Meet the Author

There are two distinct ways to approach the world. You can be a hawk, or you can be dove. Doves seek friendship and try to find areas of common interests between disparate groups with competing goals. Hawks can do nothing but attack, and they are constantly looking for enemies that they can define themselves against.

In real life (or business) you have to be able to play both roles. Game theory has shown that the best approach is to always start by being a dove, and when possible parry off (or just ignore) slight attacks. The advantages you achieve by working together with those around you offset any small attacks you may incur by being so open. But, when truly attacked you have no choice but to turn into a hawk. So the best strategy is really a blended one. It's be a dove most of the time, and a hawk only when necessary.

So what does this have to do with interactive marketing? Simple. Imagine your company is being insulted by an aggrieved colleague somewhere online, how should you respond? Well according to game theory it's always best to start by being a dove. Reach out, parry off any insults and listen to their complaint. If it's something that can be resolved, it's always easier to resolve it than to argue.

But, what if that doesn't work? What if the person is so intrinsically angry that reasoning with them isn't an option. Well, then one has to assess the damage that's being incurred. Most people who are upset have very little credibility. Their anger impedes their ability to think rationally. And that's usually quite apparent in their rants. In those cases, it's better to ignore than to argue. But, sometimes you have to respond. In these cases it's usually best to shed as much light on the situation as possible. Does the person attacking have a personal vendetta that's motivating them (ex-employee, ex-vendor, or ex-wife?)? If so, you can undermine their credibility by providing proper context. People tend not to believe the complaints of people motivated by revenge. If they're not credible, then the story won't spread and the damage is contained.

The problem with a lot of marketing is that it tries to say too much, and it ends up saying nothing. Good marketers figure out which market is uncontested and which aspect of their brand story is the most compelling to the market. Then they create simple messages that communicate their brand story, and embed those messages in the minds of their potential customers.

Most marketing literature over the last four decades revolves around this single topic. Al Ries & Jack Trout called it Positioning. Seth Godin referred to it as the Purple Cow. The Harvard Business School said it's not marketing 101, it's advanced business strategy and they rebranded it the Blue Ocean Strategy. The HBS even created matrices and strategic frameworks (complete with acronyms) to make Blue Ocean Strategy appeal more to analytical thinkers. But, these books pretty much all say the same thing. They say the key to growing your company is to find an uncontested market space, create a simple message that communicates that fact and own that market space in the mind of your consumers. And they're right. That's the secret to great marketing.

But, what makes marketing hard is that most companies aren't unique. There are always more "me too" companies than there are remarkable ones. And, unfortunately, if you're not a market leader or the first in your particular niche/space—you're a "me too" company.

So how does a "me too" company create great marketing? They have two choices. They can shift their strategy, focus on a corner of the market and become dominant in that space by identifying an aspect of the product that other companies are ignoring (AKA -- they can become remarkable, find a unique position, or identify a blue ocean). This is the Volvo method. When others car companies focused on fast/comfortable/fun. They focused on safe, and grew because of it.

The other option is to take advantage of new/emerging media and become dominant in that medium while the bigger competitors are slow to adopt. It's not a market opportunity, it's a media opportunity. This is the burma shave method. Burma Shave recognized in the 1920's that cars were playing a much bigger role in people's lives, and they took advantage of this new roadside medium with a campaign that placed a series of rhyming signs along all the major highways. Obviously, the same thing is happening today in all corners of the web (facebook/twitter etc). Those that are the first to take advantage of the opportunities win. Companies that leverage the web have huge a advantage over their competitors.

The secret to great marketing isn't really a secret. So, whether you decide to become a purple cow, own a unique position, or sail to a non-competitive blue ocean—all you're really doing is finding a marketing opportunity and taking advantage of it.

Everyone uses cognitive biases to speed up their decision making process. They are as old as decision making itself. The most common bias is "confirmation bias." It's a great description for the tendency of people to blindly accept evidence that supports their theory, but hold in great skepticism anything that undermines their theory. If you've ever read something in order to prove your point in an argument, then you're most likely guilty of confirmation bias.

Why does this matter to you? After all you're a marketer, an entrepreneur or a web guy, not a researcher. It's important because everyone is a decision maker at some point in their work and if you're not aware of the biases that effect you, then you can't be proactive in overcoming them.

Marketing is the ability to tell your story in a compelling and memorable way. Journalists do this every day, and there's something every marketer can learn from their journalistic brethren. It's a simple piece of advice given to every budding young reporter. That advice is: "don't bury your lede."

What's a lede? The lede is the most important part of the story. It's the gem that makes the story worth reading. Great journalists can spot a good lede in the midst of the most muddled story. And good marketers need to be able to do the same.

Here's an example of a great lede from a recent wall street journal article (hattip: Brandon Ducher)

Like most San Franciscans, Charles Pitts is wired. Mr. Pitts, who is 37 years old, has accounts on Facebook, MySpace and Twitter. He runs an Internet forum on Yahoo, reads news online and keeps in touch with friends via email. The tough part is managing this digital lifestyle from his residence under a highway bridge.

Notice the lede isn't the fact he uses social networks, nor the fact he's homeless. It's the juxtaposition of the two. The idea that a homeless person has a digital identity is the heart of this story, and the author does a great job engaging you in the narrative with this unexpected angle.

To find the lede you have to sift through the chafe, the details that don't matter, and figure out what is actually worth talking about when it comes to your brand or product. You should grab the lede by it's collar and make it stand up front and center. The lede should lead.

The most common mistake is trying to say too much. You can't have multiple ledes, or you end up with a muddled, un-focused story that loses the reader. A good lede should be simple, concrete and memorable. It should hook the audience and keep the reader going.

Next time you're working on crafting a marketing message, pretend you're an outsider writing a news story. What aspect of the story is worth talking about? What's the most interesting angle? Try to identify the lede, and then give it the spotlight it deserves.

Ever wonder why many large companies have bad websites? The answer isn't: they have bad designers, or low budgets. The real reason is structural. There are cultural, procedural and bureaucratic issues that relegate them to mediocrity. In the parlance of political science, it's a structural issue that requires reform. But, reform requires a commitment most leaders are unable to make. It's much easier to maintain the status quo than to drive forward change.

It's the same reason failing companies languish with bad customer service. Corporate leadership refuses to confront the structural issues that underly their flaws. Instead they make excuses and institute incremental changes that do nothing more than paper over the underlying issue. It's short term fixes at the expense of long term reform.

So what are some of the most common structural issues and how can they be fixed?

1.) Interest Group Politics:

Every large company has numerous business units that compete for limited resources. The core concerns of these business units don't always align with the best interests of the company. Individual goals are often achieved at the detriment of the brand. If you're a manager for a particular business unit, your number one concern is hitting your own numbers. It's not the customer experience. It's keeping your job. This is why so many large companies end up with crowded, unfocused homepages. It's the reason there are 15 banners promoting 15 different business units crammed onto a single page. The corporate leadership conceded so the web team has to make it happen. The worst part is this undermines the customer's experience and sets up the web team for failure. It becomes impossible to design an elegant interface with clear calls to action and focused paths to resolution based on competing corporate priorities.

How to fix it:

Luckily fixing the problem isn't impossible, it merely requires the ability to say "no". The person responsible for the website should be accountable for it's performance as a whole. This person can act as a counterweight to the silo-ed interests of the individual business units. There is only so much real estate on a homepage. If a business unit isn't a top 5 priority then it shouldn't be on the homepage.

2.) Flawed Approval Cycles

Another common issue with enterprise websites is the approval process itself. I've previously addressed the golden rules of giving feedback, but unfortunately these rules aren't often followed by decision makers in the enterprise space. Instead stakeholder feedback tends to focus on exactly the wrong items. Managers look at a review as a chance to put their stamp on the creative. They give opinions, not analysis and the work goes through endless revisions. Often these changes are to it's detriment. Each review/approval is just as likely to make the work worse, as it is to improve it. More approvals don't lead to a better end result. It usually leads to watered down creative that is not only less impactful, but also less effective.

How to fix it:

Limit the number of people involved in the approval process, and limit the types of feedback that will be accepted. Communicate that not all feedback will be acted on. And institute a process for evaluating feedback that weighs the priorities of the brand, with the impact on customer experience. The person responsible for the feedback process needs to be able to differentiate personal preference from actionable feedback.

The Bottom Line

The reason good companies have bad websites is simple. There are structural flaws that make their homepage into a battle of competing interests at the expense of the overall customer experience, and the approval/feedback process is flawed in such a way that feedback becomes more detrimental than helpful. However, fixing these issues requires a commitment from management. It's not enough to just hire good designers, or UX talent. Companies have to reform their structural biases to make success possible. Talent by itself is not enough.

A quick note:

The inspiration for this post was an article in Fast Company on why the American Airlines website is such a disaster.