How to achieve excellence in joined-up marketing: Don’t leave the multi-channel marketing buffet unsatisfied

15 September 2010

The funny thing about choice is that so often the more you have, the less satisfied you feel. (Have you ever felt frustrated after one of those extravagant buffet meals, while a straightforward choice from the a la carte menu can keep you perfectly happy?)

This makes me think of marketing today. In the past a marketer would have simply chosen a starter, mains and dessert (perhaps TV, print and a direct mail campaign) and been satisfied that the bulk of their target market was covered via these channels.

Today, though, that same marketer is faced with a smorgasbord of ways to communicate and engage with their market, from social media platforms, to mobile marketing, to web, email and all the traditional channels. Each channel has its own characteristics and features; the hot new flavour of the month seems to change almost weekly; and customers are having their own conversations about your brand where ever they choose.

Enter multi-channel marketing (MCM), which, if done properly can pull all these conversations together and build a brand story that is greater than the sum of the individual parts. With attention spans getting shorter, and increased clamour for what attention consumers do have to spare, MCM can help to keep your target market entertained and engaged with the right messages, via the right channels, at the right time.

The key to a successful MCM campaign is to not simply replicate messages from one channel to the next. All the messages via different channels need to contribute to creating a compelling story and to encourage engagement on your terms. If you get this right, you’ll be able to stop thinking about campaigns and start thinking about ongoing conversations and engagement – the key to succeeding in the new digital world order.

So just how do you make a good choice from the multi-channel marketing buffet?

Firstly, understand and respect the characteristics of each channel. For instance, SMS is great for delivering small bites of time sensitive information to audiences on the go, which is why it works so well for disaster management situations. But it’s not that great for bigger chunks of information, documents and conveying branding. For instance, online retailer Amazon uses text messages to alert customers about the deal of the day or when high-demand stock becomes available. Using the TextBuyIt service, customers on the go can purchase the product immediately so don’t risk losing out if they are away from their computers. Customers can also track the delivery status of their order via text, making waiting for a delivery to arrive less onerous.

Similarly, Facebook is great for branding, personalised interaction and building up a base of loyal followers. Toyota has recently used Facebook as well as YouTube and TV advertising as part of its Sienna Family campaign in the wake of its global recall earlier this year. But while the busy Facebook page has collected more than 25,000 “likes” Toyota can’t rely on this channel alone to generate sales. Studies show that only between 17% and 51% of Facebook users say they are more likely to buy a brand after “liking”. And Forrester’s Augie Ray argues that marketers should assume their Facebook fans are worth zero, “until the brand does something to create value with Facebook fans”. So marketers need to supplement the Facebook channel with activity that is going to convert these members of their community. 

Just because a channel can do something particularly well, it doesn’t mean that feature suits all the consumers using that channel. This was highlighted for me recently in a discussion in the comments section of an article where I said thanking someone for a purchase on Twitter was a bit creepy (and frankly also a great way to ruin a surprise birthday present for my wife). Another reader, presumably more interested in social-badging than I am, called me old-fashioned for thinking that :-).

Now, while neither of us is right or wrong, this is a great opportunity for marketers to personalise communications even further – if they know their customers’ preferences. Without understanding these preferences you risk either creeping me out, or disappointing the social badgers who want their brand alliances made public. 

While it’s true that you need to yield some ownership of your brand to your customers and community, you don’t need to be held hostage to them. As mentioned above, fewer than one in five Facebook fans make a purchase from a brand they “like”, so encourage them to engage with your brand in an environment more conducive to conversion – for an e-commerce company this would be its website, while a bricks and mortar store should encourage Facebook fans to visit the shop.

An alarming trend I am noticing is brands indirectly encouraging consumers to use Twitter as a very public complaints desk. I do put some of the blame for this on the brands themselves as, anecdotally, it appears that many consumers have turned to Twitter after the company’s direct customer service channels have failed. Or, by giving too much attention to those who shout loudest using Twitter they are encouraging this behaviour from other customers.

Marketers need to realise they do still have the power to encourage customers down the channels they prefer, as well as needing to engage where their customers are.

With these factors in mind, track your consumers’ behaviour to guide your thinking, and measure the impact of choosing different combinations from the marketing buffet to gauge the most effective ones. And increasingly you’ll be leaving the buffet sated and satisfied by the bigger choice.