Monthly Archives: December 2014

Sneaky Is Stupid

Foodie Friday, if you’re not too stuffed from all of the past week’s consumption.  I came across an article in The Guardian which pulled back the covers on how some restaurants improve their margins by cutting corners in sneaky ways.  What prompted them to write the piece was the travails of The Olive Garden we featured here on the screed a few Fridays ago.  Not surprisingly, the myopic practices going on there is just the tip of a much larger set of things restaurants do. 

A few examples: restaurants will often serve glasses with a half-inch to an inch of foam on top because leaving that much foam can save them around 20 beers per keg.  They will use heavier, high-grade silverware for steaks to give the perception of a higher grade of meat.  They will cut back portion sizes and buy smaller plates.  If they cut an ounce out of a burger they’ll buy smaller buns (something I think they learned from the package goods folks).  Naturally, prices don’t change.

The list goes on but it raises the obvious business point.  As I wrote in September, many companies lose their core identity in the chase for revenues which is bad.  Hurting the products that got you to this point is worse.  Smarter companies do one of several things.  If you’re Apple, you maintain higher prices and don’t mistake cost for value.  If you’re Honda or Toyota or Nissan, you create separate brands (Acura, Lexus, Infiniti) that allow you to charge for a better product while permitting you to change the “standard” brand however you’d like.  No smart brand is sneaky.

What dumb companies do is to cut corners. Successful companies are always looking for creative ways to protect the bottom line without giving the impression that quality is going down with it.  Imagine what happens when your current customer base picks up on the smaller burgers or questionable shrimp.  Legitimate changes – repositioning menu items to increase sales or example – don’t affect quality.  Anything that does may increase your per table margin but you’ll be seating far fewer tables over time – even if you’re not in the restaurant business.

Make sense?

Leave a comment

Filed under food, Huh?

Is TV Terminal?

I spent 23 years of my professional life working for TV companies.  I miss them sometimes.  Then again, when I come across some of the information I’ve been seeing over the last couple of days, I wonder if there will be anything left to miss in a few years.  The business model I learned and practiced in my youth is rapidly becoming unworkable and the media landscape that’s emerging calls into question the viability of the entire system.  Let me explain.

Let’s begin with the basic premise.  The TV business is about aggregating eyeballs to sell to advertisers.  Yes I realize that extracting (some might say extorting) payments from cable operators has become almost as important a part of the business as the old ad model, but once the audiences disappear those payments might be jeopardized.  After all, if you pull your signal from a distributor and no one cares, where is your leverage?  The bundled model in which consumers pay for networks they receive whether or not they watch them has been a bit of a safety net for many outlets.  If the system “unbundles”, what happens?

That’s why a few bits of information paint a grim picture for my business alma maters.  This from GigaOm:

TV viewers are abandoning traditional broadcast and cable networks for online streaming services, and new devices in their living rooms are making it easier for them to cut the cord. That’s the gist of two new studies from Nielsen and GfK.

Or the Wall Street Journal:

Viewership of traditional television dropped nearly 4% last quarter, as online video streaming jumped 60%, according to a new report from Nielsen, crystallizing a trend for TV-channel owners amid ratings declines.

What effect does that have?  Business Insider says:

Data from The Standard Media Index — which claims to pull 80% of US advertising agency spend from the booking systems of five of the six global media global media holding groups, as well as some  independent agencies — shows that television ad spending showed a “considerable drop” in October, and was down 9% on the same period last year.

Streaming video viewing was about 4.8% of the time spent on traditional TV.  A year later it’s almost 8%.  Still small, but Nielsen doesn’t measure Netflix viewing (which is by far the greatest source) on anything but PC’s.  Quite a bit is viewed via tablets and over-the-top devices so this number is understated.

Is network and cable TV at the end-times?  No, but it’s not unthinkable anymore that those times could come.  CBS has launched a stand-alone streaming service, as has HBO.  One can’t help but wonder what happens when ISP’s, many of whom own traditional networks, stop (allegedly) throttling services like Netflix or eliminate usage caps.  Add the dawn of the “ala carte” era in cable packages and suddenly the TV world looks very different.

Thoughts?

Leave a comment

Filed under digital media, Reality checks, Thinking Aloud

Turf Burns

I read an article about a fine imposed by the FTC on an ad agency. Apparently what the agency did was to ask employees to promote Sony‘s PlayStation Vita on Twitter as if they were “regular” consumers. Agency employees then used their personal Twitter accounts to make positive posts about the gaming device. Obviously there was no disclaimer in each tweet that the person posting was an agency employee or had a financial relationship with the product.

Seal of the United States Federal Trade Commis...

 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This sort of thing is known as “astroturfing.”  It goes on in politics all the time and is “the practice of masking the sponsors of a message or organization (e.g. political, advertising, religious or public relations) to make it appear as though it originates from and is supported by grassroots participant(s).”  Fake reviews are a form of this when they’re written by marketing or PR people on behalf of a company.

I’m not sure what genius thought that this could in any way be considered smart marketing but it’s an expensive lesson.  Especially when you put it in this context:

Almost 8 in 10 American adults read online consumer reviews for product and services before making a purchase, with this figure relatively constant across generations, according to a survey from YouGov. The study analyzes the use of online reviews from a variety of angles, finding that a bare majority (51%) of those who read consumer reviews generally read at least 4 before feeling that they have enough information to purchase a product or service…the YouGov survey also finds that among the 44% who post online reviews themselves, 49% (including 58% of 18-34-year-olds) admit to having at some point written reviews for products and services they haven’t actually purchased or tried.

So reviews are important to consumers yet consumers themselves sabotage the reviews’ value.  Add that to the astroturfing that goes on and you might say “oh, everyone does it.”  As the expression goes, it’s all fun and games until someone loses an eye.  Get caught, as happened in this case, and you pay financially (the cost to defend a complaint even if there isn’t a fine) and with your reputation (it doesn’t matter if “everyone” does it – you got caught).

There is very little upside to posting fake reviews and a lot of downside.  That spells bad idea in my book.  Yours?

Leave a comment

Filed under Consulting, digital media, Helpful Hints, Huh?