bag for a better experience. You don't always have to add.

5. Different occasions are sources of new volume, canibalisation can be a red-herring. In the last few years Pizza Express have launched a line of retail pizzas. I bet this gave them some sleepless nights. I can hear the discussions now: surely this would canibalise their take out business or, even worse, their core restaurant business (especially in these more difficult times as people trade down)? Perhaps it would damage the brand because they couldn't gaurantee product quality? Overall I think it works well and from what my friends in the supermarket industry tell me it has been a hit. It has provided a new occasion for loyal users to use the brand and allowed those who don't visit the restaurants to buy into the franchise in a different way. I bet frequency of consuming a Pizza Express product is way up since their introduction. Starbucks are now launching into instant coffee with their VIA product. I suspect they had lots of similar debates. If the product is good I bet it will slowly creep into the Starbucks loyalists' non-Starbucks coffee consumption and potentially open the brand up to non-users.

What do you think? How do you innovate? Got any lessons to share? Please comment below. Feel free to share this post with other innovators (or pizza lovers!)

Justin

Email me: justin@basini.com
My website: http://www.basini.com/
Read my blog: http://www.blog.basini.com/
Follow me: www.twitter.com/justinbasini

Did you know you can sign up for updates from Justin Basini? Click here

If you liked this blog then please share, digg, and bookmark! Click on the icons. Thanks.

Using Social Media to create communities around your brand

[This is the first in an occasional series of guest blogs that I am sharing from experts in different fields - if you want to guest on my blog send me a mail]

Social media has become almost a necessity when it comes to communicating with your audience, fans and customers. As more and more people turn to social media for entertainment and to follow their favourite companies, brands and celebrities it’s critical that you don’t get left behind. Not participating in social media will be like almost not having a website in the near future. Almost unthinkable!

Many a SEO Company are offering to integrate your business socially, some are good and some have simply no idea. I would suggest looking at your company’s own strategy before choosing any provider should you go down this route.

Social media is all about connecting and communicating with your audience, it’s not enough to create a Twitter account and then think that doing a few tweets will be enough. Your fans want to hear from you regularly, possibly once a day or more. People that are part of your network are generally interested in what you have to say or offer and want to hear more. We’re talking about real fans now, not a million pointless people who only followed you, because you followed them.

By constantly keeping in touch with your audience, you create a “momentum” and a loyal following who will support you and give you valuable feedback. Should you connect with them in the right way they will become the most powerful PR machine you could ever imagine which could make your business explode with sales or enquires or implode should there be a lot of criticism.

The trick to successful social media is effort in creating and maintaining your network and offering things that are of interest. Do not try to “market the hell” out of your network and fans, as all you’ll succeed in doing is losing them.

Social media is an incredibly powerful tool which can help you connect with your customers and fans on a personal level, almost never before possible. This tight communication reaps huge rewards in terms of customer loyalty, brand awareness and building. Social media should be embraced to grow your business as not participating can actually do more harm than good.

This article was written by Christopher Angus – An award winning Internet Marketer. You can get in touch with Christopher Angus here or read his blog here.

As always - do you have a view? Do you like guest blogs? Are you creating communities of trust around your brand? Share a comment below!

Justin

Email me: justin@basini.com
My website: http://www.basini.com/
Read my blog: www.blog.basini.com
Follow me: www.twitter.com/justinbasini

Did you know you can sign up for updates from Justin Basini? Click here

If you liked this blog then please share, digg, and bookmark! Click on the icons. Thanks.

Insights from the 2009 Chief Marketing Officers (CMO) conference Zurich

For the last couple of days I have been lucky enough to be in Zurich, Switzerland at the 2009 CMO conference. There were some great speakers and a few “Ah-ha” moments which I wanted to share. I also tweeted the conference which you can find by visiting my Twitter feed (@justinbasini).

The key theme of the conference that emerged through the excellent content was how the marketing agenda and marketers can drive inspiration, innovation and growth in businesses.

Opening the conference was Scott Davis (@scottdavisshift) who is Senior Partner at Prophet, the marketing and brand consultancy. He shared his insights on the need for marketing and marketers to make 5 fundamental shifts. There was some powerful thinking around how marketing and marketers can drive business growth and real impact by focusing on the fundamentals of the business and the ability to lead but I was particularly taken with the thought:

CONSUMER INSIGHT IS THE MARKETER’S SECRET WEAPON
This is really well put. I was always taught at P&G that you could go up against the CEO of the company as long as you understood the consumer. Marketing and marketers, with our natural consumer and market orientation, have the ability to be a great source of actionable insight for our businesses by representing the consumer in the board room. If you want to know more then Scott has published a book called The Shift.

Michael Conrad, President of the Berlin School for Creative Leadership (who was the Chief Creative Officer for Leo Burnett) then picked up some of these themes as he helped us decode the advertising of iconic brands. It was powerful to hear Michael’s anecdotes: he recalled the Nike brand being all about “the religion of sport” and how this was the guiding context for all their activities. This included building their shops, the Nike Towns, which are “temples to sporting heroes”. A powerful insight for me was:

CREATE POWERFUL THEMES THAT DRIVE A SERIES OF EVENTS
It’s not about the campaign or the advert anymore but about creating a series of events that together can create a wave of awareness about a new idea. Each domain in the value chain needs to take the theme and develop powerful expressions that bring it alive, no one thing can drive a major change it needs to be lots of elements working together.

Andy Stefanovich from an innovation consultancy (now part of Prophet) called PLAY (based in Richmond, VA for all my Capital One readers) was a force of nature as he took us outside and shared that he believes:

THERE IS A HUMAN ENERGY CRISIS
This is powerful way of representing the strands that many of us will be familiar with: the dearth of truly inspirational leadership, the over regimented approach to innovation, the lack of understanding (even fear) of creative thinkers and the creative process and ruthless focus on measures which constrain and create less than ideal outcomes. He passionately implored his audience to step up to inspirational leadership and use the creation of a consumer focused, counter intuitive marketing agenda to drive change and create energy for individuals, teams and organisations.

And finally it was fascinating to hear Chris Hughes, Co-founder of Facebook and architect of the online strategy of Barack Obama’s election campaign. His talk was full of insight and information with his perspective on the current information revolution being:

WE ARE WITNESSING THE DEMOCRATISATION OF THE CREATION OF INFORMATION
Previous information revolutions have been mainly driven by changes in the distribution of information. The changes we are currently witnessing are different because they centre on the democratisation of the creation of information. We can all now blog, tweet, comment, and share through the internet. This is causing powerful new forces to arise that bring people together for a range of different effects including those of political and social change such as the demonstrations in Brazil against FARC or the global protestations about the Iran election.

I’ve blogged about these trends before and Chris confirmed my model of how the different social networks play different roles and fulfil different needs.

Overall it was a very enjoyable and thought provoking conference and these are not all the insights uncovered but they are the ones that I wanted to share immediately. Thanks to Prophet and Heidrick & Struggles for sponsoring and the organisers for organising.

What do you think of these insights? Did you attend the conference? As always if you have a view please comment below!

Thanks

Justin

justin@basini.com
http://www.basini.com/
justinbasini.blogspot.com
www.twitter.com/justinbasini

Did you know you can sign up for updates from Justin Basini? Click here

If you liked this blog then please share, digg, and bookmark! Click on the icons. Thanks.

5 rules for marketers as we move away from Greed to Fear

I was at a seminar last week organised by the Financial Services Forum where I was lucky enough to hear Lucian Camp talk about his take on the current crisis and how it challenges advertising and commuication. I agree with him that something fundamental has changed and we are moving away from a predominant focus on "Greed" to needs around "fear".

However I don't particularly like the concept of Greed and Fear since I have rarely heard consumers talk about these words directly. I prefer to think of it as "gain" and "protect". Over the past 20 years the prevailing mood has been "gain" - gaining goods, houses, wealth, quality of life, happiness, health. This doesn't mean we have achieved any of these things but we have experienced the advertising of aspiration.

We have now been shocked into a different mode - that of "protection". We have all been given pause for thought on whether our jobs, our homes, our families, even the system we rely on, are secure and around for the long term. Products and messages that talk about protecting and sustaining what one has now are more in the current zeitgeist. These messages are also more in tune with the global sustainability issues that we are all facing.

Here are 5 rules for marketers to think of as we ride this trend:

1. Invest more time in understanding consumers worries, frustrations and concerns. I've often seen research spend too much time focusing on what people want, with almost an embarrassment to talk about problems that are more negative. Spend time wallowing in these fears with your consumer. From this new insights will come which might not be positive but will resonate strongly in today's market.

2. Don't be afraid to link your brand to these concerns in communication. One of the challenges that many of us will need to battle with is that if your career is less thn 15 years old then you've only ever worked in the good times. My generation of marketers have only been used to dealing with positive messaging - I think we are a bit afraid of the brand equity we build by talking about negative situations. The best brands will go with the consumer, build equity of "understanding" and "on your side" by reflecting consumer needs hence Rule#1.

3. Move your product development to focus on protection and design products which are sustainable and thrifty. I blogged a while ago about my adventures trying to fix my toaster. Products which help consumers protect what they have whilst having features which are thrifty and sustainable will better meet these needs. Products such as LCD TVs with "eco settings", Ariel and its turn down to 30 campaign, or printers from HP which have much lower running costs are all examples.

4. Big brands have a great opportunity to gain market share. Small brands need to be faster and closer to their niche. In this environment there will be a natural move to bigger, less risky brands. The big brands that invest through this period will prosper. Those that don't run the risk that consumers write them off as having failed during the downturn (even if they haven't). Small brands need to be faster with new concepts and products and more focused than ever on their niches. Luckily more and more niches are appearing and new channels allow greater ability to connect with these groups.

5. (Small) Moments of pleasure matter more than ever. The protection agenda, and the recent crisis, for all the media's efforts to persaude us otherwise, doesn't mean a return to mud huts and sack cloth and ashes. However I suspect the embullience of the past cycle will be more muted for a long time. And that means that moments of pleasure and escape will mean even more to people. We are seeing this with consumer spending moving into cinema tickets, chocolate, staycations, and eating well at home, small moments of often thrifty pleasure.

As always please feel free to comment and share your views. I will try and reply to all comments so please leave one if you have a thought.

Also please feel free to share this blog with anyone you might feel is interested. I really appreciate your support as I build this blog.

Yours

Justin

justin@basini.com
http://www.basini.com/
justinbasini.blogspot.com
www.twitter.com/justinbasini

Did you know you can sign up for updates from Justin Basini? Click here

If you liked this blog then please share, digg, and bookmark! Click on the icons. Thanks.

The different role of social networks Facebook v. Twitter

You can now listen to this blog as a slidecast going through the model and data. Click play below. Or you can just read the text below.

The different roles of social networks - Facebook v. Twitter

View more presentations from justinbasini.

There's been a lot written recently on some of the changes which Facebook have introduced to try and stave off the threat from Twitter. We all know that Facebook tried to buy Twitter in November last year and were rejected - so we know that Facebook is interested in micro-blogging and are pushing their status updates functionality.

This prompted me to think a little more deeply about the differences between Twitter and Facebook in terms of type of network built and communications employed. This leads me to believe that Twitter and Facebook (in their current forms) occupy different spaces and can co-exist quite happily.

The following diagram illustrates some of the differences between the major social networks in my mind based on the intimacy, time, numbers and purpose of relationships in a person's life.



At the core of of our relationship map are deep, loving relationships with close family. Then comes our relationships with wider family and friends. After this are community relationships and relationships with our colleagues. Then we get into the areas where social networks have really had a major impact: previous or infrequent friends and contacts and even people we will never meet in the real world.

Facebook is perfectly positioned to fill the needs of interest and connectedness with a wider circle of friends we used to know or don't see frequently. Of course it still has relevance for closer relationships but the new thing it adds is an unrivalled ability to stay in touch with a wider group of people that you have probably known in the real world. It's optimised for this purpose through features such as approval of friends, having "on platform" media rich options (photos, videos etc), allowing detailed status updates.

Twitter is different to Facebook because it extends the social networking phenomenon into a new territory of those that you probably don't know or haven't known in the real world and is optimised for fast communications. It fulfils the need of curiosity on a broader scale - following famous people, or thought leaders, or organisations is interesting and engaging. In Twitter you can follow anyone and anyone can follow you - no need for approvals. Because of this there is no real responsibility to your network of followers - as I have put it before Twitter is take it or leave it communication. Of course many of us (including me, @justinbasini!) try to share interesting updates but there is no expectation which there is more of in Facebook.

LinkedIn is a good example of a vertically focused social network focused on business contacts. It bridges between work relationships past and present, together with people you want to build relationships with in the real world for business or career success.

I think the usage numbers bear out the fact that Facebook and Twitter are used to serve different needs:



Time spent per user on Facebook is much longer than Twitter but Twitter has many more visits per month. This fits with a usage pattern that is less involved and more frequent. I also think the average number of connections is interesting. On average Facebook users have 130 friends. Social theory holds that groups of 100 to 150 are the most relationships that one individual can meaningfully hold. I suspect that this will grow as we get more comfortable with technology based contact but I don't think this average will ever be 1000s.

Now clearly at the moment the number of Twitter followers on average is low at around 20. But what I think is interesting is that if you take the top 10% of Twitter users (who we could call the early adopters and might be indicative of future usage) their number of followers on average is 483 and it is increasing fast. I think the average number of followers on Twitter could well be 1000s in the future. This definitely means it will be a different sort of network to that which one has on Facebook and potentially very exciting since you could use it to get an insight into many more different people around the world.

As always PLEASE feel free to comment with your views and share with others who you think might find this blog interesting. Oh and please follow me on Twitter (@justinbasini).

Yours

Justin

justin@basini.com
http://www.basini.com/
justinbasini.blogspot.com
www.twitter.com/justinbasini

Did you know you can sign up for updates from Justin Basini? Click here

If you liked this blog then please share, digg, and bookmark! Click on the icons. Thanks.

What future for the Orange and T-Mobile brands in the UK?

I was asked this morning about whether I had a view on the future of the Orange and T-Mobile brands in the UK now that Deutsche Telekom and France Telecom have announced that they will be merging their UK operations. It's a fascinating brand problem that they are apparently going to take up to 18 months to decide and that the issue is of "vital importance".

The UK mobile phone market is a really interesting brand landscape. The chart below maps the market a couple of dimensions which split out the top 5 players. Vodafone plays the Incumbent position (the safe, big choice), despite not being the market leader, and is still product, product, product. O2, the market leader, has used design and customer focus brilliantly to differentiate focused on a fresher, younger demographic. VirginMobile, as a virtual mobile network operator (MVNO) partner to T-Mobile, has carved out its now well trodden youth customer focused challenger position.



T-Mobile has always fallen between two stools: not big enough to be an incumbent but with an incumbent like attitude (from Deutsche Telekom ownership I suspect) which has tried to move from product to customer but has been erratic. Orange is the real brand disappointment of the category moving from its original high quality, customer focused, cool, challenger position into a middle ground between an incumbent and a challenger.

The brand and marketing challenges for T-Mobile and Orange will be to decide where the future of the market will be, which customer group they want to use as a focus, what customers want, and then to understand whether the Orange brand, the T-Mobile brand or both gives them the best solution.

The most obvious choice is to bin the T-Mobile brand whilst using the merger to re-invigorate the Orange brand. T-Mobile has always suffered from a patchy (at best) brand heritage (remember Mercury and then One-to-One?) and a down-market feel. Orange is a brand just waiting to be given the kiss of life.

However a more interesting solution might be to keep both brands. T-Mobile to target the more pay-as-you-go, value based customer, perhaps younger. Whilst the Orange brand becomes again the customer-focused, cool challenger to Vodafone and O2. Tactically this solution allows the T-Mobile brand to go to places that the Orange brand wouldn't necessarily want to be seen in such as corner shops, or targeting the super value end of the market with hard hitting direct response marketing. This allows Orange to then be much more aspirational and regain the zeitgeist with a return to their cool, slightly arrogant, brand values.

Of course, as I have discussed in this blog before (Why do big companies struggle to get the customer experience right?), buying and using a mobile phone is a service experience, and all the mobile brands have had significant service issues. Creating a compelling brand strategy is the first step, creating a coherent brand reality will be where the really hard work starts.

It's a great set of brand issues to try to work out and I wish the merger teams the best of luck!

Yours

Justin

justin@basini.com
http://www.basini.com/
justinbasini.blogspot.com
www.twitter.com/justinbasini

Did you know you can sign up for updates from Justin Basini? Click here.

If you liked this blog then please share, digg, and bookmark! Click on the icons. Thanks.

This blog has just been listed on Alltop

I am proud to say that this blog has just been selected for listing on Alltop. If you don't know about Alltop it is a very cool blog/content aggregation tool which you can use to set up your "own magazine". I use it alot to go through lots of blogs quickly on the subjects that interest me such as branding, marketing, banking, starting up a business and leadership. You can also do fun stuff like share your selections with friends - you can see my Alltop page here.

You can find my blog under Marketing (click or search for marketing on Alltop front page) and I am the last blog (right at the bottom) - well you have to start somewhere!

Hope you continue to enjoy my blogs and using Alltop.

Thanks to the team at Alltop for reviewing my blog and selecting it for listing.

Next challenge is to get Guy Kawasaki (@guykawasaki) to retweet one of my blogs!

Yours

Justin

justin@basini.com
http://www.basini.com/
justinbasini.blogspot.com
www.twitter.com/justinbasini

Did you know you can sign up for updates from Justin Basini? Click here.

If you liked this blog then please share, digg, and bookmark! Click on the icons. Thanks.

Trust in banking

I've been thinking about Trust again as I pick up my book writing after a summer break.

I want to return to a theme that I discussed in a speech that I made to the Financial Services Forum conference earlier this year. You can download the text of the speech from my website. If you read my earlier blog on Banking and Common Good there are some key themes that emerge if banking is to regain our trust as consumers. As I outlined in that blog I believe we are a turning point but there is significant regression to the mean and that the old status quo is most likely to return. I read with interest in the weekend's FT about the prediction of a bumper bonus season for the investment bankers.

As "masters of the markets" financial services can contribute market based solutions to the biggest problems. The issues facing us today as a globalised society are bewildering: climate change, peak oil, water crisis, natural resource depletion, all underwritten by uneven wealth distribution, poverty, crime, conflict,increasing urbanisation. These issues are moving more quickly and in a more interrelated way than ever before. The European Carbon Emissions Trading Scheme and the futures markets for protection of Amazon land, are all examples of financial markets contributing solutions.

Contribute proactively to a move away from an age of naked consumerism to something that priortises inidividual well-being and community cohesion. Imagine a world where a conversation in the bank, with a bank manager, could assess whether a credit card to fund that new purchase, or a stretching mortgage to buy that bigger house, were needed putting individual happiness at the heart of the discussion.

After all is said and done what we trust are organisations that have values communicated through their actions, run by accessible and open people, businesses that value their loyalty, and seek to create profit by creating products which meet consumer needs transparently. We will trust brands that communicate openly and positively about the many benefits they provide. Brands can move from basic levels of trust when their businesses start to play for higher goals.

What do you think? As always please feel free to share, retweet, comment and get involved.

Yours

Justin

justin@basini.com
http://www.basini.com/
justinbasini.blogspot.com
www.twitter.com/justinbasini

Did you know you can sign up for updates from Justin Basini? Click here.

If you liked this blog then please share, digg, and bookmark! Click on the icons. Thanks.

What is Innovation really?

The launch of a new book has had me reflecting on that most overused and misused word in the business lexicon - Innovation...

That book is Jeremy Gutsche of Trendhunter.com book: EXPLOITING CHAOS. Jeremy has kindly allowed me to link to a free download of pages and examples from the book.



It looks really exciting to me - I've always enjoyed the more visual business books such as Tom Peter's The Pursuit of Wow or The Medium is the Message by Marshall Mcluhan and EXPLOITING CHAOS looks extremely enticing.

Some of Jeremy's ideas and thoughts are powerful. He has created a good resource in this book of examples, ideas and provocative challenges that will help to inspire and stimulate thinking.

I've always thought that we should hold a high bar to what we regard in business as innovation. During my corporate career I seemed to be constantly working on the next "innovation" as were my colleagues. I think many businesses use the word to make people feel better about the work that they were doing! A new ad, a new twist on an existing product, a new concept in an existing category - most likely they aren't going to be an innovation.

In my mind innovations need to meet at least the following criteria:



1. Its a truly new idea or the exploitation of an existing idea into a new context: like the invention of the lightbulb, or the creation of a domestic compact flourescent bulb; or the invention of the telephone or the cellular networks which enabled mobile phones;









2. It delivers something new against a new or existing need meaningfully and for the long term. I think an innovation should have context - it can't be a good idea for the sake of a good idea.


The Honda hydrogen fuel cell car, for example, I think will be seen as truly innovative over time because it moves us on significantly into new long-lasting territory. Whereas the Toyota Prius won't stand the test of time because whilst it was a step forward (and a good one), it didn't fundamentally deliver against the need meaningfully and for the long term (although the harvesting of electrical energy from braking that Toyota developed is an innovation which I suspect will last).

3. It should significantly challenge the existing status quo. The introduction of an offsetting mortgage, much touted as a financial innovation, didn't meet my bar - it was a good product and clever but not an innovation. Zopa, on the other hand, a marketplace for you and I to lend to each other safely is an innovation - it challenges the exisiting significantly and is truly novel.

The debate over innovation will go round and round. I just hope that more businesses can deliver value against our needs, whether they call it invention, innovation, or just plain old tweaking.

What do you think? As always please feel free to share, retweet, comment and get involved.

And congratulations to Jeremy on the publication of Exploiting Chaos.

Yours

Justin

justin@basini.com
http://www.basini.com/
justinbasini.blogspot.com

Did you know you can sign up for updates from Justin Basini? Click here.

If you liked this blog then please share, digg, and bookmark! Click on the icons. Thanks.

Banking and the Common Good

I've worked in banks for the past 7 years of my career. I met some really good people, made some friends, and learnt alot along the way. I've got some insight into what makes banks and bankers tick and this has recently been on my mind given a few conversations I've had with people "on the inside".

I'd like to spend this blog proposing a new model of value creation for banking and bankers based on the concept of the "Common Good". With the "common good", being defined as a positive effect on a wide constituency of stakeholders, and the system we call "society" as a whole.

As we all know we (the people) own much of Northern Rock, RBS and Lloyds and have had to support with financial investments in market structures, liquidity and insurance virtually all other financial services companies. Now I can tell you, and it should come as no surprise, that all the banks that have received state support are desperate to get the government, i.e. our representatives, out of their affairs. This is the major focus of RBS and Lloyds and what will allow this to happen is moving back into profit fast, stablising balance sheets and stopping all unprofitable activity. This agenda is consuming their management teams. These activities are being supported by governments that, quite rightly, don't want to run or be involved with commercial enterprises and want to show a return for the investment of our money as soon as possible.

The leaders of these organisations are talented and well incentivised and will succeed. They will get back to being independent commercial enterprises that play the markets, deliver profits, (often super-normal) and pay big bonuses to their staff, sooner than we think. They will pay dividends and look to make stock market returns by placating the analysts thirst for short term results. And these potential outcomes, a return to the "status quo" with a little more risk management and some structural reform, would be a far better state than we are now in.

But shouldn't we play for more? Shouldn't we, since its our money on the line, demand greater change? One scenario would be we demand an approach where there is a more balanced set of objectives for our banks, objectives which build "the common good", as well as profit and return. This in my mind is the big opportunity out of the crisis.

We have lived through an almost unimaginable collapse in our global banking system. But it seems to me that we are regressing back to the norm - going back to the status quo. Given each taxpayer has had to stump up somewhere from £2,500 to £15,000 to bail out the banks through this crisis (depending on what source you read!) - what do we want to do with this investment? Whether we like it or not these institutions were too big too fail. And this, I think, is not just the result of their commercial size and success, it says more about the role, and potential role, they play in our society. Banks, for good or ill, are a big part of making our society, the system in which we live, work.

State intervention in the banking system was right and no doubt protected us from a catastrophic economic situation. We, the taxpayer and our government, are now involved in these enterprises and this gives us the right to demand a change. Do we want to return to the type of banking and market dominance that led to the collapse? This is the likely scenario unless we start to engage in intelligent, informed dialogue about what new form of contribution we want from these institutions.

My opinion is that it isn't enough for banks just to pay off government aid, buy us off (hopefully with a return), and go back to what they were doing before with even more less-than-effective regulation. All stakeholders (and that includes us) need to get involved to understand how banks can play for a different set of aims which include contributing to the common good.

A bank operating for the common good could:

• make a profit, but not seek to drive super-profit



• seek to grow their value, and that of their shares, by long term investments in businesses and people, not short term quarter by quarter spinning and lurching



• stay away from the complex, synthetic, products which make a lot of money but are often so far removed from any underlying creation of a value to society



• realise that they are a part of the fabric of our nations, not just a commercial entity, and that with this comes responsibility to serve and work with a wide range of consumers



• don't hide behind or pander to the "consumer" - for example if someone doesn't understand credit don't give it to them



• seek to get seriously involved in supporting community cohesion and the broader issues in society - millions are financially excluded, maybe there isn't much money to be made, but working with these consumers responsibly would provide a social good



• back businesses and become a facilitator of solutions to keep businesses going rather than too often making arbitrary decisions, of the "computer says no" type that mean good but cashflow challenged businesses goes under



• see the opportunity for their people and places to become centres of the community - why wouldn't the local bank manager go to local schools and talk about money and how it should be managed or invite local people into the bank to discuss community funding of projects. (Interesting to see what the Campaign for Community Banking is lobbying for - shared branches for example, recently rejected by HSBC)



• create an environment where staff could really be proud of what they do, and one where debate and challenge, not to the specific issue or product, but on a broader more fundamental level is encouraged and actioned

And in return we would need to cut the banks a break. We will need to understand that the fixing of the system is hard, it will have ups and downs, successes and failures. There will continue to be excesses as the old status quo evolves to something different. The market will need to allow management teams to deliver lower absolute profitability, without the ruthless short term focus; and develop new measures for contribution of the business both financial and societal. The media will need to focus less on the reaction to short term issues and seek to represent and support the longer term goals of delivering a "common good" through intelligent and informed debate.

And there are some potential new practises emerging:

Barclaycard is launching a new online account management system which allows spend analysis by category in order to give their customers better information.

Tesco Personal Finance are talking (but only talking at the moment) about building a bank rewarding loyalty.

There is talk of a "Post Bank" being launched using the infrastructure of the Northern Rock (see this article). And other local community banks are also being discussed.

I am sure many, even some old colleagues, will read this and think it is all pie in the sky thinking. But if we allow the system to return to the old status quo, albeit with some structural or regulatory modifications, then I think we will have squandered an opportunity of a lifetime to forge something new and better for the banks, the bankers, our society and for us as consumers.

What do you think? Please leave a comment, thought, disagreement or agreement below or drop me an email at: justin@basini.com

As always please feel free to share, Retweet, Digg or bookmark! I really appreciate it.

Thanks for reading (and thinking),

Justin

http://www.basini.com/

justinbasini.blogspot.com

www.twitter.com/justinbasini

Did you know you can sign up for updates and news from Justin Basini? Just click here.

If you liked this blog then please share, digg, and bookmark! Click on the icons. Thanks.

5 Reasons why Twitter is the next evolution in the democratisation of communication

As many of my friends and family will attest I am a dedicated supporter and active user of Twitter. If I needed any more excuses to use my Blackberry, Twitter has given them to me. Lots has been written about the Twitter phenomenon but I wanted to share why I think Twitter has a really good chance to be a communication channel of long-standing and power.

1. Twitter is the first "feed" of interesting Internet information and opinion that can be accessed with no technical expertise at all. Since using Twitter I am now learning and consuming much more insight from the web. Blogs, articles, comments, stats have all opened up to me since using Twitter. Following a Guy Kawasaki (@guykawasaki) or a Mashable (@mashable) (even if you follow no one else) is a brilliant source of some of the best the web can offer. Add in a Jonty Fisher (@jontyfisher) or a Dan Schawbel (@danschawbel) and you are building a pretty powerful set of insight about marketing and branding (my field). I don't think I am a Luddite but I could never really get RSS feeds and such like to really work - Twitter users aggregate, edit, filter and share better than any technology.

2. Twitter is entirely non-hierarchical and democratic. Everyone is open to everyone (you can limit updates to only those that you select but not many people do this). I've had tweets replied to from Lily Allen (@lilyroseallen) and even got a reply from the great Guy Kawasaki (@guykawasaki). To give you an example last week I was watching BBC Breakfast News watching a really good segment by Ray Snoddy (@raymondsnoddy) on media and advertising. I idly (and somewhat cheekily) tweeted that Ray looked like he was wearing a wig. Within a few hours the tweet had reached him and I had a good humoured reply from the great man. This form of communication is powerful - I don't need to search for his email address - or write him a letter - I am in touch with him because of the network in which we particpate. This democratisation of communication can be a powerful way to open up those in power whatever field they are in.

3. Twitter can give you insight into the lives of others. For example I follow my local MP and now the Minister for Transport Sadiq Khan (@sadiqkhan). Sadiq is a great example of a politician that is using Twitter to inform the man on the street (i.e. me) about what he is doing and the things he thinks are important. Throughout all this furore over MPs expenses and trust I've been really heartened to see Sadiq tweeting about what he thinks and sharing what he is doing. He works really hard (and seemingly all the time at this event or another) and I'm glad that I know this - it builds my trust in him.

4. Twitter can give many moments of pleasure connecting with real world friends across the world. When I first heard of Twitter I thought that knowing that Jon was eating a sandwich in Montreal would be an irrelevance and a waste of time. But actually now that I use Twitter one of the most powerful emotional benefits is knowing that my friend Tobias (@implant_direct) is enjoying a party in Zurich or Tom Farrand (@tomfarrand) has just had a great time kite surfing on the South Coast. These are vicarious moments of joy through Twitter that I wouldn't have otherwise.

5. Twitter is take it or leave it communication. Lastly one of best things about Twitter, different from almost all other modes of communication, is that Twitter can be picked up or put down at will. A tweet, a direct message or a reply doesn't need to be responded to instantaneously but it can be. That's one of the best things about the channel - its so flexible. If you don't want to tweet for a few days no one is going to accuse you of ignoring their voicemail, email or letter.

Twitter adds a lot to my life and I think it is a powerful new form of communication that has a lot of potential. So if you are a confirmed member of the Twit-sphere good for you; and if you are thinking of taking the plunge go for it.

As always please feel free to comment, share, RT, agree or disagree. Also follow me on twitter!

All the best,

Justin

www.basini.com
justinbasini.blogspot.com
www.twitter.com/justinbasini

If you liked this blog then please share, digg, and bookmark! Click on the icons. Thanks.

Why do big companies struggle to get the customer experience right?

For the last couple of weeks I've been trying to get my wife a new mobile phone. It should be simple - but its been a really frustrating experience. (She wants a new phone so she can keep twitter tabs on me - my twitter feed!).

I'm going to recount the experience and then draw some conclusions on Why Big Companies Struggle to get the Customer Experience right.

The story started a few weeks ago with choosing a contract and phone. We all know how confusing this can be. Last time I chose a phone and contract was a good few years ago and I would have hoped that this frustration would have been resolved but its still as confusing as ever. I battled through this and chose a £30 contract with 300 minutes, texts and data and a Blackberry 8900 on Vodafone.

Firstly talked to VirginMobile to port the number and get PAC code. This was a good experience and Virgin delivered, with a nice operator and a letter confirming PAC code a few days later. Again Virgin delivered a good experience. (If they offered Blackberries we would have stayed with them).


I decided to apply for the Vodafone contract online. Seemed to me a sensible choice - after all I'd researched online and the apply now button was blinking away at me. The Vodafone website worked just ok: stopped once and had to reload losing the data I'd filled in, somewhat confusing on PAC code and lost this during the process but overall got through it. At least I receieved some confirmation emails saying things were progressing which was good.


Got a call a few hours later asking for confirmation of some details and again was told everything was going ahead and to expect the phone soon. Two weeks later (on the day contract was due to finish with Virgin) we had recieved nothing - no phone, no sim, no letters, no emails, nothing.




So a few days ago I rang the call centre. And this is where the whole thing took a massive turn for the worse. Initially a woman answered (after a two stage, 5 options choice menu) told me "we are nothing to do with online applications and can't access their details" and therefore she would have to transfer me. She transferred me to a number that was closed. I then rang again and talked to a guy who was much more helpful, he confirmed that "they" were nothing to do with "online" and started to check the number transfer and set up. Basically nothing had happened in two weeks. He now, politely, started to get me to buy the same contract with him that I had applied for online. This felt really wierd as a customer - surely I had already taken out a contract with Vodafone online? Why was I now having to do it again. He asked me to email the PAC code to him for process.

I then found a number for the online team (not from the Vodafone website - that number led to the call centre that denied all knowledge of online applications, but on an old email) and rang them. Then talked to a member of their team who was dismissive of the issues and could not explain why nothing had happened. She then proceeded to say that she could do nothing until the "dispatch" team were in on Monday and they would call me. I said, quite angrily (which I regret), that as far as I was concerned they had done nothing with my request to open a contract and therefore it wasn't done and I would go elsewhere. Of course they didn't call - I assume that my application got lost in their process somewhere.

I then emailed the PAC code to the Vodafone call centre guy and started the whole process again with him.

Finally, and adding cherries to the top of this bad experience cake, were the two calls that I recieved the afternoon after this from an automated system that was asking me to "spend a few minutes answering some questions" on the experience that I had just recieved from Vodafone. Both these calls failed during the process!

This story is not unique - I am sure many of us have the same experiences repeated over and over again by big companies that aren't joined up and put more effort into selling than servicing or correcting errors. Why do big companies struggle to get this stuff right?

1. Most big companies aren't big companies at all but a collection of smaller units and departments (some outsourced) that come together under one brand. This causes many, if not most, of the issues. Trying to co-ordinate these fiedoms is a nightmare. The only way is to define the desired customer experiences through good customer research then design the experience process with good process development techniques to deliver within key tolerances that can be monitored and have ONE PERSON accountable for the whole experience.

2. Most big companies suffer from the "they" disease. This disease infects companies which are lukcy enough to get big enough that people don't know each other within the company. When I ring Vodafone it doesn't matter to me which bit I am talking to from the myriad collection of smaller units. I (foolishly) want to call one integrated company. So why do most people - not just call centre folks - refer to other teams and units as "they". Shouldn't it be "us". I don't care that the call centre folks can't access the online apps - I don't want to know that "they are nothing to do with us". I just want someone to stand up and take responsibility (see 3). A good customer experience is only as strong as its weakest link. The process needs to be understood by everyone from start to finish. "We" and "Us" are powerful words to make me think I am dealing with one brand, one company and a bunch of people who care about the service I am getting.

3. Most companies don't allow individuals in call centres to be honest, take personal accountability and sort the issues out. Call scripts and training often exacerbate bad situations. Handovers should be much more transparent and honest with the customer. Ultimately my major source of frustration was the fact that "online" were nothing to do with anything else. And the handovers failed. This should be handled in a much more grown up way with the customer. What about acknowledging that the situation isn't great? That my call might get lost and that if it does I can get back to the person I am talking to at that moment to try another solution? Giving out people's names and allowing call handlers to take personal responsibility is a rarity but ultimately I went with the guy who said "I will take responsibility - email me directly and we will sort it out". [If anyone from Vodafone wants this guys name please email me and I'd be glad to get him some credit - he saved the situation for you].

4. Most companies are living with an IT infrastructure that is outdated. I think many consumers think that with the resources at the disposal of companies like Vodafone, especially a mobile technology company, they would have "cutting edge" IT systems. I bet they don't - I bet their systems are mired in "legacy" decisions and a patch work quilt of different technologies. The result for the consumer is almost always crap. When will companies start to invest in systems that can talk to one another. Why didn't the phone people have access to "online" applications? Surely in this age of Web 2.0 and APIs, where, for example, I can access my facebook page on my mobile phone, my blackberry, my laptop, my Mac, my PC, Vodafone can get their systems talking - this is crazy. Web 2.0 and Cloud computing might give us hope that connectivity across departments in companies might in the future be solved.

5. All the research I have seen on customer experience says that we all know things will go wrong - its the recovery that is so important. Indivudal units trying to solve complex issues rarely works. Departments are closed, call transfers don't work. Its better to create the equivalent of the SAS for sorting out customer issues and resourcing this properly. I wish there were more complaint/issue teams that are empowered to access all systems, that are trusted enough to give money off or refunds at point of call, that give their names, numbers and email addresses out, and most importantly stand up and say, "I will sort this out for you until it is solved".

6. Its easier to deliver a good experience when your brand stands for something. I'm consistently surprised at how Virgin, across multiple categories and products, delivers a good and distinctive customer experience. The Virgin Mobile guys had the "Virgin chat" and "attitude" - one that I like - and it made it better and easier even though I was leaving them. What does Vodafone stand for? I am sure they have "brand manuals" and "brand personality" guides, and have probably spent a decent amount of money paying customer experience experts and brand consultants to translate these words on paper into action. But the bottom line is that I don't really know what Vodafone stands for, I guess you don't and therefore the guy in the call centre, especially if outsourced, won't know either. Or even if they do it is just so bland and boring that it provides no guidance what-so-ever.

7. Most companies measure the wrong things across their customer experiences. Firstly most tracking happens at the unit or department level - it is rarely integrated. Most tracking focused on the process as defined by the company, rather than the consumer. For example, what is web downtime as the key measure, rather than how many points of failure there is in a web application? It's better in my mind to be told, "our website is down come back in an hour" than start a web application only for it to fail 10 times and take me an hour). Most tracking asks "were you satisfied?" when actually this is a very crude measure - a better measure is to ask the trio of questions: were you satisfied overall, how satisfied were you against your ideal experience, and how satisifed were you against your expected experience? This gets at the fact that if I am talking to an Indian call centre agent I have VERY different levels of ideal experience and expected experience. These ideas and joined up mesaurement are central to the work of Professor Claes Fornell (University of Michigan) and his consultancy CFI Group. Measurement needs to be joined up, from a customer perspective, and intelligent enough to give real insight that can drive action.

I know its hard for big companies to deliver across their processes (I spent a few years trying to do it) but even so "must try harder" is most often the experience and that isn't good enough when its just too easy to switch.

As ever would love to know your thoughts and comments on this topic. Feel free to comment below and share this blog with others.

Justin

http://www.basini.com/

justinbasini.blogspot.com

www.twitter.com/justinbasini

Please register for updates at http://www.basini.com/feedback.html

If you liked this blog then please share, digg, and bookmark! Click on the icons. Thanks.

Across the trenches - how the First World War created communities of trust

Men going "over the top" from a trench in the First World War

Imagine you are in the trenches of the First World War. It’s muddy, dank and dark. It’s raining all the time and you are never dry. The rations are meagre. Your day starts and ends with the boom, boom, boom of enemy shelling. Some compatriots are being driven mad by the constant pressure, threat and thud, thud, thud of the shells; others are suffering from trench foot, the rotting of the feet over exposed to water. Danger is ever present either through enemy attack or the lunacy of commanders sitting miles behind the front line. The order to "go over the top" running headlong into machine gun fire and shelling could come at any time. When commanders come to inspect the trenches they are remote and clearly not in touch with the realities of your situation; maybe they need to maintain a certain remoteness in order that they can signal the orders that might cause your death.

In this madness you look for any and all survival strategies; you look for anybody or anything that can help to alleviate the grim reality and secure a modicum of safety. As you look over to the enemy trench you catch a glimpse of the men you are fighting. They look somewhat similar to you, they are the same age, they look just as tired and fed-up as you do. They repair their trenches, clean their guns, they shell your lines but they also laugh, they eat, they watch, they do the same things you do day-in, day-out. And as the days and weeks go past you begin to realise they are just men like you, longing to see far away family and children, and dreaming of a homecoming.

And over time you realise that the shells that you put into the artillery everyday are now slightly missing their mark, and you don't correct them. The next day you notice that their shells are now slightly off the mark and they don't seem to correct them either. And this becomes the status quo, shells fired and missing, day after day, adding to the futility but contributing security. Then a friend of yours dares to go out behind your line and openly stand up in plain view of the enemy, walking around and then sitting reading a book. No action is taken by the opposite trench. The next morning you see one of their soldiers walking around, you momentarily reach for your gun, but then pause and stop, you take no action. Whilst unwritten and unspoken there is now an agreement across the trenches to act for the greater good of the community - the community of men living under mortal threat sitting in wet, muddy, holes in the ground – a community that is much more real and important than the command structure of the army for which you serve. Sympathy and trust in the common good of the mutually accepted futility of the reality of war creates and maintains a status quo that delivers a modicum of security and fraternal feeling even amongst “enemies”.

I came across the source for this story in Marek Kohn’s fascinating book Trust – Self Interest and the Common Good. He goes into more detail about how these informal arrangements of trust across enemy lines grew up and his book is well worth reading.

Lucian Camp, the advertising, brand and marketing guru (http://www.luciancampconsulting.com/) is fond of saying that trust broke down irrevocably in the First World War as millions of men were sent to their death by commanders who used outmoded and futile strategies seemingly with little regard for human life. Lucian wrote a great blog on Trust. If you agree that the collapse of hierarchy and the established social “order of things”, especially in Britain pre 1914, started during the First World War, maybe this story of trust across the trenches illustrates a move to trust in a more immediate community that is easier to judge and seemingly more important on an individual, real time basis.

We read and hear a lot Web 2.0 and word-of-mouth / peer to peer interactions being powerful marketing and communications tools all facilitated by new forms of internet based communications such as Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, Friendfeed. And whilst undoubtedly true that the pace of change has increased with technology, there has been a fundamental cultural shift happening over the past 100 years from looking upwards trusting in hierarchy to trusting in each other and our community (however one defines this for oneself).

What I think this story demonstrates is that “communities” can be built around important topics or situations without the need for overall alignment on goals – you can support green issues whilst also driving a 4x4 or be a Tweeter whilst not conforming to the 12-18 stereotype. People are inherently a complex mass of differing opinions, prejudices and competing priorities – most segmentation efforts miss this. Also I think it demonstrates that channels of communication go way beyond the obvious and explicit. There are powerful insights to be discovered by analysing the more subtle signals in what we don’t do, as much as in what we do. What does it say about me that my blog is about marketing (my profession) and my Tweets tend to be either happy or professional – what am I not sharing? – and what does this say about me and what I need?

Clearly across the world there is a need to build trust across divided communities. Communications technologies have a powerful role to play in bringing together people who may have opposing goals in a explicit or implicit dialogue for the greater good.

Would love to hear your thoughts on this story, these trends and what you think – please feel free to share, follow and comment.

Justin

http://www.basini.com/
justinbasini.blogspot.com
www.twitter.com/justinbasini

If you liked this blog then please share, digg, and bookmark! Click on the icons. Thanks.

What is it about the Virgin brand?

I've got a confession to make. My grandmother, who I loved dearly, was quite a fan of Mussolini. She was an Italian who emigrated to the UK in the 1930s when Mussolini was seen as "the only benevolent dictator in Europe" (this quote was taken from a 1930s Geography text book printed in England). And the thing she credited him with most was "he made the trains run on time". This in her mind was a seemingly impossible feat that he achieved.

Which is one of the reasons why when Richard Branson and Virgin stepped into his train ventures I thought to myself if he can make it work then maybe we will all be looking back in our dotage and saying, "that Branson...he made the trains run on time". And hopefully he could do it without all the downsides of Mussolini.

We all know that with Virgin Trains that he hasn't been that successful so far and the Virgin brand I think has been tarnished by the bad publicity and bad word of mouth that this business often creates. But overall I am a fan of Virgin. I love Virgin Atlantic and am a devotee to Virgin Media. Even the few trains rides I've had on Virgin Trains have been ok.

However yesterday's Metro made me stop and reconsider the brand given that the hollowed pages of this freesheet contained no more than 7 pages of Virgin adverts.

Firstly there were two Virgin Media placements on consecutive double page spreads one for Broadband and one for Mobile. Functional, response based, well branded:

Then there was an ad for Virgin Holiday's new lounge at Gatwick:

Then a double page spread for Virgin Trains:

and then finally a promotional offer (run by Metro) for Virgin Balloon Flights:

This leads to all sorts of interesting marketing and brand questions:

1. Can the Virgin brand extend to anything / everything?

2. Aside the logo is there enough clarity on what Virgin stands for?

3. Is there a danger of Virgin overload?

Strangely enough they all sort of work in my mind (and as I admit I like the brand). They are all visually similar and have a similar tone (despite the Balloon one which I think is probably created by Metro rather than Virgin). They all have something of the razzmatazz about them and offer something tangible to the reader - even if it is just price in the case of VirginMedia.

But I do worry about the seemingly infinite extendability of the brand. The brand licensing of Virgin now extends from Money to Wine to Health Insurance to Gyms to Books to Holidays to a Green Fund. Its clearly an opportunistic strategy.

I'd love to see the books for these businesses. My strong suspicion is that the business where the Virgin brand actually adds value - travel, entertainment, maybe even communication - are the business that sit most easily and make, or have the potential to make, the most money. I think there is a strong spirit to the Virgin brand that is about a business built on customer experience.

This spirit is captured in an old Virgin Atlantic commercial which I often play when I talk about brands and marketing - it is a great example of taking a category which used to be all about functional benefits (the BA commercial at the time was talking food/drink and seat pitch) and competing on new emotional dimensions.

Virgin at its best is an experience brand: the limo that picks you up if you fly Upper Class on Virgin Atlantic and has you in the lounge in 10 mins from arriving at the airport; a dedicated lounge for Virgin Holiday customers at Gatwick; being able to choose your hold music when you call VirginMedia; the way they handle complex disclaimers and information when you apply for a credit card. These touchpoints bring the brand to life - can they really apply this endlessly to health cover, the purchasing of wine or books. In those areas where the brand doesn't provide a unqiue and fun experience they take the opportunity for cross sell but at the risk of tarnishing the brand perception.

Please feel free to comment and share!

Justin

www.basini.com

justinbasini.blogspot.com

twitter.com/justinbasini

If you liked this blog then please share, digg, and bookmark! Click on the icons. Thanks.

A (media) trip on the London Tube

Last week I took my camera down onto the tube in London and was looking for some interesting media. I saw some good, some bad.

Firstly these new moving ad displays that CBS Live have put onto key stations such as Oxford Circus. Here is a video that I shot of a reel of the ads that were playing: one for Macmillan Cancer Care, one for Transport for London Alerts and one for Adidas featuring Footlocker.



Firstly I must apologise for the quality of this video both in terms of how it looks and its boring content. Actually it isn’t so much my camera but rather the washed out image of the projector. Even with the only decent creative from Adidas the images look poor. The real shame is the quality of the creative. The TFL and Macmillan efforts are no more than static poster ads with a minimum of action (its even hard to spot anything going on in the TFL ad); even the Adidas ad lacks something without music (was this a TV ad repurposed? – must be).

I don’t know whether you noticed but of all the heads moving past the camera not one turned to look at the adverts, there was more interest in me filming the site! Know I now that the salesmen for these formats might say that it is all about dwell time and people being drawn to them but in the 5 minutes I stood on a business platform not one person seemed interested.

Now I know these formats are not common but surely there is more that can be done creatively in this space. If not then they seem to add no value and given the heat they create and the resources that they consume surely won’t survive very long. The escalator LCDs seem to be more successful (find video) but again the creative that I have seen is largely unoptimised and more like digital posters.

Now a good creative execution from Uniqlo. This is an arresting poster that looks like a Q magazine layout. I loved this poster and would imagine it is really appealing to their target audience. Its for their new range of T-shirts and this poster looks even better in reality that on this photo.



This advert is interesting because it breaks a few of the classic poster format conventions and yet still works. It is lowly branded. You struggle to find the brand name. There is a lot going on, yet it still stays engaging and interesting. It tells a story but it is complex. Overall I think this works especially where dwell time is more than transistory. Hence placement will be important. I photographed it in a corridor in Oxford Circus tube. I think it would work better on a platform (and indeed may well be on the platforms as well).

Feel free to comment.

Justin

www.basini.com
justinbasini.blogspot.com
twitter.com/justinbasini

If you liked this blog then please share, digg, and bookmark! Click on the icons. Thanks.

New Innocent Label

Lots has been written about the selling out of around 20% of Innocent to Coca-Cola for £30m.

I found this on the internet which is prototype for their new line "Not so" innocent. Click on it to read the text - I love the "We sold out 20% of our company, and 100% of our values. We’re working on the rest!" OUCH! Their faux, down to earth copy has always grated on me so I enjoyed this label.

Given they have positioned themselves as "innocent" and "pure" then selling out to a major multi-national who makes highly calorific and artificial drinks is somewhat of an interesting move. Many of their consumers clearly feel let down. It is worth reading David Taylor's Brandgym blog entry on the issue which makes this point well. They have destroyed a significant basis of trust in their brand and ethics of their company.



Whether you agree or disagree with their decision it is clearly a PR disaster which they have seemingly managed poorly. Despite the acres of comment they have not been actively defending their decision which is strange because they are good at managing positive PR - maybe in their hearts they know they have sold out. You can read their letter on the Innocent website.



Here are a couple of paragraphs:



"Basically, we’re dead excited about the investment. The funds raised allow us to do more of what innocent is here to do – get natural, healthy stuff out to as many people as possible. And the money raised is going into the business to fund our European expansion, so we can get innocent out to more places (none of the cash is being paid out to the shareholders; that desert island will just have to wait).


The three of us who set up the business will continue to run and manage innocent. We will be the same people making the same products in the same way. Everything that innocent stands for, remains in place – to only produce natural, healthy stuff; to push hard for better quality, more socially and environmentally conscious ingredients; to find more efficient and environmentally friendly ways of producing and packaging our drinks; to support charities in the countries where our fruit comes from; to have a point of view on the world, and to not take ourselves too seriously in the process. In fact, this deal will simply allow us to do more of these things."



Apart from that ingratiating tone, the thing that I think the founders don't get is that in many ways their decision to take Coca-cola money changes our perception of them fundamentally. They might be the "same people making the same products" but whereas we all thought before they were a values led company that had set out on a mission to be (almost) an "anti-Coke", we now see a more accurate view of their motivations and how far their principles and values go. And unfortunately whilst we are left with a more accurate view of the "same people", its not what they set out to convince us they were and that's disappointing. We feel misled, and let down. Ultimately I want to know the truth about people and hold accurate perceptions so I feel better that I know that Innocent is not as innocent as they purport to be - it probably won't stop me buying their drinks but will make it a less satisfying purchase and opens up the way for a company who really "walks the talk" to steal my purchase from Innocent.



Feel free to share, tweet, follow and comment.



Have fun.



Justin

http://www.basini.com/

http://www.justinbasini.blogspot.com/

www.twitter.com/justinbasini

If you liked this blog then please share, digg, and bookmark! Click on the icons. Thanks.

Why can't I fix my toaster?

Let me tell you about my toaster. It is a stainless steel four slice Kenwoood model.


Its about 18 months old and, as I recall, cost about £45. As you can see it is quite chunky. The two toasting slots on the right stopped working about 6 months ago just as the guarantee ran out. My kids are currently going through a phase of wanting toast and not being able to produce 4 slices of toast, especially when I bought a four slice toaster, is somewhat frustrating and means I spend more time at the toaster than with my kids having breakfast.


Those of you who know me, can attest to the fact that I am reasonably handy around the house. I'd say I am good at DIY and, for example, put a kitchen into my last house. I've done rudimentary electrics and understand the core principles and concepts.


Combine this with our desire as a family to live more sustainably and the prospect of committing this hunk of steel and plastic to landfill wasn't something I wanted to do. So I thought to myself last weekend - I'll have a look at fixing the toaster. Normally when I try a new project I turn to the internet and browse some groups for advice. Well after about 20 mins of browsing it became clear that the general advice was don't bother, buy a new one, its not worth the time, and its difficult to fix them because they are designed to be disposable!


And low and behold another 30 mins looking at the toaster revealed it would indeed be hard to get into it. And once inside would require "bodging" of spare parts with a consequent risk of further problems or fire. A repair would cost anywhere from £25 to £50 and isn't guaranteed for more than three months.


This blog isn't an eleborate appeal for a toaster expert to send me advice on the fixing of small electrical appliances. But rather it raised a series of questions for me.


Firstly, if toasters are designed to be disposable and have a relatively short shelf life, say 2 years, then that is a load of plastic, electrics and metal going to landfill every year. Magnify that with all the other types of small electrical appliances that it isn't economic to fix then the volume of stuff going to landfill gets terrifying quickly. Secondly, why does my generation default "to throw it away and buy a new one". My parents house is full of stuff that has been repaired and refurbished over the years.


Given the massive changes that we are seeing in our economy and the way that large swathes of the population (including my family) have changed their views about the environment and sustainable living I think the sustainability of purchases and how long they last could become new dimensions on which we can compete, differentiate and tap into new needs. Products and information sources which help consumers to refurbish or repurpose might be big in the future. For example, we fired up the barbeque (an old gas model) today for the first time this year and frankly the old girl is looking a bit rough. My gut reaction is to hit the net to see where my next barbeque is going to be purchased from. But actually I thought - could I give it a lick of some sort of paint and a good clean, change some parts and get a few more years use out of it rather than scrapping what is a lot of metal.


Businesses are benefiting from these changing attitudes. Swapping unwanted goods or second hand items through ebay is now mainstream. I've noticed Miele has recently been pushing 10 year guarantees on white goods, and Dualit, coming from a heritage as a supplier to commercial catering, provide spares and their products can be repaired. But a Dualit toaster costs £100+ - do you need to spend a lot to get something that can last? Surely with all the progress in manufacturing and product quality cheaper items can be manufactured to be repairable.


David Armano, in his marketing blog, has suggested that marketing is moving into a "post-consumer era" where more socially responsible decision making will be important driven by word of mouth. Its worth reading and thinking about.


I'd love to fix my toaster and move away from just "consuming" and "throwing away" to repairing, reusing and repurposing. Maybe I'm not alone.


Hope everyone had a great Easter. Go on leave a comment!


Justin
http://www.basini.com/

http://www.justinbasini.blogspot.com/
www.twitter.com/justinbasini

If you liked this blog then please share, digg, and bookmark! Click on the icons. Thanks.

RT @tomfarrand What will be the biggest trend in marketing in the next 3 years?

For those of you that follow me on twitter (@justinbasini or http://www.blogger.com/www.twitter.com/justinbasini) or follow Tom Farrand (@tomfarrand or http://www.blogger.com/www.twitter.com/tomfarrand) you may have noticed Tom's question about the biggest trends in marketing in the next three years.

This made me reflect. I like the question because of its relatively short term nature which is especially pertinent given the macro economic environment we are in.

Dominic Grounsell (@domgrounsell or http://www.blogger.com/www.twitter.com/domgrounsell) suggested technology and thrift which I agree with. The transparency and access that the information age has given rise to will continue to change the rules of the game. The move from push to pull to interconnected collaboration will continue apace.

And thrift will be an ongoing zeitgeist.

What I believe is that we are at a turning point that will pivot around how long the recession lasts. If we see a relatively rapid recovery, say towards the first half of 2010, and unemployment peaks at around 3m then I think we may we'll return to a modified version of the previous system but with less excess and more regulation.

If we go through a more prolonged recession, say until end 2010, with unemployment peaking at around 3.5m, then I could imagine more significant change with a rebalancing of the economy away from financial services and more social unrest. The leaders of businesses and our politicians will come under intense pressure to drive sustained change, raise taxes for the rich, submit to increasing regulation, all in the context of decreasing trust and perceived incompetence.

Now the most interesting scenario, with potentially massive positive benefits and undoubtedly devastating affects would be a really deep recession lasting into 2011 with unemployment peaking over 4m. I think this scenario has the potential to cause massive change in our system because of the social upheaval (at all levels) that this will cause and the increasing acute perception of the "haves" and "have nots" leaving us with a feeling that the economic system is fundamentally broken.

This will require new leadership to emerge. Potentially the US have found their change agent in President Obama. We need a new political force to arise that can drive change and restore hope. This will be a burning platform if over 10% of the working population are unemployed, house prices don't recover, deflation starts and businesses find it hard to compete.

It will require businesses to change and adapt to increased levels of consumer activism' increasing defaulting and money flow as the system deleverages and the continued rise of suspicion and the rising belief that making profit is bad or only feathers the nest of the "fat cats".

Many of these changes, ironically, will be good in the long term especially if a new, more balanced approach emerges. However I'm definitely not rooting for a prolonged recession - the collateral damage on individuals and families is too great.

My prediction for what it is worth is that we will land somewhere between scenario 2 and 3 with recovery starting end 2010 and unemployment peaking at around 4m. What I do hope is that the seeds can be planted both in our leaders and in our economy that will grow into a more balanced, more holistic approach that puts well being at its heart rather than fear and greed.

As always feel free to comment.

Justin

http://www.basini.com/
http://www.justinbasini.blogspot.com/
www.twitter.com/justinbasini

If you liked this blog then please share, digg, and bookmark! Click on the icons. Thanks.

Trust - does it matter anymore?

For those of you that follow my twitter feed (www.twitter.com/justinbasini) or are member of the Financial Services Forum you will know that I participated in a fascinating debate last week on:



"Is restoring trust between consumers and financial services providers a lost cause?"



I was opposing the motion and Ian Hendersen of Totem was proposing. Whilst I won both the before and after votes, Ian managed to swing 20 or so votes in his favour, so the moral victory was his.



And the truth is he half got my vote.



The issue of trust is a complex one. Definitions are hard to come by despite it being a word that we all use regularly and from an emotional perspective understand - i.e. we can feel trust when we give it or recieve it. When you also ladder in working out the differences between trust and trustworthiness then it gets even harder.

Overall despite a healthy respect for the view that actually trust never existed in the first place (which Ian pushed quite hard) and we shouldn't try and go back to a "golden age" of deference and blind faith I think this misses the point. Trust, at some basic level, is essential for the efficient operating of any market. We have seen what happens when trust disappears over the past 2 years. These are real effects which can't be denied.

However I also agree that blind faith is a bad thing, and the internet enables a transparency that has moved us away from deference, which is a good thing (in my opinion). What I actually think is happening is that we are going through the painful recalibrating of our view of the trustworthiness of institutions such as the church, the government and businesses. Ultimately it is a good thing that we have an accurate view of how much trust to put in these people and institutions. I'd prefer to know that some priests are absuers, or some politicians are on the take, and some banks are build on bad business models. And sure this does mean we feel less secure and unsure of our society but would you prefer to stay in the Matrix or find a way out even if that means a harder but more real life? I know which I choose.

I'm going to be blogging about this a bit over the coming weeks so please feel free to comment and share your view.

Hope you are having a great week.

Justin
http://www.basini.com/
www.twitter.com/justinbasini
justinbasini.blogspot.com

If you liked this blog then please share, digg, and bookmark! Click on the icons. Thanks.

How far will the internet change our world?

Whilst thinking about marketing and trends in search I came across a couple of videos that really interested me and made me stop.



The question is often asked how fast does the world change and especially for some of the more "out there" prognostications (such as virtual experiences and worlds, the rise of robots, "Minority report" style advertising etc) - when will these things become reality? I often think that it is easy Tomorrow's World style to shoot fast and loose on future predictions i.e. a 1970s TW promising we would all be driving around in flying cars by 2000.



I found a video on YouTube which is really worth watching. It outlines a view of the future that is very challenging and thought provoking. I have often thought that virtual worlds will become at least as powerful especially for the young as real world experiences and potentially much safer at least from a physical perspective, if not emotional/mental.


The imagining of how the consolidation of power in Google and Amazon is challenging. My only critiscism of this video is its somewhat US centricity (despite the strange "world" accent of the narrator). The rise of Indian and Chinese content providers and networks will undoubtedly move our worldview from an anglo-saxon one over the next 20 years. And that is probably no bad thing.

Anyway have a watch:




Now if you have spent 5 mins watching this video then you have reached the end 1 minute where the more "out there" claims are made. Are these claims TW style over the top or realistic. Well watch the following video:




And reflect that this was 16 years ago in 1993. All the change of email, internet, mobile, facebook, amazon, google, twitter, cloud computing etc all in an incredibly short time period.



Now think about the first video and 16 years away from now is 2025 - maybe the claims aren't such fantasy? How does that you make you feel?

Makes me feel a mix of hopeful, excited and terrified!

Comments welcome as always!

Justin
www.basini.com
www.twitter.com/justinbasini
justinbasini.blogspot.com

If you liked this blog then please share, digg, and bookmark! Click on the icons. Thanks.

Truth in Advertising

This is a fabulous video which is worth kicking back and watching for 10 minutes or so (not when you should be working!).

Of course its not true. This is not how the process works - is it? Hopefully not in my team at least! Others may correct me!

Comments welcome as always!

Justin

www.basini.com
www.twitter.com/justinbasini
justinbasini.blogspot.com

If you liked this blog then please share, digg, and bookmark! Click on the icons. Thanks.

Why does Marketing lack confidence?

Spoke at a conference this morning for the IBDG. This was a conference for Marketing Directors from different industries and sectors. Humbling to address. Enjoyed it as always.

Title of my talk was a little wierd:

Delivering a clear ROI and being taken seriously by the business

In my preparation came across a few nice videos:

"how not to get ahead in marketing" - Hugo Gaines style (thanks to David Taylor at BrandGym for creating this - although it is not him in the video!)





Overall clearly marketing (defined holistically as discovering consumer needs and meeting them) is important now and in the future. I closed with this chart which gives a sense of what the good marketer could do more of....

Good luck to all the marketers out there - I know it feels tough but keep the faith!

Comments welcome as always!

Justin www.basini.com
www.twitter.com/justinbasini
justinbasini.blogspot.com

If you liked this blog then please share, digg, and bookmark! Click on the icons. Thanks.

How do brands work?

This is an extract from a blog entry from my internal Capital One blog published in September

One of the things I get asked about alot is "how do brands work?" I know some of our associates remain somewhat sceptical about the role that brands play in the credit card market.

We developed a useful model in the customer experience project that has helped me frame the discussions that I have on brand and the role it plays in our business. I'd like to share this and give a greater feel for why creating a brand-aligned business and organisation is an important part of us winning in the market.

My first request is to banish the word "brand" from your mind for the purpose of the rest of this blog. Forget everything you know of brands and branding. Done that? Good now I'll carry on.

Let's look at the business and what we do in Capital One. We only "do" three things in the company: invent products, service customers, and market our products and services (obviously we also do a lot of other activities that "manage" our business, such as Enterprise Risk Management or Finance, but all these activities are consequences of either products, servicing or marketing). (I also include Risk Operations in the servicing category).

The result of all this "doing" is that we create perceptions in peoples' mind. From a flicker of recognition (we call this "awareness") because they have seen an ad; to a positive feeling of commitment to our company's products (we call this "loyalty") because we have serviced their account well. Of course there huge variation in these perceptions and about 10% of people hold no perception of Capital One (i.e. they haven't even heard of us). We measure these perceptions every month with around 1000 people and we ask them what they think of us and other credit card companies. These perceptions are important to our business and marketing efforts. And with huge amounts of marketing bombarding our every sense and our complex business its difficult to create these perceptions and even harder to make them positive.

But why are these perceptions important? They are important because they allow all of us to make easier decisions. Consumers can't rationally analyse the myriad features, benefits, costs that we are presented with. We are all desperately looking for ways to simplify our lives. That's why websites like Moneysupermarket.com are so popular - they simplify. But even when you get to these sites you still have too many choices.

So for example, when a potential customer goes to Moneysupermarket.com (as many of them do) and looks at a rate table they are processing the choices that they are presented with through the perceptions they hold in their minds. Let's imagine for a minute a rate table with offers like a 0% 12 month balance transfer offer from Poundstretcher or the same offer from John Lewis. Which would you choose? Your answer will indicate your perceptions of Poundstretcher and John Lewis, and what you think is important in a credit card.

Was it a hard choice?
What experience do you have of Poundstretcher or John Lewis as a credit card provider?

What are you basing your judgement on?

We all base decisions on the perceptions that we hold in our heads even though we often have no direct experience of the company in that category (in this case credit cards). Where do these perceptions upon which we have just made a purchase decision come from? These perceptions come from the experience that John Lewis and Poundstretcher have delivered to us through what they do: their products, their service and their marketing.

I often get questioned on whether all this perception stuff is nonsense - its all about product/price. There are two aspects to my answer here. Firstly perceptions still rule because what a company is doing by offering great prices is building a price perception that they believe will motivate consumers to turn into customers (and since prices are always assessed in a competitive category context perception is crucial). Secondly, and this is really important given our current business strategy, if we attract customers just on price then they are rarely profitable (because all they do is wait for a better price) and almost never loyal. We don't want to continue to have to "buy" our way to the top of rate tables - we want to create a set of perceptions where customers choose our great offers not just because of the price but also because of their perception of our service and marketing.

So how should we build a positive set of perceptions for Capital One? By focusing consistently on the things that we "do": continue to offer great products, give good, reliable service and to market these products and services in a way that engages and pleases the potential customer. If we do this then we will create a positive set of perceptions that will drive marketing efficiency and ultimately the loyalty of our customer base.

Please feel free to share your thoughts on brands, Capital One and our journey by leaving a comment.

Comments welcome as always!

Justin
http://www.basini.com/
www.twitter.com/justinbasini
justinbasini.blogspot.com

If you liked this blog then please share, digg, and bookmark! Click on the icons. Thanks.