S&MM SoundOff

Your Online Web Summary

Web networking has become hugely popular in the last several years and it seems that everyone has a profile, a blog, or even a photo album online somewhere. But while Web networking helps connect both people and businesses, these sites have also caused a problem for professionals.  Being online means continuously being open to public review, and anyone in the world can see your personal life on the Web (For more on this topic read “You’ve Been Googled” on ManageSmarter.com.

So far the challenge has been to make sure you’re representing yourself in the best way on the Web. For example, you don’t post photos of you and your buddies on beer night anymore because you don’t want recruiters to get the wrong impression of you. But today I stumbled across a Web networking site that can help you make sure others aren’t finding those embarrassing pics.

Zoominfo.com is a networking site that has the potential to grow as big as LinkedIn or MySpace. But unlike the other sites, Zoominfo.com is not centered on building a private profile and making friends—it’s an like an online Whitepages for the business world. The site is a Web-data-collection database that lets you search for summaries on both colleagues and companies alike. You can easily find a person’s business history, education, association networks, Web mentions and more. 

I originally came across the site while performing a Google search on myself—I like to periodically check to make sure nothing too personal is available for the entire world to see.  The link brought me to a page that already listed my basic business information—my name, my company and my job title.  But what I was amazed to see was a list of links (all to ManageSmarter.com) where my Web mentions, in my case, articles I had written, appeared. Zoominfo.com did the work of searching Google for me.

Branded Premier

This past weekend, I witnessed the birth of a new type of ad--an ad for an ad. 

I was watching my weekly Sunday afternoon football game when the CareerBuilder.com commercial caught my attention.  I had been following its enjoyable monkey ad series for the last several months. But this time the ad wasn't to present the newest episode to the developing storyline; instead it was an ad for the ad series! CareerBuilder.com was advertising the final installments to its evolving monkey ad series on Super Bowl Sunday.

Advertising for an ad? Companies who pioneered the series trend, such as Geico with its caveman series and Kellogg’s with its office series, have been successful. Ad series develop a sense of brand familiarity with consumers and have proven to be a way to increase commercial viewing (if an ad’s entertaining, viewers will be less likely to TiVo past it). Marketing has discovered a new way to brand and emotionally engage the consumer. 

Commercials aren’t just everyday advertisements anymore, but 30-second shows. These commercials become a much anticipated product and even grow to have loyal viewer followings. An ad as a product, it’s ingenious.

Oh, the Irony

Last week I walked into my neighborhood drug store to grab a couple of items and was met by a gentleman whose job it was to stand at attention at the door and greet customers. He may have been a security guard, but his rather casual outfit suggested he was not. Normally, this would have been a much appreciated customer-service touch (especially in New York, known for its bad service) except that it did nothing to curb my annoyance when the line wrapped into the hair-care products aisle with only one register operating.

This got me thinking about all the different ways that businesses inadvertently alienate their customers. While having a greeter at the door is a nice extra touch, it won’t make up for the fact that I had to wait in line for 15 minutes just to buy some cotton balls and shampoo. The worker who is greeting customers or the one who is roaming the aisles straightening toothpaste on the shelves in an OCD-like manner would have been put to better use at the register. When the greeter said, “Have a nice night,” what I said was, “Thanks.” But what I meant was: “The night would have been a whole lot nicer if you knew how to work the register.”

Capitalizing on Calls

By Ralph Brown

Every company can benefit from a synergistic marketing and sales approach that encompasses every staff person being able to capitalize on in-bound phone calls. That is our firm belief as business development trainers for the business resource center, the Hudson Valley Technology Development Center (HVTDC) in Fishkill, N.Y. By engaging every caller in an exploratory intelligence gathering opportunity, a company can reap great rewards.

Our team of business development consultants are notably successful marketing, sales and business development professionals who believe that a company needs to complete their marketing cycle by realizing that every call that comes in is a potential opportunity to engage a new client or customer. In a professional, non-rushed manner a well-trained staff member can get important information about the caller’s needs, or direct that caller to a company representative who can answer their inquiry rapidly, or potentially set up a future sales appointment.

“Listen carefully, ask leading questions, and take notes. Every call should be a relaxed conversation, not a pushy sales call. The goal is business development.” Those are the words of Larry Fiske, one of our sales representatives. He believes that a company wants to complement all the marketing materials it has created and distributed by turning incoming inquiry calls into business development opportunities. “When we are trying to establish a new business lead via a phone call, we believe it is important to close the conversation by meeting the need expressed by the caller. This can be achieved by offering to set up an appointment to meet with a company representative, send a new product sample, or offer a discount on a product the caller inquired about.”

Reader Response: Holiday Bonuses

The following is a response to the ManageSmarter article, "The Death of the Holiday Bonus":

Two real flaws in the article. One, if you're old enough to hold a job you shouldn't still believe in Santa Claus and expect a Christmas present for doing your job.  These days a job is a Christmas present.  Any bonus should be tied to corporate results, PERIOD.

Two, the total amount spent on a Christmas party (which we have held for the past 30 years) isn't nearly as important as the amount spent per employee (or invited guest if the employee's family is invited as well). The total dollar measurement is more indicative of the size of the company you surveyed than the generosity, or lack of generosity, of the employer.
Just my two (Christmas) cents worth.

Regards,
Perry Ballard
Chairman, Perry Ballard Incorporated

Emotions for Sale

There's a new story on ManageSmarter.com this week that tackles a basic concept--buying a product vs. buying an emotion. Author Alvin Day says that if you can't answer the question "Why does the buyer want that?" down to the level of "No reason, the buyer just wants those things (such as health and comfort)," then you can't sell your product.

 It's a concept that makes perfect sense, (e.g., selling anti-lock brakes vs. selling safety), and the majority of retailers do, of course, subscribe to this strategy. That's why oftentimes a product isn't prominently (or at all) displayed in an advertisement. It's not about the product. It's about the lifestyle it's intrinsic to.

I think the failure here is on the part of the customer. Wanting anti-lock breaks for safety is one thing--wanting jeans because the waif-du-jour wears them in an ad (and probably nothing else) is delusional. But as long as customers are willing to keep reaching for that brass ring of perfection, whether it's the perfect coffee, the perfect sweater or the perfect lipstick--whatever that one thing that separates them from happiness is--advertisers will know just how to sell to them. And there's plenty of markup on happiness.

Something to Smile About?

Wal-Mart Stores announced a new plan for its flexible workforce last week that seems anything but revolutionary, yet much happily received. The new plan will force employees to follow work schedules conforming to daily shopping trends, which means more cashiers and store-floor attendees will be on hand during the busier shopping times--weeknights and weekends.

This announcement strikes me as positive. I live four miles from a Wal-Mart and while it is the best place to buy everything I need, I dread having to go.  The store is always congested and never has more than four cashiers working on its more than 10 registers. The result is long lines and lots of un-needed frustration. As a shopper, it's a relief to hear that the management acknowledged this and took action.  And I'm not the only customer rejoicing--Wal-Mart's stock rose three percent with the announcement.

Yet I can’t help but wonder what repercussions this shift switch will have on employer/employee relations.  Wal-Mart may stand to lose a good percentage of its workforce to the change if current employees have scheduling conflicts.  If that’s the case, how will it reflect on the company? For example, what if a single mother works at Wal-Mart during the day while her children are at school and is told she must now work nights or face losing her job?  I don’t think the public will be understanding of that scenario. Criticisms and negative PR could be in store for the company, which is already under attack by retail critics for its treatment of workers and ad campaigns.

I guess this is a risk Wal-Mart is willing to take to increase the bottom line. After all, better customer service equals happy customers, who will return more frequently.  When you offer the basic goods people need at cheaper, more reasonable bargain prices, they’ll keep coming back no matter what.  But how long can the bottom line increase without satisfied employees to enhance the customer experience?

What do you think impacts the bottom line more—satisfied customers or positive employer/employee relations?

What Would You Do?

Dear Readers:

Didn't you make a New Year's resolution to help out your fellow man more often in 2007? Well here's your chance. See what you can do to help solve this sticky dilemma from our November/December "What Would You Do?" column. Responses will be published in our March issue, and you can send them to [email protected]:

Eden Group was recently bought by one of its largest competitors, Carlyle Corporation, and is in the process of merging sales teams. Eden’s director of sales and marketing Carolyn Mercer has been with the firm for 10 years, overseeing a team that always meets revenue projections and has maintained steady, but not stellar, sales growth. In general, the corporate culture at Eden is risk averse.

Carlyle Corporation is known for taking risks. It pushes the envelope when it comes to sales and marketing strategies, whether it’s trendy sales training techniques or guerilla marketing tactics. The results are either huge successes or embarrassing misses, but Carlyle always creates buzz. Because Carlyle is the parent firm, it has made extensive internal communication outreach efforts to acclimate Eden employees to its corporate culture.

Although it is still early in the merger, Mercer has been fielding complaints from the old Eden sales force. They feel less ownership over their clients because Carlyle prefers a tam approach and they aren’t thrilled with the new compensation plan. Carlyle’s frequent training also seems unnecessary to the old Eden sales force. Several star veterans have already given notice, and Mercer has heard rumors that several more want to. Mercer is torn: She is trying to convince her old team to give the new culture a chance, even though she has her own uncertainties about adopting the changes. She also wants to advocate on her team’s behalf, yet is afraid to start off badly with new management by bringing gripes and negativity to their attention so early.

Should Mercer accept that change means saying goodbye to old employees? Should she continue to try to get the old team to embrace a new culture? Should she advocate harder on her old team’s behalf? Or is there another solution?

E-mail your wisdom to [email protected].