Garrett's Popcorn and Culture

Have you heard of Chicago's Garrett's Popcorn?  If there was ever a time to have a smell-o-video widget, it's now.  The below video from FoodTV is about 3 minutes long but it gives you an appreciation for Garrett's history and process.

Garrett's is so popular that there is ALWAYS a line snaked outside of each shop.  If you've lived or visited here in the cold of winter or in the most humid of summer, you know that that is a loyal fan base.  It's an excellent problem to have.

You've got to admire the discipline, commitment and the pursuit of popcorn excellence down to the special moisture sensitive kernels.  I could write another post about focus like I did for Intelligentsia but today I'd like to talk about something different.

"It's just popcorn," she said.

So, my cousin H. visited from Paris this past week. Many things were crossed off the tourist checklist: boat tour, libations and views at John Hancock Building's 95th, museums, etc.  As we were walking on Michigan Avenue, the luscious smell of caramel caught her attention and she asked where it was coming from.  I explained it was Garrett's and showed her the line.

It was unfathomable to her that popcorn would draw such a devoted following hence her comment above. I tried to describe the what and why of it but I wasn't successful though she believed me when I said it was delicious and instantly addictive. She speaks 3 languages so there wasn't a language barrier. I realized that this was a blog post in the making.

How do you ignite cultural passion?

Not unlike expensive coffee, heated seats or the microwave oven, someone has to be taught or conditioned to want to stand in line a long time for a bag or tub of popcorn. This teaching and conditioning becomes a little bit more difficult when cultural textures or differences come into play.

Let's face it: a new culture is a foreign language. Expressions, jokes from old television shows and yes, food, can be a foreign language and awfully confusing to newbies whether they are new to a job, city, country or brand. And still, I see all of us making the same mistake over and over. We make them figure it out on their own and don't ever consider that we lose power over our narrative when we do that.

Fish or cut bait.

This expression means "you're in or you're out" which is what we do to those new to us. And it's also fitting for what I'm trying to convey in this post because it means nothing to a) people who aren't fisherman or b) people who have never heard it before.

Make a friend and reclaim your narrative.

Why talk about this at all?  I just sat through another great #cxo chat featuring Vala Afshar, CCO of Enterasys with the topic of how businesses can improve customer communications across channels.  As usual, it was a fast paced and edifying chat.

But I don't remember talking about how you check for "culture" when you monitor customer communications across channels.  I wish I had asked the question because I believe that if we're more sensitive to those who are newbies to us and cultural newbies, we'd all be better off in the short and long terms.

What say you?  Please share below and share with friends.

Parissa Behnia
Idea Chef

678Partners@gmail.com
678Partners.com
LinkedIn
Twitter

P.S. Wanna know how vast the fan base is?  See this video for Halle Berry's joyful embrace of a Garrett's tub.

Putting the logo cart before the service horse...

Imagine that you're at Starbucks.  Not your usual hangout but one in another city.  You buy some coffee, do some work thanks to free wifi and mind your own business.  Then nature calls but you see the WC is in need of TP.  You share with the idle staff that the WC could use some TP TLC and the only answer you get is, "Does it need it right now?"

That happened to me.  I only nodded yes in answer to the question but in my mind, I said, "Well, if it wasn't urgent why would I share?"  It was an unfortunate reply to a TP request.  Here's why:

• You start to notice more things about that location: dirty tables, chronically overflowing garbage, the WC itself is filthy etc.
• You start to remember the other service lapse the last time you were there: no milk canisters out and when you tell them of this, they say they're there.  When you show the sole empty canister, they take it from you and start to fill all canisters to put them back out.
• You remember burnt coffee.
• You wonder about things you can't see but can imagine: are the fridges at the right temperature, do they clean the display case, how food is treated generally, do they adhere to a clean up schedule?
• You wonder where the managers are and you think that the staff at this location have low morale.

(In fairness to Starbucks, I provided feedback about the store and received an acknowledgement.)

Normally, I would not have shared this story because, honestly, it was gross.  Then this whole new Starbucks logo redesign came about.  I saw many articles (this, for example) reporting and analyzing.  And I saw the video from Howard Schultz (see below).

Anytime I've worked on a value proposition, branding or logo project, there was no shortage of romance.  Selling the idea to your customers during market research, selling the idea internally to management and selling the final product to the public required no small amount of lovemaking.  The only things missing were roses, candelabras and a diamond ring.  But despite the romance, we always had to ensure there was truth that went along with it.

And this video is no different.  I think my favorite is the comment that this new logo represents the essence of the brand: love of coffee, the relationship with partners and the connection with customers.  Given my recent experience, I couldn't help but think of "lipstick on a pig" (not an entirely fair thing to say).  As a customer, I didn't feel any kind of connection with them that day (or this day) so I'm not sure how a new logo will enhance or improve upon that.

And so, as they move to launch new products to launch in their stores to complement the traditional offering, I'm not so sure I'm inclined to believe in it.  I applaud the willingness to expand on their model.  They're feeling the heat from Dunkin Donuts among other competitors.  That said, I wish their work as they improve upon the brand would also include effort on superior (and consistent) customer experience and not only a refreshed logo.

After all, if there is truly love of coffee, a good relationship with partners and strong connections with their customers, then it may or may not matter what the logo actually is.

Thoughts?

Parissa Behnia
Idea Chef

678Partners@gmail.com
678Partners.com
LinkedIn
Twitter

When You Assume...

Many of us have heard this expression before:

When you assume, you make an ass out of you and me.

The language may be salty for some but it can be a very apt expression at times.  Sadly, today was no different.  I went to a local Starbucks and paid $2.26 for a $2.16 drink.  When I didn't get my change, I asked for my dime.  Both the person behind the register and the guy standing behind me laughed.  I walked off with my change and went to find a seat.  Five minutes later, the guy walked up to me and said scornfully, "Make sure you get that dime back!" and went on his way.

It was a nasty thing to have done and I was shocked at the behavior.  But really, the main issue is that the guy didn't consider that maybe that dime matters.  What if I were unemployed and had to watch every penny but occasionally treated myself to a drink?  What if I live paycheck to paycheck and have to account for everything I spend but, like the unemployed example, treated myself?  What if I were traveling on business and had a strict per diem?

He assumed.  He made an ass out of him and me.

Assumptions about how other people actually live and how they are marketed to has been top of mind for me recently.  I read this article the other day and it had me thinking quite a bit about assumptions and trying to fit square pegs into round holes.  A really striking data point: never married 25 - 34 singles now slightly outnumber their married counterparts (46% to 45%).  Just 10 years ago, married outpaced singles in that same age group by 20 percentage points.

And yet, as the article also points out, advertising targeting singles skews much younger.  And, very few companies and agencies have devoted resources to crafting messaging and strategies that are more suitable for older singles.   Thankfully, some are turning that around just a bit -- Coldwell Banker and NCL to name just a few.  

But the fact remains that marketers and advertisers are happier assuming that singles want to be coupled/married because it's easier to put together a campaign for homogenous people.  They find it difficult or maybe inconvenient to shift that mindset despite the changes in population.  The tragedy of it all is that many singles are happily and intentionally single.  And want to be spoken to in ways that are respectful of them and mindful of their needs as a buying audience.

And it's not just singles that aren't being marketed to properly...  This article covered the changing face of parents (age, ethnicity and sexual preference) in the U.S. despite the singular "look" of the young, and married, American mother in advertising.  

Really interesting: 42% of mothers in a study by Marketing to Moms Coalition thought that ads that target them are ineffective and 28% found those ads to relate to them as a mother unappealing.  Why might that be?  For one, there are upwards of 6 million children with same sex parents in the home, for example.  And, data that show that 64% of mothers are married and that almost 40% of 2007 births were to unmarried women.  Before anyone has an episode of "Teen Mom" dancing before their eyes, only 23% of 2007 births were to teen moms.

This is a great excerpt from that article that says it all:

"One 43-year-old mother of three young children told me that she's noticed an "interesting division" between news coverage and marketing. "There's a lot of press that talks about parents being older these days but marketing is still geared toward younger moms," she said. "Brands show younger moms or, at least, moms that are younger than me.""

All of this brings me back to assumptions.  We make snap judgments all the time based on very few pieces of data.  In many cases, we allow these snap judgments to inform how we design marketing strategies/campaigns and inform how we do business with one another.  

And we do this because it's easier. We do this because we don't want to think about extenuating circumstances.  We do this because we think people are just like us.  We do this because we think people should be just like us.  We do this because we think our products and services are fine "as is" and do not need revisiting and reshaping to fit today's consumer.

Why do you think we do this?

Parissa Behnia

Idea Chef

678Partners@gmail.com

678Partners.com

LinkedIn

Twitter

Oprah's Marketing 101 Class

This morning, Oprah kicked off her last season as talk show diva extraordinaire.  Love her, hate her, read salacious gossip about her, she knows how to captivate an audience.  Regardless of your personal feelings, her longevity really can't be denied.  After all, Oprah toppled Phil Donahue, my mother's 1970s talk show hero and, at one time, a beacon of daytime TV.  Remember Rolonda, Ricki Lake, Jenny Jones???  All relegated to the dustbin of talk show history.

Which is why today I scheduled my daily futile battle with the elliptical at 9am local time to see what she had in store for us.  There I was, captive to the elliptical with my iPod at the ready.  As the minutes wore on, I forgot all about it.

My friends, today was Marketing 101 presented in all of its captivating glory.  The show opened with her and John Travolta.  She surprised a circle of Boston area women with a road trip to Chicago based on the one she took with BFF Gayle King.  Oprah surprised a manly fan with a personal invitation to the show via NASCAR driver Jimmie Johnson.

And the fun continued: Oprah announced she was taking all of them with her to Australia.  Yes.  Australia.  An 8 day trip complete with side trips to wine country, Great Barrier Reef, Sydney shopping and a special Oprah show at the famous opera house.  Here's the clip...  watch the audience go bonkers:

So why am I, sharing this and calling it Marketing 101?  Because she just gets it.  Oprah understands that engagement and buzz are shared in concentric circles.  She understands that both engagement and buzz come from the unexpected, the unthinkable and the creative.  She understands that to be distinctive, to make a mark and to get people to talk about you is to make connections in ways that are meaningful and special to others.  Proof: the news hit the airwaves and here I am typing away about it.

Oprah understands that for longer term relationship building and loyalty, you have to find new ways to "surprise and delight" your clients, or her audience in this case, to keep the magic alive.  I can hear some of you scoffing and suggesting that it's the unlimited money that creates these over the top surprises.  To that I say...  Duh.

To that I also say that it does not absolve us from getting at the basic point by understanding scale.  What Oprah has done can be scaled down.  And to suggest that it can't be done along with an unwillingness to listen suggest that we have no imagination.

There are numerous free/close to free ways to surprise and delight customers.  Send a handwritten thank you card, give them a Starbucks gift card, remember their favorite brand/product and let them know when a new shipment is in...  the list is endless.  These are activities we can do very easily and quickly that generates engagement and buzz that can travel in concentric circles.  Let's not use money as an excuse for not generating buzz.

Oprah made every single one of her audience feel special and lucky today.  We absolutely have that same capacity to make our customers feel special and lucky, too.  So why aren't we doing it?  I'll leave it for you to ponder.

Best,

Parissa Behnia
Idea Chef

678Partners@gmail.com
678Partners.com
LinkedIn
Twitter

Social Media Scat -- Why Museums Are Jazz Musicians Like Us

Friends,


Lots of great activities this week coinciding with some insanely great weather.  I'm typing away at my favorite Caribou coffee (shout out to them for free wifi) and I'm inspired to write.  And away we go!


I posted my first vlog on Sunday covering a very interesting social media panel discussion organized by Chicago Gallery News and Alicia Eler at Art Chicago.  There were representatives from the Art Institute, Bad at Sports, Hyde Park Art Center and Museum of Contemporary Art.  The conversation generally was about how these arts organizations use social media and if they've gotten to the point of "best practice" for their organization and for their audience(s).


I'll stop here and tell you that I fully expected the museums had super cool ways to keep their audiences excited, engaged, rabid, etc.  I don't know why except maybe the logic was that artists are more creative than us business types.  I'm not defending the logic -- just sharing it -- so please be gentle with the scorn!


What I really enjoyed about this panel was the range and reach of institutions like the Art Institute and Hyde Park Art Center.  Both play really important roles in the city's "cultural fabric" if you will but they occupy extremes in terms of staffing and funding.  The Art Institute has an entire marketing staff covering traditional and social media and Hyde Park Art Center has Crystal Pernell, its only marketing manager, who bears that load.


Like companies, brands or products, these public non profit institutions are still figuring out some heady, social media existential things: for instance, do you have one "persona" or do you allow creative expression and diverse personality to show through as your staff tweets or posts on Facebook under one institutional name.  How that existential question gets answered methodically rests on money.  If you have the deep pockets and a large captive audience of a large museum (test, measure, test, measure, etc.).  If you don't, it is answered on the fly and on a more grassroots level (let's throw something and see what sticks).  Side note: shout out to Crystal Pernell's Tweet Up that she talked about...  it sounded like fun and I'm sorry to have missed it!


Regardless of the disciplined versus improvisational approaches, all of the groups said they were still struggling with the recipes to initiate and maintain consistent dialogue.  They understood that they needed to provide interesting or stimulating (and humorous) content to drive traffic or at least create a lasting impression, of course, using Twitter, Facebook, blogs, etc.  But, like us for profit types and our social media experiments, there was difficulty in getting people to revisit and engage directly with them.


They are jazz musicians like us.  That can be an incredibly awesome thing.  But, when we get caught up in the art of our own social media improvisation, we forget to invite our audience in to jam with us or to jam for us.  


And that's what I didn't hear at the panel.  I didn't hear how these institutions were fully owning the need to cultivate and encourage two way conversation similar to how Best Buy does it with their user forum and Idea Exchange, how Starbucks does it with My Starbucks Idea and how e.l.f. cosmetics engages as well.  I also didn't hear how they were cultivating and identifying their advocates/evangelists/influencers be they people who appreciate art or the artists themselves.  


We get caught up in our much needed "elevator speech" when we network or introduce ourselves to others similar to how musicians get caught up in their music when they're jamming.  We forget to use the tone and dialect of everyday conversation when we're only talking to an audience.  The beauty of advocates or evangelists are that they are your consumers just like us.  They can tell us, from a position of knowledge, why something is cool in the tones that everyday consumers use and understand yet still be true to your underlying brand essence.  In this arts example, we can appreciate the dialogue from the perspective of the artists but also people who think that certain forms of expression are things we should know about.


How to engage the advocates (artists or lovers of art)?  Well, many have blogs or other forms of expressing themselves in the social space.  Why not feature them in a short video along with their blog excerpt on the museum's FB page (and/or blog) with a tweeted link?  Why not ask them to guest blog about a favorite piece of theirs and why it impacts them so?  To borrow from Crystal's Tweet Up, maybe these advocates can be encouraged to host their own Tweet Up or maybe Tweat Up if there's food involved.  Maybe someone can host a blogtalkradio program.  Maybe there can be a cool Foursquare message checking in with tips to check out a particular artist's favorite piece, etc.


Friends, these are admittedly very simplistic ideas and clearly not exhaustive.  It's just to underscore my basic point that we can and should be doing more to excite and engage those who might be our most fierce and loyal advocates.  Letting go of the conversation and letting people "talk amongst themselves" does not mean you are giving up the brand.  If you've got your brand story firm and tight, it just means that you're socializing it more -- which is the inherent point of these online platforms.


What's your view on this?  I'd love to hear from you!


Best,


Parissa Behnia
Idea Chef


678Partners@gmail.com
678Partners.com
LinkedIn