Orange Envelopes | Small Business Optimized Marketing > By Design

Recall the best customer service episodes of your life. The bending over backward, amazing and memorable service that still stands out in your mind because of its novelty and surprise.

Now think about the worst service you’ve received. The utility company that puts you on hold for 40 minutes. The cellular provider whose billing errors are repeated month after month. The cable company whose installers can’t show up within a 4 hour window.

What’s the difference in perception between the two? Excellent service is typically characterized by intimate personal care and attention while infuriating corporate service is defined by its impersonal, detached and indifferent nature.

One is delivered by a caring person, the other by a faceless, nameless corporate drone.

Which one do you want to do business with?

Now, which do you provide your clients? What’s the face that you put on your social media interactions with your clients?

Many small businesses aspire to be larger and more impressive than they actually are. In their misguided efforts to appear more “corporate,” they depersonalize their client interactions. Calls are forwarded to “Accounts Receivable” instead of “Beverly.” E-mails come from “ABC Inc.” instead of “Mike Bender.” And clients are asked to follow a corporate Twitter account instead of “Betty_at_ABC“.

The explosion of social media platforms and their rapid adoption by business has magnified the disconnect between the “social” potential of these online tools and the typical, misguided, self-interested corporate implementation of these platforms.

They are called social media because of their ability to foster and encourage two-way conversations and to enable tangible and enduring relationship building. But individuals – your clients – don’t build relationships with companies, they build relationships with people. People with names. With interesting backgrounds. With unique, and perhaps overlapping, personal interests.

Your dedicated, caring employees are a distinct and valuable asset that should be leveraged in your social media strategy. They’re the ones who interact with your clients daily and already have the relationships that can be strengthened and extended.

You want to play in the social media sandbox? Be social.

The Wyoming State Library launched a new marketing campaign to promote their online resources. The goal was to let men who work on cars know about the state’s online database of Chilton auto repair manuals. The database is accessible without charge to anyone with a Wyoming library card.

Playing off of the widely recognized truckers’ mudflaps featuring a silhouette of a reclining, nude woman, the library employed a similar visual, though with the reclining woman holding and reading a book.

Great design, and great marketing, employs images that are immediately identifiable and understandable. They’re even better when they’re distinctive and memorable. Who would have thought a library system would have the nerve to create and launch a campaign that centered around a potentially offensive image? Kudos to them.

Their target market consists almost exclusively of males working in auto repair centers. I would bet that every one of these mechanics has seen the original mudflap, and the playful design twist that the library employs would be instantly recognizable, obviously different, and memorable.

Great design invariably polarizes its audience, and since rabid feminists aren’t noted for their whimsical sense of humor, I’d wager that their calculated outrage and indignation are imminent. Stand firm, Wyoming, they’re not your target market anyway.

A small article in the Wall Street Journal caught my eye last week and validated my increasing certainty that Sony continues to rely upon a sclerotic design approach that patently ignores their users’ experience with Sony products.

Although Sony is capable of producing aesthetically beautiful hardware, their design sensibility doesn’t incorporate the broader themes of design thinking, including the imagination and creation of new processes, approaches and insights to complement and extend the impact of their hardware.

In response to Amazon’s launch of their 2nd generation Kindle e-book Reader, Sony announced a partnership with Google that would provide owners of Sony’s own e-book reader with access to over 500,000 public domain books that Google has digitized.

Problems That Even the All -Powerful Google Can’t Fix
As the owner of the Sony Reader, I can personally attest to the short-sighted implementation of Sony’s e-book effort and their near complete lack of design thinking.

I bought the Sony Reader because its physical design was so much better than the cheap, plastic, 1980′s styled Kindle 1. However, I soon learned that the seduction of beautiful design lured me into purchasing a terribly flawed device.

History of Disappointment
It’s apparent that Sony focuses almost exclusively on their own mercenary benefits when considering design options. Their self-interested approach to product design has led to the failure of entire Sony product lines.

Their Walkman line dominated the mobile music market in the 1980′s. Today, they are a footnote to Apple and their ubiquitous iPod. Sony was the first to market with personal videotape players, but their insistence on adhering to their crippled Betamax format ensured their failure. Their forays into digital cameras have produced feature rich cameras, but their insistence on using a proprietary storage medium has limited their market penetration. Their early camcorders were technically excellent, but their imposition of proprietary Sony software to view, edit and transfer files limited their effectiveness and appeal. And their Sony VAIO laptops, although physically appealing, integrated assorted Sony proprietary components that increased their cost and limited their allure. Today Sony has only 4% of the laptop market despite their stunning design aesthetic.

Self-interest = Failure
Each of these product laggards and failures shared a common element: Sony’s focus on their own self-interest, not the interests of the users.

Sony’s design and execution of their e-book Reader reveals that no Sony executives were ever influenced by George Santayana’s perception that “Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Design Irrationality
Let’s count the ways that Sony failed to integrate design thinking into their Reader:

1. the user must use proprietary Sony software to transfer books the device
2. the Sony proprietary software runs only under Windows, not on the Mac
3. the number of commercial titles is significantly lower than Amazon offers for their Kindle because the titles must be converted to the Sony digital format
4. the Sony Reader is the only device capable of downloading books from the Sony e-book library
5. there is no integration with web-based booksellers, severely limiting the available titles for the Reader

Sony’s partnership with Google delivers little value to most Reader owners. The books available for download are public domain books, not bestsellers and contemporary releases. The value to me? Near zero. The value of a partnership with Barnes & Noble to access content? Priceless.

Although the Sony Reader delivers an excellent reading experience, it’s apparent that Sony focused their efforts only on the experience that users have after they’ve downloaded content. The process up to that point – especially for Mac users – is poorly envisioned and executed.

Design Thinking Done Right
The Kindle 2, although better designed that its predecessor, still does not awe or amaze. It’s physical design is competent and certainly improved, but it’s not the Kindle’s physical design that has generated its enormous appeal.

In contrast to the Sony Reader, it’s apparent that Amazon envisioned its Kindle as a platform to extend sales of it enormous library of books. Amazon is in the book business, not the e-book reader business, and their decisions reflect their focus.

The Kindle 2 is an excellent product, but it’s not the only platform that can access Amazon’s extensive e-book library. Just a week after launching the Kindle 2, Amazon announced the availability of Kindle software for the iPhone and their 17 million users. Although Sony claims sales of nearly 400,000 Readers, their sales pale in comparison to the enormous population of potential Kindle users.

Does Amazon care if I buy my e-book for my iPhone or their Kindle. Nope. They get paid either way. And to help me out, they offer wireless syncing between the iPhone and Kindle 2 so I can use both and have both devices will remember what I was reading and what page I was on. That’s design thinking at its best. It’s user-centric, not Amazon-centric. And by focusing on my experience, they’ll likely gain a Kindle 2 user when my frustration with the Sony Reader experience results in a spontaneous, and ultimately tragic, Reader hurling incident.

Design Lessons You Can Apply
What can you learn and apply to your small business from these two corporate behemoths?

1. design great looking and great performing products, but never forget that physical beauty does not define design brilliance
2. carefully observe your clients’ behavior to generate breakthrough insights
3. partner with companies that can deliver products or experiences that you cannot – the perception of your value will increase, not diminish
4. deliver an extraordinary user experience
5. do not compel your clients to adopt proprietary technologies solely for your benefit
6. extend the definition of your product to include packaging, delivery, supplies, service and every user touchpoint
7. find new ways to amaze your clients and stand apart from your competitor

I was taken to task last week by a commenter who thought my proclamation that I hated Ticketmaster was a bit too strident. Upon further reflection, I realize that my choice of words was hasty, a tad capricious, and yet unerringly accurate.

My deep, personal animus towards Ticketmaster has been cultivated over many years of infuriating transactions and extortionate behavior that has actually been intentionally designed into their service processes. They are unconscionable, rapacious corporate predators who revel in their unfettered, monopolistic delight. No empty moral pieties. No insistence that they’re adhering to noble market principles. Just pure, unadulterated, pernicious, unmasked greed. Even though I hate them, I have a twisted respect for the boldness of their position.

Unlike Microsoft. Who pretends to be the champion of  the individual computer user. Who is spending TARP-like sums to convince us that they’re a PC, or I’m a PC, or we’re all PC’s. Anyway, money well spent to champion their unbridled and unselfish support of the little guy. Microsoft’s not the big, bad monolithic computer company from the Big Brother ads, you see. They’re the amiable, quirky computer company from those wildly successful Seinfeld Microsoft/shoe store ads.

But behind their Potemkin profundities, Microsoft, like Ticketmaster, has designed into their products and processes all the corporate paranoia necessary to foster deep and profound loathing.

While attempting to do some quick work on a client’s website hosted by Microsoft’s Office Live, I encountered a couple of glaring examples of their velvet-lined jackboot tactics.

Want to forward e-mail from their Office Live account to another email account? Perfectly fine, unless the forwarding address isn’t a Microsoft domain. That’s right. If you want to consolidate your emails to a single address, Microsoft will only let you do it if they own the destination domain. No Gmail. No Yahoo mail. No personal domain address. Why? Because they can.

There’s a reason that Microsoft never gained a significant foothold in the hosted email market: they don’t play nice with others. And this is just another example of their selfish, self-interested user experience design. Instead of designing a delightful and distinctive email experience, they simply leveraged their substantial power to compel users to adopt Microsoft solutions. Now there’s a way to generate loyal and rabid devotees.

And if I want to edit the website, Microsoft makes sure that I don’t do it using Safari. Take that, you perfidious Apple users. They don’t support it and simply won’t allow access to the website page management tools unless I use Internet Explorer (though they recently added the ability to interact with their site using Firefox).

These are intentional design decisions that reflect the worst strong-arm tendencies. They foster resentment, distrust and, in my case, a festering and flourishing loathing of their products and online services. What are they afraid of?

We’re all exhibitionists now. The amalgam of perpetually available social networking tools have enabled everyone to share their most intimate thoughts, personal feelings and illuminating (and embarrassing) photos. Now if only there were a website that infused its visitors with a modicum of common sense and decorum.

Sonny Gill wrote this morning of a west coast job seeker who posted her thoughts about landing a job with Cisco. It seems that after her interview, the applicant Tweeted:

Cisco just offered me a job! Now I have to weigh the utility of a fatty paycheck against the daily commute to San Jose and hating the work.

The stupidity of this public comment cannot be overstated. Shortly after its post, the job seeker received a Tweet in reply from Cisco :

Who is the hiring manager. I’m sure they would love to know that you will hate the work. We here at Cisco are versed in the web.

Busted.

This public idiocy followed a recent embarrassing Tweet, recounted by Peter Shankman, that caught an ad agency rep responsible for social media training (oh, the sweet irony), trashing the home city of his largest client, FedEx. On a public forum. Where everyone could see. Including the CEO of FedEx.

Time for some quick rule reminders:

1. Refrain from posting negative comments about another person or company.
2. If you break Rule #1, remember that all public comments are permanent.
3. Rule #2 means forever.
4. Share intimate thoughts and feelings in a private medium (e-mail), not a public forum.
5. If you write it, expect that it will become public someday.
6. Expect repercussions. There is a Twidiot tax. Tweet something profoundly offensive or stupid, and you can expect to suffer the consequences.

Full disclosure: I fully acknowledge that my intemperate comments below concerning my raging hatred of the dark and evil forces controlling Ticketmaster will likely prevent me from ever pursuing employment with the Ticketing Evil That Must Not Be Named. I’m ok with that.

How many brands exist for decades despite their near universal opprobrium? And how many of these not only maintain their lonely, despised existence, but actually thrive and prosper despite their loathsome image and sordid reputation? And can such a brand ever be reclaimed and rehabilitated in the public’s eye, or are they forever tainted by their history of egregious behavior?

Ask Ticketmaster in a few years.

This afternoon, I sat through a presentation by serial entrepreneur Sam Gerace, the CEO of Veritix, who is directing the development and growth of a company that has the potential to displace Ticketmaster with the introduction of virtual, Flash Tickets that provide distinct benefits to the ticket holder, the venue, and the artists.

Ticketmaster Redefines Service
Ticketmaster has imposed its ruthless and rapacious will on the ticket buying public, performing artists and venue owners through sheer monopolistic force for years. After gobbling up all of its competitors in the ticketing industry, Ticketmaster extracted usurious fees for  laughable “services,” including a “convenience charge,” “building fee,” and even a $2.50 charge to print your own ticket at home. Thanks, Ticketmaster!

I have actually purchased tickets and discovered that the assorted Ticketmaster fees exceeded the cost of the tickets themselves. So, just for the sake of clarity and complete transparency let me make clear: I hate Ticketmaster.

And that’s why I hope that Veritix is able to maintain its tenuous perch in the ticketing industry and eventually displace Ticketmaster entirely.

A New Ticketing Model
While Ticketmaster exists seemingly only to impose its draconian and punitive vision of ticketing services on a defenseless public, Veritix has created an entirely different ticketing model that provides immediate and distinct benefits to the ticket buyer, the venue owner, and the performing artist.

Veritix doesn’t sell a physical ticket. They sell a Flash Ticket that enables the buyer to show up at the venue, show some form of ID and gain entrance to the event. You don’t buy a ticket, you buy access to the event.

Benefits of Flash Tickets
Can’t make the show? Go online and add your virtual tickets to an online ticket marketplace that facilitates the resale of unwanted or unusable Flash Tickets. Bad for scalpers of physical tickets, but great for virtually every ticket buyer.

The venue owner or artist can cap the resale prices, eliminating the abilities of legitimate resellers like StubHub, and street-corner scalpers from extorting enormous sums for tickets to popular events.

Since Veritix charges for their technology platform and does not charge fees for ticket processing, they have no incentive to escalate processing and handling fees. Which scares the hell out of Ticketmaster.

They’re Gonna Make You An Offer You Can’t Refuse
Now I fully expect Ticketmaster to employ a legion of unsavory tactics to impede Veritix. I wouldn’t be surprised if they increase their political contributions substantially to persuade politicians at every level to impose legislative hurdles and try to muscle their current contract holders to extend their agreements or face dire short-term consequences. The only thing missing will be baseball bats and bodies on meathooks.

From a branding perspective, I don’t believe that Ticketmaster can rehabilitate their tarnished brand. What they fail to realize is that the user experience defines their brand. It’s out of their control. Sure, they can launch new image programs, fun logos and pithy taglines, but nothing will overcome their disgraceful – and well earned – reputation.

Ticketmaster’s survival will depend upon their success in applying raw, brute force to maintain their privileged position. For my part, I’ll be rooting for Veritix to take them down. Sic semper tyrannis.

My desktop scanner stopped working yesterday. I don’t know why. It worked the day before, and the day before that. But the capricious gods who oversee all that is right and just with OS X software drivers somehow decreed that my HP scanner would no longer be recognized.

Little did I know that by downloading a new 200MB driver from the HP website, that I would be pitting two supreme forces against each other: the despotic and high-handed HP vs the virtuous and obliging Apple OS.

You’ll Take It and Like It
There’s something about the PC world that invites heavy handed behavior. Anyone who has bought a PC from Dell or HP knows what I’m talking about. From the moment you first boot the system, you have to deal with uninvited pleas to activate unnecessary and unwanted bloatware. Your desktop is filled with software icons whose makers have bribed the computer manufacturer to impose their clutter on your system.

You’re never asked if you want these applications. They’re simply forced upon you. Without any convenient way to remove them permanently from your desktop, your disk and your life.

It’s no wonder, then that the computer manufacturers’ imperious attitude carries over into their software drivers as well.

What’s Yours Is Mine
To get the driver I needed, HP made me to download a 200MB file (that’s right, 200 megabytes for a scanner driver) so they could force me to install 11 unwanted HP PhotoSmart software programs, in addition to the driver. Moreover, the installation process resulted in the installation of two additional HP icons in my precious Dock. They never asked permission for this intrusion. They never asked if I even wanted these applications. They just installed themselves, decided to sit in the front row of my desktop and dared me to remove them.

This behavior was designed intentionally into their installation processes. In the spirit of corporate transparency, their software should come outfitted with brownshirts and jackboots. They reflect a corporate hubris and reflexive arrogance that defines their relationships and influences their user experiences.

Showing True Character
There’s only one reason why HP did not design a permission process into their driver installation routine: they were afraid that I’d say “No.” They didn’t want to make any special effort to persuade me of the virtues of their software. They didn’t want to cajole or entice me to evaluate their software. They didn’t anticipate that I would already have more sophisticated applications already installed that would perform the same duties as their software. They considered their peculiar, self-serving motivations and crammed their software onto my system and shoehorned their icons front and center on my dock.

And in doing so, HP revealed their true character. Their authentic personality no longer resides behind layers of packaged messages and slick advertising, but is revealed in the imposition of their rapacious corporate desire to have their software installed on as many systems as possible.

Lessons Learned
It’s the last HP product I’ll ever buy. And their behavior offers clear lessons for other companies:

• It’s not all about you. Sure, you want your product in as many hands as possible. But forcing your prospects and clients to accept your product is no way to forge a relationship. Consider their needs, convince them of your virtues and…
• Gain permission. You want to do business with me? Ask. Demonstrate your value. Make it easy for me to demo your product or service, and…
• Start a conversation. Let me ask questions. Provide easy answers. Introduce me to others who use your product successfully. Let me talk with them without moderation. Stay in touch and…
• Build a relationship. Spend time learning what I really need and demonstrating how you can solve my problems. Can you save me time? Money? Frustration? Tell me. Then show me. If your value is genuine, I’ll come around. And I’ll trust you. Something HP will never have from me again.

I came up with a short list of things I would never consider buying:

• a $30,000 Timex watch
• a $287,000 Chevrolet
• a $1200 Bic ballpoint pen
• and, oh yeah, a $2000 Motorola phone

There are a number of reasons – other than a profound shortage of bound stacks of crisp $100's – that I would never consider these purchases, but central to my absence of longing is the lack of consistency and authenticity to each brand's promise that each has spent decades cultivating.

Note that the prices quoted would not be out of line if the brands listed for each product were:

• Patek Philippe
• Bentley
• Montblanc
• … sorry, I can't think of any provider who could justify a $2000 mobile phone

In each of these latter cases, the prices are entirely reasonable for the brand. Each company has spent their lifetime specializing in the design and production of highly crafted and unique products with commensurate price tags.

These brands could offer "entry level" products that carry the cachet of their upscale brethren (and many luxury brands do), but the reverse is rarely true.

Let's take a look at Motorola's $2000 mobile phone offering, the Aura.

What could possibly make a phone worth so much? Well, according to their promotional materials, the Aura was inspired by luxury watches, so the phone contains:

• Three tungsten-carbon-carbide-coated main gears
• Swiss made main bearing
• Protective PVD coating and mirror polish finish
• 130 precision ball bearings
• Scratch-resistant, 62-carat, grade 1 sapphire crystal display
• Chemically etched textures and patterns

Now I can appreciate the manufacturing expertise and component quality that went into the production of the Aura. However, this is still a mobile phone produced by the same company whose phones are given away for free by the mobile carriers in return for a one-year contract commitment.

There is simply no logical reason why a typical consumer familiar with Motorola would extend them the sanction for a $2000 phone. Not when Motorola's popular RAZR line still sells for around $200.

Motorola will likely pay for their brand inconsistency with shelves of beautifully crafted Auras unable to find an owner willing to extend luxury status to a familiar, proletarian mass marketer.

The lesson here is that companies, like Motorola, who fail to integrate design thinking into their strategic planning will chase vanity projects that stray from their corporate strengths, diminish their corporate reputation and weaken their brand.

As I near 1000 Twitter followers I perceive myself as the avuncular yet acerbic voice of Twitter wisdom and guidance who owes it to his vast network of sycophantic followers to clarify the cryptic and unyielding rules surrounding Twitter use.

Now, I'm not the first to provide helpful hints to the Twitter newbies, but after almost three months of reading Twitter posts, rules and guidelines from assorted self-described Twitter experts, I thought it was time to elevate my Twitter station and proclaim my own lofty Twitter status.

Note that although you may not agree with all of these rules, they are still inviolate. I don't want to yank your Twitter privileges, but I will if provoked.

1. Don't waste my time. Really. A lot of so-called experts encourage you to dive right in and start Tweeting. These are the same people who encourage everyone to vote. I don't want ignorant 19 years olds who can't name either one of their senators voting, and I don't want you Tweeting if you have nothing substantive or interesting to say. I don't care when you got up, when you're taking a shower, what type of coffee you're drinking or how slow traffic is in Denver. That's why you have text messaging on your phone. Share the banalities of your life with those close friends and family who have to endure your inanity. Not with us.
2. Don't link to anyone who uses the word "expert" in their profile. Especially "social media expert." Check out the some of the most popular Twitter users – Guy Kawasaki, Digg CEO Kevin Rose, Zappos CEO Tony Hsieh, Chris Brogan – none of whom hint at the word "expert" in their personal profiles. And they all have actual accomplishments. Online social media have been around about as long as the iPhone. There are no "experts." Pass them by without guilt or sympathy.
3. Don't link to anyone who proclaims themselves a personal branding expert/specialist/fanantic whose Twitter avatar is still the Twitter default icon on a turquiose background. Really, would you solicit or heed fashion advice from a guy in a lime green leisure suit? It's the same thing.
4. You do not have to include your photo in your avatar. Some of the best avatars I see are those created by designers who incorporate their personal logos. They are distinctive, memorable and emblematic of their creative capacity. They speaks volumes more than the standard blurry and pixelated headshot. In reality, many Twitter users aren't terribly attractive and would actually benefit from a creatively designed personal icon. Hey, don't shoot the messenger.
5.  It's perfectly fine to send automated DM's to those who elect to follow you. Tweetlater allows you to set up an automatic reply that sends a standard direct message to every Twitter user who follow you. Some Twitter users detest these DM's. Their righteous indignation can be detected through their Tweetdeck profile. It burns with the fiery intensity of a thousand suns. Ignore them. You're trying to build a network, and following those who follow you is generally a good idea and Tweetlater provides a valuable, time saving utility. Use it.
6. Numbers matter. Notice that virtually everyone who claims that numbers don't matter already has several thousand followers. You don't. You need more. Trolling around Twitter is a lot like deep sea trawling – you drop a large net and hope to reel in a handful of keepers from a slimy pile of aquatic offal. It's true that quality is more important than quantity, but the Twitter tools aren't precise enough to identify those really worth following. So, follow 500 and hope that a dozen provide useful and insightful Tweets. The remainder simply provide you with bragging fodder when you compare your size with fellow Tweeple. And despite the strident proclamations of righteous denial we all do it.
7. Don't forget attribution. We are a self-policing community here. We respect each other's intellectual property and efforts. If you click through a link, enjoy the article and decide to Tweet about it, give credit to the original Tweeter. It doesn't diminish the value of your post to attribute its origins to someone else. Unless, of course, you add nothing of value when you repost. But if you're adhering to Rule 1, we won't have that problem.
8. If someone reposts your tweet without attribution, remain calm. It's a tweet, not your college thesis. I'm in a reflective and revelatory mood, so I'll admit: I've tweeted without attribution in the past. We all have. sometimes I click a link but don't get a chance to read the page for hours. By the time I've determined that the page deserves to be shared I can't recall who posted the original Tweet. But I'll tweet about it anyway and simply hope for forgiveness from the IP Tweet police.
9. Do not try to sell Twitter users a way to earn $12,000/month working from home in their bathrobe while watching the Gameshow Network. You don't want to be the Amway salesperson at the cocktail party. In person, polite societal conventions might compel us to be cordial. Those rules don't apply in the social media free for all on the Interwebs. You're rude, embarrassing and inappropriate and I'm afraid we'll have to delete your Twitter privileges. Or at least unfollow you with head snapping rapidity.
10. There is no rule 10, but 10 rules looked better in a headline than 9 rules. So, let's agree that the tenth rule is a somber reflection and hearty embrace of all the previous rules.