EAVESDROPPING

Sometimes a mere conversation says it better than we do.  Here’s what we overheard one day in the coffee shop queue:

Barista:  “I wanted to let you know:  We won’t have any more of these tea bags in a few weeks.  Our warehouse is out.  Like, permanently out.”

Customer:  “Why?”

Barista:  “We’re changing to looseleaf tea.  Tea that will brew for a few minutes while customers wait.  And that will be interesting!”

Customer:  “Why is that?”

Barista:  “Because corporate hasn’t figured out yet that many of our shops attract buy and run customers, especially before work.  Customers here simply won’t wait five minutes for tea.”

Customer:  “I don’t understand … .  Isn’t tea the up and coming beverage?”

Barista:  “Yeah, I guess it is.  But we haven’t yet reached the trendy point, where customers, like in Asia, will stand on line for many minutes for a cuppa.  Don’t worry, we’ll change back to tea bags as soon as corporate sees the numbers!”

Sound like any of your clients or employers? 

THE MICRO-, MINI-, MACRO, AND MEGA VERSIONS OF US

A long time ago, in marketing lands far away (nearby too), we took great delight in classifying our customers, past, present, and future, by groups.  That effort, a/k/a segmentation, could take any number of forms – demographic, geo-demographic, behavioral, lifetime value, occasional, or by the products developed by research firms. 

For a while, that type of identification worked fairly well, leading those of us who specialize in change and behavioral matters to adopt those methods for our messages.  Our thinking:  If we could segment into measurable subsets of colleagues who were a) easy to reach and b) would respond consistently to our messaging, we could ensure awareness, at least, if not action.  [Of course, the premise worked best if your colleagues numbered in the thousands.]  With social media, listservs morphed into social communities, formed on dozens of specifications.  Ergo, those employees fascinated by CSR would rsvp to specific community activities, whereas those intent on becoming cross-functional team “volunteers” to study/solve a business problem would raise their hands.

It don’t work so good these days.  First, many fit into a variety of groups:  Like a hyper-involved philanthropist (a single dad) who also leads an R&D team and travels like a banshee.  Or a work-life balance advocate who works virtually as a sales professional, yet wants to contribute her two-cents’ worth to corporate affinity groups.  Even a marketing assistant (and women’s rights fan) who helps with team-building and conferences, yet has a passion for values-driven causes.

Second is the question:  What am I missing if I sign up for X but not Y?  There’s an innate something in us curious beings that always wonders if we might miss a community notice for, say, Habitat for Humanity volunteers – if we’re not in that forum.  Those working on a business metrics project might lose out when, for instance, an accounting forum mentions some of the latest and greatest.

Finally, consider today’s commandment to change and reinvent ourselves – continually, inside and outside the corporation.  We won’t always be categorized as a procurement analyst.  As an MBA-LLD in the pharma world.  As a sustainability guru in animal health and welfare.  What happens, then, to the already classified mega- and mini-mes? 

C'EST NE PAS UNE AGENCIE ...

Color us shades of oxymoronic.

Despite all the attention lavished on Mad Men, its depiction of ‘60s’ ad life, and millions of viewers (not to mention Netflix rentals, streaming options, and re-runs), professionals in and out of the agency business flat-out refuse to use the word “agency.”  Or as the trade pubs report:

“It doesn’t describe what we do in this digital age.” 

“We’re so much more all encompassing than just advertising.” 

“Our business is about ideas.” 

Part of the word’s repugnance today has to do with monetizing and revenues.  In the face of rocketing tech IPOs like LinkedIn and Facebook, the plain old agency, sans product and other non-service dollar streams, looks puny. 

Another revolt against the term centers on procurement’s increasing role in selection.  If we’re not actively promoting our chops in digital and word of mouth and PR and creative and broadcast, or so the thinking goes, we won’t make the short list.

Other reasons for eschewing the straightforward “agency” descriptor range from branding and an ever-increasing crowd of competitors to stockholder/analyst perceptions. 

Is this a ploy for publicity and extended notoriety or an honest complaint?  Give us a break.  Because few are focusing on the raison d’etre of firms, shops, studios, even consultancies.  Which is, without customers, we’re nothing.  

There’s no better feeling than nailing the right strategy (and creative) that will do a company good – and meet its goals.  Than figuring out, with the client, what tools best support its consumer conversations.  Than partnering with a whole bunch of talent, from digital and design to PR to broadcast and cultural anthropologists, to develop the right road to value, in and outside the company. 

To be fair:  My colleagues and I have considerable agency-side experience – in addition to our specialties.  Now, our joy and payback come from working with customers we respect and trust who share, listen, and do the appropriate thing for their companies.  That’s the heart of a service business, no matter what you call it.

Prefer more poesy in your moniker?  Then listen to Hillaire Belloc’s words:  “Be kind and tender to the Frog, And do not call him names, As 'Slimy skin', or 'Polly-wog' …”