I just polished off a package of Chuckles jelly candies from the vending machine in our office and a few thoughts occurred to me: - The flavors in Chuckles have never changed.
- I have never, in my life seen any advertising or marketing for Chuckles.
- I don't even know who the hell makes Chuckles. Is there a Web site?
The Flavors
In case you're curious, the official name of the five Chuckles flavors are: Cherry, Lime, Lemon, Licorice, and zesty Orange. As far as I know these have always been the flavors. They were introduced in 1921 and they haven't even CONSIDERED adding or changing the flavor, not even the black one in the middle that most people don't like. That's confidence! That's chutzpah! At some point wouldn't you expect a dude in marketing to come up and say "Hey, coconut's big this year, why don't we try out a Pina Colada Chuckle?" My guess is someone did and he was fired on the spot.
Marketing and Advertising
I assume that the people that make Chuckles have a marketing department. But I may be wrong. For all I know they're made by aliens. In any event, I know for a fact that I have never seen any consumer advertising for Chuckles. Have you? Yet I have eaten Chuckles throughout most of my life. They just seem to show up and periodically I buy them. I assume they are being marketed heavily to candy dealers. If not I can only assume they are indeed made by aliens and they're being beamed down to Earth without us even noticing.
OK, It's Not Aliens
Chuckles are actually made by Farley & Sathers and they do indeed have a Web site. The Web site is as retro as the packaging although while the packaging appears straight out of the sixties, the site merely seems straight out of the 80's. Farley & Sathers also manufacture other similarly semi-famous candy like Now & Later, Rain-Blo, Trolli, and Fruit Stripe (that's right!) I think I've actually seen a Fruit Stripe ad but other than a terrific product placement in Ferris Beuhler's Day Off for Trolli Gummy Bears, I think that's about it. Wait, maybe that was Haribo Gummy Bears. Someone should do a comparison.
Anyway, I think the reason that all this struck me me is that I was thinking how nice it must be to have a product that succeeds for over 80 years despite an utter lack of innovation, marketing, and style. Chuckles just show up. Hey, maybe that could be their tagline!
I seem to have a Chuckle left. Does anyone want the black one?
A Web site can make you look more professional or experienced than you are. However, sometimes it can make you look like an idiot even if you have a good product or service. This is especially important for small business who don't have big marketing budgets and rely on the Web for part of their lead generation.The site below is a pizza place that I've never tried that's a few block from our house. I decided not to order from them simply because their Web Site sucks. It's a good thing they've littered their site with Google AdSense ads (and a LOT of other things) because I can't imagine a lot of people will buy their pizza based on the site itself.http://www.jackstrawspizza.com/index.html
Thought I'd collect my favorite e-mail marketing sites and blogs into one neat package. Some of the sites below require registration, but most are free to the world. I subscribe to all of them through RSS or e-mail, which is infinitely helpful in keeping up with them and not getting overwhelmed. In addition to what's below, I tag a lot of Email Marketing stuff on Del.icio.us, which is always available here: http://del.icio.us/napdynmite/emailmarketing
Clickz Email
http://blog.clickz.com/archives/topics/email.html
Frequently updated and widely-referenced, probably th best single source of email marketing information.
MarketingSherpa
http://www.marketingsherpa.com (sign up for the email marketing newsletter)
They offer a paid subscription and sell some nice studies, but the free content in the newsletter is fantastic. They also specialize in stats and benchmarking information found in few other places.
ReturnPath
http://www.returnpath.comThe deliverability kings offer up topics on a variety of "getting to the inbox" stuff and list management.
Campaign Monitor Blog
http://www.campaignmonitor.com/blog/
An e-mail marketing system vendor with a lot of insight from the reseller's perspective.
ExactTarget Blogs
http://email.exacttarget.com/ETWeb/blogs.aspx
A top notch e-mail service provider's blog on a wide variety of topics from a smart bunch of practitioners.
MarketingProfs
http://www.marketingprofs.com (paid subscription and well worth it)
I unabashedly love MarketingProfs.com, not just for email, but a variety of resources, including a terrific email vendor matrix. Great content on email and much more.
Email Marketing Best Practices
http://www.b2bemailmarketing.com/
I just discovered this gem and already feel pretty comfortable recommending it. Tamara Geilen covers everything from design to spam legislation. You could spend a lot of time here.
Email Universe
http://emailuniverse.com/
Targeted at email newsletters primarily, but a lot of great advice about best practices in email.
Email Experience Council
http://www.emailexperience.org/They're new and they're building up their cache quickly. Join and get involved. The site has some good resources as well as a mission.
As I mentioned in a previous post, I hate video ads and they desperately need some standards (in lieu of common sense I guess). Apparently Rebecca Lieb at Clickz agrees. She also points out the inherent issue with pre-roll video ads, which is that A) people in offices really don't want to have their PC speakers flooding the area with Viagra ads and B) people with audio turned off or their headphones plugged in and not on their heads aren't going to hear the audio anyway.Video ads are a stupid practice and should probably just be stopped. I don't see the value to the advertiser or the host.
This morning I clicked on a digg.com link to a story in Forbes about the best and worst selling cars of 2007. I was first met with a splash ad for Symantec which could not be skipped. I waited for it to finish and went on to the story where I was immediately met with a loud video for an investment advice book from Fischer Investments along with the requisite banner ads. In addition there was one of those annoying pop-ups for a Forbes survey that moved with me as I scrolled down the page. This is a lousy user experience. I understand that Forbes.com needs to make money, but this is overboard. I didn't even read the story because I was so annoyed and I'll likely think twice about the next link I see to Forbes. Here's what I think:- If you force people through a splash ad, let them skip it. Most of the time they won't find the "Skip Ad" link until they've seen most of the ad, so you don't lose much eye time. But at least give the option.
- No self-starting video ads. Present the ad, with the embedded video and let me click on it if I'm interested.
- Pop-up ads are bad enough, but one that follows you around like a hungry little yelping puppy is just amateurish. Just don't do pop-up ads.
One of the divisions of the organization I work for decided to build their own prototype for their section of the Web site. They sent it to us (the Web team) and said this was what they wanted us to build them. We had already prototyped their section for them, staying of course, within our own Web site and branding standards. However they apparently felt that their level of "specialness" extended beyond our brand and therefore required a new, bastardization of our brand. What they sent us I can only refer to as, a "brandtastrophe."Brandtastrophe: The bastardization of an organization's existing, established brand to suit the needs and preferences of a subgroup of an organization.We've all seen this a thousand times, from the department that creates its own letterhead by smashing the organization's logo into a piece of Microsoft Word Wordart to the division that works with an outside contractor to develop a piece of collateral that has the organization's logo, but bears little resemblance to anything else from the organization. Perhaps it also has some myopic messages that were put together by the division's director during a brainstorming meeting but that no one else outside the division has ever even seen. Brandtasrophes suck the life out of a brand and muddle the public's perceptions of it. At their worst, they effectively vandalize the organization.
In a recent article about Mac quality issues, Veteran technology industry analyst Rob Enderle is quoted as saying "I think they (Apple) are feeling invulnerable right now. Because they've been so successful as of late, it looks like they can do no wrong and that customers will take whatever they give them."
I think this is probably true. Apple and its users seem to me a pretty smug lot. I'm a Windows PC user, but God knows I'm not a smug one. Windows PCs have all sorts of issues like crashes, odd behavior, susceptibility to viruses and hacks, etc. We all know this of course. We install firewalls, anti-virus programs, add memory, apply patches and do everything we can to keep our PCs running.
We also do some pretty amazing things with our PCs, just like people do with Macs. The difference seems to be that Mac users tend to look down on PC users and I really can't figure out why. Are Macs really better at most things than PCs these days? Are they really so much simpler to use? Or are they just "cooler?" Besides, there are programs for PCs that do the same things you can do on a Mac. I use most Adobe products on my PC and they're not all that different on Macs as far as I can tell. But is it more cool to say you own a Mac than a PC? Sure it is. The Mac guy on the commercial exudes laidback, trendy coolness, whereas the PC guy exudes uptight, loser dorkiness. But is a PC supposed to be cool? Is that important? If the PC I use is cool does that make me cool by extension?
When I've pressed Mac users for hard reasons why they love their Macs or what's so much better or simpler about them I usually get a response like. I don't know, they're just easier. When I press them further they end up saying PCs are just too complicated and they don't have time to mess with all of that crap. It makes me wonder why my company has a support person for our Mac users. What does he do all day, play Solitaire?
Same thing goes for iPods, which are heralded by owners and most of the press for their amazing simplicity and quality. Here's a simple fact: The majority of comments I hear from iPod users are negative. Maybe you hear differently, but all I ever hear from iPod owners is how they can't get their CDs ripped to them, and the battery runs out too fast, and for some strange reason the alarm goes off at midnight and drains the power before they wake up, and it scratches really easily and on and on. I also hear about how horrible the customer service is and how you end up paying hand over fist to get them repaired or replaced. And I truly do not get what is so stylish about them. When they first came out they looked like kitchen appliances and everyone raved about how cutting edge and trendy they were. Now pretty much all music and media players look stylish and I don't think iPods really look any more stylish than the rest.
I have a SanDisk Sansa and I really like it. It's small, stable, works with Rhapsody, holds plenty of music, and sounds great. The interface is pretty good too. Not great, but pretty good. Anyway, I don't pretend owning a Sansa makes me cool or part of some generation. It's a tool I use to listen to music and it works well. I haven't joined a Sansa discussion group or told all my friends that it's the "only mp3 player to get." And if I owned an iPod I would feel the same way. Like a Mac, it's just a tool to get things done or entertain yourself. It's not a cult, it's a piece of hardware. Get over it.
I just polished off a package of Chuckles jelly candies from the vending machine in our office and a few thoughts occurred to me: 
