Last weekend, I took a walking tour of several Chicago landmarks that were all designed by a local architectural firm. The event concluded with a tour of the firm’s headquarters, which were quite impressive. However, one thing about the office tour surprised me: they began the session by apologizing for their floor design, treating it like an eyesore that they were ashamed of.

Apparently, the company’s suite was once occupied by a telecommunications firm, so all the floors were raised to make room for data wiring underneath. And to provide easy access to each area of the floor, the top layer was constructed of tiles that can be removed by taking out a few screws. Some rooms had carpeted tiles and others used a rubber and metal material, but the overall look was quite contemporary. Ironically, I’d say the floor added to the design of the space, rather than taking away from it.

My point here is that it’s rarely necessary to apologize in advance just because there’s something quirky about your company or product. Unless this difference prevents you from meeting customer expectations, you should embrace it rather than being ashamed of it. Stop apologizing in advance for these sort of things, and customers might even think the differences were put there on purpose to reinforce your unique personality as a company.


In quotes

19May08

Ever notice how local businesses tend to put their slogans and taglines in quotes? For example, you might see a billboard for “Chicago’s premier Italian restaurant” or notice a utility van for a company that’s been “Providing affordable plumbing services for over 25 years”. In contrast, large national firms almost never put their slogans and taglines in quotes. This is true even when we’re talking about big companies with really abstract slogans. For example, Nike’s Just Do It never has quotes surrounding it. So, why the difference?

Maybe small business owners think that the quotes make the slogan look more conversational, as if a happy customer just said it out loud and the owner wrote it down. Maybe this is a tradition that arose many years ago and stuck for whatever reason. Regardless, putting something in quotes without attributing the statement to a specific source makes it look less official, and undermines the credibility of the business. To me, it’s like the business is saying they aren’t sure about the claim, so they’re trying to deflect any responsibility for making good on it.

I’m guessing this is why the big guys write out their slogans and taglines in plain text. By losing the crutch of quotes, they’re implying that the slogan is as real as the business name or phone number or website. Local firms really ought to do the same thing: if the slogan describes the business and its products and services, write it loud and clear, without any quotes around it. And if an expert source like the local paper or a popular website writes a great review, by all means include that in your ad campaign. In that case, using quotes and including the name of the source afterwards adds credibility and makes sense to the viewer.


I’m often surprised at how effective the average person can be at picking the “better” of two designs, or saying which colors or fonts look “right” and “wrong”. As others have written before, the typical individual probably has no idea why they like a specific design approach. However, this doesn’t stop them from providing valuable guidance about whether the design is effective overall.

Generalizing this a bit, virtually everyone should be able to intuit whether a piece of communication is effective or not. In fact, we do this all the time, like when we decide if a new ad or product package looks attractive and credible enough to warrant our attention. If it looks boring or sloppy, we’ll probably focus our energies elsewhere.

With all that said, I’m baffled by how easily the average person is fooled by sloppy websites. People just don’t seem to care about hideous designs, spammy text, and typos all over the place. It’s almost like the standards for what’s credible are tossed out the window on the web, at least for the average user.

I’ve seen this behavior in both consumer and business-focused markets. Many customers just don’t make the connection between a sloppy website and a sloppy product. Frankly, it makes you wonder if all the effort to produce a high-quality website is worth it. After all, most people don’t know the difference.

If we consider a longer time horizon, though, the most successful sites tend to be those that are well-designed and maintained. Why might this be? My best guess is that the higher-quality products offered by the higher-quality sites tend to create happier customers over time, which leads to more success in the marketplace. In other words, the sloppy, spammy, chop shop approach to web design usually loses in the long run.


Whenever good planning or hard work or just plain luck helps you exceed customer expectations, be sure to tell them about it once you know for sure. The only thing nicer than receiving an order faster than expected, or getting more or better items at no extra cost, is to get an email telling you about the windfall ahead of time. Some might argue that this takes away all the surprise of it, but I think it’s like getting the bonus two times instead of one.


Generally, it’s a smart idea to market a product based on the benefits the buyer gets from purchasing it. Anyone familiar with marketing and consumer behavior should already be aware of that. Similarly, if there’s an unpleasant aspect to the buying process, you probably shouldn’t remind people about it in your advertising.

With this in mind, I just don’t understand why so many car commercials show people happily looking at cars in the showroom while being assisted by a friendly salesperson. Everyone knows this scene could only happen in a fantasy world, and it undermines the credibility of any other claims that the marketer presents during the ad.

When given the choice, you’re a lot better off focusing on what’s good about your product, rather than trying to re-write people’s preconceived notions about what’s wrong with it.


While trying to learn more about a certain type of product, I came to a website that looked promising. I easily located the right category and product name, and ended up with a brief, one page intro to the product. But when I tried to click any of the links, e.g. for the demo, brochure, or case studies, the site asked me to provide a bunch of information. This got old real quick, so I left the site.

I understand why some websites use registration barriers to qualify visitors and collect customer data. But this only works when you provide enough basic info on the product for customers to become comfortable with you first. Otherwise, they’ll view the registration form as an obnoxious roadblock. In my case, I was expecting to see some screenshots or detailed product specs before I traded in my name and email address for the more in-depth information.

I don’t pretend to know exactly what the right amount of give-and-take should be in this scenario. But I’m pretty sure that one measly page of product info isn’t enough. If you play the game that way, few people will be motivated to take the next steps.


What makes people unsubscribe from a given mailing list or newsletter? Personally, I get annoyed when a company sends too many messages. In fact, I’d probably stay on the list if they provided a way to get the same type of correspondence, just not as often. But since nobody gives you that choice, the only recourse is to unsubscribe entirely. This brings me to an interesting question: How many people would keep receiving messages if marketers simply offered the option to slow things down a bit? When presented with the choice, I bet that a substantial number of people who planned to unsubscribe would be happy to continue their subscription on a monthly or quarterly basis instead.


Some time ago, I came across an information booth for the Clear registered traveler program. In case you’re not familiar with this service, you basically pay a fee to have a background check run on you, after which they issue you a special card that gets you through airport security faster. Anyways, I spoke to a fairly helpful sales rep who said they would be bringing the Clear program to Chicago in the future. So, I gave them my email address and asked that they contact me once they were getting closer to launching in Chicago.

Well, about a year has passed since I signed up. Have I heard anything from Clear about their Chicago launch dates? Nope. But they have been kind enough to send me updates on their new cities and other benefits about two or three times a month. I’m fine with them keeping in touch, but I find the whole approach a bit misguided. After all, I can’t use their service in my home airports no matter how much I would like to. Until they add Chicago to their program, Clear is of limited value to me. Yet they continue to send emails touting the benefits of a product I can’t have.

When I think about it, the use of email marketing (or any other form of promotion) to push a product that the recipient can’t buy just ends up being a tease. In fact, customers are likely to perceive it as obnoxious, since you’re just rubbing the lack of availability in their face. It’s sort of like sending out weekly emails to people all across Europe reminding them how great your new US-only product is.

With all of this in mind, it makes sense to think about whether the people receiving your marketing messages can take action should they wish to. If there’s something beyond their control and yours standing in the way, one approach is to tone down the intensity and frequency of your emails about that forbidden product. Even better, provide an option for recipients to opt-out of the general email blasts, while still being notified when the product is available in their market. This gives your marketing campaigns a better focus, without needlessly teasing people who are waiting patiently for your product to come to their market.


It’s amazing how low some websites will stoop to monetize their traffic. Take weather.com, for instance. This site features a fairly incredible amount of untargeted, generic advertising. When I last checked, they were showing ads about “cash for gold” and “psychology degree online”. These offers have virtually nothing to do with the topic of the site and provide little value to users.

This leaves me wondering: does the small incremental revenue from these low-value ads make up for the loss of brand equity? Do users even notice how sketchy the ads are? I’m well aware of the issue, yet I haven’t switched to another weather site. But I do know that my overall impression of The Weather Channel, both online and offline, has declined considerably since I started visiting their site on a regular basis. And when repeat usage of a product makes a customer like it less and less, that certainly spells trouble down the road.


Cash only

07May08

I really don’t understand businesses that are cash-only, yet charge premium prices for their products. I’ve seen restaurants that sell $12 omelettes but refuse to take credit cards, even though the average meal for two can exceed $30. Who carries that kind of cash around anymore? It’s one thing if you’re a bargain-priced shop with a $3 breakfast special, but most places engaging in cash-only practices are anything but.

Sure, these businesses may think they’re doing fine because the register keeps ringing. But I suspect that the number of people carrying around big wads of cash is on the decline, and reality is eventually going to bite these ignorant business owners right in the ass. One day, customers will start dropping off like crazy, and they’ll lament where they went wrong.

Here’s a hint: lots of customers want to pay with plastic, whether you like it or not. Start accepting credit cards today, or get ready for the day when many of those customers stop coming through the door.