I was told recently that we had an "exceptional marketing story" around a particular function of the business, but the problem was that it wasn't told in a comprehensive or consistent manner. So is it really an exceptional story?
An exceptional marketing story is something that can be easily told, easily remembered and resonates with the recipient. If it doesn't do this, it isn't an exceptional story.
Too often in marketing you will hear people say that we have a great story, but no one gets it, or understands it. This by default means you don't have a great story. A great product or solution does not equal a great story.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Ready, Fire, Aim...
Just a tip for those that might read this and are in marketing...
Whenever someone tells you that by doing a targeted message, or a targeted campaign (no matter the industry) is going to take longer, your response should be "So."
If you think it is more important to rush something out the door now, be it a campaign, a promotion, a product, etc. than to take the additional time to make sure you have the right message reaching the right person at the right time, then you are doomed for failure.
This is the classic Ready, Fire, Aim approach, and I am mired in it right now. Everyone wants to seem like they are doing something so they come up with these ideas for programs, promotions, etc. and just fling them against the wall. Unfortunately nothing is sticking (as is usually the case). It's like shooting at a target without taking the time to actually aim. Eventually you might hit it, but what have you expended in the process?? The more people a message has to reach and resonate with, the more diluted, and the less effective it gets.
Take the extra hour, day or week to aim before firing. It will be worth it in the end.
Whenever someone tells you that by doing a targeted message, or a targeted campaign (no matter the industry) is going to take longer, your response should be "So."
If you think it is more important to rush something out the door now, be it a campaign, a promotion, a product, etc. than to take the additional time to make sure you have the right message reaching the right person at the right time, then you are doomed for failure.
This is the classic Ready, Fire, Aim approach, and I am mired in it right now. Everyone wants to seem like they are doing something so they come up with these ideas for programs, promotions, etc. and just fling them against the wall. Unfortunately nothing is sticking (as is usually the case). It's like shooting at a target without taking the time to actually aim. Eventually you might hit it, but what have you expended in the process?? The more people a message has to reach and resonate with, the more diluted, and the less effective it gets.
Take the extra hour, day or week to aim before firing. It will be worth it in the end.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Marketing sells the first, Service sells the rest
In most business, it isn't the first sale that generates the revenue and the profits that businesses seek. It's the repeat business. Getting a customer for the first time is expensive. Sales costs, marketing costs, it all adds up. But assuming that the job is done correctly, customer purchase 2 and 3 and so on should cost the company less time and less money.
Customer retention is like dating. When you first start, there is a lot of work that needs to be done. Flowers and dinners and trips. But once you get married, the maintenance is less in order to keep the same level of happiness and excitement. A well-timed flower, card or compliment.
How does this translate? It's about service. As great of a job that is done by sales and marketing up front, it is up to service to maintain the relationship and keep things moving in the positive direction. For me, this became very evident on a recent trip. I absolutely refuse to fly Delta now. I will go out of my way to avoid them. It's not that the plane wasn't sufficient, or that I didn't get to my destination, or that there aren't problems on other airlines. It's that the customer service was so poor that I refuse to deal with them any more.
As marketers, this is important for us to keep in mind. Service should be a huge part of any marketing plan that we put together, and should be kept in consideration at all times. Work with the service organization to make sure that they are living up to the promises that you are making on behalf of the company.
Customer retention is like dating. When you first start, there is a lot of work that needs to be done. Flowers and dinners and trips. But once you get married, the maintenance is less in order to keep the same level of happiness and excitement. A well-timed flower, card or compliment.
How does this translate? It's about service. As great of a job that is done by sales and marketing up front, it is up to service to maintain the relationship and keep things moving in the positive direction. For me, this became very evident on a recent trip. I absolutely refuse to fly Delta now. I will go out of my way to avoid them. It's not that the plane wasn't sufficient, or that I didn't get to my destination, or that there aren't problems on other airlines. It's that the customer service was so poor that I refuse to deal with them any more.
As marketers, this is important for us to keep in mind. Service should be a huge part of any marketing plan that we put together, and should be kept in consideration at all times. Work with the service organization to make sure that they are living up to the promises that you are making on behalf of the company.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
A new type of Bait and Switch
The bait and switch. A term that has been tossed around for years that implies negative marketing. You tell a customer you have some amazing deal only to find out the deal doesn't exist and they must instead buy something of higher monetary value. It's bad and it's illegal. So why do I want to talk about it?
Over the past week on two instances, I've thought about the bait and switch from an entirely different perspective. Let's start with my car buying experience over the weekend. I've been looking at buying a BMW (insert yuppie comment here) for quite some time. I found what appeared to be a great deal, and headed to my local dealership. When I got there, was the first car that I looked at the one that I was interested in? No, of course not. When I walked on, I wanted to look at the top of the line, state-of-the-art, best thing out there. Then I went and looked at my car.
The same type of thing happened a couple days later during a training session. One of the salespeople said something that really stuck in my head. "Everyone wants to talk about iCT." That's when it clicked. See, the iCT is a super sophisticated, high-end CT scanner. The technology is amazing and everyone wants to know about it. Can everyone afford it? Absolutely not. But does it mean something when they buy the powerful workhorse scanner from the company that makes the iCT? You bet it does.
Customers want to see companies put their best foot forward. They want to see what the top-of-the-line technology is. They want to see where the future might lie, where they aspire to get to someday. This is present in all buying decisions, and all sales whether it is B2B or B2C. There is something about saying you own this widget from a company that makes this amazing superwidget. It's the thought that you can some day be there.
Think about your own life. How often do you look at the high-end, but purchase a little more reasonably? We all want to drive a Mercedes, but then buy a Volkswagen. We want the 62", 2" thick superHD TV, but buy the "standard" 32" LCD.
As marketers, it's up to us to support those dreams. Show what our companies are capable of, show the places a customer can go. Yeah, they may not buy the latest whiz-bang gadget, but they will buy a gadget. And they'll keep wondering if and when they can get to the next level.
Tell a great story. Put your company's best foot forward. Help your customer dream.
Over the past week on two instances, I've thought about the bait and switch from an entirely different perspective. Let's start with my car buying experience over the weekend. I've been looking at buying a BMW (insert yuppie comment here) for quite some time. I found what appeared to be a great deal, and headed to my local dealership. When I got there, was the first car that I looked at the one that I was interested in? No, of course not. When I walked on, I wanted to look at the top of the line, state-of-the-art, best thing out there. Then I went and looked at my car.
The same type of thing happened a couple days later during a training session. One of the salespeople said something that really stuck in my head. "Everyone wants to talk about iCT." That's when it clicked. See, the iCT is a super sophisticated, high-end CT scanner. The technology is amazing and everyone wants to know about it. Can everyone afford it? Absolutely not. But does it mean something when they buy the powerful workhorse scanner from the company that makes the iCT? You bet it does.
Customers want to see companies put their best foot forward. They want to see what the top-of-the-line technology is. They want to see where the future might lie, where they aspire to get to someday. This is present in all buying decisions, and all sales whether it is B2B or B2C. There is something about saying you own this widget from a company that makes this amazing superwidget. It's the thought that you can some day be there.
Think about your own life. How often do you look at the high-end, but purchase a little more reasonably? We all want to drive a Mercedes, but then buy a Volkswagen. We want the 62", 2" thick superHD TV, but buy the "standard" 32" LCD.
As marketers, it's up to us to support those dreams. Show what our companies are capable of, show the places a customer can go. Yeah, they may not buy the latest whiz-bang gadget, but they will buy a gadget. And they'll keep wondering if and when they can get to the next level.
Tell a great story. Put your company's best foot forward. Help your customer dream.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Is more technology really better?
I'm struggling a little with how to phrase this, so I'm just going to write and see how it goes...
Lately I've been noticing what I find to be an interesting dilemma for many specialists. As we develop technology, we talk about how it will improve someone's life. For a cardiologist, we are able to use CT to do a basic coronary analysis without an invasive procedure and rule out many patients that they would otherwise have to take to the cath lab. For the gastroenterologist, we are proposing the same thing with virtual colonoscopy.
The marketing pitch is easy, right? We tell the physicians this will make your life easier. You don't have to worry yourself with the routine procedures. You can get more patients through. Life is good. Or is it?
As a cardiologist or a gastroenterologist, yeah, it's great to have the challenging cases that allow you to stretch your thinking, perform an amazing procedure, and live up to the lofty views. But, it's the routine that puts the money in the pocket. A routine colonoscopy with no complications can take 30 minutes or so, and put 2-3x more money into the GIs pocket. Same with a routine angio. And, these are less likely to be met with complications, stress, etc.
When positioning to these customers, it is important to keep this in mind. As marketers, we want to tout all the time saving, risk saving that these cool and great technologies offer the physician and ultimately the patient. But it's also important to remember that we need to show them how to build a business around these new technologies. We need to become more consultative. For the GI guy, it's about helping him set up a practice that will allow him to boost screening by using virtual, which will in turn keep enough people coming through the door to keep the endoscopy suite packed. The same goes for helping the cardiologist get her practice established.
Ultimately, it's about helping them first embrace the technology as something to help them grow, showing them how to attract more patients/referrals, and really differentiating themselves from all of the other practices out there by truly catering to the different needs and desires of the end customer, the patient.
Lately I've been noticing what I find to be an interesting dilemma for many specialists. As we develop technology, we talk about how it will improve someone's life. For a cardiologist, we are able to use CT to do a basic coronary analysis without an invasive procedure and rule out many patients that they would otherwise have to take to the cath lab. For the gastroenterologist, we are proposing the same thing with virtual colonoscopy.
The marketing pitch is easy, right? We tell the physicians this will make your life easier. You don't have to worry yourself with the routine procedures. You can get more patients through. Life is good. Or is it?
As a cardiologist or a gastroenterologist, yeah, it's great to have the challenging cases that allow you to stretch your thinking, perform an amazing procedure, and live up to the lofty views. But, it's the routine that puts the money in the pocket. A routine colonoscopy with no complications can take 30 minutes or so, and put 2-3x more money into the GIs pocket. Same with a routine angio. And, these are less likely to be met with complications, stress, etc.
When positioning to these customers, it is important to keep this in mind. As marketers, we want to tout all the time saving, risk saving that these cool and great technologies offer the physician and ultimately the patient. But it's also important to remember that we need to show them how to build a business around these new technologies. We need to become more consultative. For the GI guy, it's about helping him set up a practice that will allow him to boost screening by using virtual, which will in turn keep enough people coming through the door to keep the endoscopy suite packed. The same goes for helping the cardiologist get her practice established.
Ultimately, it's about helping them first embrace the technology as something to help them grow, showing them how to attract more patients/referrals, and really differentiating themselves from all of the other practices out there by truly catering to the different needs and desires of the end customer, the patient.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Virtual Colonoscopy; A Three Part Series - The Facility
After a short absense while I attended the Abdominal Radiology Course (great content for a future blog or two), I wanted to wrap up my discussion on the series of virtual colonoscopy by looking at the facility.
CTC should offer facilities a unique way to differentiate themselves from everyone else. There are many different places that could offer the procedure including hospitals and diagnostic imaging centers. But, the place that I want to focus is the physician's office, namely the GI office.
Right now, it seems that many gastroenterologists are fighting the idea of CTC. They don't want to take the scope out of their hands. But, they are missing a golden opportunity to market to the communities they serve, grow their business, and even make their work more enjoyable.
Here's an ideal scenario. As a practice they structure themselves to offer both VC and OC. They structure the facility so that the patient comes in and goes through the VC screening. If there are any questions or lesions, they are sent over to OC for a procedure. For the 88% that are clean, they are done, and they go home (the 88% is from the ACRIN trial where it was concluded that 88% of participants would not have had to undergo an optical colonoscopy based on the CTC findings).
As a facility, you can then market this concept to the physicians and patients in the area. Non-invasive screening, but the option for same day removal. One single prep. Go about your day, and feel good. What are the chances that the number of patients increases? Initial studies indicate it will be better than good.
Next, market this to insurance companies as a package. Say they pay one flat rate regardless of outcome. This means you win on VC, lose a little on OC, but end up ahead because you are doing far more VC than OC. Plus by covering screening, they are less likely to have to pay on the back end for the treatment of cancer.
Lastly, market to the physicians. To the GI guys, it's not about taking the scope out of their hands. Rather, it's allowing them to forego the mundane, basic, non-polyp colons and focus on more challenging cases and polypectomies, thus being more stimulating for them (the same thing is occuring with the cardiologists as they realize it's more "fun" to deal with the challenging cases and leave the basic, routine ones to CT). For radiologists, this allows them an opportunity to do some additional reading, or it allows teleradiology practices the opportunity to increase their workload.
All-in-all, if this is properly positioned, it should be a win-win for everyone. It is going to take some education of the parties involved, but in the end, I think the advent of VC is going to lead to increased screening, which will lead to increased survival rates and increased revenues for the GI facilities. Because, when we get right down to it, it's not about taking the scope out of their hands, it's the fear of taking the dollars out of their pockets.
CTC should offer facilities a unique way to differentiate themselves from everyone else. There are many different places that could offer the procedure including hospitals and diagnostic imaging centers. But, the place that I want to focus is the physician's office, namely the GI office.
Right now, it seems that many gastroenterologists are fighting the idea of CTC. They don't want to take the scope out of their hands. But, they are missing a golden opportunity to market to the communities they serve, grow their business, and even make their work more enjoyable.
Here's an ideal scenario. As a practice they structure themselves to offer both VC and OC. They structure the facility so that the patient comes in and goes through the VC screening. If there are any questions or lesions, they are sent over to OC for a procedure. For the 88% that are clean, they are done, and they go home (the 88% is from the ACRIN trial where it was concluded that 88% of participants would not have had to undergo an optical colonoscopy based on the CTC findings).
As a facility, you can then market this concept to the physicians and patients in the area. Non-invasive screening, but the option for same day removal. One single prep. Go about your day, and feel good. What are the chances that the number of patients increases? Initial studies indicate it will be better than good.
Next, market this to insurance companies as a package. Say they pay one flat rate regardless of outcome. This means you win on VC, lose a little on OC, but end up ahead because you are doing far more VC than OC. Plus by covering screening, they are less likely to have to pay on the back end for the treatment of cancer.
Lastly, market to the physicians. To the GI guys, it's not about taking the scope out of their hands. Rather, it's allowing them to forego the mundane, basic, non-polyp colons and focus on more challenging cases and polypectomies, thus being more stimulating for them (the same thing is occuring with the cardiologists as they realize it's more "fun" to deal with the challenging cases and leave the basic, routine ones to CT). For radiologists, this allows them an opportunity to do some additional reading, or it allows teleradiology practices the opportunity to increase their workload.
All-in-all, if this is properly positioned, it should be a win-win for everyone. It is going to take some education of the parties involved, but in the end, I think the advent of VC is going to lead to increased screening, which will lead to increased survival rates and increased revenues for the GI facilities. Because, when we get right down to it, it's not about taking the scope out of their hands, it's the fear of taking the dollars out of their pockets.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
What Gives you Credibility?
So, I'm breaking from the VC topic prior to the 3rd part in the series because there is something that bugged me a little bit yesterday.
Does who you work for and what you do for a living increase or decrease your credibility?
I would say that if you are expressing an opinion regarding your industry, it should count for something right? My friend Andy is a partner in a consulting company that specializes in social media marketing. So when he talks about social media marketing, he is more credible even if he is trying to sell me his service than say my sister who is a teacher.
What you do and who you work for should enhance your credibility in your field as it is what you do on a daily basis. For Andy, his credibility is enhanced in a discussion involving social media marketing. His opinions should be more relevant and matter more in these discussions.
So why do I bring this up? The other day I read a post by a family practice physician that was against reimbursement for VC. So, I challenged his position by pointing out studies that indicated it was more effective than he gave it credit for as well other procedures that are reimbursable but have a lower sensitivity than VC. Rather than make a counter argument, he simply dismissed my comments because I work for a company that produces a VC product!! How does this make sense? I've spent the better part of a month researching and trying to understand the validity of this procedure, where the benefits lie, and why it would make sense. Yes, I want to see it approved because it is good for my company. But at the same time, my argument was based on research, patient care, etc. Doesn't this qualify me as having some credibility to my argument?
When you are talking to people, what they do can lend a lot of credibility to an argument, even if they are trying to eventually sell you something. People that are trying to sell actually spend a lot of time understanding their products and services, thus bolstering their credibility. Plus, people try to find things that they enjoy to do, enjoy learning about, and enjoy talking about. You definitely shouldn't dismiss those people.
Does who you work for and what you do for a living increase or decrease your credibility?
I would say that if you are expressing an opinion regarding your industry, it should count for something right? My friend Andy is a partner in a consulting company that specializes in social media marketing. So when he talks about social media marketing, he is more credible even if he is trying to sell me his service than say my sister who is a teacher.
What you do and who you work for should enhance your credibility in your field as it is what you do on a daily basis. For Andy, his credibility is enhanced in a discussion involving social media marketing. His opinions should be more relevant and matter more in these discussions.
So why do I bring this up? The other day I read a post by a family practice physician that was against reimbursement for VC. So, I challenged his position by pointing out studies that indicated it was more effective than he gave it credit for as well other procedures that are reimbursable but have a lower sensitivity than VC. Rather than make a counter argument, he simply dismissed my comments because I work for a company that produces a VC product!! How does this make sense? I've spent the better part of a month researching and trying to understand the validity of this procedure, where the benefits lie, and why it would make sense. Yes, I want to see it approved because it is good for my company. But at the same time, my argument was based on research, patient care, etc. Doesn't this qualify me as having some credibility to my argument?
When you are talking to people, what they do can lend a lot of credibility to an argument, even if they are trying to eventually sell you something. People that are trying to sell actually spend a lot of time understanding their products and services, thus bolstering their credibility. Plus, people try to find things that they enjoy to do, enjoy learning about, and enjoy talking about. You definitely shouldn't dismiss those people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
