Big Data, Teenage Sex, and a Better Megaphone

While reading a marketoonist cartoon on Big Data (see image below from that page), the author cited a hot topic in marketing circles, “Big data is like teenage sex”. The quote behind the discussion goes something like this “Big Data is like teenage sex: everyone talks about it, nobody really knows how to do it, everyone thinks everyone else is doing it, so everyone claims they are doing it.”

The underlying discussion about Big Data is funny because of the truth behind the statement, but what struck me is who gets credit for that phrase or who can claim to really owns that phrase, since I recalled hearing it before. I’m not trying to stir a debate of originality over impact, but from a fame and bragging rights standpoint, it’s worth taking a second look.

I found a nearly identical quote by Dan Ariely here, where he received nearly 1700 likes and over 700 shares. That was back on January 6th of 2013. I’m not sure if I saw it them, but I might have seen a “share” as the reason why the recent spread of that phrase caught my eye. Of course, I don’t know if Dan’s post was the first, but I do know that the LinkedIn post that followed recently is the most famous.

10 months after Dan’s post that received 1700 likes and 700 shares, the same phrase is finally picked up and e-broadcasted to LinkedIn, and BAM!. Suddenly it’s being shared by no less than three people I know personally. Is this random luck or something that could be engineered? It seems like random luck, and even if it was, it’s worth considering a few key properties of this now famous statement. 1. Big Data has gone through a hype cycle, and reality about it is settling in 2. The statement is largely true, even w/o the comparison to teenage sex 3. The statement connects the reader to a universal experience 4.  There were 1700 likes and 700 shares, so it clearly had some redeeming value before it was famous 5. Someone from LinkedIn curated it.
Of the above, only #5 was necessary, but arguably, the previous 4 steps made #5 easy for someone at LinkedIn to notice and curate. I would postulate that many famous statements or quotes share the same spirit of the the first three.

The Pain and Process in Choosing a Name

A recent naming exercise reminded me of the rat hole a naming exercise can be, and how, after many years, many attempts, and improved processes, it all comes down to a personal choice. I’ll attempt to explain one process that works but also point out how it can be sidetracked at the last moment.

But first a wisdom alert. Marketers must judiciously apply the “If no one loves it or hates it, it’s probably too generic” rule. To use this rule, remember that there’s a wide range outside of love and hate. Now back to my story.

Having worked at many startups, there is little to no budget allocated to hiring a “naming firm” to create a brand name for products. The fees often run in the tens of thousands, and, even then, you may not get a name you like. If you have the budget, hire a naming firm, as a professional firm will guide you through the process and reduce or at least highlight hidden biases in the decision process.

If you don’t have the budget what do you do? You should prepare for the exercise with the realization that it’s more than a mission in name selection. The name design process has several key steps, and depending on the type of product, you may add other steps. I break this process into several steps, each of which come with some cat herding, input selection, and some post-processing to insure alignment around the process.

• Step 1: The brainstorm. Get all stakeholders to systematically provide input in the following key areas: what the product does, characteristics of the product, results of using/owning the product, and word association around the product. Request that participants provide at least three for each part. In this brainstorm, do not remove ideas.
• Step 2: Meta brainstom. In this phase, get everyone in the room from step 1, put all the ideas on a the wall, and ask the group to add more to the lists.
• Step 3: Require each participant to mark the top 3 in each section that the love and hate (6 total).
• Step 4: Stack rank all the choices for each section based on the votes, from most loved to least loved, tossing all the ones no one voted for or hated.
• Step 5: If any items has both love and hate votes, the item is announced for removal, and people have 1 minute to present what they love or hate the item. If the “hater” wins, the item is removed, if not, the item remains on the table. At this point, the group should have a list of descriptors that are mostly loved and mostly acceptable.
• Step 6: The sections are reduced even further by another round of voting to determine the top 3 for each section. This should highlight the core values of the product and align the participants around the core values.
• Step 7: The naming begins, with another brainstorm where group members submit names that fit the core values and a “searcher” is selected to find other terms that match the agreed upon core values. The searcher also researches connotations, conflicts, url implications, and baggage associated with each term.
• Step 8: The search and term analyses are presented to the group, who then vote for the top 5 names
• Step 9: A “searcher” then looks into language and cultural aspects of the top 5 terms presenting them to the group. With the new information, the group votes again, leaving a stack rank of choices.
• Step 10: The CEO or product owner makes a decision.

This process usually insures some transparency if the stakeholders are chosen from a wide base, but usually the process yields a bland vanilla name. All that work and the name still sucks? This often happens in a design by committee group where group members are focused on being the least offensive. Another risk is the hidden last minute legal check to find out whose trademark is being violated. Another more common risk is the CEO intervention - the CEO likes something and that becomes law.

There it is. Naming can be difficult. The more people to please, the more difficult it is to do a good job. On the other hand, if you start with clear goals and a good process, you might, just might end up with a good name.

Your Customer Said Build Green, but You Need to Build a Jaguar

People say what they think, but not always what they mean

Ever have a customer who wanted a product and would say something like "that would be really cool in forest green"? Then you might build them a version in forest green and they continue "that's not how I imagined it would be, I don't think I'd really want one in forest green."

You haven't been punked, you've been hearing, but not really listening. The customer may have imagined a version of your product that had the color, shine, and elegance of a Jaguar that was both art and gadget. You just delivered color when the customer really wanted experience.

Sometimes customers say things that are the easiest to say. Colors are easy to see and describe, but they often have emotional ties with meaning. But it's not just colors, but think of shapes, another difficult topic. What do you do when someone says your product is too linear or angled? Do you add curves , make it curvy, or even wavy? The linear shape may suggest industrial, simple, or cheap, and the lack of rounded anything may symbolize austere or minimalist expectations.

My point is that when someone gives you feedback on a product or service, be sure to listen deeply and don't just record the words you hear. This problem exists for consumer goods,  physical services, and even online applications and enterprise software.  If you listen deeply, you may just uncover a real need or opportunity that the customer has not figured out how to articulate.

If you do your job right and extract the real need, you may be rewarded with happier customers and a larger market.

Lying or smart marketing? A personal shoe story:

My feet hurt, and I knew that comfy shoes would fix it, so I searched online for comfortable shoes and found a few. Air support, memory foam, springs - all were listed as THE solution for sore feet and an aching back. The spring technology was the most intriguing. I had seen in a few magazines, but I did not have a chance to review the details around their claims for comfort until now.

There are different spring technologies, spanning 'wave springs', special materials, and unique encapsulation processes that differentiate the 3 vendors I found with spring-based shoes. The one that caught my eye, Gravity Defyer, had a nice website, but it was difficult to find information on the technology. The website was a little difficult to navigate if you were searching for information and not in the buying mood. What really interested me was their 'clinical study' and how they were justifying their claims.

Now, I've never tried these shoes, nor do I have any reason to believe that the shoes are bad, or good for that matter, but what caught my eye was the opening paragraph of the 'clinical study'. See the quote from the clinical study link below:

This 'clinical study', if it can even be called that, does not use an independent 3rd party to collect and analyze the data. In fact, the study is actually a statistical analysis of data provided by Gravity Defyer to the analyst firm. In simple terms, if the analysis firm was sent 100 perfect ratings in 17 rating scales, they would have to state that the data showed 100 perfect ratings. The analysis was a foregone conclusion since there never was a question about the outcome of the analysis since the data and results were already known before the analysis was performed by Packer Engineering. If that's the case, what's the 'clinical' part of the study? Where's the real value to consumers in this equation?

So what's going on here? Some would argue that "clinical study", as a term of trust, was abused and that consumers would be confused. It seems to be on the wrong end of ethical language. It may even be illegal as it could mislead consumer into believing that doctors, control subjects, and proper protocols were involved.

On the other hand, it could also be savvy marketing. If the term 'clinical study' is not protected with a legal expectation, this technique could be viewed as a quick shortcut to earn trust that actually works. If there are no legal ramifications to using 'clinical study' then why not use it any time you want to appear to have a scientific advantage? It's buyer beware, right?

This seems slightly less ethical, but probably more effective than those "similar to as seen on TV" stickers you see on products. The font is so small in parts that it looks like "as seen on TV", so it's easy to mistake the product at the store for the one on late-night infomercials. Yes, before you ask, I've seen people in stores pick up the "Snuggle blanket" instead of the "Snuggie" and specifically point to the "similar to as seen on TV" sticker or printing on the box and call it a Snuggie.

If there are no policies or standards around marketing language, it can easily be used borrow goodwill or even mislead consumers and even business readers. In order to know what you're getting and possibly save yourself of headache or legal wrangling later, read the detail. There may be more to what's being said than is written in the large print.

Set your Brand Free, Protect your Trademark

I was fortunate to have the time to attend the Clearvale 2nd Floor series at the Computer History Museum in Mountain View and see the speaker from Lego discuss his social media successes. While the talk was interesting, I especially appreciated how he provoked my thoughts about brands and trademarks.

He said that a trademark has legal protections for color, proportions, usage, and language, but a brand can change based on the actions of the consumers, users, public, and, oh yeah, the company.

I've written legal clauses and trademark guidelines and even sent 'reminders' to firms to use our trademarks with respect. Over the course of several years working with internal legal and marketing teams as well as external partners, it's become clear that a trademark is really that - a symbol or representation with some well defined parameters for use and display.

On the other hand, I've also participated in many discussions about brand. A wise man once told me a brand is not what you say it is, it's what your customers say it is. If you think of it that way, it's easy to separate brand from trademark. You can legally prevent people from using your trademark in incorrect and/or confusing ways, but the way you deal with customers, consumers, and partners determines the brand that people hold in their minds when they think of you.

Is your brand one where you're known for attacking your own customers for trying to promote you? Is your brand one where you encourage your fans to spread the good word but make sure that your fans use your trademarks correctly? Think about that for a moment if you will. How many times have you seen executives or marketing types state "we need to control the brand" only to have the cover up attempt define the people or company as one who covers up errors or mistakes?

So have all the trademarks you need, but work on brand and keep working on it. Your customers are, even if you're not.