Woo Hoo! At the heart of the matter

A Virtual Assistant I know of recently blogged her recommendation that a business owner or GM should not publish their contact details to their website unless they get their mail re-directed automatically to a PA, assistant, junior manager.

The rationale was that from an administrative point of view the head of the business doesn't want to be too accessible because they will get swamped with communication.

And I get it from the point of view of time management.

But from a branding point of view having the head of the business hidden behind a gate-keeper may not be the message you want to send.

In particular in small business it is often seen as a big benefit to customers that in dealing with a small business they are dealing with the business owner direct.

And small business often wants to promote that accessibility - that the 'personality' of the business is not big, corporate, pompous, but flexible, friendly, down to earth.

I think a far better option is to set up Email Rules within your email host - publish the friendly, up front email address (such as Fred @ Domain) and have all emails to that address go immediately into a specific folder (with a copy to the assistant) so that the customer feels that they have direct communication to the head of the business - and the head of the business knows that the assistant will flag want needs to be actioned.

It may be that the way your Administration person wants things set up is what will work best for your business and for your brand.

Or not.

Beware the sweeping statements that claim one best way of doing things.

How do you handle how people can communication with you?

 

Whilst blaming the lack of customers on the customers (which certainly demonstrates an interesting take on public relations, in particular in a market place where you still need people to buy your products), Pacific Brands CEO Sue Morphett said: "The only time that we’ll (Ozzies) pay for Australian goods is if they (companies) are giving us something that buying elsewhere or cheaper isn't giving us.''

Ah......yeah...

Isn’t that the basics of selling stuff? Customers only buy your stuff if they can’t get exactly the same stuff elsewhere, better or cheaper?

Is it supposed to be different in Oz if you put some Australian branding on it? Is she suggesting that if the ownership of the company is Australian we will be so satisfied with the same product, the same quality, the same brand, some of which is already made in China, that we should pay just that bit more for it.....?

Chesty Bonds is Cut and Fit and Aussie. His cute little face sits proudly in the middle of that great big chiselled head especially since having some ‘work’ done a few years back. Someone should introduce him to the Skipping Girl – they would make beautiful billboards....

But isn’t that all that the brand has represented? “We” are from the same place as “you”, True Blue Mate?

From a marketing perspective Pac Brands failed to position their brands as representing a true brand experience, their marketing efforts failed to engage with customers, they found nothing to communicate other than “we use to be iconic”. And they were one of the companies that taught us that your every day singlet, socks, t.shirt, and knickers was your basic staple; your brushed washed potato of clothing; a range of such common and everyday items that is was below branding: A market that companies such as Pac Brands then oversupplied and was packed with competitors.

Where were the marketing people at Pac Brands? Was jingoistic positioning ever enough in a country wandering where the bloody hell is its own sense of identity is? Surely they knew that to expect more from the brands – for customers to bond with Bonds - that it had to fit onto more than our bodies but be position into our psyches?

A quick google search of what has been happening from a marketing perspective at Pac Brands demonstrates a lack of focus upon clearly defined target markets which in turn caused confused and muddled positioning. Let’s look at King Gee. In 2005 they reported that King Gee was going to re- position to own the ‘safety gear’ area of the market. Three years earlier they talked about reconnecting with youth as the 80 year old iconic brand was now perceived to be ‘too old’ (reaching for that oft used tactic of many a challenged marketing manager: A new logo). During the early 2000s the annual marketing budget for King Gee was $1.5million. Up against that has been competitor Bisley with a strong and entertaining campaign featuring the cheeky larrikin endorsement of popular ‘tradie’ Scott Cam. Even on Pac Brands own web-site, their overview of Chesty Bonds informs you that he has recently been seen with our own Prime Minister John Howard in the lead up and during the 2000 Olympics. What has he been up to in the past 9 years?

Obviously what is going on at Pac Brands is about a whole heap more than just marketing.

But there is a marketing lesson within all of this: You need to clearly position your brand to appeal to a clearly defined target market; offering them benefits and values that mean something – something worthwhile – to them; and then actually communicate those benefits through engaging marketing tactics that reach those customers – rather than rely upon being Australian.

Can we really blame customers for not choosing to buy Australian for the sake of buying Australian – regardless of value, experience, price, differentiation? Perhaps in some logical and rationale conversation about the impact on employment and the economy we recognise the truth that not favouring local products will damage our local market.

But at the moment of purchase when you just need a new pair of knickers - when there is no perceived benefit, no branding, no value-add, price trumps geography hands-down.

Just as it has for Pac Brands themselves as they look for the best manufacturing services available to them at the best price....regardless of geography.