This week in class we discussed Amazon. There was a time that this would have meant I was in a Geography or Sociology class. But today most people would immediately associate the name with the king of the clicks-and-mortar revolution - Amazon.com
Amazon is an interesting case study insofar as its total reinvention of the traditional business model. I don't presume to have enough in-depth business knowledge to fully compare and contrast how Amazon has revolutionized the way we do business, but what I can do is share some thoughts on some things I have noticed about Amazon.
As we touched on in class, part of Amazon's strength is its extensive network of affiliates.
One such program is called the Amazon Associates Program. This allows bloggers and web developers to include Amazon.com advertising on their sites and earn referral fees if they drive sales to Amazon. A great example of "pull" marketing.
But where this kind of marketing really gets interesting is when it goes beyond banner ads and becomes more fully integrated. This is what the partnership between the business networking site LinkedIn and Amazon have achieved very successfully. As part of a LinkedIn profile, a user can recommend books they have read or pick books that they would like to read. Users can write short reviews and recommend titles to others. All the titles, obviously link back to Amazon and include the "look inside this book" feature, customer reviews and new and used copies for sale. It's a fully integrated, targeted solution that seems work seamlessly within the LinkedIn site without appearing too heavy-handed or out of place.
It seems as if Amazon has, once again, got it just right.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Sunday, April 25, 2010
"The Dumbwaiter Pitch"
I read the blog entry entitled "Forget Your Elevator Pitch — What's Your Dumbwaiter Pitch?" and, although I was at first intrigued, I'm not too sure I buy the rationale expounded by the writer, Umair Haque.
On one level, it seems right on the money - getting rid of the meaningless mumbo-jumbo that makes up much of corporate communications. But the more I read, the more I realized that the writer's one word approach to defining a brand seems to be flawed.
He states that Coca-Cola has chosen the wrong "Dumbwaiter pitch" by selecting a word that he believes to be inappropriate. He personally believes that Coke does not equal happiness but that "sugar-water" is a more accurate word. I would argue that there are many, many people who may equate an ice cold coke with happiness. Just because the writer seems to think the connection is "tenuous at best" he seems to think it is a poorly chosen word. For some - Coke may well be happiness made tangible. His obvious bias against the brand and his failure to adequately assess Coke's choice of "Happiness" to define itself, lessens the writer's credibility significantly. Furthermore, he's connection to obesity and the Coke brand is totally off topic.
He goes on to say that Apple's dumbwaiter pitch/word is "beauty". Maybe so. But we all know that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It is by no means universal (much like one's source of happiness) and a very personal observation. Apple may say "expensive" to some, "style" or "media" to others - it's just too subjective. What's more, using the writer's own logic of breaking the product down to it's simplest form (as he did when calling Coca-Cola sugar-water) surely Apple's word could just as easily have been "circuits" or "boxes-of-wires"?
Let us give Mr. Haque the benefit of the doubt and allow him to label Apple with the handle "beauty". Wow! Doesn't that just get you so excited? No , it doesn't do it for me either. Not only does the single word lack sufficient punch but it can also be applied to many other products or businesses as well. Beauty? Come on - how many other folks could rightfully claim that one? Ferrari? Revlon? Tourism Vancouver?
Mr Haque says that he uses this technique to highlight how compelling a brand is when working with, among others, start-ups. I cannot speak with any real authority when I say that Apple didn't think of 'beauty' when they were a start-up , but I'm pretty sure they most certainly did not. A personality needs time to develop. It's easy to label Apple, Lego and Google today. These giants have well-entrenched personalities. What about the those pre-pubescent firms and pimply teenage companies who are finding developing their personalities. Could we really find a believable, compelling one word dumbwaiter pitch for all of them that really rings true? I'm skeptical. Surely clear expression of brand is what is needed. Clear definitions and values, not a one word coverall.
I do however agree with the author when he speaks about the lack of clarity in the elevator pitch (read corporate communications) The problem Mr Haque is addressing is not the fact that more words mean less clarity, but that many words which have no meaning have found their way into corporate communications. Communicators feel the need to express, in jargon-filled terms, the essence of their brand and they become so limited by its vagueness. They hide among the accepted catch-phrases and generalizations, couching ideas in generic syntax and style.
It seems as if in a world of tweets and dumbwaiter pitches we are using fewer and fewer words to describe ourselves and the result is that ultimately the differentiation we seek becomes impossible. Like the dumbwaiter itself our words loose the personal touch.
Instead of choosing fewer words we should choose them more carefully, take more risks and strive for uniqueness in a world were words like "beauty" are, unfortunately, commonplace.
Finally, as an illustration of the fundamental impotence of Mr. Haque's exercise I will attempt to create an dumbwaiter pitch for the concept of the dumbwaiter pitch: dumb.
On one level, it seems right on the money - getting rid of the meaningless mumbo-jumbo that makes up much of corporate communications. But the more I read, the more I realized that the writer's one word approach to defining a brand seems to be flawed.
He states that Coca-Cola has chosen the wrong "Dumbwaiter pitch" by selecting a word that he believes to be inappropriate. He personally believes that Coke does not equal happiness but that "sugar-water" is a more accurate word. I would argue that there are many, many people who may equate an ice cold coke with happiness. Just because the writer seems to think the connection is "tenuous at best" he seems to think it is a poorly chosen word. For some - Coke may well be happiness made tangible. His obvious bias against the brand and his failure to adequately assess Coke's choice of "Happiness" to define itself, lessens the writer's credibility significantly. Furthermore, he's connection to obesity and the Coke brand is totally off topic.
He goes on to say that Apple's dumbwaiter pitch/word is "beauty". Maybe so. But we all know that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It is by no means universal (much like one's source of happiness) and a very personal observation. Apple may say "expensive" to some, "style" or "media" to others - it's just too subjective. What's more, using the writer's own logic of breaking the product down to it's simplest form (as he did when calling Coca-Cola sugar-water) surely Apple's word could just as easily have been "circuits" or "boxes-of-wires"?
Let us give Mr. Haque the benefit of the doubt and allow him to label Apple with the handle "beauty". Wow! Doesn't that just get you so excited? No , it doesn't do it for me either. Not only does the single word lack sufficient punch but it can also be applied to many other products or businesses as well. Beauty? Come on - how many other folks could rightfully claim that one? Ferrari? Revlon? Tourism Vancouver?
Mr Haque says that he uses this technique to highlight how compelling a brand is when working with, among others, start-ups. I cannot speak with any real authority when I say that Apple didn't think of 'beauty' when they were a start-up , but I'm pretty sure they most certainly did not. A personality needs time to develop. It's easy to label Apple, Lego and Google today. These giants have well-entrenched personalities. What about the those pre-pubescent firms and pimply teenage companies who are finding developing their personalities. Could we really find a believable, compelling one word dumbwaiter pitch for all of them that really rings true? I'm skeptical. Surely clear expression of brand is what is needed. Clear definitions and values, not a one word coverall.
I do however agree with the author when he speaks about the lack of clarity in the elevator pitch (read corporate communications) The problem Mr Haque is addressing is not the fact that more words mean less clarity, but that many words which have no meaning have found their way into corporate communications. Communicators feel the need to express, in jargon-filled terms, the essence of their brand and they become so limited by its vagueness. They hide among the accepted catch-phrases and generalizations, couching ideas in generic syntax and style.
It seems as if in a world of tweets and dumbwaiter pitches we are using fewer and fewer words to describe ourselves and the result is that ultimately the differentiation we seek becomes impossible. Like the dumbwaiter itself our words loose the personal touch.
Instead of choosing fewer words we should choose them more carefully, take more risks and strive for uniqueness in a world were words like "beauty" are, unfortunately, commonplace.
Finally, as an illustration of the fundamental impotence of Mr. Haque's exercise I will attempt to create an dumbwaiter pitch for the concept of the dumbwaiter pitch: dumb.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Like a door in a wall hides what lies behind it, so the content of this blog is, as of now, a mystery. Although I do not know what this blog is going to be about, I do know that some of the best discoveries are made by opening a door in a wall without knowing what is on the other side.
I will approach my posts as if opening a door, with the spirit of discovery.
Much of this blog will be about learning. I am an educator, trainer, consultant, writer and student. I teach, I learn, I dissect, I reflect.
Confucius said:
I will approach my posts as if opening a door, with the spirit of discovery.
Much of this blog will be about learning. I am an educator, trainer, consultant, writer and student. I teach, I learn, I dissect, I reflect.
Confucius said:
"Learning without reflection is a waste, reflection without learning is dangerous"
This blog will be one of discovery, reflection and learning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)