Excerpt: Marketing 2.0 From CRM at the Speed of Light 4th Edition

I'm going to try something out here. I am ready to cringe as the tomatoes and old iPods are thrown at me, or the praise is showered on me...
Written by Paul Greenberg, Contributor

I'm going to try something out here. I am ready to cringe as the tomatoes and old iPods are thrown at me, or the praise is showered on me...oh, wait, that's someone dumping buckets of tar over my head. I'm providing an advance excerpt of Chapter 13 of CRM at the Speed of Light, 4th Edition, my new book coming out with McGraw-Hill in late October 2009. The chapter name is "Sales & Marketing: The Customer is the Right Subject." I'm down to writing the last three chapters as of today and should be done with a bullocks to the wall effort by mid June.

But I want feedback and discussion on the ideas that I'm putting forth. That said, there are some caveats.

  1. This is completely raw. Unedited. Its a submitted chapter untouched by other than my human hands (and there is some question on whether or not I fit the category)
  2. This is a small part of what is the largest chapter in the book on sales and marketing 2.0 so there is some context issues here - though don't let that stop you.
  3. This is a new area. But I think I'm right about the synthesizing of the material and the concepts I'm putting forth - though I'm not claiming tons of originality in the concepts. A couple of pounds maybe.

Have at me. Let me know what you think of the ideas, the writing, the works. For those of you unfamiliar with CRM at the Speed of Light, I'll toot my own horn for a sec. It's called the "Bible of the Industry" (though I insist on Old Testament because I'm Jewish). Its gone through 3 editions, sold quite a few copies, and is in 8 languages. This will be the 4th edition and it will be a combination of print (600 pages) and electronic content (another roughly 150 pages or so) and is a completely (from scratch) rewritten book. The foreword to this edition is written by Marc Benioff, CEO of salesforce.com. It is due out in late October and is meant to be a reference for Social CRM/CRM 2.0 - I think the first of its kind. I hope the first of its kind. I pray the first of its kind. I am down on hands and knees the first of its kind.

In any case, that's the background. Without further ado: the excerpt. PLEASE GIVE ME THE BENEFIT OF YOUR INSIGHTS AND ARGUMENTS. This chapter still can be edited and changed. If I use something you give me, you'll get attribution in the book.

Have at it.


Marketing uh, 2.0: New Mindset, New Tools

What I'm about to say may be obvious, but doing what I'm about to say just isn't easy. In order for you to sell to someone, they have to care enough to know who you are, what you sell and see some reason to buy what you sell. They also have to see the reason that they should buy what you sell from you since they can probably get something similar from someone else.

That's the essence of marketing - but to achieve that customer advocacy nirvana takes a lot . That "a lot" means a strategy, the use of tools and systems, and a completely new view of what marketing today is.

Listen Up! The New Competition is Attention

When you go to Whole Foods, you see heirloom tomatoes, regular red tomatoes, plum tomatoes, cherry tomatoes, grape tomatoes, locally grown tomatoes from a variety of different local farms, and organic versions of all of them. Which do you buy? Oh, you don't shop at Whole Foods? Oh. Well, the point is that there are some twenty or thirty different varieties and types and sizes and farm-specific versions to choose from. If you're confused about which to buy, you tend to the familiar. You buy regular or organic regular tomatoes. If you're decorating a salad with something other than slices or chunks, you buy grape or cherry tomatoes. But if you're making a sauce, you know it most likely calls for plum tomatoes - sometimes in another section of the store where you can get canned versions of the same. If you're someone who supports local farmers as a principle - you get a locally grown version. If you're decorating a salad you might buy heirloom tomatoes due to their riot of color.

In other words, your choices are specific to you and the person next to you buying the exact same tomatoes might be buying them for different reasons entirely.

Now, multiply that by some number that reflects the all the other vegetables calling out to you from the produce department - and then the fruits in the same area. If you're not planning on buying tomatoes the rest of the produce might make you skip them entirely. There is so much to see and choose from, that the choices become bewildering.

The tendency when confronted with too much is inertia - to simply not make a choice. This creates a major problem for marketers, as we'll see in just a moment.

The Attention "Economy"

If ten or eleven choices for tomatoes (or something) are blindingly difficult to decide about, imagine what it takes to do something when you're being besieged by 3000 messages per day or roughly one million per year. That means via the Web, direct mail, on television, when you see a billboard or an ad in a store or in a newspaper or magazine and in a video game.

Think that you're immune to it as a consumer? Here's test that I do when I speak and the subject of capturing just the attention of someone comes up. I ask the crowd (and you can ask yourself):

  1. How many of you get direct mail? (Of course, everyone raises his or her hands)
  2. How many of you read all the direct mail you get? (Almost no one raises his or her hands)
  3. How many just throw out most of or all of the ads? (Almost everyone raises his or her hands)

I have no doubt that the vast majority of you follow the crowd when it comes to answering those three questions. If you don't, you win a prize. Let me know your address and I'll put it in the mail. Just remember, don't throw it out when you get it.

As marketing guru Seth Godin put it in an interview with William C. Taylor of Fast Company as far back as 1998:

"Marketing is a contest for people's attention. Thirty years ago, people gave you their attention if you simply asked for it. You'd interrupt their TV program, and they'd listen to what you had to say. You'd put a billboard on the highway, and they'd look at it. That's not true anymore. This year, the average consumer will see or hear 1 million marketing messages - that's almost 3,000 per day. No human being can pay attention to 3,000 messages every day."

This is called, as you might be able to guess, interruption marketing - your attention is captured because your routine activity is interrupted. But with 1 million messages a year, this doesn't work the way it did in the 1960s. You do what I said above - you just zone out.

This isn't just some construct that is there to move things in this book forward a bit. While you might think that your business competes with other companies who put out like products and provide like services, the stark reality is that you compete with every single message being thrown at your prospective customers. You can't even start a smart legitimate marketing campaign aimed at lead generation without capturing the attention of your prospects first.

This is a recognized problem. Howard Handler, the Chief Marketing Officer of Virgin Mobile USA, in 2008, understood it: "To cut through with a message or a brand or a piece of content is more challenging than ever."

The underlying idea in Handler's comment is that because the amount of attention a consumer can give a product or service or company or idea is finite and increasingly more difficult due to both bad information like spam and rich information sources available everywhere, the competition for that attention is increasing and attention is becoming a commodity.

Customers are so tired of being bombarded (aren't you?) with this constant barrage of messages that they simply zone out and don't want to give companies that they might otherwise be interested in their time or consideration. What they actually want and are beginning to accomplish is control over what messages they consider "taking" and what brands they allow into their homes. Attention is given so little at this time that it's been commoditized by its scarcity.

Evidence of this commoditization of attention is pretty easy to find. It shows in the compensation that is often given if you'll just watch something. For example, when you watch a TV show that you've had queued in Hulu, the Web based service that's either owned by NBC, Disney and News Corp. or aliens who look like Alec Baldwin and Dennis Leary, you will often get a choice of commercials that run at regular interludes through the web broadcast or seeing a single one minute commercial at the top of the show. For your attention to the commercial in the form that you want, you are being compensated by being allowed to watch the show for free. This is a very different model than Apple's iTunes which sells the content commercial free for between $1.99 and $2.99 per episode. What the Hulu model is doing is buying your attention. They know your name through the registration on the site, but they recognize that having your name and you watching a commercial doesn't mean that you're a qualified lead. It means you gave them consideration. Period.

Compensation for attention is something that is not only being considered, but has to be considered. The rather old-fashioned idea of "pay them for their time" is becoming "pay them for their attention." So there are companies who will give you free things e.g. cell phone minutes, ad free music, etc. if you view their ads for x time frame. There is a model for online revenue sharing that even Microsoft is looking into. There is a service called "ScooptTM Words" that operates as a "blogger agent" that will get companies to buy what bloggers are saying for commercial use and then split the revenue stream, which sounds kind of nice for bloggers, but not exactly in the spirit of the blogosphere.

The music industry has had an ongoing discussion which very well may go nowhere that is also around attention compensation but was driven by music piracy. The idea would be that rather than trying to prosecute or scare or harass someone who downloads a music file, usually MP3, illegally, give them the music in return for them viewing a 30 or 60 second ad. Once the ad has been completely viewed, they get the music.

While that may never go anywhere, it points to how serious the competition for attention really is.

There are nascent metrics to measure the attention too. They're called engagement ratings and they're primarily focused around TV at the moment. Not exactly a big surprise. They're being used to figure out what programs to advertise on. Also not a big surprise - and sadly typical of the TV world - new metrics, old reasons.

Engagement ratings are the equivalent of "stickiness" on a website. It's not just whether you have a large audience; it's whether that audience is willing to continue to lavish its attention on you and your advertisers

Myers' Emotional Connections© research in 2007 showed that Fox News Channel topped the "viewer engagement ratings" with positive engagement ratings in four categories by 80 percent of its viewers. But it dropped to 21st place and 30 percent (for two categories) when it came to advertising engagement. What this can be interpreted to mean is that the audience was riveted to Bill O'Reilly and made a sandwich during the ads. I'd be the other way around.

Despite the particulars here, what's important about the Myers work is that they're doing some of the first research and measurement of level of attention and what it takes to gain that attention - which precedes even lead generation.

But attention-getting can go overboard and does especially when devotees of what is called the "attention economy" actually call attention capture the new currency - and they mean that literally. Meaning, somehow, providing attention will substitute for your national currency.

Lead generation from the marketing side comes when you have gained and kept the attention of your potential customers - but I wouldn't go overboard with this either.

Hard Times for Tradition

Marketing never gets respect (We miss you, Rodney Dangerfield). Never ever. Never ever ever. Know why? Because marketing is viewed by the company as an expenditure that has immediate tangible return. Marketers are by the customer as a nuisance. They are viewed by people like me as a department that presumes for the customer and doesn't really know what the customer is actually thinking, which to add to their problems, is often true.

It's even truer now because the stakes are higher, the expectations and demands of the customer have increased and their hunger for being contacted in multiple ways - the ones of their own choosing - is greater than ever.

But that doesn't negate the value of traditional marketing - especially when it's used in combination with new marketing approaches. For example, the conversation rates in email marketing are still between 2 and 5 percent. Good numbers there. A study in May 2009 done by internet marketing small business legend, Hubspot, took a look at the effectiveness of traditional press releases as opposed to social media press releases found that the traditional media releases were considerably more effective in syndicating. The typical ratio was about 5:4 in favor of the traditional press release when it came to the number of places it was syndicated. The only time the ratio was favorable to the social media releases were with online properties. Not exactly a surprise. But what that indicates is that you shouldn't stick with a single kind of release or a single approach. Do what makes sense for the location, channel and people you're trying to reach. Social media marketing, search engine marketing and the like are becoming the centerpiece of many organizations marketing efforts.

If I had to speculate (or maybe pontificate is the right word here), marketing is up for the most comprehensive and dramatic overhaul of any of the three traditional pillars of CRM. Marketing professionals are aware of this and, those that aren't panicking are remodeling the way they do what they do

I'm only here to help. I come to praise Caesar not to bury him.

If you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe this statement from someone with a lot of street cred on what constitutes successful contemporary marketing:

"Ultimately, successful marketing results," Anil Dash, SixApart's Chief Evangelist who you met in Chapter 10 says, "Lead to "people relating to brands as culture. They will be part of a cultural, emotional and entertainment bubble."

You KNOW he's right, don't you? So remember, traditional isn't dead, but the old marketing logic is.

Editorial standards