Michael James John Thomas McCormick passed away on June 28, 2016
You can visit Mike’s memorial site here.
Michael James John Thomas McCormick passed away on June 28, 2016
You can visit Mike’s memorial site here.
I don’t know about your mail box but mine has been getting a surprising amount of direct mail – besides the totally expected catalogs.
Not surprising is that, except for charity and (some) political mailings, almost none of the direct mail I see is any good.
And a lot of it is shockingly bad.
About half the really bad examples are postcards. Postcards can work for real estate and for some kinds of tests, but most are just a waste of money – advertising people using mail as a medium for little billboards.
What does work, almost always thanks to testing, is some form of the classic direct mail “package” with its five key elements and, if it make sense, a fillip or two. Three of the key elements, OE, Order Form and Letter, really matter, so, naturally, they’re the elements that get screwed up the most.
The OE has one job: to get opened by someone in the mood for what’s inside. That’s not as easy as it sounds.
The order form (or response device – same thing) should be a mini ad that restates the proposition, stresses a key benefit, outlines all the different ways the prospect can respond (mail, email, website, QR code, phone, visit, etc.). It should also offer an upsell (e.g. three widgets for the price of two) that is placed above the basic offer, guarantee, address change, room to enter a referral name. There’s more but most of today’s direct mail efforts don’t even get this far.
Then comes the letter. Or not. Some otherwise complete direct mail packages don’t have letters, not even bad letters. To put this in context: direct mail packages can work extremely well when the envelope contains only a personal letter and nothing else.
But a lot of people writing and approving direct mail letters
seem to have no idea what a direct mail letter should be
For starters, and this is hard for some people, direct mail letters should never be mere advertising. It’s okay, I suppose, for advertising to be about a company and its products. Direct mail works best when it is about the prospect and the best way to get that across is with a letter.
There are no hard rules about letters, just guidelines and suggestions based on decades of experience. Some are little tweaks, some are a lot more important. They include:
• Write to appeal to the target audience, not to the management of the company sending it out.
• At least test a one-to-one approach, one person at the company writing to one prospect.
• Ideally, a great direct mail letter is friendly, chatty and always on topic.
• And it’s personal, of course. This is not the same as personalized which is just a computer trick.
• A direct mail letter is as long as it should be and no longer. A good rule of thumb is to make your letter as long as a piece of string.
• Most first drafts are either too long or too short and, occasionally, both at the same time. (Too long on irrelevancies, too short on important stuff.)
We could go on and on but it’s probably easier to refer to a Guts piece from back in January:
15 Things Most Great Direct Mail Letters Have In Common
In the meantime, let’s look at a fairly typical example
of what’s wrong with direct mail letters these days.
I hate to pick on poor old Citibank but one of their recent mailers happened to be on top of my pile and it’s got some problems. Here’s the letter and I’d love to know what you think about it.
Perhaps the most underappreciated element of a good direct mail letter is that it looks easy to read and interesting at first glance. This one doesn’t.
• It’s entirely in black and white. The card at the top and the signatures at the bottom should probably be in color. The additional cost is insignificant.
• The type is small and sans serif. It’s hard to read, annoyingly so. It would be harder to read in reverse or lighter gray type and I’m surprised they didn’t do that, too. I suspect the tiny size was chosen to get the letter on one page. This is a waste of time, effort and, mostly, space on the back of the letter.
• The subhead, “EXPERIENCE MORE LUXURY AND PRIVILEGE” is, besides being overkill, somewhat repulsive, don’t you think? (Besides, how could I experience more luxury and privilege when I experience none at all at the moment?)
• The first sentence of the letter, the most important sentence in the whole thing, is just boiler plate. I very much doubt that I’m anywhere close to being one of Citi’s most valued customers.
• The 2nd sentence rambles pointlessly, leading us to five choppy segments. This isn’t letter copy. It’s brochure copy, charmless brochure copy.
• Two people signed the letter. Two! That’s 100% too many. Pick one.
Wonder if they tested it? I’d guess not, and that was the biggest mistake.
This letter was addressed to me and, undoubtedly, to thousands of people like me but it wasn’t written for us. It was written by a committee that, clearly, wanted to please the honchos of Citibank. And that’s a big problem.
A supermarket just down the road lets its employees park in the closest-to-the-store spots. Customers who notice this get annoyed. Costco, just down the road, has a back lot clearly marked “Employee Parking”.
Nearby, two blocks from each other, are a couple of gas stations. At one of them, when you put the nozzle back after filling your tank, the machine asks “Would you like a receipt?” and when you press Yes, out comes the receipt. The other gas station asks the same question. The problem is that the receipt comes out sometimes and sometimes it doesn’t. I don’t go to that station anymore.
Whole Foods doesn’t number the aisles in its stores, so, when you ask an employee where something is, the employee will walk you right to the something instead of just telling you it’s in aisle 6.
Companies that are serious about customer service think about these things, little things. Companies that aren’t don’t.
A couple of years ago, I ordered something from Omaha Steaks. The meat was pretty good and I would have ordered again – on my schedule. The company seemed to think it would be better if I ordered on its schedule. They started quickly with follow up mailers, one after the other, so many that it became annoying. After I’d ignored them for a while, they began calling, often. Their meat’s good but not good enough to compensate for that kind of hectoring.
I had a lot of miles in my American Airlines frequent flier account. I tried to redeem them for a couple of airline tickets this spring. The process was so complicated, contradictory and generally perverse, that we wound up paying about $1,000, plus way more miles than we were initially told, after spending hours, literally, on the phone talking to reps with wildly varying degrees of knowledge and competence. The loyalty program succeeded only in irritating two previously loyal customers. That’s not why it was set up.
It can be the same online.
Consider Kindle for a moment. It’s an electronic book reader. When you want to buy a book, you visit Amazon.com, click on the Kindle store, enter the name of an author or the title of a book and with one click it zooms to your Kindle. When you finish a Kindle book, Amazon stores it on their computers so your Kindle doesn’t get cluttered – like my bookshelves do. (You can get any stored Kindle book back in a minute or so.) Great customer service.
Other online companies seem to focus on being pains in the butt and they do it everywhere and constantly. Order something and you’re swamped with email offers forever. Want to watch a YouTube video? First you have to sit through a commercial. Want to order something from a company you last dealt with six months ago? You have to remember a password and maybe a user name. Want to help them run their businesses, just fill in this “short” and pointless survey.
I suspect all this nonsense is all the result of very short term thinking. Badgering customers is a bad idea. It’s the kind of thing street corner hustlers do. If retail companies did the same thing, they’d have employees hanging on to customers’ legs as they leave the store. I have no idea how to stop it except to advise clients to rethink how they react to and follow up with their customers before they wander away.
Retail companies can fix things by following a few simple principles (e.g. close-to-store parking for customers, not employees.). Big companies (like American Airlines) can get back to basics. If I had to advise the Internet version of street corner hustlers, I’d suggest running some tests for a while and tracking the results.
Starting with the Golden Rule couldn’t hurt: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
With one exception, the easiest part of any selling program is customer service. The exception is bad customers. There’s no logical way to deal with them, so you just try your best and then dump them. End of problem and you can devote more resources to handling your merely difficult customers.
The difference between a bad and a difficult customer is that bad customers cost you more money, time and business than they’re worth. Difficult customers pay for themselves.
Luckily, most customers are neither bad nor difficult. Customer service’s function is to at least keep them from being unhappy. Keeping them actually happy is the ideal, of course. Happy customers keep buying from you – and buying more from you if you handle the relationship right. They also tend to spread the good word which helps you acquire more customers.
This is true whether the customer relationship is face-to-face as in a traditional retail environment or remote as in a direct marketing or online program. It’s actually easier in a remote program.
Lesson from a face-to-face arena
I was lucky to learn about face-to-face customer service from some of the world’s leading experts: bartenders.
Bartenders need tips ($) to survive so they’re pretty good at sizing up customers and brilliant at handling customers they already know. When I was a bartender (great job, BTW), I could handle 30-40 customers at a time. These were people either sitting at or standing near the bar which makes them, by far, the best drinkers.
The bartender quickly learns that about 80% of the business comes from 20% of the customers. On most nights, that meant, to me, that 6 to 8 of the people on the other side of the bar were extremely important. I just had to figure out who they were. This is not difficult in a bar. Once we got that sorted out, 6 to 8 people got extraordinary service and everyone else got good service.
A few years later, I was delighted to learn that direct marketing customer service works roughly the same way. Lesson: Treat everyone well but learn who your best customers are and treat them extraordinarily well.
Remote customer service
You learn who your best remote customers are by keeping track of a database and analyzing it once in a while. (Good face-to-face sales people do this, too. Insurance agents, for example.)
Everyone who buys anything from you gets good service: prompt, no errors, quick resolution of returns, complaints and queries. It’s really just the old Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Your best customers get outstanding service: immediate resolution of issues, automatic upgrades when available, personal shoppers, direct line to senior management – whatever’s best and that’s what you have to figure out. Don’t forget the magic of the lagniappe, a terrific New Orleans concept, that’s really just a surprise and delight feature like a small gift every now and then.
When I was a bartender, the simplest, and second most effective, lagniappe was an occasional drink on the house. The most effective was spotting the customer as she came into the bar and having her drink ready by the time she bellied up.
This stuff isn’t rocket surgery. It works and keeps and builds business. The most amazing thing in all of marketing is that so few companies do this well and that so many companies don’t do it all.
It takes training, a rule book (what you can and can’t do) and commitment.
Maybe You Get Bad Customer Service Because You’re a Bad Customer – Click here for Huffington Post Article
A slogan (tagline, too) is a short line, usually 7 words or fewer, that summarizes a company’s/product’s/service’s key attribute in a pithy way.
Slogans are everywhere: TV, radio, online, print ads, packaging, billboards, retail displays and posters, menus, truck panels, flyers, direct mail, T-shirts.
They’re important in a couple of negative ways: A stupid slogan will turn people off (the ultimate stupid line is probably “Make 7Up Yours” broken into two segments: Make 7 … Up Yours); and slogans can be scandalously expensive in terms of money, time and talent and do no good whatsoever.
A slogan is usually a standalone thing, like McDonald’s “I’m lovin’ it” popping up after the commercial is over, but it can be anything at all:
My favorite headline slogan was the entire campaign for Levy’s bagels.
The slogan has to do something positive for the company (otherwise, why bother?) and some slogans actually do. “Good to the last drop” worked wonderfully well for Maxwell House for years. Not sure if it’s any help today against the juggernauts of Dunkin Donuts and Starbucks. Doubt it.
Confusion and competition get in the way of a slogan’s effectiveness these days. Media options are no longer straightforward and relatively simple and competition is intense, constant and confusing.
Consider the ubiquitous but vague JUST DO IT. Those three words could be applied to, oh, Porsche, Gatorade, Allied Van Lines, NutriSystem – anything, really. Nike undoubtedly spent a scandalous amount of money creating and then establishing the slogan. It’s cool, aggressive, yada yada, but is it worth all the time, talent and money? Maybe not.
Did everyone in the target audience understand that “When it absolutely, positively has to be there overnight”? came from Fed Ex and not UPS or the USPS? Unlike “Just do it”, this line couldn’t be applied to just about any company, but it would work well for any company in the business of moving things around quickly.
Maybe the slogan’s best days are over.
Google has a slogan (who knew?): “Don’t be evil” and it’s probably a joke. Apple, the world’s most valuable company according to Forbes, has a slogan – “think different” – that doesn’t seem to appear very often.
And yet slogans keep coming.
In a simple Internet search, you’ll find lists of “successful” lines, advice on creating your own slogans, and even a Slogan Hall of Fame, courtesy of the UK’s AdSlogans.com. In a way, The Hall of Fame is a trip down memory lane.
There’s the NW Ayer agency’s 1921 line “I’d Walk a Mile for a Camel”, BBDO’s 1935 “M’m! M’m! Good” for Campbell’s Soup, B&B’s 1964 “Please don’t squeeze the Charmin.” If you were born before, say 1960, those lines are burned into your memory. So are:
A Diamond is Forever (De Beers, 1948, NW Ayer)
Guinness is Good for You (1929, SH Benson)
When you care enough to send the very best (Hallmark, 1929, FCB)
Finger lickin good (KFC, 1952, O&M)
The milk chocolate melts in your mouth, not in your hand. (M&Ms, 1954, Ted Bates)
Be great to have a line like one of those attached to your company, wouldn’t it? Maybe, maybe not.
Would a new slogan do your company any good?
Possibly, but with a few conditions; it’d have to get extremely well-established in the right people’s brains. That takes a long time and a significant budget. It’d have to be near perfect creatively and, in the absence of a budget, it’d have to generate buzz, tons of buzz, like the Levy’s posters in New York back before the Internet.
A better question might be “Would a new slogan be worth the money and time it’d take to develop and establish?”
The answer’s 99.9% no. How could it be anything else when gigantic companies with massive budgets and access to mountains of research and creative talent have a hell of a time developing great slogans.
Most smaller companies are better off with a simple statement that tells people “who, what, where, and why”: KronskyCateringPeoria.com, “Gourmet Food at Deli Prices.”
No point tinkering. There are better ways to spend your time, money and talent.
We all know that regular TV, cable and broadcast channels, keep losing audiences, mostly to mobile. It’s understandable given the technology.
Not understandable is what TV’s stakeholders are doing about it. The shows are bad enough; with dwindling revenues all around, apparently only CBS can produce watchable dramas and comedies.
But programming’s only part of the problem. All regular TV channels without exception are plagued with hideous commercials presented in the worst possible ways.
You’ve undoubtedly seen Marie Osmond for Nutri System and an apparently over-caffeinated Samuel Jackson for Capital One and wondered how many times any sentient being watch can (and, worse, listen) to that crap. And those are probably semi-successful spots, creatively. The repetition is depressing, though.
Agency people try hard to tailor media buys and creative to narrow audiences but it’s a waste of time for the simplest of all reasons: sooner or later, narrow focus creative becomes a parody of the demo it’s trying to reach.
Viagra, for instance, shouldn’t be a tricky sell but somehow the oh so serious creative comes out hilarious. Self-reliant older but still manly dudes take care of super-macho challenges all by themselves. These guys can handle anything life throws at them and they take Viagra. There’s a double wannabe proposition: be like this guy who has a life and can get laid.
There’s not a lot of narrow targeting of men. Occasionally a car company will show a grown up male driving but the situation and the script always infantilize him.
Jaguar’s super-silly “It’s good to be bad” concept has one spot with a scene that at first glance makes it look like our hero is actually shifting gears the old school way, you know with a clutch and a moveable gear lever. Unfortunately, the close up of the shift lever shows the P R N D of an automatic and the studly driver wiggling the lever sideways a bit and, for all we know, making shifting sounds with his lips. Not quite as lame as action man paddle shifters but close.
Chevrolet has a spot with a Dad who won’t let his little daughter wear her winged fairy outfit to school but relents when he learns it’s photo day. What this has to do with the car is not made clear BECAUSE IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GODDAMNED CAR. Not that it matters. The spot is 99% fairy and daddy issues and 1% Chevrolet.
Narrow creative for black guys is worse, much worse. So bad it’s borderline racist. The products are usually high end cars or liquor. The spots are stuck in the old Barry White mode. They sound like Saturday Night Live skits would sound, if SNL was still funny.
Older folks get deluged with commercials for drugs, health insurance companies, household help, The Villages and reverse mortgages with the same tedious spots over and over and over. Help!
But these are all gloriously wonderful compared to commercials aimed at youngish women. Most spots for this high-spending demo show us the ugly face of acceptable sexism. Let’s pick on just five of the advertisers: Healthgrades.com, Valspar paint and Lowe’s, AT&T, and V8.
I swear this is true. Healthgrades.com helps people find doctors. One of their spots shows a Mommy and infant at the computer. Mommy says “Whoa, there’s lots of doctors that can fix Mommy’s knee … but we want a girl doctor!” and she clicks on the female option. (So far no LGBTG option but stay tuned.) To get a knee fixed, we need a girl (girl?) doctor – first qualification, too. Amazing. Note to Healthgrades.com: Women hate this crap much more than men do.
Valspar and Lowe’s bring us this monstrosity. Mom on a biz trip calls home. She uses her laptop to make the call so she (and we) can see her lovely family: Dad, three kids. Is everything okay at home? Oh yes, says the family and she can see that everything looks just hunky dory. When she signs off, though, we see that, sadly, everything is not hunky dory. Except for a perfectly clean rectangle on the wall behind the family (which fooled Mom), everything else in the kitchen is a total mess as if there’d been a food fight and, perhaps, a food explosion or two. Dad, the inept buffoon, and his kids start to clean up and it’s oh so easy because the mess is on Valspar paint, available at Lowe’s. Yay!
AT&T apparently lost its collective mind with the sexist crapola of four professional women (cliché alert: they seem to be real estate agents) speaking to a charming and, of course, female AT&T rep. The four women are sharp, aggressive, businesslike. Their colleague, Dork Boy, is silent, watching the discussion from slightly in the background. At the end of the spot, when the women adopt a collective arms-folded sisterhood stance to close the deal, Dork Boy doesn’t notice at first, then he does and joins the sisterhood, too late. Women: cool, smart, decisive. Legacy male: dorky, stupid and submissive.
V8 has been running versions of the same spot for a few years now. Smart young female asks dopey male if he’s eating his veggies. When he says no, she smacks him upside the forehead because he’s a dope. He coulda had a V8.
This is actually a brilliant spot because it helps demonstrate that we don’t yet understand the concept of equal. The short version is this: what’s the one thing we know for sure if we know that X = Y?
It’s that Y = X.
Let V8 apply that concept to their spots and have a big black jock smack the little white chick upside the head because she’s a dope. Ooooh, guess what? X and Y aren’t equal after all and X is going to jail.
In nearly all really bad commercials, the problems are identical: the client or the agency or someone in power wants the people, the product, the emotion, all of it, to be phony, to be something it’s not.
All these examples are the collective tip of the TV-failing iceberg.
The closer you look, the worse it gets. Reality shows, singing and dancing competitions, bleh. How about the news? Hmm, it seems that ABC/CBS/CNN/MSNBC/NBC should all lose their freedom of the press protection because they’re no longer journalists. They’re note takers, serfs.
Not long ago, the horrible Houston Astros baseball team drew a 0.0 Nielsen rating for a local game. That’s the future for TV until someone, somewhere smartens up.
Except on Super Bowl Sunday, what happens to commercials is that we the people pay almost no attention to them at all. We have more important things to do like going to the bathroom, getting a beer, checking email, changing the channel …
Television makes it easy to do any number of things during breaks because of the insanely long strings of mostly awful commercials.
The very few advertisers that allow their agencies to create charming watchable spots (Audi’s “My Dad is an alien” comes to mind) get stuck in strings of odious commercials:
• bottom feeding tort lawyers
• drugs with ghastly side effects
• utterly irrelevant claims (Love, it’s what makes a Subaru)
• men are idiots, women are smart (AT&T’s “let’s close”)
• laborious but not-even-tenuous connection (Comcast’s “Help me move”)
• the nag, usually from a government (way too many of these)
• political commercials (yuck, gag, acchhh)
• but wait, call now, get 2 elephants
• never ending blather in one spot (Marie Osmond for Nutrisystem)
• same spot endlessly repeated (Marie Osmond for Nutrisystem)
• screaming … lame humor … car dealers’ kids and wives … and on and on and on.
We do not have to watch this stuff, so we don’t. Besides, fewer and fewer of us watch much regular television anyway thanks to streaming.
One reason we avoid regular TV is that most shows are almost as bad as (and sometimes worse than) the commercials. With the exception of a comedy or two and a few CBS dramas, nothing is actually worth watching on network or normal cable channels.
Sports hang onto audiences partly because strings of commercials are limited by the action of the game.
Still, commercials sometimes make it through even the best defenses. But so what? The commercials suck or they’re stuck in a string with commercials that really suck.
Why do so many companies spend so much money making commercials?
I don’t know. I really don’t.
Maybe because commercials can be reused in even more annoying ways, like in movie theaters, or chopped into 12-15 second segments and stuck in front of videos on YouTube. But why pay to put them on TV?
Advertisers might be much better off spending every penny of that TV money (about $75B in media alone) elsewhere, spread around judiciously in a lot of elsewheres and, if you’ll forgive the prejudice of an old school direct marketer, tracked, tested and fine-tuned constantly.
Newton Minow was right.
When it started in 1993, “Got Milk?” was just a California Milk Processor Board campaign. A few years later, the national milk marketing group, MilkPEP, jumped on board.
The campaign got noticed and it got famous but, for the next 20 years, liquid milk sales continued the decline that had begun in 1975. The Los Angeles Times mentioned recently, “In the past four decades, per-capita consumption has fallen from nearly a one-cup equivalent per day to 0.61-cup equivalent per day, the U.S. Department of Agriculture found in a 2013 report.” That’s a pretty big drop. So, at first glance, it would seem that “Got Milk?” probably can’t teach us much.
The campaign, from San Francisco’s Goodby Silverstein agency, always seemed to be more about show biz than about milk, especially with so many images of celebrities sporting milk mustaches and occasional movie adaptation commercials like this one, inspired, apparently, by Damien from The Omen.
In a piece he wrote for Adweek last year, Jeff Goodby rightly celebrated the 20 years of high awareness of “Got Milk?” but caused a raised eyebrow (mine) when he wrote “And of course, a 20-year downturn in California milk consumption leveled off and has even headed upward now and then.”
Really? Sounds like consumption just kept plummeting.
It may not have mattered what the milk people did and they probably sensed that. So why keep pumping millions a year into the campaign? It’s a guess, but maybe things would have been a lot worse without it.
The milk people never seemed to notice they were in a war
Milk competes with every beverage in the country and there are a whole lot more than there were 21 years ago, including soy milk, almond milk, coconut milk and, oh who can keep track? Except for its earliest years, “Got Milk?” rarely seemed to give anybody any reasons at all to drink milk. Again, just a guess, but the milk marketers may have thought that everyone knows the reasons to drink milk.
Celebrities with cutesie milk mustaches is not a competitive benefit. It’s shockingly expensive and might not even be a good idea. (I’ve always thought of it as a way to keep clients happy by letting them hang with famous people.) Besides, how long has it been since you’ve seen an adult with a milk mustache? On top of that, I read somewhere that 25% or more of milk is consumed from a bowl. Mostly cereal, I imagine, and who gets mustaches from that?
Now MilkPEP has abandoned “Got Milk?” in favor of another two word tag: “Milk Life”. California is sticking with “Got Milk?”
The new campaign is from Lowe Campbell Ewald. “Milk Life” doesn’t say much, but another new element shows promise: giving consumers a reason to buy milk.
The first commercial looks more like a Gatorade spot for suburbia but it has an actual feature and a benefit: 8 grams of protein. The spot has a pretty cool way to demonstrate milk’s protein energizing people. Milk Life Commercial.
Twenty years is a long time for one campaign. “Got Milk?” won tons of awards along the way, but it either didn’t work or it was just staving off the inevitable.
Back in 1967, Buffalo Springfield sang “There’s something happening here. What it is ain’t exactly clear” and that pretty well sums up the much celebrated “Got Milk?”
What nobody involved in the campaign seems to have considered is why liquid milk consumption dropped so precipitously. Competition might explain part of it. The relative (to other groceries) 20% cost increase might explain another part.
But the most compelling factor is health. Milk’s decline seems to parallel concerns about fat content. While milk sales sank, whole fat milk’s share of the shrinking market was cut almost in half. Skim milk, 1% and 2% milk began to dominate.
Real milk, with all the fat, tastes good. The others don’t. Maybe that’s all there is to it. The odd thing is that kids seemed to be a lot less chubby back when they were drinking fatty milk.
A recent Lois Geller post on Forbes.com, Why Doesn’t Apple Have A Real Loyalty Program?- so upset an anonymous Macworld blogger called Macalope that he hammered Lois, who’s far too polite to ever comment, so …
Re Lois Geller: I’ve worked with her for years.
Your Mac Attack was funny but a wasted opportunity.
At first, my eyes drawn to the underscore, I thought maybe you’d gone off target because of the bit about Tim Cook and the environment. You wrote “So this is all about the global warming thing …”
No, it wasn’t about that thing.
Early in her piece, Lois said this: “Apple may not have a Loyalty Program but its CEO, Tim Cook, seemed to launch a Disloyalty Program when he told investors to “get out of his stock” if they didn’t believe in global warming.”
Later, she added: “… especially if Tim Cook is going to be insulting huge chunks of the population.”
And that was it. It wasn’t about global warming. Cook could have been telling people with brown shoes to get out of his stock.
It’s easy to understand Cook’s touchiness about environment issues. The company took a beating over its record (e.g. Fast Company: “Is Tim Cook’s Apple going to stop poisoning China?”) until it started cleaning up its act a few years ago. It’s still taking a beating on labor issues and on stashing profits overseas in countries like Ireland. Lois mentioned none of those issues.
She also didn’t mention that AAPL is down about 20% since Steve Jobs left us. A quarter of that drop came in the two and half months of this year. Apple’s not bulletproof.
Your thoughts on loyalty marketing were remarkable: naïve and cynical at the same time, charming, vitriolic, and filled with logical fallacies. A few examples:
• You’re not illiterate, but somehow you reacted to this: “If Apple were an airline …” with this: “Except it’s not actually an airline.” You ran right through two clues but if you don’t know the meaning of “if” then it wouldn’t be fair to call you out for not noticing the subjunctive which sort of means that ‘Apple is not actually an airline.’ I’d like to think you meant “Unlike an airline, Apple is not one of those companies that have a hard time differentiating their product.” But you’d already made that point.
• “Apple builds loyalty by making its products better.” Most successful companies get that way by doing something better but Apple has another edge that’s almost as important in building and maintaining loyalty. If we called it an aura, everybody would know what we mean.
• You thought it would be a good idea to mention that Lois is not “… the perfect person to be talking about technology.” That’d be relevant if she’d been talking about technology. The “perfect” was pure snark.
• Ad hominem and straw man irrelevancies, too many to list here, are signs that you probably don’t have a lot to say, and how could you? You don’t know much about loyalty marketing. You actually wrote: “Yeah, like a punch card …” And in the same post you ragged Lois about technology?
The thrust of your argument seemed to be that Apple doesn’t need a loyalty program because the products and service are so good. Had you explored that, blending in a few of Apple’s near-disasters and what they taught the company, the world might be a better place today.
You’re probably right, though. Apple doesn’t need a loyalty program. Not yet, anyway, not as long as the aura lasts. Will it last, can it last, and what will Apple do if the cracks in its aura ever become worrisome?
Who knows? Maybe another environmental thing like the graphite processing pollution problem in China will do the trick. You’re into tech, so you know Apple needs the graphite for its iPad batteries.
All the best,