Today I have the honor of being a guest blogger on the brainy blog, Neuromarketing.  My post, Maslow, Emotion, and a Hierarchy of Service, proposes a Maslow-inspired hierarchy on the topic of meeting consumer needs and motivations with customer service. Please check it out and let me know what you think.

I thought I’d take this opportunity to tell you about the Neuromarketing blog which I regularly read. It’s run by Roger Dooley president of Dooley Direct, LLC. I’ve always been fascinated by the dynamics behind consumer behavior (one of my degrees is in Psychology) and Neuromarketing covers this topic so well.

Here are a few posts which stood out to me:

Personalization: Post-Its and Beyond

In this post, Roger discussed the book, Yes! 50 Scientifically Proven Ways to Be Persuasive, by Robert Cialdini, which reports some interesting findings on the effectiveness of handwritten notes.

Cialdini found that adding a handwritten note to a mailed survey improved the response rate by one third to 48% — and a handwritten note on a Post-It affixed to the survey more than doubled the response to 75%. He attributed these boosts to the “reciprocity” effect. The recipient recognizes that the sender apparently put some personal effort into the mailing, and is more likely to reciprocate with some effort of his own.

Roger concluded by suggesting a few kinds of mail communications that could be improved by such enhanced personalization.

“Note” to self!

Loyalty Programs: Of Rats and Men

Roger linked rats and loyalty programs by reporting, “Back in the 1930s, researchers made an interesting discovery: rats running a maze to reach food ran faster as they got closer to the food. This finding led to the ‘goal gradient hypothesis,’ which states…the closer the goal, the more effort you expend to get there.

“So what does this have with loyalty programs? A few years ago, Columbia University researchers examined the goal gradient hypothesis using unwitting human subjects, and found that people behave a lot like rats. Give them a coffee punch card that rewards them with a free coffee when full, and they will drink coffee more frequently as they approach a fully stamped card.”

Roger zeroed in on one particularly fascinating conclusion: providing someone with a “head start” can be an effective boost to a loyalty program. He suggested, “A plane ticket that requires using 25,000 frequent flyer miles would not seem as “close” as one that requires 35,000 miles but in which the customer starts with 10,000 miles. Coffee shops should consider [giving] bonus punches upon first use [of a punch card].”

Really interesting stuff!

Doggie Bags & Sunk Costs

“Did you ever get a meal at a restaurant that you didn’t like, but have them wrap up the leftovers anyway?,” Roger asked in this intriguing post. He explained, “Even though the food’s flavor is unlikely to improve with age, there may be an explanation for the seemingly irrational behavior.”

According to B. Venkatesh, a self-proclaimed investment psychologist, our reluctance to abandon the distasteful food can be attributed to a “pain of wasting” – the more we paid for the meal, the more it will “hurt” to discard the leftovers. Roger observed, “I think this is all part of the broader issue of sunk costs (what economists call money that has already been spent and can’t be recovered)…sunk costs do indeed affect our decisions whether or not that is rational.”

Definitely something to consider for cross-selling (and left-overs)!

Emotional Ads Work Best

Roger wrote about the book Brand Immortality: How Brands Can Live Long and Prosper by Hamish Pringle and Peter Field. The authors found that campaigns with purely emotional content performed about twice as well (31% vs. 16%) [as those] with only rational content, and those that were purely emotional did a little better (31% vs 26%) than those that mixed emotional and rational content. “They attributed this result to our brain’s ability to process emotional input without cognitive processing, as well as our brain’s more powerful recording of emotional stimuli.”

Importantly they noted that while an emotional marketing campaign may be more effective, creating ads that engage consumer emotions isn’t easy – and they suggested that committing to an emotional branding approach be “hard-wired into the fabric of the brand,” which Roger noted, “requires a major commitment as well as good understanding of consumer motivation.”

Which brings me back to why I really like reading the Neuromarketing blog – and why I wrote the guest post. Understanding the why behind the what of consumer attitudes and behavior seems the key to effective marketing.

Ever run or cycled into a headwind? You have to work a lot harder to make the same progress that normally comes a lot more easily. Conversely, running or riding with the wind at your back is a glorious feeling.

On a recent ride, I had plenty of opportunity to consider how headwinds and tailwinds apply to business as I tried to distract myself from all the huffing and puffing I was doing just to maintain a decent speed. Here’s what I came up with:

The prevailing “winds” of business can make a huge difference in the amount of effort a company has to exert to be successful. Market shifts like the emergence of a new technology or the discovery of a new raw material create a tailwind which companies can use to their advantage (e.g., You Tube enjoyed a rapid ascent thanks to the democratization of video-recording capabilities) — or a company’s foundation can be threatened by a headwind like when Kodak found itself blown away by how digital imaging transformed the use, value, and meaning of cameras and picture-taking.

Consumer trends also create head- and tailwinds. Demographic shifts like the growing aging market have fueled the success of Oil of Olay’s Regenerist skincare products, while attitudinal changes like the growing concern for the environment drove (pardon the pun) Hummer out of business.

Developments in channels and distribution function like winds as well – shopping malls and mobile payment providers are operating in head- and tailwinds respectively. Political environments speed and slow businesses as the impact of recent changes in taxation, regulation, and healthcare demonstrates.

Although a generous wind at your back doesn’t guarantee success, business is generally better when the winds are working in your favor. Entrepreneurs would be wise to ascertain the prevailing winds of the market before developing their business model and plan. And established players need to maintain enough nimbleness to navigate the changing winds in their business environment.

But it’s not always possible to go with the flow – and sometimes there’s more to gain from zagging when others zig. Fritz Maytag didn’t allow his microbrewery, Anchor Brewing, to get caught up in the category’s popularity whirlwind of the 1990’s, and so the label continues to enjoy a strong reputation and high price premium today. At a time when most e-commerce companies are using a drop-ship model to offset inventory risks in a volatile economy, Zappos has engendered remarkable customer loyalty in part because chooses to face the headwind and manage its distribution in order to control the customer experience.

So the point is not to avoid headwinds – but rather, to be aware of the head- and tailwinds impacting your business and to develop your strategies and run your operations accordingly.

If you’re determined to tackle a headwind, some lessons from my running and cycling experiences apply:

- go slow and be deliberate – When it comes to headwinds, B.F.I., an abbreviation for Brute Force and Ignorance which I’ve heard the Army uses, is not the way to go. I’ve learned the hard way that trying to blast through a headwind when working out rarely works. The same goes for business.

Pace yourself and prepare for a long, hard haul. You’ll want to dole out expenditures slowly, set interim goals which keep you on track toward your ultimate objective, and double-up on efforts to boost morale. And you’ll want to ensure every step you take moves you closer to your goal, which requires careful analysis and planning. Accenture Institute for High Performance researchers report that conservative financial management and a bias toward profitable internal growth over acquisitions enabled companies to successfully face the headwinds of the early 1990’s recession.

- remove detractions and distractions – When I cycle into the wind, I zip up my jersey and crouch down a bit in order to lessen the mass for the wind to catch. I also keep my focus on the road and don’t look around as much, so that I can channel all my energy to the ride.

In the same way, businesses should cut – or at least delay — activities and programs which aren’t core to the mission. You’ll want to focus all resources on the task at hand and eliminate the things (bureaucratic processes, stale partnerships, and perhaps even cultural norms) which are slowing you down. Unfortunately in some cases this might mean cutting jobs. Kodak has emerged from a potential demise in part by slashing its workforce from 60,000 in 1982 to around 7,000 today.

I believe running and cycling also hold some valuable lessons for operating in tailwinds:

- don’t become overconfident – I can’t tell you how many times I’ve unknowingly run with a tailwind and chalked up my speedy time and great feeling to my training, only to turn around to head home and get woken up from my delusion by the strong headwind.

When your company experiences success, it may be tempting to attribute your progress to having the smarts that your competitors don’t, or to running a more efficient operation, or to having superior leadership. While all of these may be true, it’s likely that the winds of business have also been working in your favor.

You need to keep your corporate ego in check and not become overconfident. Taking favorable market conditions for granted can blind you from the need to develop new strategies and capabilities. So far Apple has been riding a great wave – I hope the recent antenna-gate isn’t evidence of dangerous arrogance.

- conserve some resources. Taking advantage of a tailwind makes sense. When I’m running with one, I pick up my pace knowing I can go farther and faster than normal. And I enjoy it, for sure. But I always conserve some energy, even if I’m not on an out-and-back route and worried about facing a headwind on my way back.

I never know when I’ll need an extra boost to get around a detour – or if a yellow light is going to necessitate a last-minute sprint across a large intersection – or even if another runner comes up on my heels and my competitive spirit kicks in. Likewise, companies should always be prepared for surprise detours, deadlines, and competitive attacks. Andy Grove’s famous motto “Only the paranoid survive” definitely applies here.

Sheryl Adkins Green, Global Vice President of Brand Development for the iconic cosmetics brand Mary Kay Inc., is my guest for today’s interview.

She has some important insights to share about how to build a brand across many different countries and cultures.  She speaks not only about understanding the differences and commonalities among women around the world, but also aligning the organization around that understanding.

And she should know!  Sheryl leads the company’s global product strategy including product positioning, packaging, product education and pricing.  Prior to joining Mary Kay, Sheryl was the Vice President and General Manager of the Pro-Line International Division of Alberto-Culver.

I met Sheryl a couple of years ago and have really benefited from her wise counsel and support ever since.  I think you’ll really enjoy hearing from her.  Have a listen!

other interviews:

• omar green on solving customers’ problems
• les mckeown on the path to success
• michael tchong on trends to pay attention to

Bloomberg BusinessWeek’s publication of its “The Popularity Issue:  America’s most popular products and how they got that way” makes some fascinating statements about today’s business culture — but not because of the items it named (although those do make for an interesting read.)

The fact that a business publication would devote an issue to things which are “popular” and that it plans to do this every year (as this issue was named its “1st Annual”) suggests that popularity is a concept businesspeople care about – which is an interesting, and not necessarily  good, development.   Further, the methods by which BusinessWeek measures so-called popularity reveal the vagary in any undertaking to understand popularity – which leads to some important implications about business success.

First, some context.  The TOC of the issue features the following subhead:  “A guide to America’s favorite stuff:  the food we eat, the sneakers we wear, the churches we visit, the colors of cars we drive. Not the coolest or best – just the ubiquitous, omnipresent No. 1s.” (emphasis mine)

And the piece itself ends with, “Our mission here is not to judge but to use the best available methodology—it varies widely from item to item—to determine the winners of the never-ending popularity contest that is the American economy. Your taste may differ. In fact, we’re sure it does.”

So it seems the BusinessWeek people define popularity by breadth – that is, the most popular items are the ones with the broadest awareness or penetration.  Most of their metrics support this – they use unit sales to name the most popular brands of cereal, sneakers, underwear, sports cars and more – and share of traffic indicates the most popular airport, vacation spot, and church.

But the problem is breadth of awareness or penetration is not an indicator of appeal or affection.  To understand this, we have to look no further than a story which ran as a sidebar in the BusinessWeek piece – it chronicled the unlikely rise to stardom of Olivia Munn, the co-host of G4’s Attack of the Show!

Despite her better-than-average looks, Munn was a somewhat unremarkable figure until she joined the show and flamed her sex appeal among its geek fans by assuming the personas of sexy, domineering female characters with a goofy sense of humor – she’s now ranked No. 8 in this year’s Maxim magazine’s list of hottest women.  Munn herself admits, “Popular doesn’t mean people like you.  Popular just means that people know who you are.  In the end, it could all go away.”

Clearly broad “popularity” is tenuous and not the best aspiration for companies.  Just because people know you and buy you doesn’t mean they like you.

It’s more appropriate to align with dictionary definition of popularity:  regarded with favor, approval, or affection by people in general (popular. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved August 13, 2010, from Dictionary.com website)  We should stay true to the root meaning of word which is borrowed from the Latin popularis in 1490, originally meant common or “belonging to the people“. (Etymology Online entry for Popular, April 05, 2009.)

Dollar sales is a slightly better indicator of popularity, then. By factoring in the price people pay for products, we get a better indication of their affection for them.  The BusinessWeek piece does indeed use this measure to report on the popularity of deodorant, soda, lipstick, and alcohol brands.

But I would argue that even dollar sales isn’t the most accurate read on what’s hot and what’s not.  Distribution dominance, an underdeveloped category, or strong advertising and promotion can generate more sales at a higher price point for a brand which is not necessarily preferred.

Companies are better off measuring esteem.  Wikipedia states, “Popularity is the quality of being well-liked or common, or having a high social status.”  If we truly want to understand popularity, we need to measure how people think and feel, not simply what they buy.  Do they hold the brand in high regard?  Do they prefer it?

In the end, though, I question whether popularity is really the right goal for many brands. If you’re competing in a mass market category and have the resources (distribution power, ad and promo dollars, etc.), then aspiring to win the hearts of as many people as possible makes sense.  More power to ya, Coke, McDonald’s, and Ford!

But the reality is most companies don’t have these resources – and actually, they don’t need to.   Especially in today’s new media environment, companies can reach specific targets and stimulate purchase and cultivate strong affect among those discrete groups.  These brands might be less popular but they’re no less powerful when it comes to generating sales volume, staving off competitive threats, and commanding a price premium.

Plus generally speaking it’s easier and more efficient to go deep vs. broad.  And given the fickleness of our fad-driven culture, stronger, more focused appeal is more sustainable than broad awareness.

This counters much of the prevailing wisdom in business these days.  Most companies seem to be fixated on generating buzz – they want to get as many people talking about their products as they can.  There’s no such thing as bad buzz, it seems.  But awareness and conversation don’t build a brand – strong attachment and affection does.

It would have been far more instructive for BusinessWeek to have run a “Most Loved” issue, but then, perhaps it wouldn’t have been as popular!

In a post earlier this week, I started to address why some companies don’t operationalize their brands.  I suggested that there are 3 kinds of business leaders who fail to leverage the full potential of their brands.

The first are Naives:  “Naives simply do not understand the full potential of their brand.  That the brand is the core of the company is a foreign concept to these business leaders.  They don’t know what they don’t know.”

Then there are Aspirers:  “These people are knowledgeable about brands and definitely interested in leveraging them more broadly and substantially, but they don’t know how or they’ve run into roadblocks in their efforts to do so.”

Today we come to Emperors.

The last group of business leaders is comprised of people who think they are leveraging the full role and value of brands, but they really aren’t. Just as the emperor in the popular children’s tale foolishly wore clothes made of “invisible” cloth, these “Emperors” fool themselves and others into thinking that creative ads and clever marketing programs are enough to build a brand.  They spend a lot of money and energy on promoting their brand externally, but they don’t consider or they even ignore the internal, operational changes needed to actually deliver their brands’ value.

Unlike Naives whose omission of a brand-driven management approach may be attributed to their lack of knowledge, Emperors’ resistance is the product of skepticism.  They choose imperial nakedness out of distrust and cynicism about brands.

They think of operations and brand as two separate things.  In Emperors’ minds, the operations of the company fulfill the purpose and objectives of the business – i.e., making a product, offering a service, etc. – while the brand is the icing on the cake.  But when you operationalize the brand, there is no such distinction.

Emperors are often entrepreneurs who thrive on launching new ideas but who are less skilled at driving an operational system in a focused, integrated, consistent manner.  In an effort to propel their new business, these entrepreneurial Emperors often develop creative ideas on a one-off basis and disregard the disconnect between their aspirational vision of the brand and the stark reality of a fledgling operation.

Leaders of image-oriented businesses such as fashion and automotive also tend to be Emperors.  Because their customers’ purchase decisions seem to be based primarily on style and status, their focus tends to be on what the company says (the image it projects in advertising and marketing) vs. what it really does (the value it delivers in daily operations.)

And some retailers and restaurant leaders are Emperors because they are so preoccupied with pricing and promotions that they overlook many of the opportunities to build their brand through the in-store customer experience.

Really Emperors can be found in all sectors of business.  Most company leaders don’t operationalize their brands because they are skeptical of the brand’s role as a business driver.  They wrongly resist putting stock in something they consider to be too conceptual or qualitative to pass muster in an analytical or performance culture.

An intervention may be the only way to challenge an Emperor.  Only when forced to be thoughtful and honest about the way they currently view and use their brand will they discover the gap between delusion and reality.

—-

If you’re on the client side of the business, I’m curious to hear whether you see yourself in any of these 3 descriptions – Naives, Aspirers, or Emperors — or perhaps you’re someone who “gets it?!”  If you’re on the service provider side of the business, what kind of leaders do you most commonly encounter?  Please let me know!

My intent in outlining these categorizations is not to judge or criticize people – in fact, it’s the opposite.  I hope this might be a helpful step on everyone’s brand-building journey.  If we clearly understand the challenges before us, there’s a greater likelihood of surmounting them.

related posts:

• why not operationalize brands? part 1
• what’s a brand for?
• express vs. operationalize

Over coffee the other day a colleague asked me a question I actually get asked a lot:  Do you find that people “get it?”  By “it” he was referring to operationalizing the brand, the approach I teach and help my clients implement.  He asked because he’s found, as have I, that although many company leaders claim to understand the difference between expressing and operationalizing a brand, the fact is, most don’t put their brand in the driver’s seat of their organization.

Our talk prompted me to think about why this is the case.  Most business leaders are eager to leverage the full potential of their brands, but they’re not following through. 

I concluded that most are held back by holes in their experience, roadblocks in their organizations, or their own blinders.  I would say business leaders fall into one of three categories when it comes to the subject of operationalizing their brands.  (In today’s post, I’ll outline the first two, and later this week, I’ll conclude with the third.)

Naives.  Some business leaders can be described as “Naive” — those who think of brands only in literal terms.  To Naives, a brand is simply a logo or perhaps at most an advertising campaign.

The buzz that brands have received in recent years has piqued the interest of Naives but they’ve been misled by misinformation from so-called experts.  Many agencies, consultants, and even authors talk about “branding” in terms of slapping the company logo on everything, or using a particular color or tagline consistently, or working the social media circuit.  As a result, after researching how to build their brand, Naives usually end up with a long list of things they think they should be doing, but they remain unconvinced that any of them are going to have an impact on their bottom line.

Not surprisingly, executives with technical or financial backgrounds usually fall into this group.  In these leaders’ experience, brand development has usually been something relegated to the marketing department — so their exposure to what a brand really is and how to use it properly has been limited.

Salespeople are also often Naives, because of their relentless focus on the sale.  Brands may serve as fodder for a great sales presentation, many salespeople believe, but they’re unsure of their value beyond that.  And leaders of B2B and technology companies may not recognize how a strong brand can impact their relationship- or innovation-based business models.

Naives simply do not understand the full potential of their brand. That the brand is the core of the company is a foreign concept to these business leaders.  They don’t know what they don’t know.

In order for Naives to operationalize their brands, they need to learn to think about brands differently.  An open mind and a willingness to test a new approach are the required first steps for these folks.

Aspirers. Another category of business leaders are “Aspirers.”  These people are knowledgeable about brands and definitely interested in leveraging them more broadly and substantially, but they don’t know how or they’ve run into roadblocks in their efforts to do so.

A typical Aspirer is a former Chief Marketing Officer who has taken on line operating responsibilities – a common occurrence at packaged goods companies.  Having worked with brands throughout their careers, these Aspirers see the potential brands have for creating value throughout the organization but they lack the internal traction to implement the brand-driven approach.

Other Aspirers may have previously worked at or heard about other companies which have opertionalized their brands and are interested in engaging a similar one in their organization.

For Aspirers the key needs are instruction and equipping.  They need to learn the specific tools and methodologies and examples which make a solid business case for operationalizing the brand.  They need help in conveying the importance of the brand to every stakeholder of their organization and persuading them to adopt the brand as the driver of the business.

I hope this has provided some good food for thought so far.  Please check back on Thursday for my description of the final group of business leaders who aren’t operationalizing their brands.

related posts:

• brands vs. branding
• gaining the competitive edge
• missing the brand boat

Several weeks ago Bloomberg BusinessWeek published an article about Steve Jobs entitled, The Last Pitchman.  It documented Jobs’ seemingly inexplicable ability to sell practically anything, as evidenced by his glorious pitch for the iPhone 4, a “new” product which the news media had already gotten hold of and detailed weeks before.  I tore the pages out of the magazine as is my habit with content which proffer good fodder for blogposts.

Although the article was fascinating, I struggled with how to make sense of it — until last Sunday when I read a New York Times interview with Aaron Levie, co-founder and CEO of Box.net.  Levie used to do magic shows as a teen, and he says some of his most important leadership lessons come from the hobby:

“…it’s all about getting in front of people and telling a story, something that people buy into that is hopefully entertaining.  It’s all about capturing people’s imaginations and getting them excited about what’s possible.”

I realized that’s exactly what makes Jobs such an effective pitchman – magic.   Let me break this down a little.

Levie says magicians “tell a story.”  Jobs creates his own narrative.

Jobs’ story usually involves naming an enemy and fighting fiercely against it.  The BusinessWeek article reports that Jobs describes the iPad as “a weapon of freedom – ‘freedom from programs that steal your private data…freedom from programs that trash your battery…Freedom from porn.’”

By using an enemy to create a dramatic storyline in which the Apple product is the hero, Jobs ignites his audiences’ passions.  They’re rapt as they await the climax of the tale – the unveiling of the product or a specific feature – in the same way that great magicians get their audiences on the edges of their seats in anticipation of the “ta da!” moment.

Levie says magicians “capture people’s imaginations.”  Jobs inspires people with the promise of what’s possible.

At the risk of overstating things, it seems Jobs gives people hope.  With the deft of a skilled evangelist, he paints a picture of an almost utopian-like world his products can produce.  In the Times article Kelly O’Keefe, executive director of the Virginia Commonwealth University Brandcenter, comments, “We need something to believe in.  People believe in Apple.  They believe in Jobs.”

Levie says a magician is “entertaining” and “gets [people] excited.”  Jobs uses theater to entertain and excite.

Jobs’ version of theater isn’t flashy like what you’d experience at, say, a Sony presentation.  But it’s no less a staged spectacle.  Just like a magician who can use a simple hand gesture to spark a collective gasp among his audience, Jobs’ uses simple techniques like dramatic lighting, provocative language, and Spartan slides to create excitement.

None of the above is intended to diminish the value of what Jobs is selling – Apple’s products are truly remarkable, so he certainly has great raw material.  But his selling technique is what really fascinates me – and challenges me to think differently about the way I sell.

Whether it’s selling my ideas when speaking to an audience, selling an engagement when meeting with a prospect, or selling a point of view when making a recommendation to a client, I find so much of what I do is sales. Maybe you can relate?

I think using the approach of a magician might help us sell better – we will be able to do what the BusinessWeek piece says is Jobs’ forte:  channeling desire.

Today I interview Omar Green, the Director of Strategic Mobile Initiatives at Intuit.

I met Omar when I moderated a panel on “Mobile: New Business Models, New Markets” at the Red Herring North America conference last month.  I was so intrigued by the work Omar and his team are doing, I wanted him to share some of it with you.

Omar has been at the center of several of Intuit’s recent mobile application launches including GoPayment, which is a mobile credit card acceptance service in conjunction with Sprint/Nextel.  Prior to Intuit, he was director of personalization technologies at SaveJe Technologies where he created one of the first user context-sensitive mobile operating systems.

Although Omar’s  resume sounds pretty tech-y, I found his comments really insightful and Intuit’s approach to solving customers’ problems quite enlightened.  Give a listen:

other recent interviews:

• les mckeown on the path to success
• michael tchong on trends to pay attention to
• jeanne bliss on beloved companies

What a show!  Comic-Con 2010 was a blast.  Having heard about Comic-Con for so many years, I went to check it out for myself this year.  Not only did I want to see the crazy costumes and live panels, but I also wanted to see what was going on from a brand point of view.  I expected to see all of the network, studio, comic book, and TV show brands, but what other brands would be there?  Here’s my recap:

DLYohn Comic Con 2010 Recap from Denise Yohn on Vimeo.

Here’s some other non-brand-related stuff on Comic-Con — just fun:

• Comic-Con Crazies — a glimpse of the crazy people at the show and their costumes
• Chuck at Comic-Con — the first few minutes of the panel with the cast of Chuck
• me!

Those of you who are Star Trek fans would have felt right at home with me the other day.   I went to check out the new Microsoft store which just opened at Fashion Valley mall here in San Diego because I wanted to do a compare/contrast to the Apple store in the same mall.   My fellow fans would have felt at home in the Microsoft store not because it was a cool look at the future of culture and technology, but rather because it seemed to be the Mirror Universe.

For those of you who don’t get the TV show reference, the Mirror Universe is a parallel universe in Star Trek episodes – it’s the “what could have been” if the “what actually happened” hadn’t.  In the Mirror Universe, most of the same characters are there but they’re slightly different, whether in looks or personality.  The settings look familiar enough to cause some confusion at times, but the story lines are different enough as there’s usually more violent conflict than in the “normal” Star Trek universe.  Things are just a little off.

And that’s exactly what it felt like to be in the Microsoft store.  It was if I was in the Apple store –  but not really.  From the use of the Windows logo above the store entrance (no “Microsoft” logotype), to the big open space, to the young employees in colorful t-shirts, to the cool products displayed on tabletops, to the Answer Desk… — everything seemed oddly familiar.  I felt as if I was having a déjà vu, but then I realized that it wasn’t there at the Microsoft store that I had been before – I had been at the Apple store before.

microsoft store exterior

apple store exterior

I rushed over to the Apple store to make sure I wasn’t imagining things – and I did indeed find a similar store layout, similar display and visual tactics, similar employees in similar garb.  But there was one big difference – the Apple store was packed. Now that’s not to say the Microsoft store was empty – on the contrary, there were a lot of people and they seemed to be having fun browsing around and tinkering with the products.  In fact, I was pleasantly surprised by the feeling I got there (remember, it felt like the Apple store to me!)

But in comparison, the Apple store was on fire.  I would guess there were 3 times the number of people in that store – and there was an energy, perhaps spurred by the noise volume generated from everyone talking, that made it feel like an exciting place to be.

microsoft store interior

apple store interior

I walked away from my field trip confused and disappointed.  You see, I am a Microsoft customer and someone who actually likes Power Point!  Although I admire the Apple brand for many reasons, I really want Microsoft to be successful.  It has some great products and its brand could be so much better than it is. 

The Microsoft store could have been special – but it wasn’t.  It was simply an imitation of Apple.

Microsoft missed an opportunity to do something different, to interact with customers in ways only Microsoft can, to present a unique vision of its brand:

• Instead of putting all of its videogame products and displays in the back, why not put one of the company’s greatest strengths, XBOX, front and center?! It could have created a lot of excitement by creating an interactive gaming experience complete with real-time challenges between customers who other customers could cheer on and vote for, different pods to demonstrate the breadth of games available, special sound and lighting to add dramatic effect, etc.
• Furthermore the company’s KINECT launch on 11.04.10 is just around the corner, so why not promote it by giving a sneak preview?!  The highly-anticipated breakthrough XBOX platform will include 15 new titles and interfaces unlike anything we’ve ever seen, including voice control and Mission-Impossible-style hand gesturing. The store should be a place where the company builds anticipation for the pending launch – and perhaps select customers might be given exclusive access to experience a taste of the interface.
• Knowing that many of its customers are businesspeople, why not show complete home office set-ups equipped with multiple productivity tools already connected and synched?!  Or promote its enterprise solutions by using displays to tell compelling success stories?
• To show off its software, why not have ongoing demonstrations like the ones you see at shows and conventions?! The store was clearly pushing the new Office 10 product – watching someone in a booth with a mic and an enlarged screen walking through the new software’s features and capabilities would have made me consider purchasing it more than boxes of software piled high did.
• Why not show off Bing, Microsoft’s search engine, with a special interactive and/or live display which compares Bing results vs. Google ones?

The list of possibilities goes on.

The point is that Microsoft could have done some really special things with its store – things to leverage the unique capabilities of retail combined with the company’s unique offerings.  It could have boldly gone where no one has gone before – but instead, it chose to do the equivalent of Star Trek: Voyager.

Voyager was the last and least remarkable of television series based on the original Star Trek.  Although mildly entertaining, the show lacked imagination and failed to advance the overall Star Trek storyline in any meaningful way. And so it won’t be remembered or regarded nearly as well as its predecessor — just like the Microsoft store.

related posts:

• seinfeld isn’t going to rescue vista
• microsoft’s ad misses the mark again