Sparks went off when MasterCard’s Worldwide CMO Larry Flanagan realized that when you provide value to consumers you’ll have their attention.
Larry’s realization seems to align with a previous post I did that talks about how that’s exactly what MasterCard hasn’t been doing.
I have to admit the demo of the Priceless Picks iPhone app caught my eye. But after playing with it I realized that it’s just more of the same fluffy, 3D, useless crap - the user reviews seem to agree.
I continue to be disappointed with how MasterCard fails to bring to life one of the most icon brand platforms in recent history. Truly priceless indeed.
When doing some financial research recently, I came across a bank that I had never heard of before: Ally Bank.
I was impressed with how frank and human the language on their site was. I was even more impressed with the interest rates and terms they had for their banking products.
Thinking that this was too good to be true, I decided to do some digging. Turns out Ally is the newly-rebranded GMAC. GMAC as in General Motors, as in the bank that’s received two government bailouts.
I also then made the connection to the sponsor of one of my regular podcasts, NPR’s Planet Money. Well, the other shoe finally dropped, and Planet Money decided to do a program on GMAC last week as they’ve gone back to the government for a third bailout.
Kudos to the team for tackling the tough issue of critically reporting on a major sponsor.
You’re walking down a city street, stomach grumbling, looking for some place to eat. You come upon two restaurants next to each other - one is mostly full, one is mostly empty. Which one seems the safer bet?
Our instincts are to think that the one with more people must have the better food, service, or both. Or maybe it’s just a better place to be seen at. If you chose to eat at the crowded establishment, you’re very presence there is marketing to the next passerby an inferred value proposition. This business is in fact extracting a service from you.
The same holds true if you walk around with a Starbucks cup, wear an Ed Hardy t-shirt, or are seen walking into a Barnes & Noble. Your interaction with these brands endorses and markets them.
So why aren’t brands paying us for this valuable service? Or put more practically, why aren’t their products and services appropriately “discounted” to factor in the time that we put in to market them?
This is the premise of #sixweeks, a recently publicized experiment conducted over six weeks in London by digital strategist Paul McCrudden. McCrudden recorded the time he spent interacting with brands. And after six weeks he began invoicing these businesses for the time he spent with these brands at a fee based on his salary, prorated and greatly discounted.
McCrudden’s mission as he puts it is to “challenge the basic assumption that consumers are subservient to brands.”
I get that McCrudden is being a bit dramatic here to make a point. But the truth is that his basic assumption is all wrong. Subservience isn’t part of the equation, but relationships are. And like any relationship both sides give and both take.
We want to be seen shopping at that store or wearing that handbag or drinking that cup of coffee or using that Mac laptop. Our brands define us - who we are, who we want to be. There’s significant value being delivered to the consumer beyond the actual product or service - it’s status, identity, comfort, security ... the list goes on.
And if brands don’t continue to deliver, to listen, to improve, to care - we take our business elsewhere.
McCrudden’s premise only makes a bit of sense if we are giving business to brands that we care nothing about - it assumes the worst on both sides.
Knowing that the wrong response to McCrudden’s efforts would be a PR nightmare, businesses have started to pony up cash, vouchers, or both. I mean, who wants to go on record looking like they don’t value their customers. Even though that isn’t really the point here.
My favorite response is from the eatery Pret a Manger. Founder Julian Metcalfe paid McCrudden’s fee, but also added in the cost of the food, the time he thinks it took for McCrudden to do the paperwork, and “a nominal sum to cover interest”.
In a response dripping with courtesy, Metcalfe writes…
“You are of course, absolutely right. The time spent in my cafes will greatly help the profitability of our company. I have asked our accounts department to issue a cheque today as I see no reason why you should be kept waiting. I’m sorry to have to pay you by cheque as I am aware of the effort and time it will take you to pay this into the bank.”
I was ready. Really ready. I wanted to sit back and laugh while Pfizer spewed out jargony phrases worthy of bullsh*t bingo about Twitter. Boy, was I disappointed.
There’s a hope that these guys might actually get it.
Though, while they get it, they’re not quite sure what to say. Or more specifically, what they’re allowed to say. Although there are currently no federal rules around what pharma companies can and cannot say through social media, Pfizer has chosen to take the conservative route.
It continues to be interesting to watch how Twitter has accelerated the discussion of social media strategy in large companies. It’s quickly made executives looked down upon when they can’t answer that question.
I just got off the phone with Chase in response to an offer to upgrade one of my credit cards. The key driver for me was the rewards program.
This free plan even sounded better than the one I was paying for on my “prestigious” World MasterCard. I asked the representative to help me compare the other card benefits. She informed me that this new card was better.
“That couldn’t be”, I protested. MasterCard sent me several mailings touting the premium services on the World card, while this new Chase card was really just about the rewards.
I decided to do a little research. Which brought be to the World card microsite.
Firstly, the site is useless. It communicates card benefits as sound bite-rollovers on a 3D interface. A simple text-based list of my high-touch services is no where to be found.
Meanwhile, fluttering birds keep beckoning me after each 3D transition to “register and customize your world”. Customize what world? This crappy 3D one? There’s no information about the value of registering. Simply put, this site doesn’t give me enough information whether I’m a prospect or a customer.
The site reeks of an agency that is more accustomed to attempting to deliver on marketing “wow”, than on delivering consumer value.
Lastly, the visual execution is just wrong. The materials I received in the mail had a sense of exclusivity to them. This microsite feels more like a bad version of Mario 64. It’s just off-brand.
Furthermore the design caliber of this microsite (and the Priceless.com site framework) is amateurish at best. It’s not even worth a design critique.
It’s just hard to believe that the destination for one of the most iconic ad campaigns in recent times.
I just got off the phone with Chase in response to an offer to upgrade one of my credit cards. The key driver for me was the rewards program.