Posts Tagged ‘free’

Not All Wi-Fi Wants to Be Free

Thursday, July 22nd, 2010

One of the most common complaints among fellow business-travel road warriors is the high cost of Wi-Fi outside the friendly confines of our offices. It’s a topic that comes up continually in hotel lobbies and airport terminals as we struggle to stay connected with the flow of business. We all go through gut-wrenching internal debates about whether or not we should expense the $14.99 for a day of Internet access just so we can sync email and maybe Skype the kids before bed. Why is it—we often wonder—that Wi-Fi is free at Starbucks and McDonald’s, yet we must put up outrageous charges where we need it most—where we are already spending hundreds of dollars for hotel rooms or plane tickets? A recent article in Slate has gained some attention in suggesting that the time has come to free up Wi-Fi at every business. While that would be nice, the law of supply and demand won’t change things, until someone recognizes the opportunity for Marketing with Meaning.

In Slate, author Farhad Manjoo tells the story of how Starbucks was recently pressured to offer free Wi-Fi service because a plethora of its competitors have provided the free access—ranging from McDonald’s to nearly every corner deli and independent coffee spot. He writes that many mid- and low-budget hotel chains have begun to offer free Wi-Fi, including Best Western, Comfort Inn, and Holiday Inn. According to Manjoo:

“The sooner that hotels, airports, convention centers, and other similar places realize this, the happier they’ll make their customers.”

Sounds great, but don’t hold your breath. Just because people want, nay, need something for free does not mean that they will get it. The real purpose of my post today is to remind us that the simple economics of supply and demand come before any Wi-Fi routers go up.

In general economic terms, free services are most likely to occur when three rules apply: (1) the cost to provide the services is low; (2) consumers specifically desire the free services; and (3) and competition is also offering them for free. For example, restaurants provide free salt, pepper, and sugar at your table. The cost of these condiments is very low, people want or need access to them while eating, and because so many restaurants provide them for free it would be ridiculous to start charging. In the hotel market, we similarly see free shampoo, soap, in-room coffeemakers, turndown service, and wake-up calls.

Wi-Fi passes these tests in some cases. In the U.S. at least, Wi-Fi is very cheap to install and provide and it is definitely a service that consumers desire. However, competition is where things get dicey. Restaurants and coffee shops feel the competitive pressure because people have a pretty broad choice of where to sit down and spend their money. One could literally drive by a dozen spots in less than five minutes looking for those that have a “Free Wi-Fi” sign in the window. The same goes for those mid- and low-budget hotel chains, as they are frequently huddled together along the same interstate exit.

But this competitive shopping process is very different for high-end hotels and airports. The competitive options for business travelers are much more restricted in these markets, and Econ 101 tells us that less competition means monopoly-like “rents” can go to the seller. Yep, it’s unfair and economically inefficient when Delta charges $9.99 for Wi-Fi on a one-hour flight, or when your $400-a-night W Hotel makes you pay $19.99 for 24 hours of its horribly slow Net access. But these services become huge moneymakers when you are stuck with few options.

The other free market “failure” here is that most end users of high-end hotels and airfare are not the ones actually paying for the Wi-Fi access—it’s actually the employer who gets stuck with the bill when the expense report is turned in. This is similar to the reason our health insurance costs keep going up—the end patient is agreeing to (or even asking for) medical services that he or she never pays for. Now, just because all three of these guidelines are in effect does not mean that companies will choose to offer free benefits; but it does mean that this becomes a true marketing choice and investment—and I believe this can be one of the most meaningful marketing choices a brand can make.

There is one great airline example about how bucking the charging trend can be a marketing win. Charging for checked baggage is an interesting case where a reduction in competition led companies to cut back on a service that everyone enjoyed for free for years. The few big players—Delta, Continental,  American, and others—are now reaping big bucks thanks to this shift in the market. In 2009 they collected $13.5 billion in “ancillary services fees”—which mainly consists of new baggage fees.

But building on its Brand Purpose of “Democratizing Air Travel,” Southwest Airlines saw a huge opportunity in this shift. It was the one major airline that refused to charge its customers for up to two pieces of checked luggage. Not only did it keep its free baggage benefit, but it created a marketing campaign around “Bags Fly Free.” The results are pretty amazing: Southwest gave up an estimated $300 million in profit by forgoing the fees, but its differentiated service allowed the company to gain an additional 1% share of the market, which translated into $900 million in additional revenue—not to mention earning it ongoing customer trust and brand loyalty at a moment of truth. This was a marketing investment that clearly paid off.

What I find interesting is that it may be that only those services that “violate” my three rules above are noticeable by consumers and should actually be considered marketing investments. When you and all of your competitors offer something it is no longer differentiated, meaningful marketing, but rather just a cost of doing business. At what point does Wi-Fi at a restaurant just become the equivalent of ketchup?

Wi-Fi on airlines or high-end hotels is far from destined to be free, but it does offer an opportunity for brands to stand out by offering it. I am starting to see movements in this direction. For example, last week Sheraton offered me free (but slow) Wi-Fi because I am a Gold Starwood Points member. And Delta provides free Wi-Fi in its Sky Club lounges.

Perhaps there is an opportunity for an airline or hotel chain to differentiate by offering free Wi-Fi credits or codes directly to the company procurement and travel managers who are paying for accommodations at the end of the day. Imagine a loyalty campaign or points program targeting these key decision makers. Working through a travel provider such as American Express, Delta, or the W Hotel could offer free Wi-Fi to heavy corporate buyers. This could help break through the clutter, reward the most valuable end customers, and win a nudge of business when prices are about the same. Another “scale” option is to partner with a company such as Orbitz or Travelocity to show people that free Wi-Fi is, say, a $14.99 value when the price search results appear. A customer might decide to pay an extra $10 for a hotel room when he knows the $14.99 Wi-Fi comes free. And remember, the incremental cost of a hotel offering this benefit is near $0.

You might find it useful to use this post to trigger a thinking exercise on your brand. What is a service that your customers will appreciate, that has reasonably low costs to execute, and that your competition isn’t offering yet? You might just uncover a powerful Meaningful Marketing idea.

Survive Breast Cancer, Get a Free Bloomin’ Onion

Wednesday, November 11th, 2009

bloomin onion breast cancer

Well, not exactly, but bear with me and read on if you don’t mind, because I do have an important point here and I sincerely need your help in figuring out the meaning of this marketing.

It all started over the weekend when I was catching some college football on good old-fashioned network television. I was actually getting ready to head out and was coming out of the shower when I heard the Australian voice from the Outback TV commercials in a very serious tone. This surprised me because the guy is usually full of “We’ll put a shrimp on the bar-bie for ya!” optimism and excitement. I listened as the voice explained that Outback was a proud supporter of the brave men and women who risk our lives to protect our freedom on Veterans Day, November 11. And to show this pride and support the troops, any veterans and active-duty military personnel who visit Outback on this day will receive… a free Bloomin’ Onion (regular price, $6.25)!

Something in my gut didn’t feel good. No, it wasn’t memories of the last time I downed nearly an entire Bloomin’ Onion by myself. Rather, I felt that Outback’s promotion was self-serving and potentially insulting to our military men and women.

Now, I’m a big fan of Marketing with Meaning, as regular readers know. And anytime a brand provides a free product or sample to its customers, there’s a good chance it’s meaningful marketing. Denny’s, for example, earned a rave review in my book for its wildly successful free Grand Slam giveaway after this year’s Super Bowl. Such giveaways grab customers’ attention and hit the “free” value button we all have programmed into our heads, which is especially sensitive in this economy. Such offers bring people who are attracted to the freebie, and they end up spending a lot more on full meals and beverages for themselves and the rest of their family members.

Several other restaurants are also getting in on the free food for veterans act. According to an article in Slashfood, Applebee’s and McCormick & Schmick’s are both providing free entrees, and Krispy Kreme is offering free donuts on Veterans Day. And the benefits are extending beyond casual dining; for example, both Lowe’s and Home Depot are offering 10% discounts to military men and women.

The issue I see is that a free Bloomin’ Onion seems so petty for something as meaningful as military service at a time when we are actively losing men and women amid war. What’s worse is seeing this “offer” plastered across our mass-media TV screens in a blatant attempt to convince the majority, non-military personnel that Outback is doing the right thing for real American heroes. Toss in the odd fact that Outback, which aspires to be an “Australian” steakhouse, is honoring American military personnel.

It just feels to me that military service is far too serious a sacrifice to be linked to free appetizers at a restaurant chain. Let’s compare this to the recent cause-related marketing around National Breast Cancer Awareness Month and the pink ribbons that have been everywhere from soup cans to NFL players’ gloves. What if Outback ran commercials that said, in a serious Australian accent:

“You’re a survivor. You’ve beaten breast cancer, and are a hero to us all. So we salute you by offering you a free Bloomin’ Onion.”

Ridiculous, right? Or am I wrong? And how is risking one’s life in military service any less odd to reward with a delicious onion app?

Restaurants such as Outback are well-known for one-time gimmicks to lure people into their restaurants, and as a longtime advertising watcher it made me cringe. On the other hand, I do believe restaurants can win by doing more over a longer term. Serving a full meal or entree, like some of the examples above, is a step in the right direction. I do have to give Outback credit for sending some of its employees to Afghanistan to provide meals to the troops, but this is not mentioned in its mass marketing. I think the company should take a lesson from Golden Corral.

Golden Corral is hosting its 9th annual Military Appreciation dinner on Monday, November 16. The company moved its event to this day because it knows that many people have other plans for the holiday itself. And it is offering complete buffet meals for military visitors. Not only is this a real commitment to the troops, but it’s a better brand fit, as most military men and women are on tight budgets and cannot afford the $100 or more it can cost to visit an Outback with their families. Golden Corral is a budget-friendly brand.

Now, this is one of those blog posts where I have a strong opinion, but I am willing to admit that I could be wrong. It is hard to chastise a company when they are doing something with some kind of customer benefit for an important cause. What do you think?

Blyk Free Mobile Service Finds Few Takers

Wednesday, August 12th, 2009

One of the last great hopes of believers in the interruptive marketing model is that consumers will willingly opt into advertising if there is enough of an incentive to do so. This idea is inspiring a few new business models; perhaps the most-watched has been Blyk, a mobile service in the UK that since 2007 has been offering free calls and texts to 16- to 24-year-olds in return for mandatory advertising. Alas, Blyk failed to hit its growth numbers and was recently absorbed into telecom giant Orange with little fanfare or investor payday. I believe it proves my point that when the price of interruption is too high, the only way forward is Marketing with Meaning.

The business model of Blyk was fairly simple: Offer free mobile service to teens and young adults who are heavy users but have small bank accounts, and use mandatory advertising to lure big marketers eager to engage with an audience that is notoriously difficult to reach. According to Advertising Age, the company expected to reach 4.5 million members and roll out across Europe in its first year. There was even talk of an eventual U.S. entry. Alas, the service hit only 200,000 members in its first year and was unable to attract more users.

There were some good signs from the Blyk experiment. The company launched more than 2,000 campaigns, which included top brands such as Coca-Cola, Colgate, L’Oreal, and the BBC. Clearly the company was reaching an audience that these marketers desire. And the response rates to the forced ads were actually very good. The average response was “at least 25%” and one quiz for L’Oreal got a 70% response rate.

So, WTF? Simple: Most people, even teenagers with more time than money, find the true cost of advertising interruption so high that they will not accept it. In 2005 there were 6.9 million people aged 16 to 24 in the UK, so 200,000 Blyk users represent only 2.9% penetration (assuming 100% of Blyk subscribers fell into this narrow range and the company didn’t kick out users at age 25). Consider the fact that this is a very social crowd, and likely each of the 200,000 users told dozens of friends about the service. The lack of growth shows that the proposition of free mobile service could not overcome the advertising overload.

I think this experiment also shows how personally important the mobile device is in our lives. While we might be OK with zoning out in front of ad-supported passive media such as television (even on Hulu.com), our mobile devices are our active, lean-forward links to the world. As we’ve seen with the tens of millions of people who have signed up for the Federal Do-Not-Call List, we want our phones to be immune to marketing interruption.

Some might wonder why the response rates to ads were so high. I believe it is just a logical function of the type of people who were attracted to Blyk in the first place; in other words, the (small) audience that bought into Blyk doesn’t find advertising to be that much of a negative. Some of them even enjoyed the advertising. It reminds me of a study AOL did a few years ago on the .2% of people who click on banner ads more than once per month. These rare few are “the same people that tend to open direct mail and love to talk to telemarketers.”

So another ad-supported business model bites the dust. My hope is that marketers and the investment community see this specifically as an example of how interruption and annoyance will fail in new media. As I wrote about earlier this week in my review of Chris Anderson’s book, Free, the price of consumer attention continues to increase. Forcing people to accept a drain on their time and attention (forced ads) in exchange for something of value (free cell service) is likely the wrong way to go. But if the marketing itself can be enjoyable and add immediate value in return for people’s attention, we might just be able to win them over.

Book Review: ‘Free’ by Chris Anderson

Monday, August 10th, 2009

I was expecting—maybe even hoping—to hate Chris Anderson’s new book, Free: The Future of a Radical Price. As a digital marketer I have seen far too many poor business models pop up, become addicted to annoying advertising, and slowly fade away (e.g., the Bloglines RSS reader is killing me). I felt that Anderson was launching his book at the worst time, just as the economy hit new lows and businesses were burned by failing to act responsibly. I even started putting together notes for a thought-piece on why “free” is wrong and why the “99-cent economy” with iTunes songs and iPhone apps is the real answer. But after reading Free, I have to admit that Anderson is right, and I must thank him for providing yet another pillar of proof that the world must shift to Marketing with Meaning.

Anderson wrote the book with his biggest detractors and doubters well in mind. The result is a book that is well-researched with bulletproof logic and hundreds of examples. As an economics major myself, I appreciated that he went down into the details of this dismal science in order to make his case. He also blends in psychological studies to teach us how we think and react to free versus paid offers. For example, one study suggests that, “Most transactions have an upside and a downside, but when something is FREE! we forget the downside.”

Free aspires to be a general business book and approaches the simple, compelling work of Malcolm Gladwell (The Tipping Point, Blink, and Outliers). However, I believe we marketers will get the most out of the Free manifesto. Anderson describes how one of our traditional tools, free samples, is powering new business models in industries as diverse as music, retail, and bike rental. But his thinking for us is much deeper…

One of Anderson’s fundamental points is that while the cost of information (and many real-world products) nears zero, the amount of attention people can give to something has remained unchanged. Unless we figure out how to avoid sleep or sprout additional heads, we’re pretty much limited here. This means that consumer engagement—the doorway to selling them stuff—is becoming harder and harder to open. As a result, if you’re a musician hoping to break through, or a game developer hoping to attract players, you are better off giving something away in order to earn this engagement. Once we have their attention, there is a chance to sell them something.

This is actually very much the thinking behind Marketing with Meaning. Because consumers are less willing or able to give their increasingly valuable attention to interruptive advertising, we must try new methods to get their attention. Through free samples or free services—meaningful marketingwe can break through the clutter and begin a dialogue that can effectively lead to sales.

For example, by creating a tool that lets people create their own Simpsons characters, the franchise wins viewers for its programs and movies. By providing live lunchtime entertainment, Healthy Choice has a chance to share information about its new line of Fresh Mixers. And by providing free education for you, dear readers, through this educational blog for more than a year, I have earned the chance to tell you about my upcoming book.

Imagine if the $500 billion in annual global advertising spending was completely diverted away from unwanted, interruptive advertising and toward marketing that adds value to people’s lives. It’s not a utopian dream; rather, it’s the simple economics of a world where the most scarce resource for business is consumer attention. If you’re not giving them something valuable through your marketing itself, then you have little chance to win them over. But win their attention through meaningful marketing, and you have the chance to achieve short-term sales and loyalty for life.

Starbucks Supplies Free Music and Drinks

Monday, July 27th, 2009

Last week I stopped into the Starbucks that I drive by nearly every day on my 20-minute commute to work. It was the first time I had been to this store in several months, and my first Starbucks visit of any kind in at least eight weeks. During that time I’ve been away, Starbucks seems to have been working hard to win back regular customers in a tough economy, and a few small signs of life suggest that this customer at least might be visiting more often.

There were two pleasantly unexpected examples of meaningful marketing that I encountered on this visit. First, when I was handed a receipt for my Vente Coffee with hazelnut, the server said that if I returned to any Starbucks today I could show the receipt and get a free Grande cold drink. This is a smart promotion in that it rewards purchase, plus helps drive in a second visit and perhaps an afternoon-visit habit.

I found the second bonus when I went over to load my cream and sugar choices at the toppings bar. (Is there a better name for that?) There was a small display of cards (see above) offering a Starbucks and iTunes “Pick of the Week” song. In this case it was a new Dave Matthews Band tune called “Write a Song” from their new album, Big Whiskey and the GrooGrux King. All I had to do was redeem a code on iTunes and I was enjoying free music from a band I love. This is actually an ongoing weekly promotion, with a new free song every Tuesday. The idea of free music at Starbucks is particularly new because the stores are infamous for pushing CDs on its visitors at every corner.

These are two small examples of meaningful marketing, but they suggest that the company is working hard to win our business back. It makes me want to stop into Starbucks on my daily drive more often to check out what new surprises the store has brewed up. And that’s exactly what the company is hoping for. Maybe there’s life in Starbucks yet.