Charity, Done Right?!? So Refreshing (and an example of it done wrong, of course)

If you know me, you’ll understand how much pleasure it gives me to write a rave review for a nonprofit these days. It’s long been the exception to the rule that you encounter a nonprofit marketing itself effectively (save for the charity:water's of the world, of course). So I felt compelled to sing some specific praise for City Harvest.

I arrived home last night after a very over-the-top Broadway production (this is, actually, relevant to my latter example of poor nonprofit marketing) to a nice little mailbox surprise. In addition to the newest Restoration Hardware catalog, which I could write a whole separate entry about (love!), I found myself gawking at a brown paper bag. Was someone sending me that thing you’ve always hoped to NOT receive in your mailbox (think ‘doggy bag’)? No, there was no malice here. Quite the opposite, rather. It was addressed to me from NYC’s City Harvest. Since I have a soft spot for food/wellness related causes (good targeting is another gold star for them here) I’m aware of their name and generally of what they do. Intrigued, I (somewhat carefully) opened my personalized lunch bag.

The contents were quite simple. A letter from the ED, a return-able donation slip, and a Thanksgiving-themed post card. But the messaging was quite powerful: Not everyone has the luxury of easily packing their lunch every day. As a 4-day-a-week brown-bagger, I’m generally boastful of my brining in of leftovers, and wear it as a proud badge of thriftiness. (Not only do I like to cook for myself, I save money with dinner remnants for lunch!) But in this moment, I realized even that was a small fortune.

So they got me. Hook, line and sinker. And as a result they’ll be receiving a donation from me this holiday season (which, I promise, is hard to elicit). Granted they have my sensitivity towards their mission working for them (I believe urban hunger and equal access to healthy food is plaguing our society today), I was truly won over by their tact. I was delighted by the cleverness they applied to direct mail, of all things. But they clearly understand the audience, know a thing or two about competitive separation, and aren’t too rusty on the whole ‘match the message to the medium’ concept. So congrats, City Harvest. I hope I’m not the only one so impressed by your outreach, and that you raise the dollars/support you need to make this a more fulfilling holiday for our neighbors.

Now, because I can’t be mistaken for a hopeless nonprofit optimist (seriously, I’m not!) I must offset this sappiness with a critique. I’ll be brief, but in exchange for my rewarding City Harvest experience, I was subject to a more traditional, and offensively awkward, charitable plea last night as well. At the conclusion of a sub-par Spiderman show, a green goblin stood at the edge of a stage, addressing us all. Using very unrehearsed language, this villain asked the audience for a donation to the Broadway Cares Foundation. Aside from the ridiculous stage attire this man was still wearing, his pitch was nothing the Tony’s would ever bat an eyelash at (isn’t the point of using actors as spokespeople because they’re convincing, even if they’re faking it??) Point is: He was asking a crowd that had just paid some silly amount of money on tickets (and probably intermission refreshments) to just drop a few more bucks on the way out. Who knows how effective this was with the other show-goers, but if you ask me, I’d much rather have the production tack on $5 extra to the price of my ticket during the month of October. Then, maybe, at the end of the performance, thank us all for having contributed a part of our entertainment indulgence to a cause. This gripe has nothing to do with my dislike for the mission of Broadway Cares. It has everything to do with the fact that I think an institution that is, by definition, creative, should be doing a better job at raising the funds they need.

Maybe City Harvest will be generous enough to consult Broadway Cares. And the next time I go to a show I’ll be happy to learn that for a limited time a portion of my $6 diet soda is going to support the hundreds of thousands of men, women and children that Broadway Cares serves.

Brands & Behavior Change

Forum for the Future and the Guardian Sustainable Business co-hosted a very interesting evening last week, which convened a wide variety of stakeholders from the business, nonprofit, and media worlds. Around the table were global brand heavyweights (our friend Jonathan Atwood from Unilever and Amanda Devore from Miller Coors were at our breakout session) and the likes of L’Oreal, Whole Foods, and B Labs sat on the panel.

The focus of the evening was collaboration and partnerships, as a means to advancing collective goals. There are about 7 different directions I could go in terms of recap or interesting-highlights. But I’ll stick with a thought that hit me a few times over the course of the night, even though it wasn’t every explicitly on the docket.

The concept of behavior change is a hot topic, no doubt. Perhaps even a buzz word. Recyclebank talks about this being the business we’re in all the time (like many, many others these days: OPower, Stickk). To further this observation was the consistent call to action (a plea, really) that brands need to start changing consumer behavior. To which, in my mind, the response was “they’ve already done that”. Brands have been changing the way consumers consume for a long, long time now. McDonald’s didn’t start out with a quadruple decker (or whatever the hell offensively massive burger they sell is). The started with regular, run-of-the-mill, single-patty hamburgers. Over time (and you could argue it was a result of demand) the size of the burger (and everything else on the menu) went up and up. Super-sized meant more variety, more profit, more opportunity to get people hooked. So there, McDonald’s influenced the way a whole group of people think about fast-food burgers.

Now, I don’t mean to over simplify (nor villain-ize McDonalds – they’re recent addition of apples and milk isn’t terrible). But merely make a point: Brands have been, at the very least, significantly influencing consumer behavior since as long as they’ve been around. So as opposed to taking this charge to “change consumer behavior” as some huge, audacious, insurmountable hurdle, how about say “hmmm, ok, this is what we know how to do, let’s just do it towards a different end”. Granted there is a reversal required here – the change that many were advancing for years has clearly gotten us all into a bit of a bind. But I can’t believe that it’s irreparable.

I understand, quite clearly, the need for consumer desire (or at least willingness) to exist in order for any sort of brand-catalyzed change to be meaningful. But I also believe that people (myself included) don’t always know what they want or need. And sometimes, it’s the responsibility of a company – which has a lot of money to do research and analyze trends and conduct focus groups – to help guide us all in that direction. So instead of creating new products that ask us as consumers to act differently with them, just innovate on the products so they are, by definition, put to use differently. As a society, I don’t think we’re so far gone in the direction of expecting 3-decker-everythings, so let’s go ahead and course-correct. There are lots of nimble startups who are in the business of behavior change (whether they’re flying that flag or not) and I think that their bigger, corporate counterparts are just as welcome to the party. Arguably, they’re more welcome, since they have the scale that holds the promise of far-reaching impact. Unilever products are used 2 billion times a day, by someone in the world. That’s a LOT of opportunity to be getting better products into people’s hands. And they are. It’s a two-way relationship, for sure, but I think that companies of the likes of P&G and MillerCoors and L’Oreal are positioned to make some bold changes and just create the kinds of products that yield [positive] behavior change as a byproduct.

So get bold. Get innovative. And have a little faith that us consumers are malleable enough – and open-minded enough – to change with you in the right direction.  

 

Food: It's a Social Thing

Literally. Eating can be a magically social experience. Exploring a new culture through its cuisine, visiting a favorite restaurant with a first date, cooking for family on the holidays, ordering takeout on rainy Sunday night...there are so many wonderfully true narratives that surround all things food. But is social media one of them?

According to the panelist at last night's LeadDog Marketing panel, it appears that it can be. It's at least a conduit to enhancing some of the experiences that surround our culinary adventures (however public or private). I have my reservations about trying to turn social media channels into transactional platforms (still not convinced it won't ultimately send people who came looking for some good, distracting banter and harmless stalking running in the opposite direction). But I do buy in to the idea that socializing foods brands and activity may have a place in newsfeeds and pin boards.

Whole Foods, Seamless Web, Butter Lane and the Culinary Institute of America represented a enjoyably wide spread of perspectives. There were definitely some across-the-board agreements: Social is low barrier to entry and therefore ripe for test-and-learn practices, and social channels are a great way to build a brand together with your consumers. And there were also some standout points. Primarily, in my opinion, as they related to Seamless and their approach to mobile and online food ordering.

Food, as an "industry", has a unique advantage: In some way, shape or form, it's relevant to everyone on this planet. And usually, it's relevant about three times a day. That represents a LOT of opportunity to connect with your audience. So while there is a potential to capitalize on frequency of "entry points", there still very much needs to be thoughtfulness behind what these interactions look like. And one big influencer may actually be things that have nothing to do with food itself. Like weather.














I love this example of leveraging a macro factor to impact users' behavior that Steven Young brought up. If it's about to rain, or suddenly warm again, or going to blizzard tomorrow...these elements affect how you think about ordering food (and likely what you order, for that matter). Think about the possilibilities that exist when partnerships with companies like The Weather Channel are integrated into the Seamless experience. What if they pulled in birthday info (Facebook style) so that you could order your best friend her favorite Thai takeout as a surprise (or send an edible "care package" to your younger brother who's a freshman in college?). Or how about local, current events influencing your experience (the Puerto Rican pride festival is coming to town this weekend, so how about you get your cultural culinary art on early and try this new Puerto Rican restaurant?). And what about letting news sources help filter options (tuna has made it on to the endangered species list, so might we suggest you opt for yellowtail on this sushi order?).

Beyond just social media, I think there is an exciting opportunity right now to tap into new technology and strategic partnerships that make the dining/eating experience more personalized, relevant and ultimately enjoyable. Social has it's place for sharing and connecting, but I was honestly more interested in learning how food brands are innovating across all channels and ideas. To quote Steven, "Choices are a luxury, but choosing is a chore." Finding ways to enhance food decision making moments, without taking the fun and free-will spirit out of the equation, will be key to success. Delicious space to keep our eyes on.

Thanks again to the team at LeadDog for hosting.
Image: 27th birthday breakfast fruit salad, Costa Rican style.

Subscription-based Everything… An indicator that we’re all craving convenience (and possibly a bit more...)

Everywhere I look lately there seems to be a new, subscription-based model sprouting up around me. Dating sites. Job search sites. Deal books. Flower delivery. Coffee Shops. The old adage that humans are creatures of habit seems to be in full affect here. And for businesses, habit can look a lot like loyalty.  

Let’s take the subscription coffee shops as an example (I’ve heard of three new ones in the past week). As a coffee-a-day consumer (necessary clarification: as a buy-a-coffee-out-a-day consumer) I can instantly see the economic value. The “membership” concept is clearly a financially beneficial one, but the success of these models extends well beyond that.

I believe there is a level of comfort implicit in habits that individuals are looking for these days. Beyond just convenience (we know we’re all looking for that), the predictability of routine seems to offer some grounding. On a local level, it might also suggest a sense of community (I know I feel like New York gets a lot smaller when my barista smiles, says good morning, and has my order waiting for me by the time I get to the register). Capitalizing on these desires is a smart move for businesses, and likely works because of the value exchange that’s at play. In the case of coffee shops, at least, they’re solving for a daily need that their customers have: to walk the same route, hit the same café, get their same drink, and (presumably) have it all go smoothly without even the need to take out their wallets.

The upside for business, of course, is the pre-payment and easy upsell potential. If you’re getting me in the door every day because I’ve already paid for my coffee with you, convincing me to buy one of your muffins or scones is much easier (I’m already at your counter, and you didn’t even have to use a dude on the street to lure me in!). There’s also the gift-card phenomenon: I’ve already paid for things that may or may not every even get cashed in on. For all the times I’m traveling or have a morning meeting that takes me a different route, you’re getting my morning coffee money anyway. Granted the margins on coffee (if we’re sticking to this one example) are so insanely high that you’re going to be able to offer me a super competitive price and still make out very well for yourself.

The one caution – or suggestion – I would offer to these subscription-based models is: Keep it fresh. As much as we all appreciate the ease of our daily routines, I believe people still want to be challenged. They want to be kept on their toes, at least sometimes. So create the opportunity for that. Throw in unexpected specials, and encourage them to try something new (because you’re making it so easy and available!). If we consider this equation as value-exchange transaction, then it’s the responsibility of the business to push their customer envelope. And maybe it’s just a little. But if I come in every morning for my pre-paid, large, black coffee with one Splenda, offer me a free pumpkin-spiced latte on October 1. Or give me information about a barista class that I wouldn’t otherwise know about. I don’t have to take you up on either, but you’ve made the effort. And for that, my loyalty will likely extend beyond just a habit.

(Check out FairFolks - friend of a friend’s new subscription-based coffee shop, which seems to be doing it pretty right).

Native Advertising: Leveraging content is a custom game

I read an article today in Digiday about how the Atlantic is investing in native advertising in order to deliver more relevant and compelling ads to its readers (and brand partners). While the logic is sound – and makes sense that contextually placed ads are yielding higher performance metrics than their standard, IAB counter-parts – there was a point made about customization vs. scalability that struck me. (Note: My opinions on native advertising are not at all yet fully formed, and I'm weary, as others, of the buzz-worthiness for what might as well still be called content marketing.)

But back to the article response: The comment was around the difficultly of scaling this kind of native advertising, because it is so dependent on the publishers’ site and surrounding copy. OBVIOUSLY! That’s the whole point. The desire to have customized and more deeply integrated ads within a publishers site comes at the cost of not easily achieving scale. And, in my opinion, that should be fine. If brands are really taking full advantage of native advertising, they should have a finite (and manageable) number out outlets for it. And, to get the results they’re looking for, each of these platforms rightfully deserves the attention, time and energy required of customization.

I understand the desire to have your cake and eat it, too; but I see the desire for “easy”, scalable native advertising as a bit of an oxymoron. The beauty and resonance of these kinds of ad solutions is entirely dependent on their content adjacency and where/how they appear. If done right, I’d say there’s even a chance that such advertising enhances a user’s experience, and offers them truly desired information. Bottom line is that native advertising is valuable and should be perceived as such. But if you’re not willing to spending the extra (I’d argue invaluable) time to do it right, you might as well not do it at all.     

[A quick note on customization: I lately get the sense that this word is starting to build a negative connotation in this fast-paced, scale-crazy, digital environment. Even if the word is interpreted to imply more time and energy spent, it is still what differentiates and ultimately distinguishes you from the others. And, I’d argue, brands and consumers are both looking for this kind of differentiated content as they wade through their daily bombardment of digital “stuff”. So spend the extra time. Take a risk (you can start small) and invest in something custom. It only has to be as big or intimidating a word as you make it.]