I know there are many worse things in the world but it really irritates me when I see spelling and grammatical errors.
I was in a petrol station last week where a sign said that they were going to be closing for ‘maintenence’. The same day I found a shop that was looking for someone who could work ‘flexable’ hours. These were produced on a PC so what’s the excuse for not doing a spell check? Worse still, I saw an ad for one of BT’s business services on a website which promised they would ‘moniter’ activities.
There is a renowned Press Officer at a Midlands concert venue who has made an art form out of sloppiness. He/she recently referred to Foden's Richardson Band as Foden Richardsons Brass Band and The Foden’s Richardson Brass Band, both in the same press release, but never by the correct name. It’s a Council-owned venue so I assume their Equal Opportunities Policy extends to not discriminating against people who can’t copy the words in front of them.
This may all seem a little anally retentive in our 'let everyone do their own thing' world but there is a serious point. A lot of us do care about spelling and grammar, therefore when a business gets it wrong, it undermines our confidence that the company will get other more important things right.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Monday, January 29, 2007
iTunes Pricing Makes No Marketing Sense
You have to respect Apple- they clearly know a thing or two about marketing- but I really don’t understand their iTunes pricing policy. It makes no sense to me to price everything the same- every song 79p, every album (with rare exceptions) £7.90.
I can only think the strange kind of monopoly they have means they feel they can ignore basic principles of pricing as a marketing tool. Or maybe it’s because they operate in cyberspace where, with no physical stock, they don’t have the problem of being stuck with piles of unsold CDs.
Normally you would expect to offer a special low price on a new popular product so that you shift higher volumes at a lower profit. You might charge a higher price for something less popular because you are only moving small numbers and therefore cost per unit is relatively high. And of course you always want to knock out dead stock at bargain prices. None of this applies if everything takes up the same space on the server and costs the same to sell. On the other hand, wouldn’t a bit of price cutting help increase turnover?
That’s just looking at iTunes from a marketing perspective. CDs are often cheaper or more expensive because of the level of royalties payable or the promotional costs- hence some incredibly cheap re-issues of old recordings. How does this affect the business model of the record companies if every itunes sale yields the same return?
From a consumer’s point of view, how can Apple justify charging the same for a song which is out of copyright as one which is paying massive royalties to the recording artist? And, since cyberspace is so cheap, how do they have the nerve to charge £7.90 for an album which you could have in your hands and with a nice booklet for perhaps £8.99, when they incur none of the production, storage, distribution and sales staff costs associated with discs? We British may feel particularly aggrieved when you consider that in the US you pay 99 cents a track whereas in the UK you pay the equivalent of $1.50.
To a marketing person like me, this is adding injury to insult.
I can only think the strange kind of monopoly they have means they feel they can ignore basic principles of pricing as a marketing tool. Or maybe it’s because they operate in cyberspace where, with no physical stock, they don’t have the problem of being stuck with piles of unsold CDs.
Normally you would expect to offer a special low price on a new popular product so that you shift higher volumes at a lower profit. You might charge a higher price for something less popular because you are only moving small numbers and therefore cost per unit is relatively high. And of course you always want to knock out dead stock at bargain prices. None of this applies if everything takes up the same space on the server and costs the same to sell. On the other hand, wouldn’t a bit of price cutting help increase turnover?
That’s just looking at iTunes from a marketing perspective. CDs are often cheaper or more expensive because of the level of royalties payable or the promotional costs- hence some incredibly cheap re-issues of old recordings. How does this affect the business model of the record companies if every itunes sale yields the same return?
From a consumer’s point of view, how can Apple justify charging the same for a song which is out of copyright as one which is paying massive royalties to the recording artist? And, since cyberspace is so cheap, how do they have the nerve to charge £7.90 for an album which you could have in your hands and with a nice booklet for perhaps £8.99, when they incur none of the production, storage, distribution and sales staff costs associated with discs? We British may feel particularly aggrieved when you consider that in the US you pay 99 cents a track whereas in the UK you pay the equivalent of $1.50.
To a marketing person like me, this is adding injury to insult.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Open The Envelope
I nearly threw away the mailing that arrived covered in information about the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. I’m in favour of charitable giving but I already give to many other worthy causes. It was only my amusement at their fundraising event's title- Save Our Soles (say it out loud) that made me open the envelope. Imagine my surprise to find it was actually a mailing from the Chartered Institute of Marketing.
I expect it was a charitable gesture that encouraged the CIM to let the RNLI provide the envelopes but (and I'm finding it quite exciting to be critcising the CIM for poor marketing) it was a mistake. Effective mailings start with the envelope.
If you want to support Save Our Soles day, go to rnlisos.org.uk
I expect it was a charitable gesture that encouraged the CIM to let the RNLI provide the envelopes but (and I'm finding it quite exciting to be critcising the CIM for poor marketing) it was a mistake. Effective mailings start with the envelope.
If you want to support Save Our Soles day, go to rnlisos.org.uk
Saturday, January 20, 2007
Who Wins The Big Brother PR Battle- You Decide!
What japes in the Big Brother house!
From a marketing point of view, who are the winners and losers?
Channel 4, worried that BB is losing its lustre, brought in Jade Goody, BB’s most famous housemate, and family to liven up the programme. It began to backfire when she so alienated Ken Russell that he walked out. Then there was a predictable argument over food (we regular BB viewers know food is always a flash point). Faced with declining viewing figures, C4 exploited the row for all it’s worth. However they probably didn’t expect the slanging match and bullying that have been a regular feature on BB through the years to turn into a global controversy on racism. As a result, BB is back on the front pages and they have gained viewing figures. These are probably short term gains. On the other hand, they've lost their £3 million sponsor and they've been condemned by politicians and other more sincere people. Storm in a teacup perhaps. Still, they have lived on the edge with this programme for some time, using controversy as their main PR weapon. This time they got their comeuppance.
Jade has exploited her persona for all it’s worth. She’s become a tabloid favourite, featured in minor TV programmes and sold a successful perfume. She might have thought that re-entering the house would put her back on the front pages and mainstream TV, and set the seal on her celebrity. Unfortunately for her, the ignorance and naivety that made her so appealing showed their dark side in the charged atmosphere of the BB house, when she was seen bullying Shilpa. (Though not a racist, I think. Given her uncontrolled language generally, I am sure that, if she was, racist pejoratives would have slipped out of her mouth.) She's been evicted with 82% of the vote, her scent is off the shelves at Debenhams, her apology appears forced and she is a hate figure.
Shilpa Shetty, unheard of outside of India and the Bollywood fanbase, decided to gain exposure in the UK by appearing on BB. She was calm and dignified in the face of bullying from Jade. She got sympathy from a British public that is fair-minded and likes underdogs and she has become a household name in the UK. Western film contracts will no doubt follow. Mission accomplished beyond her wildest dreams.
The winner is Shilpa Shetty.
From a marketing point of view, who are the winners and losers?
Channel 4, worried that BB is losing its lustre, brought in Jade Goody, BB’s most famous housemate, and family to liven up the programme. It began to backfire when she so alienated Ken Russell that he walked out. Then there was a predictable argument over food (we regular BB viewers know food is always a flash point). Faced with declining viewing figures, C4 exploited the row for all it’s worth. However they probably didn’t expect the slanging match and bullying that have been a regular feature on BB through the years to turn into a global controversy on racism. As a result, BB is back on the front pages and they have gained viewing figures. These are probably short term gains. On the other hand, they've lost their £3 million sponsor and they've been condemned by politicians and other more sincere people. Storm in a teacup perhaps. Still, they have lived on the edge with this programme for some time, using controversy as their main PR weapon. This time they got their comeuppance.
Jade has exploited her persona for all it’s worth. She’s become a tabloid favourite, featured in minor TV programmes and sold a successful perfume. She might have thought that re-entering the house would put her back on the front pages and mainstream TV, and set the seal on her celebrity. Unfortunately for her, the ignorance and naivety that made her so appealing showed their dark side in the charged atmosphere of the BB house, when she was seen bullying Shilpa. (Though not a racist, I think. Given her uncontrolled language generally, I am sure that, if she was, racist pejoratives would have slipped out of her mouth.) She's been evicted with 82% of the vote, her scent is off the shelves at Debenhams, her apology appears forced and she is a hate figure.
Shilpa Shetty, unheard of outside of India and the Bollywood fanbase, decided to gain exposure in the UK by appearing on BB. She was calm and dignified in the face of bullying from Jade. She got sympathy from a British public that is fair-minded and likes underdogs and she has become a household name in the UK. Western film contracts will no doubt follow. Mission accomplished beyond her wildest dreams.
The winner is Shilpa Shetty.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
I Don't Want To Be A Producer
I was sorry to see that The Producers has closed in London after two years. 920 performances is respectable but nothing like the run of its Broadway cousin, now in its seventh year. I’ve seen both versions and found them equally slick and funny.
Lyn Gardner was backstage on the last night and wrote an informative piece in The Guardian. She blames the size of the venue (Theatre Royal Drury Lane has 2200 seats) for its relatively early demise. I agree that filling all the seats in a large theatre can be a problem. I always felt Disney’s Beauty And The Beast deserved a much longer London run but the huge Dominion did for it. Well established productions like Phantom or Les Mis often move to smaller venues- and the producers of The Producers did consider this- but early in a run production costs need to be paid back quickly and, when you’re talking about a multi-million pound musical spectacular, you can only hope to do this if you’re occupying a large theatre.
On the other hand, maybe a spoof on putting on a Broadway show doesn’t have the same appeal to British audiences as to Americans. We’ll have to see how well sales go for the superb Spamalot which covers similar ground.
Still, there’s always the tour. Those provincials who didn’t make the perilous trip to the capital now have the chance to enjoy The Producers nearer to home.
Lyn Gardner was backstage on the last night and wrote an informative piece in The Guardian. She blames the size of the venue (Theatre Royal Drury Lane has 2200 seats) for its relatively early demise. I agree that filling all the seats in a large theatre can be a problem. I always felt Disney’s Beauty And The Beast deserved a much longer London run but the huge Dominion did for it. Well established productions like Phantom or Les Mis often move to smaller venues- and the producers of The Producers did consider this- but early in a run production costs need to be paid back quickly and, when you’re talking about a multi-million pound musical spectacular, you can only hope to do this if you’re occupying a large theatre.
On the other hand, maybe a spoof on putting on a Broadway show doesn’t have the same appeal to British audiences as to Americans. We’ll have to see how well sales go for the superb Spamalot which covers similar ground.
Still, there’s always the tour. Those provincials who didn’t make the perilous trip to the capital now have the chance to enjoy The Producers nearer to home.
Sunday, January 07, 2007
Why Market To People Who Aren't Interested?
You know all those Arts Council inspired initiatives to bring classical music, opera and ballet to a wider audience? Like doing more contemporary work or offering cheap tickets or putting on educational evenings. Do you think they work? A report from America suggests many audience development initiatives may be a waste of public funds.
The James S and John L Knight Foundation spent $13 million in ten years funding schemes to attract new audiences to 15 US Symphony Orchestras. What they found was that free concerts in more ‘accessible’ venues, putting the musicians in jeans or doing educational work, all failed to increase the number of tickets sold.
It’s not that people don’t like classical music. 60% of adults claimed they did, but fewer than 5% went to live concerts. These days classical music lovers prefer to listen to recordings or the radio. Free concerts attracted an audience but didn’t convert them into ticket buyers. It seems the vast majority don’t want to pay big money for a long concert in a large concert hall.
Is this so bad? Times do change and maybe we should accept change. Theatre and Popular Music has coped with the rise of cinema, television and recordings by providing audiences with large-scale spectaculars with a unique ‘wow’ factor and at the other end of the scale small-scale performances of unique intimacy.
Ballet, Opera and Classical Music have an audience and can appeal to newcomers who appreciate their qualities, but all the great ballets, operas and symphonies were written over a hundred years ago and, at least in live versions, they’re limited in their appeal to a 21st audience.
When I worked more with arts companies, it was frustrating to see them spend money on audience development projects that were clearly ‘hoops’ they were being put through to justify their funding, when I wanted to spend it on more marketing to the known audience. Get them to come more often and to spread the word.
I enjoy many pre-20th century works performed live and I’m grateful to the Arts Council for subsidising my pleasure. But I accept I’m in a small minority. Audience development projects are just guilt money because so much public funding is being used to provide entertainment for a well-heeled middle class elite.
The James S and John L Knight Foundation spent $13 million in ten years funding schemes to attract new audiences to 15 US Symphony Orchestras. What they found was that free concerts in more ‘accessible’ venues, putting the musicians in jeans or doing educational work, all failed to increase the number of tickets sold.
It’s not that people don’t like classical music. 60% of adults claimed they did, but fewer than 5% went to live concerts. These days classical music lovers prefer to listen to recordings or the radio. Free concerts attracted an audience but didn’t convert them into ticket buyers. It seems the vast majority don’t want to pay big money for a long concert in a large concert hall.
Is this so bad? Times do change and maybe we should accept change. Theatre and Popular Music has coped with the rise of cinema, television and recordings by providing audiences with large-scale spectaculars with a unique ‘wow’ factor and at the other end of the scale small-scale performances of unique intimacy.
Ballet, Opera and Classical Music have an audience and can appeal to newcomers who appreciate their qualities, but all the great ballets, operas and symphonies were written over a hundred years ago and, at least in live versions, they’re limited in their appeal to a 21st audience.
When I worked more with arts companies, it was frustrating to see them spend money on audience development projects that were clearly ‘hoops’ they were being put through to justify their funding, when I wanted to spend it on more marketing to the known audience. Get them to come more often and to spread the word.
I enjoy many pre-20th century works performed live and I’m grateful to the Arts Council for subsidising my pleasure. But I accept I’m in a small minority. Audience development projects are just guilt money because so much public funding is being used to provide entertainment for a well-heeled middle class elite.
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
How The Grinch Stole Broadway
Interesting article by Robert Simonson in the US publication Playbill about the success of the seasonal Broadway production How The Grinch Stole Christmas. In the two weeks of mid-December, its sales beat the current market leader Wicked, filling 96% of capacity.
How did they do it? The target audience was families and in this case that means Mum, who usually makes the decisions on family theatre choices. Thom Miller, the producers’ vice president of marketing, who is a mother herself, explains, "In my opinion, moms are the busiest people on the planet but, also, moms are the hardest people to reach. For Broadway shows, and especially family shows, they're the ones who make the decisions.
“We try to reach Moms throughout their daily life by traditional and non-traditional means. Of course, we do radio and print advertising. We strategically buy in newspapers that we think moms will read. We also partner with a lot of media and transit partners—the Long Island Railroad, New Jersey Transit, the MTA."
Taking their lead from the hugley successful Radio City Christmas Spectacular, they also run eight shows at the weekend, starting with 11a.m. and finishing with an 8p.m. for the older kids. Prices are lower than the typical Broadway musical to attract families rather than couples.
How did they do it? The target audience was families and in this case that means Mum, who usually makes the decisions on family theatre choices. Thom Miller, the producers’ vice president of marketing, who is a mother herself, explains, "In my opinion, moms are the busiest people on the planet but, also, moms are the hardest people to reach. For Broadway shows, and especially family shows, they're the ones who make the decisions.
“We try to reach Moms throughout their daily life by traditional and non-traditional means. Of course, we do radio and print advertising. We strategically buy in newspapers that we think moms will read. We also partner with a lot of media and transit partners—the Long Island Railroad, New Jersey Transit, the MTA."
Taking their lead from the hugley successful Radio City Christmas Spectacular, they also run eight shows at the weekend, starting with 11a.m. and finishing with an 8p.m. for the older kids. Prices are lower than the typical Broadway musical to attract families rather than couples.
Monday, January 01, 2007
How To Market Yourself Out Of Existence
Around Christmas, I seemed to be getting an email from HMV every other day- on one occasion there were three emails in my inbox. It's probably not a coincidence that the other day I read that their shops' seasonal sales are disappointing. I sympathise with them but bombarding their customers with sales emails is not the answer. It's an abuse of the permission I gave them to email and, like others before them, they'll probably find it backfires.
The maximum I want to hear from even my favourite businesses is once a week and then only if they have something interesting to say. i-tunes tell me weekly what's new and I'm grateful. Play.com (my favourite online CD/DVD site) mail me every couple of weeks or so and that's even better. Email me too often and I'll do what I've done to HMV- unsubscribe!
The maximum I want to hear from even my favourite businesses is once a week and then only if they have something interesting to say. i-tunes tell me weekly what's new and I'm grateful. Play.com (my favourite online CD/DVD site) mail me every couple of weeks or so and that's even better. Email me too often and I'll do what I've done to HMV- unsubscribe!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)