In the March 9, 2009 edition of BtoB Magazine, Sean Callahan’s article “What Does the Future Hold For Print?” explores the decrease in the number of B2B publications.  According to MediaFinder, 257 publications folded in the two year period from 2007 to 2008.  January and February of 2009 saw 20 business publications close.  This trend should have B2B marketers asking tough questions about the place for trade publication  advertising in their long-term marketing plans.

In part, this downturn in B2B print publications can be attributed to the rise of B2B online advertising.  The attraction of  trade journals has always been the ability to target specific industry verticals and reach decision-makers.  With online tactics like search engine marketing and contextual advertising (to name a few), B2B marketers have been able to deliver their marketing messages to a targeted group of people who are actively searching for information.  They can often do this online for a fraction of the cost of advertising in a selection of trade publications, with substantially more measurement metrics to track advertising performance.  Trade journals no longer hold a monopoly on reaching industry segments.

Even popular print publications like PC Magazine, which led all trade publications in advertising revenue in 2008, have abandoned their print editions to focus on online properties.

So are trade journals dead?  No.  There will continue to be an appropriate place for trade journal advertising in the marketing mix.  These ads will still serve to generate awareness, strengthen brands and target decision makers.  What will need to change is the size of the marketing budget devoted to trade journals.

Something else to watch is the price of ad space in print publications.  With fewer publications in any given vertical, the remaining publications may feel that they have a larger share of the audience, and therefore will charge more.  B2B marketers would be wise to watch for these types of increases and review them on a case-by-case basis.

Everyone is talking about becoming more consumer-centric as we move into the New Year.

Case in point: The Lenox company. Here’s an organization one might categorize as a leader in their industry. They have been around since 1889. You know them — the first American china to be used in the White House?

Turns out they also own Department 56, where Christmas Village collectors go for all the best stuff.

You would think these folks would have the customer service model polished to perfection.

Think again.

A year ago, I broke a small accessory piece for a Village house that came from Department 56. I did what any computer-literate consumer would do — I sent an e-mail, requesting information about the replacement part. There was no response. None.

This year, I received an e-marketing message from Department 56. “Aha,” I thought, “they want me to be their customer.” So, I again became motivated to replace the broken part. Eagerly, I searched the website for the correct number, and I called. A recorded message informed me that the customer service representatives are available from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. Central Standard Time. That’s right: 11-2. Hmmm.

So, I waited and called back at 11:20. This time, a recorded message informed me that the holidays are a busy time for them. There was no one available to take the call. I was asked to call back another time, when they might not be so busy.

This was becoming more entertaining by the minute.

Since there was no opportunity to leave a message, I e-mailed. (Just like I did last year.)

In the twinkling of an eye, there was a response. Happily, I opened their very Christmassy message. Here’s what it said:

“Tis the season to be busy! Santa’s elves are busy at this time of year and so are the Consumer Services representatives at Department 56. It may take a little longer to respond to your question so we appreciate your patience!
- Department 56 Consumer Services”

Yes! A response. They are way more consumer-centric than they were last Christmas.

Ok, I know it still isn’t an answer, but I still felt all warm and fuzzy inside. I think they really do care about customers like me. I have visions of a further communication from them in the near future … maybe February?

I’ll keep you posted.

Recently I gave what used to be my favorite restaurant a second (and as it turns out, probably last) chance to redeem itself.  You see, several weeks ago my wife and I went there for dinner only to receive abysmal service.  I took the time to fill out a customer comment card, which is something I rarely do.  But because it was my favorite restaurant, I felt it would be a good investment of my time.  To their credit, a response was forthcoming.  But it was a form letter full of fluff that had absolutely nothing to do with my concerns.  Nevertheless, hungry for their delicious crab cakes with lobster sauce and their elegant yet casual ambiance, we rationalized away their gaffe and tried them yet again.

Within moments of entering the restaurant we should have admitted defeat and gone elsewhere.  (We love their crab cakes, what can I say?)  As we stepped into the entry we could see the front desk was unattended.  There was a Fed Ex driver pacing impatiently back and forth.

We stood there without greeting for five minutes or more, while several waiters passed nearby without any acknowledgement.  Finally the host arrived and, without so much as a glance our way, he proceeded to talk with the Fed Ex deliveryman about a package apparently gone astray.  The conversation lasted a good three minutes.  As the Fed Ex man went out the door the host turned to us.  “May I help you?” the young man wanted to know.  Rather rudely, I confess, I let him know that, “Yes, you can help us, but, for future reference, better form would be to seat your customers before conversing with a delivery person.”  His response was that the Fed Ex man was here first, while giving me a look like I must be some kind of nut case.

Maybe I am.  But I am a nut case who fell victim to especially bad customer service.  Furthermore, my wife and I were preparing to spend what for us is a handsome sum for a nice dinner, whereas the Fed Ex man wasn’t.  He was simply fouled up and in the way.  If I owned a restaurant of similar caliber, delivery people would be prohibited at the front door.  I would train personnel to focus their attention on helping good customers (i.e. any person spending money) have a thoroughly enjoyable experience.

Dinosaurs could be victims of starvation.

By today’s customer service standards I’m undoubtedly a dinosaur.  I’m going to show my age here, but I grew up in an era where businesses routinely delivered excellent customer service.  For example, gas stations competed for customers on more than price alone.  An attendant rushed to your car to fill it up for you.  He also checked your oil, the air pressure in your tires, and washed your windows – all of them - without being asked.  From time to time the station would give you something free (like dishes) just for filling up with them.  Service wasn’t limited to gas stations alone.  (Incidentally, back then they were called Service Stations.)  Clerks were ubiquitous to virtually all retail businesses.  Walk into any store and a clerk would approach you and sincerely want to be of assistance.

What’s happened in the intervening years?  What’s changed to relegate customer service to the scrap heap?

I fear, to a large extent, we’ve brought it on ourselves.  Any time you forsake excellent service to save a few dollars you’re rewarding mediocrity.  A good friend and client once complained to me about his inability to find a competent swimming pool service.  He went to Wal-Mart to save on his chemicals and then drove a hard bargain with the pool guy for the cost of his weekly cleaning chores.  The quality of service was exceedingly poor.  He lost or fired a succession of pool companies.  He just couldn’t accept the job they were doing.  But he was saving money.  A pool company can’t make enough money on cleaning alone.  They need to sell the chemicals to make the trip worthwhile.  I asked my friend what he would do if he were having a pool party one evening to discover that afternoon his pool had an algae problem?  Would he call Wal-Mart for help? 

Wal-Mart best typifies the worst in customer service.  The prices are rock bottom, but you pay for it by being treated like cattle or worse.  The stores are impersonal and unattractive.  Gray buildings warehouse merchandise stacked to the ceilings in dimly lit aisles.  Sales help is largely non-existent and, when present, uninformed.  When Wal-Mart comes to a small town, it almost always spells doom for any number of family-owned 

retail stores.  The personal service of the corner drug, grocer, sporting goods store, nursery, appliance store, hardware store, jewelry store, bookstore and others are often forsaken for Wal-Mart’s convenience and savings.  In a year or two, downtown is one empty storefront after another, and residents lament the loss of personality and hometown identity.

This is not intended as a vilification of the mass merchandising giant.  I use their phenomenal success merely to illustrate the point: “You get what you pay for.”  If you want service, then you pay for it.  The younger generation, like my two twenty-something sons don’t know what they’re missing.  They probably wouldn’t take exception with the atrocious behavior of the restaurant greeter.  They don’t mind being ignored.  They don’t know the difference.

I have another client who is president of a retail chain.  Jim’s business life is a long history of successful store management.  The cornerstone of his success has been what he calls “knock your socks off customer service.”  Within seconds of entering a store managed by Jim you will be greeted.  The person will ask if they can help you, and then impart some fact about the store that sets them apart.  For example, their greeting might be a cheerful, “Good morning, may I help you?  We offer savings of thirty to seventy percent off normal retail on our jewelry everyday.”  If the customer indicates they’re just looking, as is often the case in such situations, store personnel is trained to let the customer browse, while maintaining a watchful eye for an opportunity to help.  In more than one industry, Jim has owned his markets by delivering excellence.

Even in these days of chronic shortages of qualified applicants, Jim has managed to maintain his standards through careful hiring and intensive training.  For Jim there is only one standard, and that is excellence.  And excellence is black and white.  There are no shades of gray – either something is excellent or it is not.  A former employer of mine expressed Jim’s philosophy this way: “Excellence, or what the hell are you doing here?”  The words were emblazoned in red on a framed white card.  It was the first thing employees saw as they entered the offices from the elevator.

Yes, it costs more to staff properly.  It costs even more to train for excellence.  But all other things being equal, location, inventory, cleanliness of store, pricing, etc., it just makes sense that an attentive, well-trained staff will result in more immediate sales and more repeat business.

Ford has some problems right now.  The economy has Ford asking tough questions about the future of their organization.  One of their dilemmas is whether or not to suspend new product development projects in order to stockpile cash.  They certainly need the cash, but as Ford’s global product development chief Derrick Kuzak points out in this report from the Detroit News, “Outstanding products are the heart of any turnaround of our business and its future success.”  If Ford stops investing in new product development, what future are they saving by stockpiling cash now?

Not an easy decision.  This is similar to the branding decisions that all businesses face when economic times are tough.  Companies worried about troubled economic times will often decrease spending on advertising.  Short term, they “save” money.  But long term, they risk losing traction in the marketplace.

So, what is the answer? In “How to Market in a Recession” John Quelch of the Harvard Business School weighs in by saying, “This is not the time to cut advertising.”  Brands that increase advertising during recessions improve market share and see a higher return on their advertising dollar.  While actually raising ad budgets may seem impossible for some, Quelch recommends at least maintaining current spending levels.

At Armstrong|Shank, we advise our clients to look at their marketing mix and see how it might be restructured to include more direct marketing tactics.  For example, the Web offers many scalable, measurable tactics that can be tied to performance measures.  Maybe some dollars can be moved over to a targeted pay-per-click campaign or to an online lead generating campaign.

However, you don’t want to totally abandon your brand advertising.  Often branding tactics are the foundation for other direct efforts.  Specifically in the business-to-business sector, branding activities are critical.  Marketer Galen De Young has a nice discussion on this topic in his article “B2B Search Marketing: Branding’s Best Friend” on SearchEngineLand. He notes that, “…in the B2B world, customer acquisition is directly related to branding, a longer-term initiative.”

Economic turmoil can be a scary time for businesses.  It is sometimes tough to see how we might make it through the storm to sunnier days.  While trying to figure that out, it is imperative to think ahead to when things turn around and ask where your organization should be positioned at that time.  Smart marketing decisions now will make all the difference then.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user yourpaldave.

My father used to keep a sign on his desk at work that said, “Brevity is a virtue.” He was a busy man — always more of a doer than a talker, and was constantly annoyed by people who liked to spend hours talking about a problem rather than doing something about it. At age 70, he still has more energy and initiative than any three other people I know, combined.

If I didn’t look so much like him, I would swear we weren’t related. As a writer, I am prone to the obligatory pitfalls of excessive daydreaming, procrastinating and general goofing around that seem to plague the profession. But, as fathers usually are, he is right. And if you are trying to attract new customers, you should listen to him.

People are busy. They may not be getting anything done, but they are busy nonetheless. And if you want to interrupt their lives and expect them to listen to what you have to say, you had better get their attention…and you’d better be brief.

People make split-second decisions about businesses in the same way that they do with people — through first impressions. In advertising, these first impressions are the print ads, the radio and television spots, the outdoor boards, the Web banners.

When meeting someone at a party who won’t shut up about themselves, most will label them a bore and tune out. It’s the same with advertising. You want to leave them intrigued, inspired, and maybe even enthused about wanting to get to know you better. But you want customers to come to you for that information. You want them to initiate the contact.

Which leads us to the places where it is actually good form to prattle on exhaustively about the benefits of your product or service. The Web sites, the 800 numbers and the brochures work great for answering all the questions (though even these need to be well-organized and to the point.) The trick is to get people asking YOU for the answers. To do that you need to be brief, among other things.

A few weeks ago, pain reliever Motrin was targeted by outraged, baby-toting mothers of the blogosphere in a backlash against the brand’s latest television spot. The spot in question featured a young woman talking about those baby-sling things (I can’t be bothered to find out the actual name of the device), lamenting good-naturedly about the woes of motherhood and the need for the pharmacological phenomenon known as Motrin.

Well, apparently, wearing your baby in a bag is now a movement, a lifestyle choice, complete with books and blogs and outspoken activists. And here I thought it was a Native American invention used to free up your hands so you could get things done, like skinning a buffalo or microwaving a Hot Pocket. Anyway, more than a few of these mothers felt that the Motrin commercial was demeaning to their chosen way of child rearing…or something, I don’t want to put words in anyone’s mouth. Twitter was immediately abuzz with whispers of boycott. If you are not familiar with Twitter, or tweets, just pretend like you are and move on with life. Nobody needs to be that connected.

I saw the spot and was less than offended, but I’m a middle-aged white man with no kids and even less class. So maybe I don’t have my finger on the pulse of the papoose, but what I do understand is that Motrin’s message missed the mark with a very vocal portion of its intended audience. Motrin has pulled the campaign.

Fast forward a bit to the next ad that has the bloggers raging: Burger King’s Whopper Virgins.

In an attempt to demonstrate the superiority of the Whopper over rival burger Big Mac, Burger King has scoured the farthest reaches of the planet to find people unsullied by mass marketing, predisposition, or even a word in their language for a hamburger to solicit a completely unbiased taste test.

A few have been offended by the name alone. Most, however, seem to be concerned with unleashing the preservative-laden, high-calorie, low-nutrition American fast-food diet on an unsuspecting populace — for our amusement, no less. Well, I can’t say I disagree with that notion, but on the scale of injustices perpetrated by our decadent nation, I’m not sure this rates very high. I mean, they didn’t waterboard anyone until they submitted to this taste test. And I’m pretty sure eating a couple of hamburgers isn’t going to destroy anyone’s native culture. It’s just not very politically correct.

And that’s the thing. Burger King’s intended audience isn’t very politically correct. I would imagine that, for the most part, the people who are offended by this ad probably don’t eat a lot of Burger King to begin with.

The commercials are irreverent, a little crass, even a little offensive. And for my money, I think they have their target audience dialed in just fine.