We’re always trying to find new ways to humanize our brand. This is a timeless concept.

One of the basic foundations of marketing is to humanize your brand – to make it known, trusted, and, well, accessible.

If you’ve been paying attention (and I’m sure you have), humanization is going a step (or more of a giant leap) forward. It’s no longer enough to have a TV (or Hulu) commercial depicting a humanization of your brand (does anyone actually watch the commercials any more?) or to have a banner on the side panel of Facebook (have you clicked on one of those ads lately?). What you – what we all – need to do is build relationships.

It’s sort of like Sales 101. A customer doesn’t want to be seen as a bottom line; they want to be seen as a person, because, in fact – the customer is a person. We cannot forget this important reality.

And in today’s socially-infused-technological world, what brands need to do is build relationships through social platforms. A couple months ago, I hit on this idea briefly, but I mainly focused on utilizing Twitter. Since I’ve noticed a lot of related buzz lately on various blogs, I wanted to further highlight some great relationship-building tips.

1) Prepare to Take Time

It’s no longer as “simple” as strategically planning a great marketing campaign, and letting go once it hits “the presses;” you have to invest in your customers for the long haul. Mikel E. Belicove of Entreprenuer.com explains: “An entire generation of advertisers will need to plan their marketing scenarios around the concept of building relationships.” This means planning on taking more time on the social scene – getting to know people through blog comments, helping customers on Twitter, and gaining an [interactive] following on Facebook. You can’t just hope your marketing campaign will do the trick; you and your employees have to do the trick – the long and hard way.

2) Offer Something (for Free)

In other words, as Chris Brogan said in a recent post, “Be helpful.” It could be a free e-book, webinar, or blog. Whatever your means, be sure to provide something useful – answering a question, solving a problem, or stimulating new ideas. Being helpful by offering something that someone needs will build your base. It will start conversations. It will get people talking, and you can begin to build trust with people. But don’t forget to be helpful for free – this is key. You need to prove yourself before someone will trust you. Chris Brogan calls it “earning your way in.”

3) Be Human

This sounds so simple that it seems laughable, but it’s often overlooked. When a marketing team is developing their social strategy, sometimes they lose touch of the importance to remain human. A customer wants to build a relationship with another human being – not a product. Olivier Blanchard of The Brand Builder’s blog puts it this way: you don’t “see people hanging out a Starbucks with their favorite coupons.” Maybe this means adding a picture to your Facebook profile to introduce the employee your customers will be interacting with. Maybe it means your employees being knowledgeable enough to recommend solutions to your customers. It depends greatly on your specific product or service, but the bottom line is the same: be human. Your customers are people, yes – but you and your employees are people, too. And your customers need to know it.

• What other strategies are you using to build relationships with your customers?
• What companies do you see excelling at building relationships? How are they accomplishing it?

“Aspiring ‘to be the market leader’ or ‘to be seen by our clients and partners in their success’ is admirable, but lacks the specificity and clear linkage to action and measurable results to propel go-to-market efforts.”

— IT Industry research leader, Gartner, Inc.,
on the importance of tying goals to actionable strategy and results.

On December 3, 2001, the Segway was unveiled to the public. Dean Kamen’s new invention, the now-infamous self-balancing motorized scooter, was surrounded by buzz twelve months before its release. After the built-up hype, the Segway was expected to sell 10,000 machines a week, instead of the actual 24,000 sold in the first year.

On January 27, 2010, the iPad was revealed to the world. The revolutionary tablet computer was also released amidst a flurry of anticipatory buzz. Within 80 days, Apple sold three million iPads, and once again changed the way people use technology.

Two products. Two releases. Two (drastically) different outcomes.

These stories remind us of the basic questions: What are the key ingredients to a successful product launch? How can you protect your product from failure?

One quick Google-search of “Product Launch Strategies” will reveal that these are the questions people are asking – no matter the business, no matter the product, no matter the current strategy. Although there are a variety of ideas and quick tips out there for perusal, I really think your Go-To-Market strategy can be boiled down to three simple rules. Now, there’s an important distinction between the terms “Go-To-Market” and “Marketing” – at least in the common understanding of most professionals I deal with. “Go-To-Market” captures the thought of introducing a specific product into a specific market context. It is more “action-y” than “marketing,” which can be applied more broadly to all the activities traditionally associated with strategy, pricing, positioning and so on. “Go-to-Market” can serve as a rallying point for your team as it is generally seen as very time-bound (“now”) and results oriented (“launch this product”). (I realize this is not exact – but it is a reflection of how I’ve heard these terms used over the years.)

So here are the three overarching principles for effective Go-To-Market strategy:

1) Define Your Objectives Carefully

If you don’t know where you’re going, it doesn’t much matter which direction you take the organization.

Objectives are necessary in order to have a clear and clean-cut view of where the organization is going. They should be built around a central concept of messaging, representing a set of promises that your target market will agree is innovative, indispensable, and inspiring (I³). Keep objectives as clear and specific as possible. Use time-bound targets that are measurable. (For example: Sell 100,000 units by May of 20xx for revenue of $$$ million.)

• Strategic objectives are the high-level goals that drive strategy and long-term direction. These include corporate goals, financial goals, and market impact goals.
• Tactical objectives aren’t tasks, per se, but are more immediately tangible than strategic objectives. They reflect the key areas of project management, overall efficiency and time management, and translate easily into “to-do list” items.

2) Ask the Right Questions

Throughout the formation of the your go-to-market strategy, four question areas will arise:
• What major issues must be faced?
• What key decisions must be made?
• What information are we missing?
• What expertise or “know how” will we need to carry out this plan?
   

First, identify major issues as they surface, noting where “gaps” still exist. These issues are either internal or external roadblocks to success. Some issues will require conversations or actions to mitigate their impact on your plans. In other cases, these issues might not be obstacles but rather create other, unintended complications. For example, a particular launch may negatively affect a long-term partner because it has competitive elements within it. This doesn’t necessarily hinder your go-to-market efforts, but it has ramifications in other aspects of your business.

Next, make the necessary decisions. All issues require one or more decisions – even “do nothing” is a decision. So, break down these major issues into key decisions that need to be made while going to market. Frame the decision along with its stakeholders and its impact on the key factors in the overall strategy.

Finally, determine what information and expertise is needed to execute your plan. How will you fill these gaps? All elements should be articulated and measured in terms of their relationship and interrelation to the strategic and tactical objectives of your go-to-market messaging process.

3) Don’t Get Stuck

Ironically, the most difficult task for companies is often not development of go-to-market strategy, but actually the execution of those plans. It is critical that you keep the elements of your overall strategy at the center of your conversations and current strategic discussions.

When you consider new business opportunities that might interfere with your current go-to-market tasks, ask: Is this consistent with our overall objectives? Our timeline? Our goals? Will this take the focus off of our strategic business initiatives?

Also, go back to the four question areas. They are simple yet valuable tools. Consider the simplicity and power of asking:

• Is this an issue that really requires more discussion and understanding?
• Do we need to make a decision which presupposes a defined set of outcomes to choose from?
• Is this an information gap (a lack of appropriate or sufficient information)?
• Do we have a “know-how” gap (the lack of a specific skill or domain expertise to fulfill the mission)?
   

Teams can develop a “shorthand” that moves them quickly from an emotional read of the situation to an objectively based one. Be sure to round out your discussions and conversations with an action orientation. You should always “map back” to your overall project plan, and stay rooted in your overall messaging strategy.

Do you have any success/horror stories about product launches?
How have you seen marketing strategies either help or hinder the product’s success?

Alright. Maybe I was a little harsh in the last post. But I promise I’m not heartless. Even though I believe there were a lot of crucial missteps on behalf of Microsoft, I can also see their perspective. There is a need for competition in the closed-systems smartphone market. There is a need for better cohesion in closed systems. It’s just a matter of playing the game well – and smart – enough.

The bottom line: there is still hope. More specifically, I believe there is still hope for Microsoft.

Innovation is Not Dead

Remember AOL? Dial-up modems? Palm Pilots? Floppy disks?

To throw in the towel and declare that innovation in a certain market is over is a mistake, and every entrepreneur knows it. But the thing with innovation is that it’s exactly that – innovative. Good, strategic innovation has to at least change the rules ever-so-slightly – not too much that people fear the change, and yet dramatically enough for people to take notice. In order to change consumer habits, innovation – especially in the smartphone market – needs to cause people to stop and say, “Hey – this is clearly better.”

Innovation is not dead in the smartphone market – I’d say it’s just beginning – and Microsoft should be able to think through their smartphone product to create a somewhat different paradigm.

Closed-System Competition

Monopoly is only fun if you’re winning, and if you’re the consumer, you’re usually not winning when a company has the monopoly on a market. Apple has arguably earned their place as the king of closed systems, but there’s no reason it can’t be challenged. If Microsoft finds the right strategy, it could become a game-changer.

We need a little closed-system competition – for the sake of the consumer and at the very least, to ensure that Apple stays on their “A” game.

Surprise Attack

In the last post, I was very fond of the phrase, “too little, too late,” but Microsoft could use their late arrival to their advantage. It’s possible that Apple and Android feel invincible, and now could be Microsoft’s chance to come in from [way] behind and make a sneak attack. Microsoft should take bold chances – and I’d say, the bolder, the better.

You know what they say – “Never underestimate the element of surprise!”

The Secret Weapon

Microsoft could also gain an edge by jumping on the biggest chance they have: INTEGRATION. People are still looking for a cohesive way to jump between tablet and phone and computer without searching for their information, and neither Apple nor Google has successfully wielded this “secret weapon” (although they sure are trying).

Dan Lyons, technology editor at Newsweek, said in regards to this type of integration, “So far, no tech company can deliver this [type of integration]. But Microsoft has all the pieces. It just needs to bring them together.” And if anyone can speak with authority on this subject, it would be Lyons. He recently conducted an experiment in which he used only Microsoft products for a month. His conclusion? Well, I’d recommend reading the full article, but I especially liked his ending insight. He acknowledged that despite being impressed by Microsoft, he wasn’t about to switch his iPhone for a Windows phone; however…

“…later this year or early next, when Lenovo comes out with that slick Windows 8 tablet-slash-laptop, I might just buy one. That’s how change begins. That’s how Apple won people over, including me, over the past decade. It started with iTunes and an iPod. Then I got frustrated with Windows and tried out a low-end Mac Mini. That worked, so I made the leap to an iMac. Then an Apple TV box. Then a MacBook Pro. Then an iPhone. And on and on. So that’s what Microsoft needs to do. Find a product that gives it a toehold and build from there.”

So, Microsoft: hope is not lost. As harsh as the smartphone landscape may appear – and even as harsh as I may have been in the previous post – I firmly believe that you have a fighting chance.

And I can’t wait to see what you do with it.

• How do you think Microsoft can “come back swinging” with a fighting force?
• What is Microsoft’s best bet when it comes to strategy to win the market?
• Do you think there is still hope for Microsoft, or are you more apt to agree with the previous post?

Disclaimer: I am fully away this article might make me a few enemies. But it must be said. Because really, it’s what we’ve all been thinking anyways.

What’s the point of the Windows Phone?

I’m not trying to be unnecessarily biting here. Really – I’m genuinely curious.

What’s the point?

I’d love to pose this question to Microsoft’s development team. Or rather, I wish I could have been in the room during their stage gate process. What was their marketing team thinking? How did they answer the question, “Should we bother making it?”

Because the brutal answer, I’m sorry to say, was NO. No, Microsoft, you shouldn’t have made the Windows Phone.

And it’s not because it’s a poorly made product. It’s because the closed market has already been taken – cornered and conquered, as it were – by Apple.

Let’s unpack this a bit more: Apple is undeniably the king of closed systems-based phones. Android came in and said, “We can’t have another closed system,” and competed by working with an open system. They gave it away, in a manner of speaking, and have since posed a substantial threat to Apple’s dominance of the smartphone market. And let’s not forget that early on in the game – when the timing was right for closed competition – the Palm Pre was released on a closed system and it was crushed by Apple.

So then, Microsoft enters. Way, way late. Too late. This is not a case of “making an entrance” and being fashionably late; this is a case of missing the boat entirely. Microsoft thought, “Hey, we’re the king of closed systems – we’ve got this one in the bag,” but this “in-the-bag” thinking has failed for them as a strategy.

To add insult to injury, Microsoft’s attempt at a clever marketing campaign completely backfired. By now I’m sure you’ve heard about the “Smoked by a Windows Phone” challenge, in which customers were encouraged to bring their smartphones into the store and compete against a Windows phone. Basically, the faster phone would win, and there were prizes to be gained.

Well, Sahas Katta of Skatter Tech met the challenge, and his standard-model Android won. But instead of losing gracefully, the Microsoft store employees acted like 10-year-old kids on a school playground. Not only were they sore losers, they (initially) refused to accept defeat. Microsoft’s Ben Rudolph contacted Sahas – not to give him the prize, but instead to offer a rematch. However, since Sahas is a blogger, the unfortunate experience had already viral, and Rudolph eventually sent out a tweet to offer him the winner’s prize. But the damage had already been done.

Again: too little, and way too late.

Please understand, I’m not saying that the product is garbage – it’s a good product. Maybe it’s even superior to what’s already out there. But if you’re going to enter into the smartphone market a little late, then you’ve got to be radically superior in order to replace what’s already out there. And the Windows Phone has yet to prove that it’s radically superior.

If you don’t believe me – if you’re fired up from this post and think I’m wrong, then just answer this single question: Do YOU know anyone who has a Windows Phone (and isn’t trying to auction it on eBay)?

Also, please stayed tuned for The Windows Phone, Part 2: A New Hope.

What do you think about the Windows Phone? Do you think they could have had a fighting chance at a different point in the game? Do you think they still have a fighting chance?

Yes, you read that title correctly. Let me explain.

The other day, I was getting (what I thought was) a routine haircut. As the hair stylist and I were shooting the breeze, she told me a little bit about a three-month trip to her home city – Moscow.

While she was there, she needed to (ironically enough) get her hair cut. Opening up the directory of hair stylists (yep, they have their own directory), she called one – expecting to simply set up an appointment and go in. But that’s not what happened.

This is where the story gets interesting.

When she called for an appointment, instead of saying, “See you then!” they asked her, “What time do you want us to pick you up?” Confused, she tried to explain she’d get there herself, yet they insisted – emphasizing that the pick up was included in her fee (which was about $25 in our terms). So sure enough, a half hour before her appointment, a car service arrives to taxi her away.

But that’s not all.

Apparently, they kept her waiting at the salon a little longer than anticipated. So how did they handle it? Instead of a simple, “We’re very sorry,” they instead asked, “What would you like for lunch?” – at no additional cost. So for the price of one (pretty reasonable) haircut, my stylist got car service and free lunch to seal the deal.

The surprising thing to me was hearing about such innovation in a place not typically known for it. Yet it’s amazing how intense competition triggers innovation. Taking a look at the Russian economy in the last ten years, you’ll find that the cosmetics industry – and that includes hair salons – is one of the fastest growing sectors. In fact, 15-20 new hair salons are opening each month – and that’s only in Moscow.

I’d say the competition is fierce.

But what I love about this story is the way it shows a new-old approach to differentiation.

Many smaller companies believe they don’t have enough money, man power, or momentum to effectively differentiate themselves from their competition. Now, I’m not saying everyone needs to start sending a car service to their clients (and really, I’m not convinced about the profitability of such offerings), but what I want to emphasize is that in today’s world – in markets driven by the need to “humanize” or get closer to customers – there is still one simple (and potentially free way) to differentiate: DELIGHT your customer!

Seth Godin says it best here (emphases mine):

“A few organizations have figured out how to turn customer service into a marketing opportunity and thus a profit center. They figure if they’ve got your attention, if they’re talking to you at a moment when you care a great deal, they can turn that into an opportunity to delight. And being delighted is remarkable and worth talking about.”

To bring us back to the story, the truth is that my hair stylist friend wasn’t even that crazy about the haircut she received that day. Her stylist was a little new and inexperienced, and gave her a “so-so” haircut. But did she care? Not really; in fact, she was delighted. This salon thought raised their competitive edge – and even with so-so results, they differentiated themselves enough to secure a delighted customer.

I’d say that’s something we’d all like to attain (hopefully with better than so-so results, of course).

• Do you have any stories about a time when a company delighted you with their customer service?
• What ways have you sought to differentiate yourself in the market?
• Have you ever used the delight-strategy to set yourselves apart from the pack?

Are you riding trends or are you setting them?

Even more importantly: have you even asked yourself that question lately?

Sure, it’s easier to jump on a bandwagon of the latest trend, but that’s not the entrepreneur’s way. The entrepreneur must seek to stand out in the crowd – a head above the rest. Of course, that’s easier said than done.

Think to yourself: When was the last time you heard/read/seen something that was setting a trend? When was the last time you were in a position to set the trend?

Recently, I’ve been struck by the amount and scope of trendsetting going on in the world. Have you noticed it too? I think it’s important to highlight these stories because they are so different from each other. It’s inspiring – reminding me that trendsetting can come in all shapes, sizes, and spheres. Paying attention to the different types of trends can help us pick apart what exactly it takes to be a trendsetter, no matter the business.

Trendsetting in Quality

CNN Money ran an article about Trader Joe’s, the crunchy grocery store chain known for their neighborhood-grocer feel and eclectic collection of food. The article states: “Trader Joe’s doesn’t pick up on trends – it sets them.” In their case, they set the bar of quality so high that customers don’t mind that the store has, say, only ten different kinds of peanut butter (as opposed to a regular grocery store’s 50 brands) because their customers trust that the quality of the product will be good.

• Ask yourself: How can I raise the quality of my product/service so that my customers trust me MORE?

Trendsetting in Innovation

FastCompany recently highlighted Nike’s newest innovation: the sock shoe – officially called, “Flyknit.” After interviewing athletes (in other words, their customer base), Nike found that what these customers wanted was a shoe that felt like a sock. Nike’s director of footwear innovation, Tony Bignell, explained, “A sock fits great, feels snug, goes unnoticed, and you get no irritation… So the idea was, how do you engineer a sock into a high-performance shoe?” In order to get this product to the shelves, Nike had to develop an entirely new way of engineering a shoe design. Just do it? Oh, they did.

• Ask yourself: How can my customers help me innovate things THEY want?

Trendsetting in Production

Yet another article from FastCompany highlighted what could possibly be the next wave of trendsetting in publishing. Alan Goldsher wrote and published an e-book on Jeremy Lin in 72 hours. That’s 15,000 words ready-to-read in 72 hours. I’m still scratching my head over the reality of this type of production (no doubt this guy has a Keurig station within arm’s reach), and I think it’s worth noting as more and more consumers will expect their products/services to be produced faster.

• Ask yourself: How can I produce my products/services in a more timely and efficient manner (without sacrificing quality)?

So why highlight these three types of trendsetting? If you emphasize the quality, innovation, and production of your service or product – and if you’re asking the right questions along the way – you’re on the right path to being a trendsetter.

There is, however, one more vital ingredient: selling to the right customer. You need to get your product into the right hands. When asked if one could predict what would become a new trend, Henrik Vejlgaard, author of Anatomy of a Trend, recommended looking to the major cities. Since we’re more focused on trends in marketing and business than in fashion, think to yourself: What are the “major cities” of your business that help spread products to other businesses? The vital customer/hub will be different depending on the business, but it’s your responsibility to figure out who and where they are, and into whose hands you need to get your product.

Although it can seem daunting to think about trendsetting in an age of Apple, Google, and Facebook, it’s important to stay on top of your business and try to be on the forefront of the next big trend.

• What other questions do you think are vital to becoming a trendsetter?
• What other inspiring trendsetting examples have you heard of recently?

Do you Yahoo?

If the numbers are any indication, then you probably don’t – you’ve probably taken your search to Google, your social interaction to Facebook, and your entertainment to YouTube. Over the last few years, Yahoo! has been floundering to find its identity, to say the least.

Enter new CEO Scott Thompson (former executive of PayPal) to save the day. His previous experiences make him an odd choice for a company turnaround: he’s been a product manager instead of a media executive, he helped a small-but-healthy business grow – but has no experience turning around a flagging business, and he unabashedly confessed to knowing barely anything about advertising. And yet he is the chosen one to relaunch the suffering search engine company – he is the one responsible for branding Yahoo! with a new identity.

And what will that identity be, exactly?

It’s hard to say, but Yahoo! seems to be focusing its efforts on online entertainment. The close of 2011 brought announcements of partnerships with Bill Maher and Funny or Die comedic videos, as well as launching original video content. A few days ago, Yahoo! also reported their sponsorship of the Sundance Festival – mainly by partnering with the festival to air 12 short films on their website.

So, judging from the recent press releases, I gather Yahoo is re-branding itself as… an online media giant? …a social-networking culture hub? …generally cool and relevant? Or… what? To be honest, I can’t really make heads or tails of their re-branding scheme, and I think that’s a problem. There’s no clear indication of the direction the company is heading in, and I’m fairly certain the audience they’re attempting to reach out to (the young, hip, “YouTube generation”, I presume?) won’t be taking this [vaguely positioned] bait.

And not to beat a dead horse, but doesn’t this seem all-too-familiar? –A little too much like Yahoo! re-branding déjà vu?

Need I remind everyone of former Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz – who, with her ascent to executive power, brought a massive re-branding campaign to Yahoo in 2009? The “Y!ou” campaign sought to humanize the company – playing off of the rise of me-centric internet browsing (made popular, if not invented, by Facebook). That campaign made much more sense than the current one: it was streamlined, seemed relevant, and was bound to work.

Except it didn’t.

So why does Yahoo! think their current re-branding efforts will work? What’s the difference?

If they’re hoping for a new audience from the Sundance folks, they’re probably out of luck. YouTube partnered with Sundance only two years ago, allowing viewers to watch full-length Sundance films on streaming during the festival events. The films chosen were obscure, the audience drawn in was smaller than anticipated, and YouTube has chosen not to partner again with Sundance in this way. If YouTube – an internet giant with branding built on online videos – couldn’t snag the hipster Sundance audience, how will Yahoo! attempt this feat? Unless Yahoo! has some blockbuster short films up their sleeve (does such a thing exist?), it seems doubtful that the Sundance partnership will do much, if anything, to turn the company around.

Yahoo! keeps missing the mark on re-branding because they are failing to capitalize on their current strengths. The fact is that they still get 700 million visitors each month as an online leader in news and sports. They would do better making efforts to become innovators in the world of online news – to re-brand themselves as a “trusted online news source.” They should attempt to cater to their current audience – perhaps offering specialized sports programming, such as the UFC (which, with 50% of their audience between the ages of 21 and 34, is just the type of demographic Yahoo! seems to be coveting[i]).

Instead of focusing on completely changing their identity, Yahoo! should stick to what they’re already doing that’s working – and bump it up a notch. Attempting to copy Facebook and YouTube (or trying to make a new hybrid) is not smart re-branding. The mistake here is that their overhaul will leave people scratching their heads, wondering why exactly they should even consider using Yahoo! in the first place.

Listen, I’m interested to see how this all plays out. Maybe there will be a sudden resurgence of loyalty for Yahoo!… but it doesn’t seem likely. Unless and until we see a miraculous turnaround for the company, there a few re-branding lessons we can take away from this whole situation:

• Innovate – Don’t Copy: Facebook and YouTube became internet giants because they offered something new to the internet consumer. The reality is that, for the time being, they are ahead of the game. Unless your company can offer something truly new to these audiences, don’t attempt to become a copycat. Instead, find a new way to deliver what your company has to offer. Simplify it, humanize it, and streamline it.
   
• Know and Capitalize on Your Strengths: Yahoo! has an audience through its news and sports offerings, and yet they seem to be ignoring this strength staring them in the face. The only justification (if you can call it that) for this is that they must not realize their strength in this area. Don’t follow suit. Figure out who your best and real audience is, what they want, and then give it to them – pronto!
   
• Make Re-branding Clear and Focused: Let’s say you’ve come to the conclusion that you must completely overhaul your company’s branding. Fine, but make it clear. Don’t be vague, and don’t be irrelevant. Re-market your brand in such a way that anyone who sees your company’s logo and messaging will know exactly why they need you.

What do you think of Yahoo’s recent re-branding strategy?

How would you re-brand the company?

Who is your target audience?

No, really – who are they? What are they tweeting about? What are they searching for? Why are they using your services in the first place?

If you don’t know the answer to those questions, then you may want to pay close attention to the wisdom of Wil Reynolds, CEO of SEER Interactive, a leading SEO and search marketing firm in Philadelphia. If you haven’t done so yet, I highly recommend checking out the full interview with Wil. I already wrote about the Five Guidelines for Using Twitter for customer service, but since there is so much covered in this video (and since I realize you might not have the time to sit and watch it right now), I thought I’d highlight another great segment about the importance of social marketing and knowing (read: interacting with, solving problems for, hearing stories from, etc.) your target audience.

While supporting a small start-up company, Wil decided to get creative with his search strategies. His client had developed software that helped locate lost phones. So Wil typed something in Twitter’s search field – simply, “Lost my phone.” What he found was that every ten minutes, someone worldwide was tweeting the phrase, “Lost my phone.” So now that little start-up company can tweet back and forth with potential customers.

Here’s how:

Let’s say you’re part of that company – with software that wipes a customer’s phone clean if it does get lost. You can type in “Lost my phone,” or “Lost my contacts” (which actually gets typed in every 3-4 minutes on Twitter worldwide), and connect instantly with the (potential) customer. The conversation might go something like this:

   You:   “So, you lost your phone?”
Them:   “Yes, it really stinks.”
   You:   “You know, we have an app you can download to your phone remotely so that no one can use your contacts.”
Them:   “Really?? How can I get it?” (presumably, after they find their phone, this time)

The bottom line is that if your company is stuck on solely using search (i.e. Google) to get people to your site and product, you’re missing a real opportunity to connect. People are telling their friends about a need before they are searching for a product, so you’d better be on Twitter to see that search and find your customers.

How will you know it’s working? If you’re just trying it out, put someone (relatively inexpensive, such as an intern) on Twitter for one day, responding to every single tweet about [insert your company’s niche here]. If you see that more people have acquired your services from Twitter that one day, try it again on another day. And let the numbers speak for themselves. If you have more customers coming to you from Twitter, then you know you’ve reached your target-rich audience.

How have you connected with your target audience? What are your proven strategies?

Why is it that big companies tend to keep their customers at arm’s length? Instead of taking suggestions, a lot of times companies get cocky and decide what their customers want instead of asking what their customers want. This can create major problems, as we’ve seen before.

On the other hand, there are some companies making great strides to not only connect with their customers, but to involve their customers.

One perfect example of this is My Starbucks Idea, an online forum where Starbucks customers can suggest ways to improve their “Starbucks experience,” as the company likes to say. Starbucks then lists all the ideas that come from their customers. Even if you don’t submit an idea, you have the sense that Starbucks cares.

The same goes for Keurig. Here is another company that is catering to the customer, with great results. Last week, I talked about the I³ qualities apparent in Keurig’s single-cup brewer. Since this company is an intriguing case (and since not much has been written up about them yet on the blogosphere), I wanted to spend one more week looking at Keurig’s next innovation – or, I should say, innovations – keeping in mind that all of these innovations came from customer suggestions.

• Larger Brewer: One of Keurig’s weaknesses is size. Currently, you can only brew, at most, 12 oz. at a time. For someone who tends to order “Venti” sizes, or for someone who merely wants to fill their travel mug with one K-cup, this is a problem. Not to worry, says Keurig, who is rumored to be working on a brewer to accommodate.
• Strong Alliances: Keurig recently announced a partnership with Starbucks and Dunkin Donuts. This is a win/win for Keurig as well as for these companies – customers who only drink DD/Starbucks coffee can now enjoy it in K-cup form, thereby increasing business for both parties. In fact, Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz revealed that “more than 80 percent of current Starbucks customers in the U.S. do not yet own a single-cup brewer,” so this allegiance is bound to bring strong business to Keurig (as well as make Starbucks customers very happy).
• Environmentally-Friendly: In my last post, I brought up the troubling thought about the amount of waste generated, throwing out all those K-cups. What you may not know is that Keurig has already come up with a solution. They’ve introduced a product called My K-Cup – letting people reuse a single pod with the coffee of their choice – which especially makes their greener customers happy.
• Other Instant Beverage Ideas: Keurig has already branched out into the hot chocolate and hot apple cider realm, so what’s next on the docket? Here’s just a few for starters: lattes, cappuccinos, soup, Airborne, and yes, even infant formula. It’s as if the list keeps going. Soon the question will no longer be:
  “WHAT can I get in a K-cup?” — but — “What CAN’T I get in a K-cup?”

So what does Keurig – and all of their innovation – teach those of us who are not in the coffee business? Keurig teaches us that to truly be an I³ business, you must continue to go full-speed-ahead into your market, while never losing focus of your customer base. Keurig and Starbucks teach us that it’s not enough to acknowledge the customer, but to involve the customer.

This seems like a no-brainer, but I’m still amazed at how many companies take their customers’ suggestions for granted. Keurig (and Starbucks, for that matter) has made it their business to give their customers what they want, and it’s paid off. Big time.

• What else do you think we can learn from this ever-growing, ever-innovating world of coffee?
• Have you seen a payoff in your company by listening to your customers’ requests?
• Have you ever been on the other side – have you suggested something to a company, to see them follow through? How did this affect your relationship to the company?
• How are you involving your customers in the trajectory of your business?

It just dawned on me the other day: the Keurig coffee system is everywhere. In my home, in my office, in my clients’ offices, at the gas station, in the convenience store, at the mall – everywhere! It seems that wherever I am, I can look up and see a Keurig single-cup brewing station beckoning me to brew a cup.

Perhaps you’ve experienced this phenomenon. Maybe you could even look up from your computer right this second to glance at a Keurig coffee maker (it wouldn’t surprise me).

But what I want to know is: When did all this happen? When did a seemingly niche-market coffee maker become ubiquitous?

Sometimes in the business world, an idea is so well-anticipated that it’s an instant smash (most anything by Apple, for instance). Other times, you have a product that’s more of a “stealth hit.” The Keurig is just such a stealth hit – slowly creeping its way into our lives and suddenly ruling the coffee world. That’s not hyperbole, either. I truly believe that the Keurig is redefining how we consume coffee, and this is something to pay attention to (especially if you’re selling coffee).

Think about it. Surveys tells us that 73% of coffee in the US is made at home. That’s not news. And Starbucks has thrived in spite of this. However, consumers want what they want, the way they want it, inexpensively – and they want their coffee fast! In hard economic times, superfluous trips to Starbucks are the first to go. Keurig couldn’t have stealthily cornered the market at a better time.

Still not convinced? While in-home coffee maker sales have grown only 1% annually over the last 7-10 years, 2010 total revenue for Keurig brewers hit $330.8 million – a 67% gain over 2009. Developed in 1998, these single-cup coffee systems are now in 7% of households (and this doesn’t include all those offices with these coffee makers – 200,000 office installations in 2010 alone). This is incredible growth for a product introduced 15 years ago!

In fact, Keurig (which, it should be noted, was bought out by Green Mountain Coffee Company in 2006) is staking such a claim on the coffee industry that even Dunkin Donuts and Starbucks are producing K-cups for the brewers. That’s right – the coffee giants are teaming up with the little guy – who, by all accounts, doesn’t appear to be so little any more.

This type of success begs the obvious question:
What did Keurig do right?

That’s actually easier to answer than you might think. You see, Keurig is a near-perfect example of an I³ Value Proposition in action (see related post), and therein lies its success:

• The Keurig is Innovative: The Keurig entrepreneurs took a few simple ideas – that every cup of coffee should be fresh, and that everyone should choose what type of coffee they want, whenever they want – and made it happen in a clearly innovative way. The innovation was in the engineering to make these objectives easily attainable.
   
• The Keurig is Indispensable: With 2.5 million Keurig beverages made each day, I think we can safely conclude that the K-cup is indispensable to its owners – a part of their everyday lives.
   
• The Keurig is Inspirational: Keurig has come up with the type of product that consumers (and business professionals) are consistently interested in – even after using it day in and day out. I can easily marvel out loud at a Keurig in action, in any office – and have those around me join in. This is after we’ve all seen it do its thing hundreds of times. It’s still a “wow!”

So what’s next? We know they’ve made a great product, as well as countless great cups of coffee – but what will this niche coffee giant come up with next? Also – isn’t there an environmental concern with all those K-cups?

More thoughts on that next time…

Meanwhile:

• Is Keurig just dominating in-home coffee maker sales – or will it begin to impact Starbucks and other destination shops?
• How else do you think Keurig has changed the coffee business in the last ten years?
• Do you use a single-cup brewing system at home or at the office?
• What other “I³” ideas do you see cornering their markets?

It’s pretty obvious that using Twitter is a smart customer service tactic. In mere moments, your company can connect one-on-one with your customer – solving their problems and building their trust. Twitter can be an invaluable humanization tool for your disposal, if you know how to use it.

In a recent interview with Seer Interactive CEO Wil Reynolds, he tells of his personal customer service disaster story with a large and popular airline. When he needed help on the check-in website, Reynolds sent a tweet to their customer service handle on Twitter. As he awaited a response, he noticed that many others were tweeting with similar concerns. Instead of responding to countless customer concerns, the customer service Twitter account only responded to celebrity Star Jones. Immediately, what this airline communicated to their customers was that they weren’t important. It didn’t matter how many thousands of miles Reynolds had flown with them; he wasn’t a “celebrity”, and so he didn’t matter to them.

Don’t let this scenario happen to your company. Before you decide to take your customer service to Twitter, here are five guidelines to consider:

1. Make it a Policy: Don’t just assume people know how to act online. Before you throw an employee out into the live and interactive world-wide-web, make sure you have a policy on their conduct, and the way they represent your company.
    
2. Make Hours Apparent: Only respond to tweets within the confines of your business hours, and make sure your hours are explicitly shown on your Twitter profile page. If you inform your customer when you are and aren’t there, they won’t feel ignored when you don’t answer right away. It also protects your company from seeming cold (by not responding) or inconsistent (by sometimes-but-not-always responding at 8 pm).
    
3. Make It Real: Automated responses don’t cut it. The customers are too savvy for that, and they won’t grow to trust your brand through automated responses. Educate your employees so that they know exactly how to respond – in word and in deed.
    
4. Make the Responses Happen: Make sure you have enough people working on the account in order to respond to every customer concern – no matter if they’ve used your company once, a thousand times, or if they are (or aren’t) a celebrity. As Reynolds points out, if your employee is only able to respond to one out of three tweets, it’s time to hire more people. Every tweet directed “@” you must be answered, or it’s not worth doing.
    
5. Make It Actionable: Ensure that your employees can respond in actionable ways. It’s not enough to simply say, “I’m sorry that’s not working.” You have to take it to the next level and be able to say, “I’m sorry that’s not working; here’s what we’re going to do for you.”

A company that is engaging with people and helping them solve their problems is seen as a company that people trust and want to use. Your customers become your personal advocates. The reputation you build through social media interaction has a payoff.

How have you seen social media (and Twitter in particular) hurt or help a business?

Are you currently using a social media platform to address customer service needs?

Wil Reynolds is Founder and CEO of Seer Interactive, a leading SEO and search marketing firm in Philadelphia.

Over the past 11 years, Wil Reynolds has dedicated himself to doing two things well: driving traffic to sites from search engines and analyzing the impact that traffic has on the bottom line of companies. Wil’s career began at a web marketing agency in 1999, where he spearheaded the SEO strategies for companies that included Barnes & Noble, Disney, Harman Kardon, Debeers, Doubleclick, Hotjobs, and Mercedes Benz USA (to name a few). Although the internet bubble burst, Wil’s passion for web marketing has always been strong. Wil founded SEER Interactive in 2002.

I’ve written before about the lessons we can learn from Research In Motion’s failure to keep ahead of their market (and we all saw how the market reacted to Netflix’s little flub), but with 2011 now behind us, I think there are some lessons worth revisiting.

Let’s take a closer look at two companies that were clearly top players: Research In Motion (RIM), once again, and American Airlines. Notice: the key word in that sentence is, “were.”

Here’s the bottom line, and the biggest lesson we’ve learned from 2011: even though you may be on top, it doesn’t mean you’re invincible. The problem with rising to the top is getting too arrogant – too cocky – and not bothering to maintain your competitive edge. We saw this hubris clearly displayed by RIM and American Airlines.

RIM taught us that even though you may be on top – even though you were the first in your industry to release a groundbreaking product – it doesn’t mean you can get away with releasing bad products. The customers are too smart for that, and they will take their smartphone business somewhere else (and, in fact, they have).

American Airlines taught us that it doesn’t always pay to be the lone wolf, and that there is safety in numbers. In the wake of a faltering airline business, we saw two great mergers: United and Continental, and Delta and Northwest. While the other major airlines combined forces, American tried to tough it out alone… And they failed: AMR went from being the largest airline in the US to small potatoes, barely eking in at third place behind the other major carriers.

What were the underlying culprits behind such poor business decisions? What were the causes that issued these companies their death sentences? Without being on the inside, it’s hard to say, but we can certainly take heed of the warnings in these tales of woe.

1) Stay On Your Game (Don’t Be Lazy)

When you’re on top, you could easily buy into the lie that you’ve done the work, and now is your time to reap the rewards. Not so fast. This is an ever-changing, dynamically-demanding world. Every day, technology is evolving and customers want the newest and flashiest technology available (e.g., iPhone 4S). If you decide to take a break from researching and releasing groundbreaking products, expect the customers to take a break from you (and possibly never return).

2) Stay In Your Game (Don’t Lose Touch with Your Market)

While the rest of the world was rapidly moving to touch screens, RIM was releasing the same old models. What’s more, they weren’t even good models. The promised QNX-based smartphones have been delayed twice, and RIM’s customers (and stockholders) are rapidly losing hope. Failure to keep your head in the game – and pay attention to what your competitors are doing and what your customers want – will cost you your competitive edge, your stockholders, and your customers.

3) Gather Your Allies (Don’t Be Afraid to Ask for Help)

All seemed hopeless for the airline industry until the two mergers were announced. Combining forces was the way to go, but American Airlines missed out. Either they thought they were untouchable in this market, or they just missed the boat. In either case, it’s better to ask for help than file for bankruptcy. Allowing your past success to cloud your current judgement might result in the collapse of your company.

4) Treat People With Respect (Don’t Forget the People that Make Your Business Run)

When you’re on top, it’s an easy trap to start thinking of yourself as better than the people who work for you. American Airlines went into tense negotiations with their pilots, and the reality is that how you treat your staff translates into how your staff treats your customers (i.e., not well). So not only was AMR receiving bad press from filing for Chapter 11, but now they were playing the “bad guys” in the battle with their own staff. Not a great move. When you’re calling the shots in a company, make sure you respect the people who work for you; they are a huge part of the reason you’re succeeding, and should be treated as such.

So as we get into the swing of 2012, take these lessons from 2011 to heart. As a business leader, it’s your job to say “when” – when to jump ahead of your market, when to protect your business, and when to show your customers/employees/stockholders you appreciate them. But, as we witnessed through various companies in the past year, just make sure you say “when” before it’s too late.

We’re all familiar with this story.

A business is at the top of its game, makes a trajectory-decision based on an assumption, and subsequently misses the mark. In this case, the business is Netflix, the assumption was about its customer base, and – as we all witnessed (and were perhaps, as Netflix customers, privy to the news via e-mail) – Netflix missed the mark.

A year ago, if anyone had said that within the span of one month, Netflix would lose 800,000 customers and its stock would plummet, that person would have been laughed out of the “society of business punditry.” Netflix was the game-changer of how people consumed movies – arguably responsible for the closure of Blockbuster Videos around the country, as well as much of the Internet’s traffic. There was basically no current competition for Netflix; the business was at the top, gaining two-plus million new customers every quarter. Things were golden, until…

…until a haphazard blog post announced a price hike of 60%.
…until CEO Reed Hastings issued a disarmingly casual “I-messed-up” e-mail.
…until they decided to split the service into two different services
     (instant streaming staying as Netflix, and “Qwikster” for DVDs by mail).
…until they retracted that decision.

Netflix had a good business model. They had loyal customers. They had happy stockholders.

What went wrong?

First: Netflix made an assumption about their customer base, and this assumption was egregiously incorrect. They assumed that their customers were passionate enough about Netflix to stick by the business – that no matter what, these customers wanted their movies and would continue to use Netflix’s services. Although Netflix was right about their customers being passionate, they didn’t realize the passion would be railed against the company itself. In response to a price hike and change of services, Netflix’s customer base passionately informed the company of their disappointment and disapproval, and 800,000 of them jumped ship.

Second: Netflix employed poor communication and execution of the changes in service. Whether or not the new business model was good or necessary is one thing, but the way Netflix both announced and unveiled the changes fell short of their game. The announcement of changes first came through a seemingly slap-it-together blog post late at night, which sent the Internet ablaze in fury. Then Reed Hastings sent out an e-mail one might expect from a college buddy rather than the CEO of a company.

Finally, they retracted their decisions within a month of the first announcement. In the meantime, amidst all of these embarrassing communication flubs, the Qwikster website was not ready when the service launched, and the Twitter account was already in use by a drug-using teenager with foul language. All in all, the launch was sloppy. It seemed uncoordinated – like a last-minute decision gone awry.

We could spend all day disputing and defending the good and the bad and the ugly of Netflix’s recent business decisions, but I’m more interested in discussing the implications every business can take from this situation.

So what can we learn here?

What we can learn is that when you’re on top – when you’ve positioned yourself as a leader in your market, even if its just your local market – each decision must be well thought out (and hopefully the right one).

In the fast changing business world of today, it’s sometimes necessary to make drastic changes to a working business model. But before you are ready to go to the presses (or your customers) with these changes, make sure the model is carefully thought through in minute detail. Not analysis paralysis – but at least a thorough vetting with trusted voices. You have to at least try to do everything right or don’t do it at all.

If you are going to make business decisions based on assumptions, make sure they are the right assumptions. Validate them. Test them. Make sure you have the data to back it up before you go ahead and change your business model.

Once you have your facts in place, make sure you communicate well to all affected stakeholders. When you’ve amassed a loyal customer base, you need to keep them by respecting them, and respect comes through how you communicate. When all of these factors are set in place, ensure that your new business model is ready to launch from all sides of the company. You can’t cut corners – the market is too demanding and too connected for that.

Recently, there’s been lots of news covering Research in Motion, the Canadian-based company behind Blackberry. Although Blackberry has entered the lexicon as a standard reference to smart phones – frequently referred to in movies, TV shows, etc. – the reality is that for the last five years, Blackberry has been losing market share, and losing its position as the definer of email-enabled phones to iPhones and Android.

What must be particularly galling to Research in Motion, more so than the iPhone’s success – which was a truly groundbreaking product (which RIM tried to imitate with their touch product) – is the onslaught of Android, coming at the market from a completely different angle and making major headway. All in all, it has not been a good couple of years for Research in Motion.

So, what’s the lesson here for us?

Well, there are a couple. One is that when trends start shifting, you have to look down the road to see what’s really going on, and what you might need to do to respond.

The fundamental problem with the iPhone being better than the Blackberry was that it wasn’t really better, at least by many measures. Some people prefer a physical keyboard. Some people thought (and for a while it was quite true) that for corporate networks, Blackberry email had much more advanced security than Apple’s initial offering, and more so than Google’s Android system.

Where Research in Motion dropped the ball for Blackberry, however, was not looking at the trajectory of things. What was happening was that people were taking to the touch model very easily, and so that became a major new trend. Secondly and perhaps more importantly, they were looking at the empowerment of a large screen. Third, consumers become almost instantly enamored with having an almost infinite array of creative applications at their fingertips. So in many ways, the App Store and all the things related to customizing your experience were what set apart the iPhone, and later Android-based phones.

Look down the road at where your competitors are going. This is especially true in a highly-competitive market, and particularly if you are a leader in a category. Do not be dismissive of what the new competitor’s bringing to the table. Instead, ask yourself, What really changes, if I could fast-forward where they’re taking this? What is possible? What has been impossible for us, but maybe is possible for this new model – and can we adapt? Can we “join in”?

Without asking those questions – and it’s not likely that RIM’s executive suite were asking those questions, because that’s what happens when you’re on top – it’s easy to look down your nose at everything else that’s coming. It’s easy to only see the deficiencies of those players, missing where their strengths could develop, given enough time.

Given that this was Apple and later, Google, entering the market, it was arrogant to be dismissive of their ability to hammer away at a potential advantage, and make it the actual point of differentiation of their value proposition.

Apple didn’t just represent email, but functionally – from a user interface point of view – better email, and not just phone, but equal phone capabilities. The iPhone doesn’t just have download-able widgets – which Blackberry already had in some interesting little applications – but formed an entire ecosystem of completely flexible applications, that would not feel like, look like, or function like everything else that was previously available.

It was truly groundbreaking stuff, which of course is Apple’s strength. For all of us not competing against an Apple-caliber corporation, there still is a lesson to be learned about really “fast-forwarding” your competitors’ advantages to Where does that leave us – one-, three-, five years from now?