While shopping for a Valentine’s Day gift for my wife, I started off in a nearby candy store that carries quite a selection of chocolate. Surely, I figured, they’d have a few boxes of dark chocolate, which she prefers to milk chocolate or (gasp) white chocolate. Well, I canvassed the whole store, and there was only one package of dark, amidst literally dozens of types of milk chocolate. It was like the old joke about Ford: you can have any color you want, as long as it’s black. Here, you could choose any size and assortment of chocolates, as long as you like the milk chocolate variety.

I left empty handed, and tried a different store down the street. They didn’t have any dark chocolate packages either, but they helped me assemble a custom box from the dozens of dark chocolate pieces in the display case. I was quite pleased with this second store, and rather disappointed in the first one. The question comes down to this: what good is a massive assortment of products when they’re all basically the same thing?

I don’t care if something like 80% of customers want milk chocolate. If you have the shelf space to carry 100 different kinds of milk chocolate, it makes sense to hedge your bets and swap out a few slots for a couple of dark chocolate and even white chocolate options. The milk chocolate majority will still have plenty to choose from, and you can expand your customer base to include those who want other kinds of chocolate. The same holds for any business: if your selection is large but not very diverse, try swapping out some of those products for ones that will appeal to new groups of customers. The results might surprise you.


I’ve been using the Netflix Watch Instantly service on my TiVo for several months now. It’s great, but the “quality” display has always been puzzling. Some shows fill up the full set of bars and show the HD icon, but others never get past the next-to-last bar. Sure, not every show is available in HD, which explains the HD icon. But why doesn’t that last bar light up for every show?

Finally I realized what’s going on. No matter how fast or stable your Internet connection is, the last bar is reserved for shows that are available in HD. In other words, for all the bars to light up, your connection has to be fast, and the show has to be encoded for HD playback. I find this behavior quite confusing, since it suggests that the Internet connection is performing poorly even when the limitation is entirely on the Netflix side of things.

A much better approach, whether for Netflix or any other service, is to make sure the scale reflects what’s actually possible in that specific situation. In other words, if the content isn’t available in HD, the last quality bar and the HD area should be grayed out, maybe along with text that says “This program is not available in HD.” Whatever the method you choose, the goal is to give customers a clear idea of where the slowdown or limitation is taking place. That way, they’ll know exactly what to expect, and won’t try to troubleshoot a problem that is totally beyond their control.


It’s fun watching products evolve over time, especially if they grow to add new features that make your life easier. One of the web-based services that I use has been improving things a lot lately, including making their customer sign-in screen much cleaner. They also added an area on the screen where they announce new features and provide tips on using the product.

However, when I went to sign in to the site a few days ago, I noticed that the news and tips area had been replaced by some spammy-looking ads for unrelated products. My first thought was maybe I was on the wrong page, but I reloaded it from the bookmark and got the same thing. Next, I wondered if the site had been hacked, but then I verified that the ads were being served by the website itself. Finally, I reloaded it a few more times and noticed that they were alternating between the unwelcome ads and the familiar-looking news items that I described above.

Like most people, seeing unexpected content on the sign-in page made me nervous. I doubt anyone would click on the ads anyway, since people arrive at the sign-in page with specific tasks in mind. So, my recommendation is to avoid putting ads or other unexpected content on your sign-in page. The same goes for any other page where you ask customers to enter personal information. Unless the messaging and visual treatment are directly related to your product itself, placing ads on the sign-in page will erode customer trust with little additional revenue to show for it.


After a particularly harsh snowfall, I read an article that talked about the difficulties of clearing sidewalks. Apparently, there are many situations where private businesses, rather than the city, are responsible for shoveling the snow away. But when a storefront is empty or an unused lot is neglected, the snow can pile up and create quite a challenge for pedestrians.

This made me wonder: why not let other firms pay for the snow clearing on those sidewalks? In exchange, they could put up signage to advertise their brand. Basically, it would be like the “Adopt a Highway” program that some states use to pay for litter control: each sponsor gets their own sign on the side of the road.

But why stop at snow clearing? You could take virtually any underfunded public service, and turn it into an alternative media buy for savvy advertisers. Sherwin-Williams could sponsor bridge refinishing projects. Windex could underwrite a program to repair and maintain the windows in vacant buildings. The potential pairings go on and on. In an economic climate where marketers are seeking more value for their money and cities are struggling to find new revenue streams, this type of creative thinking seems like a natural fit.


I’ve been watching a great new series on A&E called The Beast. It stars Patrick Swayze as a Chicago FBI agent who orchestrates rather creative undercover missions to nab the bad guys. More than any other TV series I’ve seen, The Beast takes advantage of downtown Chicago as a superb filming venue. It’s hard to watch ten minutes of the show without recognizing a location that I walk by on a regular basis.

With all this in mind, I was quick to notice a bus shelter ad promoting the series. It had a big picture of Swayze and a clever tagline, along with a smaller image of the Sears Tower in the background. But aside from that little bit of the skyline, there was no mention that the show takes place in Chicago. To me, this is a missed opportunity.

Out-of-home ads have the unique advantage of always being viewed in a predictable location. Whether it’s a digital sign in a restaurant or a billboard next to the highway or the bus shelter ad that I saw in front of the NBC tower, you know for certain where the viewer is going to be. It follows that you should tailor the ad to the unique attributes of that location. Simply describing The Beast as being about a “Chicago FBI agent” rather than any old FBI agent, along with smaller text saying that it’s filmed here, would probably entice a lot more Chicago viewers to give the show a try. With a little bit of thought, you can apply the same principles to any out-of-home ad, making it significantly more relevant to the local audience who will be seeing it.


While I was researching a fairly mundane household product, I came across the manufacturer’s website. The site was nicely done, aside from a bit too much Flash, and I quickly reached the Find a Store page. I noticed that their products were carried by Amazon, so I went to Amazon to check it out.

Unfortunately, Amazon itself only carried a small and random selection of the larger product line. If you wanted the rest, you had to get them from the goofy Amazon partners who charge hefty shipping fees. I didn’t buy anything, and the experience left me a little bit confused. If the brand lists Amazon as a recommended place to get their products, shouldn’t Amazon carry the majority of those products?

From Amazon’s perspective, they’re probably applying the same rules as for any other products. Perhaps the items weren’t selling, so they replaced them with different ones from another manufacturer. In cases like this, the onus is really on the manufacturer to keep tabs on the stores they list as “recommended” or “authorized” retailers. Ideally, the brand would set up a periodic schedule to check up on their retail partners, e.g. once a month. They would make sure the right products are actually being offered for sale, with proper images and descriptions.

It might not be practical to do this sort of audit for many different sellers, but it should be worthwhile to run through the process for your top two or three retailers. Otherwise, you may see unexplained drops in sales due to problems on the retail side of things, as those retailers take the traffic you send them and push someone else’s products instead.


Last weekend, I tried to use a gift card at a local Italian restaurant. When I gave it to the waiter, he was rather puzzled, despite the card bearing the exact name of the restaurant on the front. Then, he asked me if there was enough money on the card to cover the meal, as if I was trying to trick them with it. Finally, he took the gift card away with the bill, and I assumed the issue was resolved.

I was wrong. A different waiter came back with our bill and the gift card. He explained that they could take the gift card to pay for the meal, but I had to pay the tip separately with cash or a credit card. I wasn’t in the mood to argue over it, so I complied with their idiotic policy. Later, I checked the fine print on the back of the card, and there was absolutely nothing about not being able to use the card for tip. So this policy wasn’t just stupid, but it was undocumented as well. Nice job, guys.

The right way to handle this is quite obvious. If you have special terms or restrictions regarding your coupons and gift cards, you need to make those clear right on the document or card itself. Otherwise, people will assume that your coupon or gift card works like everyone else’s, and that can lead to some seriously unhappy customers when it’s time to pay the bill.


I saw a really dumb banner ad for T-Mobile this week. Actually, the headline, image, and call to action were fine. The problem was the text directly below the call to action button. I forget the exact phrasing, but it said something like “2 year agreement required — other terms may apply”. That sounds like an awfully big commitment for just clicking on a banner ad, don’t you think?

In short, T-Mobile took the fine print that belonged at the bottom of the ad, and placed it right below the call to action button. This simple mistake causes the viewer to associate that fine print with the desired action, instead of just mentally filing it away as another aspect of the offer. If they split tested the version I saw against another one that had the fine print far away from the button, I bet the second version would convert at a much higher rate.

To generalize this a bit, you should avoid placing onerous terms next to your call to action button. These terms typically relate to a much later stage in the relationship, when the customer is ready to enter into a contract. Such language has no place next to the call to action in your ads, especially when the goal is to get customers to move on to your website or a landing page. Remember, you’re not asking them to commit anything more than their attention. No contract is required to view your website, so don’t scare them away with fine print that belongs much later in the sales process.


Whether you’re designing a website, writing a press release, or coming up with text to appear on a digital signage screen, common sense dictates that you should use the same words that your audience does. Yet I continue to see digital signage that’s full of obscure terms. Have you ever asked your spouse to “turn up the HVAC”? I don’t think so — regular humans say “turn up the heat” or “turn down the air conditioning”. In short, if you fail to speak the same language as your audience, they may have trouble understanding the message or might just ignore it entirely.

When in doubt, read the message out loud, and get rid of any lesser-known words and acronyms. The goal is to achieve near-100% comprehension of your messaging, and that means using the same vocabulary as your viewers. Ideally, the digital signage system you select should make it easy to change messages without having to create new content from scratch. My company’s EasyStart product does just that, providing a simple, easy and affordable digital signage solution for smaller projects. While EasyStart can’t write the content for you, it certainly makes the task of updating and refining your messages a lot easier.

People naturally gravitate towards tasks that are easy and avoid ones that are hard. Accordingly, the odds that you’ll make the necessary improvements to your digital signage content are much greater when you have technology that allows for easy and hassle-free updates. Otherwise, you may become overly committed to a piece of content that’s clearly not optimal, and you’ll resist changing it simply because the process is a pain.


About 18 months have passed since Apple released the original iPhone. During that time, RIM has released several new models, including the BlackBerry Bold and BlackBerry Storm. Despite the iPhone including a desktop-class web browser that can load virtually any page, RIM still insists on crippling every BlackBerry with a crappy browser that feels like the AOL browser from 1999. Meanwhile, new products like the Android-based G1 and the Palm Pre have been created virtually from scratch — each time featuring a real web browser like the iPhone. So why do BlackBerry users still get the shaft?

I don’t know the intricacies of BlackBerry OS programming, but I do remember reading that it’s very hard for third-party developers to write a real browser for the BlackBerry OS. Perhaps this explains why you can get limited browsers like Opera Mini, but not full browsers like Opera Mobile or the upcoming Firefox Mobile. For me, the BlackBerry’s ongoing failure at delivering a decent mobile browsing experience leaves me longing for, well, anything else as my next device.

With so many competing products that offer a full browser, and so many third-party browser options available for RIM to license at a presumably nominal cost, I don’t understand why the BlackBerry browsing experience is still stuck in the past. Maybe they’ll get it right eventually, but who knows how many customers will have jumped ship by the time that happens.