Tag Archives: Marketing and Advertising

The Fine Print

Here we are again in the holiday season, which really means “primary spending time” both for consumers and retailers. The flyers bundled with my newspaper on Thursday had many more pages than did the paper itself. While they’re not as offensive as political ads, the frequency of ads for “Black Friday Deals!” on all programming was at week-before-the-election levels.  Numbing…

What bothers me about quite a few of these ads is not really restricted to this season but since everyone’s mind is on shopping I thought I’d put it out there today.  I have a huge distrust of fine print.  You know – the things about the stuff in big type that are written in tiny type and make the great deal not so great.  On radio ads it’s when the announcer starts talking very fast and unintelligibly.  As Consumer Reports pointed out, it’s getting a “free” download of antivirus software with a recent purchase. By the way,  free has a time limit — six months – and then you get billed for $49.99 after that if you don’t happen to cancel.  You might see it on a brand’s Facebook page – “like” us and get a coupon for $5.  Of course, the coupon is only good when you purchase $25 worth of stuff.  Book some hotel rooms online and you’ll probably miss the fine print about “resort charges” or “safe fees” that are positioned as optional but which are anything but.  I’ve never heard of anyone getting them removed from the bill.  My phone’s “unlimited” data plan allows me the use of unlimited amounts of data but after I get to some point the speed is throttled, making the plan limited in other ways.

I have to think that the revenues gained from these offers is offset to some degree (one hopes to a very large one) by the costs of customer service and refunds generated by the fine print.  Think for a minute about how we behave as individuals.  We don’t extend offers to our friends with fine print, at least not if we expect to keep them as friends.  “Let’s go to the movies” doesn’t come with “unless I can find a better option with someone else” or “of course, you’ll buy all the popcorn.”  Why would we behave differently as a brand?

Fine print, except as mandated by law, is a bad idea.  No fine print from me on that.  How about from you?

Enhanced by Zemanta

1 Comment

Filed under Helpful Hints, Reality checks

(Not Provided)

We’re going to get a little esoteric today, and while the specific subject matter discussion may be unfamiliar the overall topic is one that concerns almost every business.

Image representing Google as depicted in Crunc...

Image via CrunchBase

You might have heard something a year ago about the folks at Google restricting the availability of some information in analytics reporting. This information has to do with the specific search terms people use when coming to your web site if they are users who are signed into a Google account when they perform the search. What that means is if I’m logged into Gmail and jump into another tab to search for something, the sites I visit as a result of that search don’t see the term I used to get there. Instead, (not provided) shows up in the analytics report, and it’s not just in Google Analytics. Any analytics system sees that same (not provided) in lieu of the search term.

When Google made this change, they estimated that it would affect a small (under 20%) portion of the visits to most sites.  However, a year later a study by Optify shows that 64% of companies analyzed in the study see between 30% and 50% of their traffic from Google as “(not provided),” and 81% see more than 30%.  As someone who is constantly working with clients using this data, it’s gone from a nuisance to a real problem. Discoverability – getting found –  is a constant battle, and every piece of information that helps us to understand how our content/products are found is important.  That’s why this affects every business that’s on the web.

Of course, if you’re willing to use Google’s paid search program – AdWords – you can get the data.  Why that mitigates the privacy concerns Google claimed were causing them to hide the information in the first place is beyond me.  I’m sure if most users understood what information Google is capturing on their web habits (unless you’ve turned off their ability to do so) they’d be far less concerned about Google telling site owners how we came to be there and a lot more concerned about how Google is using the dozens of cookies they drop on our machines.

I like Google and use a lot of their services both free and paid.  I use an Android-powered phone.  I’m concerned, however, that just as they’ve done with Wave, Buzz, Google Video and others they’ve made a strategic error here.  As in those cases, I’m hoping they re-think it.  In the interim, they’re damaging the ability the rest of us have to make a better, more usable web.

Thoughts?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Leave a comment

Filed under digital media

No Action Speaks Louder

I had another post written for today but after the phone call in the middle of the night I thought of a topic that was more immediate.  This is not a screed on how badly the local utility company is handling the clean-up after Sandy.  OK, maybe it is in part.  It’s also a great lesson, however, in how to manage in a crisis (or how not to).
This is the fourth major power outage in the last couple of  years around here.  Each time there are promises about how the utility will be better prepared and about how communication will be improved and transparent.  When predictions about Sandy got dire, a CL&P spokesperson went on TV with the governor to talk about how many crews were in place and how ready they were to handle the storm.  He raised expectations.  That was lesson #1.
Sure enough, the power went out, which is not their fault.  24 hours later, with 90% of the town out,  there were 2 crews in town although no one seemed to have seen them.  Another day later and there are at least 6 telephone crews out making repairs but no one has seen the power guys.  The handy map they have shows no one has been brought back online.  A+ for transparency  F for action.  There’s also a link to check on your outage status.  When you do so it says, in so many words, we have no clue.  There is no information.

At 3 this morning the telephone rang.  I’m not kidding.  In a panic, I thought a family member was in trouble.  Nope.  A recorded message from – you guessed it – CL&P saying nothing.  It was a big storm, we’re assessing damage, we don’t know when power will be restored.  So glad they woke me up to let me know.  Lesson #2 – when you have nothing to say, don’t wake people up to say it.

Every business has big issues surface from time to time.  Very few businesses have entire communities depending on them.  Almost none are total monopolies.  The bigger and more exclusive your business is, the more it’s imperative that you do more than provide lip service, particularly when it’s the fourth chance you’ve had to prove that you can perform and not just say that you will.

I wish there was an alternative to the incompetent idiots who are running this horror show.  Our mayor (called a first selectman) publicly called these guys out at a press conference: ” the CL&P response left me appallingly disappointed. We did not have the multiple crews promised in advance and progress was unacceptably slow in clearing roadways.”

Once again, they’ve done everything wrong.  Raise expectations and don’t deliver.  Promise to communicate and tell customers nothing.  Lots of words, no action.  Then again, as Lily Tomlin‘s Ernestine used to say, we’re the phone company – we don’t have to care (although the phone company has been great!).  Very instructive, don’t you agree?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Leave a comment

Filed under Huh?, Reality checks