May 14, 2015

"Marketers Are From Mars..." Now An eBook.

 In its second day of release, the ebook of "Marketers Are From Mars, Consumers Are From New Jersey" broke into the top 3 in advertising at Amazon. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

The good news is that it's selling for $2.99. That's less than you pay for 5 kernels of popcorn at the movies. And it doesn't make your mouth all dry and smelly.

You can read it on any device. If you don't have a Kindle-ish thing, just go here and download the free Kindle app.

Then your only obligation is to write a fabulous review on Amazon. If you're new at that, here are some suggestions:
  • "I've never read a book before. This is fun."
  • "I'm really looking forward to the tweet."
  • "It's like Shakespeare, only much stupider."
  • "I would buy the movie rights if I knew what that meant."
Now quit jacking around and download the book.


Jim said...

Who are you thinking of LeShann. Even poster child brands aren't harbouring as much loyalty as many marketers expected according to Byron Sharp. He looked at Harley Davison and Apple - In fact more repeat purchases and loyalty to Dell over Apple, 71% v 55% and as far as Harley's are concerned owners of a Harley purchase other makes of motor biked twice as often as Harleys.

Tom Innis said...

When I think of the brands I'm loyal to (examples: Fender guitars, Mizuno running shoes, Chimay beer, etc.), my loyalty to is based on good products, consistency, dependability, and customer service. I have yet to "engage" with these brands on Facebook or read their blogs; I'm just pleased with the performance of their products over many years of using them. So when I hear some charlatan telling me brand loyalty is not about the product, I feel like engaging his nuts with my Fender guitar, Mizuno running shoes, and (empty) bottle of Chimay beer.

LeShann said...

I know Byron's points and use them on a daily basis. But think of top luxury brands for example, I have found they occupy a more present space in their consumer's mind and enjoy insane levels of advocacy because they literally enjoy thinking and talking about them on occasion (of course it's absolutely not the only thing they think of!). The higher the brand the more this seems true, which is possible why brands like Hermes or Loro Piana do extremely well with extremely little advertising. Now Byron would probably argue that they are niche brands, which is absolutely true (there is a good chance you've never heard of Loro Piana for example), but they would die if they wouldn't be niche as their "nicheness" is also what defines them. Their consumers seek this. They also lose very few consumers over time - not to say these consumers ONLY buy that brand, but rather that more than 90% will always have these brands in their repertoire within a few years of a next purchase. Btw, I find Sharp's definition of loyalty a little narrow, as EXCLUSIVE repeat purchase isn't the only form loyalty takes - maintaining a brand in your top repertoire even if you buy another is a form of loyalty and doesn't require exclusivity. Sure, the word sounds like it implies absolute loyalty, but the phenomenon worth studying, for me, is rather the tendency to always give some brands a preference if/when the consumer is in a situation of choice. It doesn't mean it can't be beaten by another brand/product at that moment, and I absolutely agree that most of this "loyalty" is out of habit, availability and laziness to not explore other options.

Graham Hall said...

It's just a reality check and true for every brand I think- to a greater or lesser degree (but mostly greater...) Luxury brands have a bit more wiggle room because if you can afford it, you've probably got less to worry about. But, on the whole, this loyalty stuff is overstated. For 'loyalty' increasingly we are talking about an assurance that the thing will deliver what you want it to deliver - so you come back again next time. In that regard, I guess the most a brand manager might hope for is customer respect?

Jim said...

I cant disagree because I don't really understand your points. Try again maybe? Higher brands? What are they? People buy stuff. People think about stuff? Am I loyal to something if I think about it? But never buy it?

Of course we are talking about why people tend to choose one brand over another at POP. That's true.

Randy White said...

Hey Bob, I'm starting a site that people lease themselves for $X per year and allow Y notifications from Z brands - eliminating social media as the middle man and letting brands go direct to consumers - for a fee. What should a brand pay customers for X direct marketing messages to their computer, tablet, phone, or watch? $5? $50? cometh.

Guest said...

"which is possibly why brands like Hermes or Loro Piana do extremely well with extremely little advertising."

best metallurgy brands do much, much better than Hermes or Loro Piana but are not high brands nor do they "occupy a more present space" with virtually no advertising at all.
so what's your point?

LeShann said...

I'd love to know more about the importance (or lack thereof) branding in metallurgy.

My point is simply that not ALL brands are "not given a flying fuck about". To this I add that it should not influence every other brand's strategy as the very vast majority will never be given a damn about.

Would people revolt if these outliers disappeared? No. But from what I see they're benefiting from something that their competitors don't, and they work hard to maintain it.

They're able to rely on consumers rating very highly their products, talking about it, thinking regularly about it (they're hyper aspirational) without ever advertising it, and benefiting from insane rates of repeat purchase (albeit non exclusive).

There are very normal reasons why this happens - being in a niche is one of them, having a much smaller target group (these brands are ridiculously expensive) with its very own set of dynamics and influence is another. Sharp makes excellent points on niche brands. I am not here to say that Bob is wrong, or that Sharp's laws don't work. If anything, I think it totally validates them.

LeShann said...

You can look a the other response I posted above, however please understand that this article is not an article about loyalty only, it's about people not giving a damn about brands in general.

Side note, to your question, you're more likely to buy something you think about, yes. It doesn't mean you're more loyal to it, but given the right physical availability your "loyalty" is likely to go up, simply because it's easier and more convenient to purchase that product again. Especially if you've bought the brand at least once, since behaviour drives attitudes. No?

Björn Wigenius said...

I think you mean "He or she" (Unnecessary, but still kind of necessary) .. Anyway, I absolutely agree.

Timi said...

I see your point, LeShann, and it's not as muddy as your disputants would have you believe.

I also agree with Bob, but as with most things, there are exceptions. Just because metallurgy companies sell without advertising doesn't mean they do so for the same reasons as high-end luxury brands. We need to watch out for that blurry line between correlation and causation.

I've worked for those brands that erroneously believe people want to "engage" with their very dull, run of the mill products (which they insist on selling in an equally uninspiring way). But I now work for the leading (by a country mile) ski holiday company in the UK - I can tell you, people care about the brand. And it's not even something we've engineered. People who regularly ski seem to have this almost fanatical love for it, and the line between the thing they love and the medium through which they receive it appears to have blurred. They have heated debates about the logo on our Facebook page. They attack competitors on our behalf. They attack other skiers on our behalf. Many buy their holidays exclusively from us, of course.

But like you said, this is the exception. And I guess the "luxury brand" argument applies here somewhat (skiing is quite an expensive hobby). The problem is that people aspire to occupy the hallowed space of these exceptions so badly that they don't stop to ask how realistic that is. They have their eyes on the stars, so they miss the gulf of differences that exists between they and their false gods. Therein lies a big part of the problem, I believe.

At the end of the day, however, Bob's point stands - people are inherently selfish and you have to earn the right to get them to turn their attention away from themselves and onto you. Most of the time (if not all), you achieve that by camouflaging what they want in what you're selling. So, I guess the selfishness never really stops being a constant.

Jim said...

Tim, I think you may be failing Bob's giggle test there. Isn't it the case that you provide great ski holidays and people really enjoy your product and service?

Not sure Bob was saying people were inherently selfish either. More they have better more pressings to do. If you ask people the priorities in their life it won't be brands.

The problem with exceptions is that everyone thinks they're one.

Timi said...

Differences in terminology, Jim. People put themselves and their concerns first i.e. people are selfish. I use that word literally, not morally (as you seem to have understood it).

And I've no doubt that people buy from us because of the quality of our products and services (I said as much). But, that doesn't explain why they argue about our logo. Or promote our company on competitors' Facebook pages and tag us in it. This hasn't happened as a one-off, it's surprisingly regular.

I'm not suggesting they are in "love" or want to "co-create"... or any of that fluffy shit. I am saying that they care, for some reason - certainly more than they would do if we were selling gaskets. They seem to think it reflects on them, in some way, because our brand is connected so directly to something they personally identify with. I'm saying there are exceptions.

It's the same reason people care about the Disney brand - because it's so intrinsic to their childhoods. They feel they have a right to be a part of what the Disney brand is and does. But very few brands have that kind of emotional leverage.

Jim said...

Maybe because you take it out of a historical context? They're not 'really' arguing about your logo, you know that right? You are suggesting exactly what you say you aren't. You are claiming to be the exception to the rule like many other brands claim too and without seeing the full historical picture it makes no sense IMO.

Kev said...

For this to be true, you'd need to only consider the term brand applying to organisations that sell products or services. Outside of that, think the charity sector, brand loyalty has a massive role to play especially when it comes to getting your message and story out there. Without it, you'd never be able to raise the money needed to operate.

Jon P said...

All true Bob.

I agree with Marty Neumeier's definition of a brand: It's the gut feeling people have about your company or your products. But there are two components to a product: what it does for you, and how it makes you feel.

If a company's products and services help alleviate some of life's disappointments while their brand message gives people the sense that there's more to life than disappointment, then maybe the gut feeling becomes a little less like indigestion.