I got interested in making short narrative films about five years ago. Since then, I've produced several. I started out knowing nothing, so I read a lot, talked to folks with experience, practiced, and learned by trial and error.
I don't pretend to be an expert, but I'm seeing a hunk of unnecessarily ugly vlogging and video on the Web. I thought maybe I could spare us all some pain by sharing what I've learned, which is:
In order to produce a decent piece of film, consider the follow components in the process:
A Producer—that organized, energetic, multi-tasking, diplomatic somebody who can work with creative people, quirky egos, technical types, guys who haul cable, and animals (human and otherwise).
Production Values—the attention to visual detail that makes us say “Ah, nice!” In short, production values seamlessly make the video look good. Most people know production values when they see them, but have no idea how they happen (well, actually, they don't just happen; they're planned .. carefully).
Location Scouting—the art of finding just the right spot to enhance the message (it’s probably not in a chair, inside an office, with a blank wall and a potted plan behind the "speaker" ... and it’s quite possibly more than one spot, even for a three-minute film).
Casting—the insight of a person familiar with what an actor can bring to the video party, along with a knowledge of who can work behind a camera, who can’t, and why.
A Director’s Touch— a firm grasp of such film production techniques as camera angles, long, medium, and close-up shots, framing the shot for optimum visual interest, and the seamless, intuitive human interaction that brings out the best in everybody who will be on camera.
A Cinematographer/Art Director’s Eye—which is different from point-and-click shooting, different from the way a weekend photographer sees things, and the difference between desktop publishing and Vogue magazine: in other words, no comparison. Much more than a shooter, this guy or gal is an artist.
Lighting, Sound, and Gear Professionals—the crew gets film in the can that looks, sounds, and plays as it should. We all know what imperfect looks like—sound that vacillates between loud and soft, camera work that jiggles and blurs, lighting that's too dark, etc. An experienced crew has been there and doesn't do that.
A Film Editor—in these hands, everything comes together. Film editing is art and science. It takes considerable technical expertise, an investment in learning, and—most of all—a deep love of and familiarity with what “works” on screen. If you make only one investment in your video, do multiple takes from multiple angles and then get an experienced film editor.
Bottom line: Web video looks better shot in a filmmaker's light. It's harder than it looks, but easier when you consider the proper components. See you on set ...
- scrubbed by Marketing Brillo
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Monday, June 29, 2009
Something To LOVE About Commercial Marketing
Jason Falls’ blog this morning noted that tolerating commercials is the “price of admission” to the free entertainment and information we crave. If we increasingly reject commercials and ads as fair exchange for content, we may be locking ourselves into somebody else’s notion of what’s fair to pay (some venture capitalist’s, for example, or some technology mastermind’s idea). Facebook is a case in point.
In February this year, users were furious when Facebook tried to “update” its terms of use. Although the new terms didn’t much change what had always been true – namely, that Facebook pretty much owns all the data posted there – users were offended. Fred Vogelstein’s article last week in Wired magazine illuminated the controversy further.
The nugget in Vogelstein’s article lay in this paragraph: “Hardly any of [a user’s] Facebook information turns up on a Google search, because all of it, along with similar details about the other 200 million Facebook users, exists on the social network's roughly 40,000 servers. Together, this data comprises a mammoth amount of activity, almost a second Internet. By Facebook's estimates, every month users share 4 billion pieces of information—news stories, status updates, birthday wishes, and so on. They also upload 850 million photos and 8 million videos. But anyone wanting to access that stuff must go through Facebook; the social network treats it all as proprietary data, largely shielding it from Google's crawlers." And now comes the Facebook Business Page, which -- under pressure not to get "left out of" the newer, better social media advertising -- many are adopting as an augment to or replacement for the costlier, but proprietary, corporate website.
Do I care? Actually, I do.
On Google, I go where I want, tolerating Google ads as I go or using some other “free” search engine. Fair Enough. But Facebook! Here’s a single repository of personal information about 200 million people – all of it gathered without most users having given any thought whatsoever to the company’s ultimate intentions or ability to use that information (who reads those “terms of agreement,” really? Likely, not the 45% of users 25 and younger.. likely few of us).
What will Facebook decide to do with all this captive data, surreptitiously gathered (buyer beware, sucker!), and to which no other entity has access (except maybe a favored politician or the “government”)? That’s a kind of “marketing” I don’t want any part of.
Back in the day, when television was young and fresh, t.v. commercials were as much fun to watch as the shows themselves. But we grew tired, so the marketers got smarter and t.v. ads got better. Today, commercials on the small screen (and, yes, annoyingly, now on the big screen, too) are mini-movies, some of them fabulously written, directed, and acted. Meanwhile, we continue to take for granted the hundred-plus years of ingenious copy, photography, and design that artfully graces the pages of great magazines like Vogue, Vanity Fair, and The New Yorker. Apple’s television introduction of the Mac at the 1984 Superbowl was memorable and is historic. And – as much as we like to criticize “junk mail” – we’ve all seen direct mail campaigns good enough to persuade us to give a stranger our money (again and again). That’s pretty impressive.
So, before we rush to judgment against “marketing,” let’s acknowledge both its creativity and its enormous contribution to the democratic spread of information.And that’s important, this word democratic: It means everybody can afford it and nobody gets shut out because they can’t afford to pay for commercial free television, TiVo, or “premium” access to this or that website.
Let’s be willing to trade a little time for what we want, while always applying pressure for better marketing (as opposed to no marketing at all). And, finally, let’s be careful about greedily taking what’s free now, in exchange for turning over to any corporate entity later, our right to choose.
- scrubbed by Marketing Brillo
In February this year, users were furious when Facebook tried to “update” its terms of use. Although the new terms didn’t much change what had always been true – namely, that Facebook pretty much owns all the data posted there – users were offended. Fred Vogelstein’s article last week in Wired magazine illuminated the controversy further.
The nugget in Vogelstein’s article lay in this paragraph: “Hardly any of [a user’s] Facebook information turns up on a Google search, because all of it, along with similar details about the other 200 million Facebook users, exists on the social network's roughly 40,000 servers. Together, this data comprises a mammoth amount of activity, almost a second Internet. By Facebook's estimates, every month users share 4 billion pieces of information—news stories, status updates, birthday wishes, and so on. They also upload 850 million photos and 8 million videos. But anyone wanting to access that stuff must go through Facebook; the social network treats it all as proprietary data, largely shielding it from Google's crawlers." And now comes the Facebook Business Page, which -- under pressure not to get "left out of" the newer, better social media advertising -- many are adopting as an augment to or replacement for the costlier, but proprietary, corporate website.
Do I care? Actually, I do.
On Google, I go where I want, tolerating Google ads as I go or using some other “free” search engine. Fair Enough. But Facebook! Here’s a single repository of personal information about 200 million people – all of it gathered without most users having given any thought whatsoever to the company’s ultimate intentions or ability to use that information (who reads those “terms of agreement,” really? Likely, not the 45% of users 25 and younger.. likely few of us).
What will Facebook decide to do with all this captive data, surreptitiously gathered (buyer beware, sucker!), and to which no other entity has access (except maybe a favored politician or the “government”)? That’s a kind of “marketing” I don’t want any part of.
Back in the day, when television was young and fresh, t.v. commercials were as much fun to watch as the shows themselves. But we grew tired, so the marketers got smarter and t.v. ads got better. Today, commercials on the small screen (and, yes, annoyingly, now on the big screen, too) are mini-movies, some of them fabulously written, directed, and acted. Meanwhile, we continue to take for granted the hundred-plus years of ingenious copy, photography, and design that artfully graces the pages of great magazines like Vogue, Vanity Fair, and The New Yorker. Apple’s television introduction of the Mac at the 1984 Superbowl was memorable and is historic. And – as much as we like to criticize “junk mail” – we’ve all seen direct mail campaigns good enough to persuade us to give a stranger our money (again and again). That’s pretty impressive.
So, before we rush to judgment against “marketing,” let’s acknowledge both its creativity and its enormous contribution to the democratic spread of information.And that’s important, this word democratic: It means everybody can afford it and nobody gets shut out because they can’t afford to pay for commercial free television, TiVo, or “premium” access to this or that website.
Let’s be willing to trade a little time for what we want, while always applying pressure for better marketing (as opposed to no marketing at all). And, finally, let’s be careful about greedily taking what’s free now, in exchange for turning over to any corporate entity later, our right to choose.
- scrubbed by Marketing Brillo
Friday, June 26, 2009
Will Dunbar’s Number Crush Our Social Media Homies?
Disclosure: I can't get enough of Dunbar's Number. What in heaven's name is really happening here at this intersection of mathematics, anthropology, sociology, neuroscience, Grey's Anatomy and Twitter?
Some research aristocrats warn us not to rely on Wikipedia, but what the heck? I think the pedia’s definition of Dunbar’s Number is as good as any, to wit: Dunbar's number is a theoretical cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships." Already, I'm worried about this "stable" thing, but let's move on.
Robin Dunbar, an anthropologist at the University of London, tagged this number of manageable, stable, social relationships at 150. But there also was a caveat. In order to maintain our cohesive community of 150, Dunbar said the group would need to budget 42% of its time for “social grooming.” That’s a lot of flea pickin'. Lucky for us humans, we've got language, the yakety-yak of which can substitute for hands-on primate grooming.
Even luckier for Tweeters, language is our stock in trade. Since we speak in efficient 140-character spurts, we can “tweet groom” a lot of people. On the other hand, we need to read a lot in order that we might engage in the more exalted “REtweet groom” or even the "direct" groom. (Okay, maybe 42% of our day isn't so far off the mark after all).
So, Tweeple, how’s it working’ for ya? As far as I can tell, it depends on whom we ask.
Christopher Allen gets into the statistical dimension of Dunbar more deeply, but still seems to come down to Dunbar’s maximum of 150 participants, even for online communities. Allen also notes that even beyond a measly (my word) 80 people the “noise level created by required socialization becomes an issue.” If you've ever watched Jerry Springer, you know what Allen means.
Andrew Mager, on the other hand, is pretty sure the social web allows a much greater number of friendsters. People's brains are evolving to accommodate more massive input, he theorizes. (Note: Theories like these are why I belong to the neuroscience Twibe, in hopes of keeping up with brain research).
Meanwhile Chris Brogan takes a practical approach, suggesting that, if we can only deal with 150 people, a good strategy is to count within our 150 few, people who are themselves tied into other influential groups of 150. A sort of "chain groom," if you will.
Business journalist Andrew Wee, however, is already hurting from social media. He calls “getting on Facebook quite a painful experience.” Wee decries being hit by irrelevant application invites and multiple people sending the same invites to the same app over and over again, “which means you could be spending 15-30 minutes each day just getting rid of application requests.” I know, I know, Mr. Wee. But, if you think Facebook is bad, take a look at the even more chaotic GoogleWave. (On second thought, don't. My neuro-psychiatrist says this many messages within messages within messages could lead to synapse collapse.)
Wayne Porter, co-founder at Meme Science, says that “marketers lose by not working with mirco-sized players who really can influence people.” I wasn't sure how small my player should be -- is 4'2" about right? -- but he clarifies: “The real value from social networking platforms are the relationships forged and conversations to be had. Facebook applications or RPGs are great for this, but one should keep Dunbar’s number in mind. This is especially prudent in high immersion environments, like Second Life, where nothing seems to scale.” (Did he say second life? Did he? Did he really say that?)
I know I shouldn't, but I must ask the following final question, because really, architecture should be part of this serious conversation, too! So -- if mapped out geographically -- would the pattern of my own – and your -- Dunbar’s Numbers be shaped like a spiral? Just wondering ...
- scrubbed by Marketing Brillo
Some research aristocrats warn us not to rely on Wikipedia, but what the heck? I think the pedia’s definition of Dunbar’s Number is as good as any, to wit: Dunbar's number is a theoretical cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships." Already, I'm worried about this "stable" thing, but let's move on.
Robin Dunbar, an anthropologist at the University of London, tagged this number of manageable, stable, social relationships at 150. But there also was a caveat. In order to maintain our cohesive community of 150, Dunbar said the group would need to budget 42% of its time for “social grooming.” That’s a lot of flea pickin'. Lucky for us humans, we've got language, the yakety-yak of which can substitute for hands-on primate grooming.
Even luckier for Tweeters, language is our stock in trade. Since we speak in efficient 140-character spurts, we can “tweet groom” a lot of people. On the other hand, we need to read a lot in order that we might engage in the more exalted “REtweet groom” or even the "direct" groom. (Okay, maybe 42% of our day isn't so far off the mark after all).
So, Tweeple, how’s it working’ for ya? As far as I can tell, it depends on whom we ask.
Christopher Allen gets into the statistical dimension of Dunbar more deeply, but still seems to come down to Dunbar’s maximum of 150 participants, even for online communities. Allen also notes that even beyond a measly (my word) 80 people the “noise level created by required socialization becomes an issue.” If you've ever watched Jerry Springer, you know what Allen means.
Andrew Mager, on the other hand, is pretty sure the social web allows a much greater number of friendsters. People's brains are evolving to accommodate more massive input, he theorizes. (Note: Theories like these are why I belong to the neuroscience Twibe, in hopes of keeping up with brain research).
Meanwhile Chris Brogan takes a practical approach, suggesting that, if we can only deal with 150 people, a good strategy is to count within our 150 few, people who are themselves tied into other influential groups of 150. A sort of "chain groom," if you will.
Business journalist Andrew Wee, however, is already hurting from social media. He calls “getting on Facebook quite a painful experience.” Wee decries being hit by irrelevant application invites and multiple people sending the same invites to the same app over and over again, “which means you could be spending 15-30 minutes each day just getting rid of application requests.” I know, I know, Mr. Wee. But, if you think Facebook is bad, take a look at the even more chaotic GoogleWave. (On second thought, don't. My neuro-psychiatrist says this many messages within messages within messages could lead to synapse collapse.)
Wayne Porter, co-founder at Meme Science, says that “marketers lose by not working with mirco-sized players who really can influence people.” I wasn't sure how small my player should be -- is 4'2" about right? -- but he clarifies: “The real value from social networking platforms are the relationships forged and conversations to be had. Facebook applications or RPGs are great for this, but one should keep Dunbar’s number in mind. This is especially prudent in high immersion environments, like Second Life, where nothing seems to scale.” (Did he say second life? Did he? Did he really say that?)
I know I shouldn't, but I must ask the following final question, because really, architecture should be part of this serious conversation, too! So -- if mapped out geographically -- would the pattern of my own – and your -- Dunbar’s Numbers be shaped like a spiral? Just wondering ...
- scrubbed by Marketing Brillo
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Social Media Tips from David Scott Meerman
Yesterday, marketing and PR strategist David Scott Meerman was featured on a Vocus webinar talking about the New Rules of Marketing and PR.
Meerman noted that, after four decades of nameless, faceless advertising and marketing projects, marketers finally have the chance to tell their stories directly to an interested market. Before jumping into social media -- -- blogs, ebooks, Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, etc. -- he advises marketers and PR folks to consider a few things:
1. Who are your various “buyer personas”? If you’re a hotel, for example, your personas could be business travelers, weddings guests and planners, families, couples away for a romantic weekend, etc. Your job is not to hype your products or services to these folks, but to develop a conversation with them based on their interest and concerns. Tip: To help him communicate better, Meerman uses a classic copywriting technique -- he names each of his personas (your business traveler could be Stephanie, for example).
2. Rather than trying to sell, emphasize what you want your persona to believe about your product or service. To demonstrate, Meerman featured the Volvo brand, which the vast majority of respondents associate with “safety.” The Obama brand? Meerman says he's spoken all over the world and audiences everywhere say they associate "change" with Obama.
3. Earn attention. The old marketing/PR model relies on Buying advertising, Begging for attention from the media, and Bugging people one at a time to buy (sales calls). In the social media model, we Earn Attention by sharing useful information – sometimes about our own products/services, yes, but in the social media conversation, that's not required.
4. On the web, you are what you publish, so play nice. Encourage sharing (Meerman calls this information-pass-along tactic, “word of mouse”).
5. The old model of “information sharing” features “press releases” – a strategy of communication that fails completely. Meerman noted that, in 2008, when journalists were asked to come up with the phrases they heard most often in press releases, they identified 350 press release clichés (e.g. “innovate,” “pleased to announce that,” “world-class,” “next generation”). When these 350 offenders were compared against all the press releases actually sent in 2008, every single one of the 700,700 releases contained one or more of these habitual offenders.
- scrubbed by Marketing Brillo
Meerman noted that, after four decades of nameless, faceless advertising and marketing projects, marketers finally have the chance to tell their stories directly to an interested market. Before jumping into social media -- -- blogs, ebooks, Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, etc. -- he advises marketers and PR folks to consider a few things:
1. Who are your various “buyer personas”? If you’re a hotel, for example, your personas could be business travelers, weddings guests and planners, families, couples away for a romantic weekend, etc. Your job is not to hype your products or services to these folks, but to develop a conversation with them based on their interest and concerns. Tip: To help him communicate better, Meerman uses a classic copywriting technique -- he names each of his personas (your business traveler could be Stephanie, for example).
2. Rather than trying to sell, emphasize what you want your persona to believe about your product or service. To demonstrate, Meerman featured the Volvo brand, which the vast majority of respondents associate with “safety.” The Obama brand? Meerman says he's spoken all over the world and audiences everywhere say they associate "change" with Obama.
3. Earn attention. The old marketing/PR model relies on Buying advertising, Begging for attention from the media, and Bugging people one at a time to buy (sales calls). In the social media model, we Earn Attention by sharing useful information – sometimes about our own products/services, yes, but in the social media conversation, that's not required.
4. On the web, you are what you publish, so play nice. Encourage sharing (Meerman calls this information-pass-along tactic, “word of mouse”).
5. The old model of “information sharing” features “press releases” – a strategy of communication that fails completely. Meerman noted that, in 2008, when journalists were asked to come up with the phrases they heard most often in press releases, they identified 350 press release clichés (e.g. “innovate,” “pleased to announce that,” “world-class,” “next generation”). When these 350 offenders were compared against all the press releases actually sent in 2008, every single one of the 700,700 releases contained one or more of these habitual offenders.
- scrubbed by Marketing Brillo
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Twitter: One Way to Construct a Global Brain Trust
Yesterday, Marc Schaefer posted a blog titled “Why Do I need 10,000 followers?” Then he posted that same question to the Twitter Innovators group on LinkedIn. People are commenting like crazy.
The consensus so far is that a lot of tweeters welcome followers, but aren’t scrambling for them. Biologist, naturalist guide, and writer Roger Harris [aka Jungleman] put it perfectly for me, when he said:
Twitter is about quality, not quantity. I have been on Twitter since mid-2007, having Tweeted 2000+ times. And I only have a pitiful 600 and something followers. How lame. Why don't I just give up? But if you look at people who are following me, they are influencers, early adopters, social media experts, and other people I want to connect with. And that's the point of Twitter. Notice that I only follow about half the number of those that follow me. I have blogged about Dunbar's Limit-- how many people we can realistically interact with. So the best way to manage users is to share what you consider interesting and useful, enjoy the serendipity of what your community chooses to share with you, and keep an eye on the truly important things in life: love, trust, honesty, loyalty, courage.
I think Harris is describing the same Tweeple that Chris Brogan alludes to as “pirates” in his blog "You Still Need A Frame." The “Mastermind Group” touches on the same ideal "meeting of the minds." Managed thoughtfully, Twitter also promises a great way for each of us to construct our own global brain trust. Ya tink?
p.s. More info on Dunbar’s Number from the WSJ’s/NumbersGuy here and from Chris Brogan here.
- scrubbed by Marketing Brillo
The consensus so far is that a lot of tweeters welcome followers, but aren’t scrambling for them. Biologist, naturalist guide, and writer Roger Harris [aka Jungleman] put it perfectly for me, when he said:
Twitter is about quality, not quantity. I have been on Twitter since mid-2007, having Tweeted 2000+ times. And I only have a pitiful 600 and something followers. How lame. Why don't I just give up? But if you look at people who are following me, they are influencers, early adopters, social media experts, and other people I want to connect with. And that's the point of Twitter. Notice that I only follow about half the number of those that follow me. I have blogged about Dunbar's Limit-- how many people we can realistically interact with. So the best way to manage users is to share what you consider interesting and useful, enjoy the serendipity of what your community chooses to share with you, and keep an eye on the truly important things in life: love, trust, honesty, loyalty, courage.
I think Harris is describing the same Tweeple that Chris Brogan alludes to as “pirates” in his blog "You Still Need A Frame." The “Mastermind Group” touches on the same ideal "meeting of the minds." Managed thoughtfully, Twitter also promises a great way for each of us to construct our own global brain trust. Ya tink?
p.s. More info on Dunbar’s Number from the WSJ’s/NumbersGuy here and from Chris Brogan here.
- scrubbed by Marketing Brillo
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Five Experts Give Tips On "Comment Marketing"
Most marketers are tracking the Internet to find out who's talking about their product or service. Blogs are where the experts hang out, so if your name (or your industry) comes up, you could be tempted to leave a comment. Here's what several experts suggest you consider.
Yesterday Shannon Paul wrote a brilliant blog for corporate marketers who want to “get the word out” by commenting on their own, others,' or related products. Shannon built sound guidance around the green, yellow, red light metaphor. Actually, the message is the same simple dictate common to all social media: inform, don’t advertise; be transparent and honest; be polite.
Before I read Shannon’s post, I didn’t realize some marketers will do anything to get their client's name on the Internet. If you think any publicity is good publicity, read Andrey Savchenko’s post at rarst.net. You might be surprised how angry some bloggers get when somebody tries to “fool me once” [you won’t get a second chance].
Shannon had some other great links, too: Mack Collier’s post features how to write great blog comments and Sarah Lewis shares advice on leaving blog comments to boost traffic, as well as tips for locating blog posts that are perfect for comment marketing.
Finally, if you think a word or two of praise for the blogger is safe, read Brian Clark, who stomps on hit-and-run commentary.
Any comments?
- scrubbed by Marketing Brillo
Yesterday Shannon Paul wrote a brilliant blog for corporate marketers who want to “get the word out” by commenting on their own, others,' or related products. Shannon built sound guidance around the green, yellow, red light metaphor. Actually, the message is the same simple dictate common to all social media: inform, don’t advertise; be transparent and honest; be polite.
Before I read Shannon’s post, I didn’t realize some marketers will do anything to get their client's name on the Internet. If you think any publicity is good publicity, read Andrey Savchenko’s post at rarst.net. You might be surprised how angry some bloggers get when somebody tries to “fool me once” [you won’t get a second chance].
Shannon had some other great links, too: Mack Collier’s post features how to write great blog comments and Sarah Lewis shares advice on leaving blog comments to boost traffic, as well as tips for locating blog posts that are perfect for comment marketing.
Finally, if you think a word or two of praise for the blogger is safe, read Brian Clark, who stomps on hit-and-run commentary.
Any comments?
- scrubbed by Marketing Brillo
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Hey, Marketer: How About These 8 Trends In Retail?
A story in the New York Times today reports how major retailers are adjusting to the recession. The following eight strategies are mostly about belt-tightening. If you're a marketer, be prepared to deal with the following:
1. For premium priced stores, all bets are off on familiar pricing models, with fewer high-priced and more mid-priced merchandise at stores like Neiman Marcus;
2. for mass merchandisers like Wal-Mart, Target, Home Depot, and PetSmart, less inventory and fewer brands;
3. for mid-rangers like Sears and J.C. Penney, more customer self-service;
4. for Macy’s a rush to tailor merchandise according to customer demand at the local and regional level;
5. for many retailers, a move to exclusivity, with more in-store brands and increased collaboration with top designers;
6. for everybody, greater emphasis on an improved in-store customer service experience;
7. for us all, seamless interface between online and in-store shopping (e.g., in-store computers that let us check competitor’s prices);
8. more just-in-time stocking, resulting in a narrower window for "seasonal" sales;
9. in the very very near future, shopping by cell phone (note: J.C. Penney has serious initiatives to develop systems that will run on a handset.)
For customers, the fallout is likely to be less choice and more “sold out” experiences at the brick and mortars. We won't like it, because we're accustomed to entertaining ourselves by wandering the mall with that one diet coke we bought. News flash: Today's retailers are getting out of the entertainment business. Yes, they want our experience with them to be pleasant ... but only if we're actually customers.
- scrubbed by Marketing Brillo
1. For premium priced stores, all bets are off on familiar pricing models, with fewer high-priced and more mid-priced merchandise at stores like Neiman Marcus;
2. for mass merchandisers like Wal-Mart, Target, Home Depot, and PetSmart, less inventory and fewer brands;
3. for mid-rangers like Sears and J.C. Penney, more customer self-service;
4. for Macy’s a rush to tailor merchandise according to customer demand at the local and regional level;
5. for many retailers, a move to exclusivity, with more in-store brands and increased collaboration with top designers;
6. for everybody, greater emphasis on an improved in-store customer service experience;
7. for us all, seamless interface between online and in-store shopping (e.g., in-store computers that let us check competitor’s prices);
8. more just-in-time stocking, resulting in a narrower window for "seasonal" sales;
9. in the very very near future, shopping by cell phone (note: J.C. Penney has serious initiatives to develop systems that will run on a handset.)
For customers, the fallout is likely to be less choice and more “sold out” experiences at the brick and mortars. We won't like it, because we're accustomed to entertaining ourselves by wandering the mall with that one diet coke we bought. News flash: Today's retailers are getting out of the entertainment business. Yes, they want our experience with them to be pleasant ... but only if we're actually customers.
- scrubbed by Marketing Brillo
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
