July 14, 2004
The Code is Dead, Long Live the Code
by D'Anne Hotchkiss

The UPC has a successor, the 13-digit EAN (European Article Numbering) code. The succession is barely a blip on the Information Age radar. What's really remarkable 30 years hence the advent of bar coding is the level of data sharing that happens now between customers and suppliers.

Early UPC adopters saw the potential for reducing labor costs and improving accuracy of information within a company, thus giving users a cost-saving edge over non-users. (Steve Lohr's article in Monday's New York Times (free registration required) is a concise history of UPC and why EAN is succeeding it.) Today, automatic data collection is part and parcel of every company's operating scheme.

Over the past 10 years, the two sides have gone a few rounds, voicing fears over a change in the balance of power in what amounted to open admission that customers regularly beat up on their suppliers and that suppliers regularly adjust prices according to who wants to know. It was let the buyer beware vs. he who pays the piper calls the tune.

Today, the two sides have made great strides in playing nicely together, eagerly adopting the nextgen version of bar codes, RFID, with its ability to encode considerably more data and to transmit it automatically. Today, privacy-concerned consumers are the ones who voice fears over what it might mean to share data with "the other side." Time will tell, but my guess is there's more to be gained than lost.

For right now, I'm just hoping that the ability of American retailers to scan EANs will mean my local international foods store can keep my favorite European chocolate bar in stock. I can't wait for the day that store knows to deliver a fresh supply to my door precisely three days after I eat the last one.

July 10, 2004
IGave@TheOffice.PAC
by D'Anne Hotchkiss

Corporations have a renewed incentive to aggressively pass the hat thanks to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 As this election heats up, politicians still expect Big Biz to pony up, and BCRA means that money can no longer come directly from the corporations. Companies' efforts to pat down employees' pockets presents a new challenge for corporate communicators.

Employees in some organizations are being encouraged to shell out, even though they rarely have any say, much less any control, over which politicians receive the money, according to a recent CFO survey. Whether or not employers track who gives and who doesn't, or use that information in making promotion and job assignment decisions, the situation doesn't pass the smell test. Companies inevitably choose to channel their employee-given PAC dollars to those who can do the most good for the corporation, not for their employees.

For those corporations that insist on PACs, communicators must first learn the executive suite's intentions regarding both giving and employee participation information, and then accurately relay that information. Hint: actions speak louder than words. Corporations that choose to channel their employees' donations to politicians willing to further the corporate cause, and choose to use employee giving as a litmus test of promoteability or employability are free to do so. It stinks, but it's not illegal.

Communicators can help shape these office politics. Where support for the corporate cause is expected, communicate it overtly. When possible, encourage broader corporate support for our political process:

  • Keep solicitations low-key and purely optional
  • Make giving anonymous
  • Seek employees' participation in directing the giving. One idea is to conduct an office vote for the possible candidates (local, state, national) and divvy up the money according to votes received.
June 11, 2004
A Poke in the Eye Can Clear Your Vision
by D'Anne Hotchkiss

Only a courageous leader will aggressively seek the truth and confront unflattering information. One such leader is a client of ours. Long story short, the client's customer requested a phone meeting with the client to discuss 'a situation.' The appointed day arrived, the client called. The customer was 'unavailable' and failed to return the call. This repeated itself on each of the following two days. On the fourth day, the client received a terse email saying the customer had decided to take her business elsewhere and that she was outraged over the treatment she had received. The client was mystified.

There had been no problems and he had regularly made small accommodations for the client in appreciation of her considerable business. A subsequent phone call - in which the customer offered no explanation or cited any poor treatment prior to the initial email, but spent considerable time questioning his manhood, parentage and intelligence - ended with the ex-customer promising to contact the client's other key accounts (a not-impossible task). He was tempted to dismiss the whole thing as a customer gone crazy for what must be reasons outside his business operations.

Rather than risking the relationships with other key customers, I suggested he take the opportunity to open a dialogue with those customers, right now. He did. Customers who were aware of the situation were equally mystified, and supportive of the client. Some had questions, others voiced minor concerns. Many expressed their appreciation for the client's overall excellent performance.

The upshot?

  • the client has made some changes in the way he conducts business
  • he has expressed appreciation to his customers for their honest feedback
  • he has made a commitment to regularly conference with each customer

More importantly, the client has gained insight into his customers, and customers now feel comfortable knowing that should they ever want to discuss an issue, the client's door is always open. And the client now feels confident about moving ahead with an expansion under consideration. None of that would have happened, had he not first lost a valued customer.
April 30, 2004
Crying Wolf on Privacy and RFID
by D'Anne Hotchkiss

RFID has been tagged as the latest privacy assault vehicle. The unspoken assumption is that any technology is immediately exploited in ill-advised or downright illegal ways. What deserves stronger attention is how giving up limited information can make our lives easier. The challenge for pro-tech communicators is to direct attention to where it belongs: the advantages.

Not long after Wal-Mart starting announcing that its top 100 CPG vendors must affix RFID tags to pallets by January 2005, privacy advocates jumped up with concerns that the tags "make it possible" for retailers and CPGs to track products into the family abode.

It's a stretch to say that's going to happen. The wolf-criers omit that what's driving RFID adoption is the consumer goods supply chain's singular focus on tackling one monumental problem: stock outs. And, forget that RFID tags aren't being attached to individual products and aren't going to be any time soon. Pallet-level tagging is all that anyone is doing. While RFID may be the "preferred technology" it's disingenuous to protest as though item level tagging is analogous to bar code marking.

But let's assume for a minute it's possible to track goods to this degree. Try as they might, the privacy police can't make our pulses race on this one. Americans pretty consistently trade a modicum of privacy in return for better service, better product or lower price. Look no further than airline frequent flyer programs, state EZ-Pass systems (which actually use RFID), or even frequent diner programs for proof. We're suckers when we can save a buck. The enormity of Wal-Mart proves it. We stuff our closets at a discount while ignoring the company's negative qualities (regularly broadcast by consumer media).

This is where the story really is. Americans want things that make their lives go better, faster, cheaper, easier. Membership in the highest level frequent flier program is the best insurance for a painless flight. Sail through the EZ-Pass tollbooth. (Click, or is he Clack? Ray Magliozzi is conducting his own test to determine maximum toolbooth crusing speed.) Kids eat free with purchase of adult meals.

Can an RFID tag be used to notify me when my car needs new tires? Can retailers or manufacturers quickly alert me to food or other product recalls? Some day, though not soon. For the convenience of never being stuck on the NJ Turnpike with a bad tire, am I willing to let my tires track their own wear? You bet. Is traffic safety enhanced when blowouts are avoided? You bet. Am I concerned that somebody will know if I fail to purchase new tires when I should? Hey, if that failure results in an injury-accident, then I ought to have to own up to it. On the other hand, proof that the tire was in good shape can reduce claims of my liability. Can increased road safety lead to decreased auto insurance or even accident-related healthcare and long-term care costs? Logic would say yes.

Rather than moan about all the evil possibilities, we need to talk about all the possible benefits. Then we ought to be pushing consumer goods marketers and their partner manufacturers to make it so.

February 3, 2004
Hack and Spin: Election 2004
by D'Anne Hotchkiss

A company's right to put news in a positive light ends at my right to know the truth. Diebold crossed the line this past week regarding the most fundamental right of Americans: the right to self-representation. The truth is that votes cast on their touch screen voting machines can be eliminated, duplicated or otherwise adulterated. You wouldn't have a clue from reading their news release. Perhaps Diebold is planning to move its headquarters to Florida where election outcomes aren't what they seem either.

Under the blazing headline "Maryland Security Study Validates Diebold Election Systems Equipment for March Primary" Diebold proclaims: "Today, the Maryland Department of Legislative Services, based on the analysis by RABA Technologies, concludes that the March primary election can be held successfully without any changes to the Diebold Election Systems ...."

Bob Urosevich, president of Diebold Election Systems goes on to say: "Touch screen voting from Diebold Election Systems has evolved to be the most secure and accurate election system in the history of our democracy...."

He should check his dictionary for 'secure and accurate'. What the non-partisan Maryland Department of Legislative Services learned is that the Diebold Accu Vote-TS voting machines can be easily hacked. Ballots and votes can be changed. Off-the-shelf smart cards can be used for multiple voting. Votes can be changed while being transmitted to vote-tallying servers elsewhere. Anyone can hack the system and transmit bogus votes.

Diebold could have chosen to issue a statement of its intention to work diligently to fix the fatal flaws quickly. It could have welcomed independent testing and reaffirmed its commitment to delivering 'the most secure and accurate election system in the history of our democracy.' But it didn't.

Like their voting machines, Diebold earns an F in citzenship for its wholly inaccurate reporting on itself.

January 21, 2003

Experience, Uninterrupted
by D'Anne Hotchkiss

Relevancy is required. In this time-starved and over-promoted age, all of us search for information sources that remain relevant to us. At this morning's Silicon Alley iBreakfast leaders at Google and Yahoo forced the relevancy issue, even when it hit their own pocketbooks.

Google's goal is to avoid an "interrupted experience with non-relevant ads" said speaker Patrick Keane.

He told of his company's decision to turn down a request from one of the Big 3 automakers for a paid ad listing for its SUVs to appear in search results for fly-fishing. The automaker claimed that such searchers would also be interested in driving (read: purchasing) a brand-new SUV. Right. Google knows its customers well enough to know that a person who has keyed in the phrase "fly fishing trip" is most likely only interested in -- are you ready? -- a fly fishing trip.

But wait, there's more. Search engines are now able to deliver results with geographic relevancy as well. Using the IP address to identify the relative location of the computer, now a search for "authentic Chinese restaurant" won't shower you with listings for spots in Chicago's or San Francisco's Chinatowns if your computer is logged on in lower Manhattan.

That kind of concern for customers and dedication to relevancy is what we have been searching for, on both an international and a local basis. Now I at least know a relevant place to start my next search.
January 21, 2004
Concern for More than Share of Wallet
by D'Anne Hotchkiss

In recent weeks, a regional grocery retailer used its preferred customer cards to help safeguard shoppers against mad-cow disease. The northwest US QFC chain, part of Krogers, posted signs in the meat department of its 87 stores informing customers they could call the posted telephone number to learn whether they had purchased any of the BSE-poisoned beef. Callers supplied their frequent shopper card number, and the chain then searched its database to determine whether they had bought meat from the recalled batch.

If a retailer or any other organization has a way of notifying consumers that they have been sold poison as food, they have a responsibility to do so. Failure to notify those consumers should land the executives who decided against notification in court-and probably in jail if one of their shoppers gets the disease.

Regrettably, the major chains Albertsons, Kroger and Safeway have so far declined to use their considerable customer-specific information for such a noble purpose, citing privacy concerns, according to today's Houston Chronicle.

As reported in that newspaper, the no-card privacy police think this is a good idea: "Sure it would be useful to have someone contact me if I bought something tainted," Katherine Albreacht, founder of Consumers Against Supermarket Privacy Invasion and Numbering said from Boston. "But at what cost? A total food-supply surveillance network?"

The industry calls these shopper discount cards "loyalty cards." The term loyalty implies a two-way relationship. What better way to show their loyalty to shoppers than to help them safeguard their health?

QFC is not the first retailer to use its information to help protect consumers. Here in the Northeast, Wegmans has used its Shoppers Club program to notify customers by mail about recalls involving possible food allergies for several years. As a Wegmans shopper, I appreciate knowing their interest in, and knowledge of, me extends beyond their share of my wallet.

December 11, 2003
Avoiding the Party Boor
by D'Anne Hotchkiss

I attended my first holiday get-together of the season and was reminded anew there's nothing worst than getting stuck with the party boor. We've all had the pleasure of the company of the person who can't stop talking about himself. This guy won't you get a word in edgewise, much less change the subject. This morning I was reminded that email marketing can be that party boor too.

The TECHmarketing iBreakfast "eMail and Online Marketing: the New Realities" pointed out that nobody cares about your news releases and new hires. Their advice? Emails should be the "New York Times Magazine, not the wad of coupons." Always send email that gives real value to readers.

"It is as commendable to think well of oneself when alone, as it is ridiculous to speak well of oneself among others."
François Duc De La Rochefoucauld (1613-1680), French writer and moralist.
November 21, 2003
Relevancy: the Anti-Spam
by D'Anne Hotchkiss

Today Congress moved a step closer towards making spam illegal. Or towards legalizing it What the spammers don't get is that most of us wouldn't mind unsolicited email as long as the content is relevant to our interests and needs. (Link to NY Times. Registration required.)

It's possible the new bill will do more to protect spammers than it will to stop spam. What the law seems to say (no one ever knows these things until long after the law is passed) is that as long as the content of the email is accurately identified in the subject line, the email is legit. So all those unmentionable emails that show up in my inbox daily (90 per day for one address alone, up from 30 three month ago) could still show up. Only now they'll be sporting benign subject lines such as: Body Enhancement, or, horrors: The Information You Were Looking For.

One of the worst practices of email marketing is to deliver content that is irrelevant to the receiver. In my case, just what is the relevancy of body enhancement offers for an inbox that exists solely to receive inquiries from parents looking to give their children music lessons? The fact these offers regard body parts I've never owned just adds to their irrelevancy.

To bad the bill isn't likely to force email marketers to meet relevancy criteria. Now that would be an effective deterrent to spam.
October 14, 2003
Selling the Corporate Soul to the Devil
by D'Anne Hotchkiss

Integrity is the cornerstone of corporate image. Especially when the corporation is in the business of selling opinions purportedly derived from deep technical knowledge and extensive product experience.

"....You play a virgin in the light
but need no urgin' in the night."
---Victor Hugo, Les Miserables

Examples abound of technology companies claiming integrity and objectivity in their work, but selling out to protect the corporate pocketbook. Take this from recent weeks:

In late September, @Stake fired its chief technology officer, Dan Geer, one day after Geer and other highly esteemed security industry researchers published a paper viewed as unfavorable to Microsoft because the paper said monocultures are more vulnerable to security attacks than multi-vendor environments. It said reliance on a single product family has resulted in recent increases in security problems.

It's important to recognize two facts. One, Geer and his co-authors had taken pains to distance their employers from the report by clearly stating the views were their own. Two, the report's conclusions should not have come as a surprise. It's what researchers have been saying for 10 years. (Report: Windows' Dominance a Hindrance to Security is available on eWeek.)

Nor are these the only security experts to criticize Microsoft's security products recently. Six months ago, David Berlind of eWeek reported: "Three-fourths of computer software security experts at major companies surveyed by Forrester Research do not think Microsoft's products are secure."

@Stake, a high flier in the security industry, sold itself as an objective security adviser. But when push came to pocketbook, @Stake sold its integrity and canned Geer to preserve its lucrative business deals with the ubiquitous powerful giant.

November 11, 2003
Fear Factor Public Relations
by D'Anne Hotchkiss

Public relations is typically the most effective and the most cost-effective way to gain exposure to stakeholders and improve or maintain a company's image. But too frequently dollar-crunched companies drop their public relations budgets because they suspect a marginal return on investment. As marketers, we hate to lose this valuable tool even when we ourselves have failed to measure public relations' ROI.

Call it the Fear Factor. We fail to measure outputs: number of mentions, column inches, airtime, on- or off-line coverage -- and outcomes: what stakeholders were reached, how they were affected, what action they took. We're afraid to measure because we're afraid the answer might make us look bad.

What happens if your news releases to 100 editors regularly result in coverage by only the same five media? What happens if a front-page product story in the New York Times Circuits section doesn't seem to impact stakeholders?

Worst case fears realized?

Think again.

If you can show your CEO appearing in a particular publication doesn't have a positive impact on the company, then you no longer have to worry about a bad performance review because you didn't make it happen. (This assumes of course the CEO's motivation for the placement is improved company, not personal, image.) And, what about the advantage of reallocating that time spent with the 95 reporters who routinely aren't interested in your company to better leverage your coverage by the five? Or to finding five more?

My career can live with that and I bet yours can too.

The real worst case is this: your release to 100 editors generates five stories, including prominent coverage in the CEO's pet publication, and demand for your product spikes. It's all because of your public relations efforts. But you never know about it because you failed to measure outputs and outcomes.

That's a real Fear Factor.
October 1, 2003
Court Dials a Wrong Number
by D'Anne Hotchkiss

When the Federal Court struck down the Do Not Call list signed by 50 million American households, the telemarketing industry applauded, claiming that as many as two million jobs were saved.

What's embedded in the telemarketers statement is that their companies are eagerly reaching out to touch a significant number of people who Do Not Want to be touched.

"I know half of my advertising is wasted. I just don't know which half."
-- John Wanamaker, founder of the first department store concept

It's hardly a rally cry for the effectiveness of telemarketing when the industry actively promotes the knowing contact of those who just say no.

Wouldn't it be more cost-effective for their clients, and better for their image, if they acknowledged that telemarketing is not effective for the one in every three households that put a phone number on the list? What a great advantage for the telemarketing company that can claim significantly higher conversion rates, and thus a greater ROI, because time and money are not wasted on the wrong people.

Whatever happens in the current tennis match between the Courts and Congress, the telemarketing industry should embrace the ability to deliver a more effective service. To do so would be to improve their own image and keep their exposure positive.
September 18, 2003
Credibility is the Coin of the Realm
by D'Anne Hotchkiss

-- George Schultz, secretary of state under President Reagan

It's as true in technology as it is in matters of state.

The technology industry is still living down the reputation it earned dishonestly enough in the go-go bubble years through blatant lies regarding everything from product release dates to performance, interoperability, scalability, robustness and virtually every other buzzword that era generated.

"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."
Sir Winston Churchill

Customers are asking tougher questions, demanding higher levels of proof, and holding vendors financially accountable for meeting certain paybacks. As Shakespeare noted, "The fault ... lies not in our stars, but in ourselves...."

Fortunately, the solution lies in ourselves as well. These days, one of the most important areas of sales and marketing is supporting sales efforts by providing credible communications. "Contribution to the top line is paramount and the reason for our existence," says Robert Gelphman, principle of Gelphman Associates quoted in the September 15 issue of PR Week.

Credible information presented in a straight-forward matter is the antidote. And it's readily obtainable.

September 5, 2003
Hippocratic Oath in Marketing
by D'Anne Hotchkiss

First, do no harm is a great motto for a doctor, or a drug. But in technology marketing it should be amended to first, do some good.

In a crowded market of messages, it's much easier to contribute to the cacophony than to break through it. But a message that isn't vital enough to break through just raises the noise floor.

Here is how I decide what messages are important, and get them heard.

First is relevance. WIIFM (what's in it for me) is the paramount hurdle. Readers (or listeners or viewers) want to know: Why would I be interested in what you have to say? The message must be spot on. A direct hit to the reader's needs, nothing less.

Second is timeliness. Why now? To answer this, remember these: theme, trend and hook. Miss one and you're done. Don't expect people to allot their precious time today to something that can be ignored at least until next week.

A message that scores a direct hit to the reader's needs, supported by evidence this need is relevant now, gets you only part-way through the cacophony. The last issue is credibility.

Why you? Your credentials and your credibility as a technology firm must be in evidence. A proven track record that includes only selling products that work well, every time, all the time, of making it right when things go wrong, of under-promising and over-delivering.

Meet all of these and you can't help but cut through the noise. Miss them, and you violate the noise ordinance. Violate the noise ordinance too often, and you get a one-way ticket to the technology trash heap.