To be successful your product or service must be designed to purposefully exclude large numbers of people. If you try to do everything for everyone you'll find you do very little very well. The end result is a mediocre offering and a lot of alienated people.
The best promotions have a well-defined target audience, the best companies support their core business above all else and the best products do one thing well.
You don't have to please everyone, and nor should you try.
The Scion xB is a great example of this concept. The original xB was an econo-box on wheels that was either passionately loved or viciously scorned by all who viewed it. The benefit of this dichotomy was the vehicle created instant apostles - people who who would pontificate upon its glorious merits at any given opportunity. Given the volume of persons who had few complimentary things to say about the xB, there was much opportunity for boisterous discussion - and so the interwebs and other assorted media exploded with free advertising for Scion. However, after the initial launch of the xB to cult-like response, the product line experienced a series of redesigns intended as concessions to the haters - beefier engine, added weight, rounded edges and so that which was kooky became blase.
The result was not the hoped-for mass migration of tweens to the new offering, but rather 16 consecutive months of sales losses for the automaker. Scion lost their apostles by trying to appeal to people who didn't like them in the first place, and arguably never would.
In 2007 Scion sales dropped 25%.
THE POINT: There is only one Swiss Army Knife - don't waste an opportunity trying to be everything to everyone.
This week I’ve been watching the “Sneaky King” 15- and 30- second spots wherein the Burger King, conspicuously concealed in a Burger King mask, breaks into McDonald’s headquarters and steals the plans for their classic Egg McMuffin sandwich. Thus, the BK Breakfast Muffin sandwich is born, or borrowed – as the case may be.
Brian Gies, vice president of marketing impact for Burger King Corporation states, “This provocative campaign highlights the King's edgy antics and makes it clear that our newest breakfast sandwich is a great deal for our guests.” John Schaufelberger, senior vice president of global product marketing and innovation for BK further elaborates, “We took a breakfast sandwich that has proven likeability among consumers and are delivering it at a great price.”
What a great way to benefit from a 38-year “market test” funded by a big competitor.
The Egg McMuffin was invented in 1972 by Herb Petersen, a former VP with D’Arcy Advertising and eventual owner of six McDonald’s franchises in California. Peterson first sold the soon-to-be-very-popular egg sandwich at his Santa Barbara franchise without the knowledge of McDonald's Corporate, which at the time endorsed serving lunch and dinner only. When the franchisor learned of Mr. Peterson's unauthorized breakfast offerings, it allegedly issued a reprimand and threatened him with a number of penalties for violating the sanctity of his franchise agreement. In short order, however, Ray Kroc – McDonald’s President and franchising genius – saw the potential in what he described as, “...a crazy idea”.
Today, several countries serve Egg McMuffins around the clock, due to the prominent use of the egg in meals other than breakfast in those countries. U.S. restaurants usually restrict the item to the breakfast menu, due mainly to the radical variation in acceptable grill temperature required for cooking beef patties and eggs.
So what of the “Sneaky King” and BK’s honesty regarding the pilfering of their competitor’s prized product? McDonald’s certainly doesn’t own the rights to putting egg and meat on bread – but will wise consumers perceive the product acquisition as a sign of the King’s weak offering, or as a symbol of his royal highness’s marketing savvy?
Thus far the sandwich sells well with no signs of concern from consumers or the folks at “Mickey-D’s.” If then, we presume that theft of an established, albeit non-proprietary product concept is ok with consumers, is there tangible value in being honest about it?
In 2008, McDonald's faced criticism for launching its Southern-Style Chicken Sandwich, which featured a fried chicken cutlet on a buttered bun with two pickles. To fast food fanatics, it was nearly identical to the chicken sandwich that made Georgia-based Chik-fil-A famous. These allegations were disputed by McDonald's. Perhaps, that was a mistake.
If McDonald’s had instead embraced the notion they were borrowing from a competitor as BK has done, they could have controlled the spin.
They may have been better served running an ad wherein the Hamburglar gets caught in the chicken-coop with Grimace and both flee at high-speed in the “burger-mobile” – feathers flying everywhere. In this way they could choose to tell the story, thus control the story, then use the story to build interest in their product - rather than allow others to tell the story for them, and just kind-a hope things go their way.
BK actually went down this road before too. The Big Mac is McDonald's signature burger: two all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions, served on a sesame seed bun. But in 1997, Burger King released the Big King, which was also two all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions, served on a sesame seed bun. The only tangible difference between the Big Mac and the Big King was the beef patties: Burger King notorioulsy "flame-broils," but McDonald's "grill fries."
The Big King was discontinued in 2003 due to low sales.
Looks like BK’s learned from their mistake, and this time around they've cast subtlety aside declaring proudly their conscription of the egg-based breakfast sandwich. Only time will tell if this approach creates a durable breakfast item for the King, but so far so good.
THE POINT:If you steal it – best to take credit for the heist.
The awesome Power of 1% has been making the rounds lately. Whether it be a business or marketing plan landing on my desk, or an article in a blog I'm reading - 1% is getting a lot of play.
Usually it goes like this - someone walks into a meeting and says, "Our audience is X, but if we get just 1% of X to use this product, we'll quite simply be the coolest kids since 21 Jumpstreet."
The failure in this scenario, and the inherent problem with the Power of 1% - is everyone conveniently forgets there are numbers smaller than 1.
Like zero.
Presenters, we have to compete and effectively (dare I say, compellingly) communicate to earn every user we have, simply putting product in the field is no guarantee of success. There is no hard line sitting next to 1% that prevents us from crossing into the dark void of .1% or worse yet .01%.
If 1% market share is where we want to be when entering a new line of business - when, arguably, there are many competitors who also have negligiblemarket share - what do we plan to do when those competitors consolidate, or grow into the space left by those who inevitably get out of the game? Aiming for 1% is like planning to be non-competitive.
If you want to present a communication plan to me I may endorse - come with a scalable plan that targets a durable share of market. The Power of 1% may be impressive on paper, but it will not save you when boots hit the ground. THE POINT:Often times the low road goes nowhere.
Borrowing from Ken Robinson - why is it all children think they are creative, and most adults think they are not? What happens to us as we age that stifles our creative abilities?
What was the last truely creative thing you did?
I don't mean the last painting you painted, last doodle you doodled or last musical masterpiece which driped harmoniously from your mind's eye. Though, such activites certainly qualify.
When was the last time you looked back and said, "Yea, what I just did was different."
Did you jump up on a desk to start a presentation? Start presenting from the back of the room?
Did you look at the way something has always been done, and suddenly see the way it could be done better?
How did you last innovate, create or by some means or fashion move the needle forward by applying a different perspective to what would otherwise have been just another . . . whatever?
Has it been to long?
Why do we fall into the trap of creating "new sameness"? How do we get out of the trap after falling into it?
Food for creative thinking.
THE POINT:The business world is seeking creative thinkers and problem solvers - if you can' t remember the last creative thing you did, why would they hire you?
