A survey recently conducted by Mormac Brand Re-engineering showed that 90% of small business owners do their own marketing. In some cases this meant everything, including graphic design. About 12% did have professionals handling their graphic design and web page development but all other marketing tasks were handled by themselves. This was particularly true in start-up businesses.
And people wonder why 50% of small businesses close in the first year and 70% are gone by year five.
You wouldn't go into a serious court case and handle it yourself. You'd take your lawyer. You wouldn't battle the tax man by yourself, you'd take your accountant. You have financial advisors, insurance advisors - so why don't you have a marketing advisor?
The Canadian Bankers Association recommends this list of advisors to help small business be successful: "Lawyers, accountants, financial advisors, communications and marketing specialists, insurance agents, computer and technology experts – all can provide professional advice and other services to you."
Lately, I've heard small business owners saying, "I can't pay for a marketing specialist right now, I have to make more sales so I have more money." And where are those sales going to come from if you aren't marketing yourself correctly? And realistically, poorly-handled marketing costs you money - it doesn't make you money.
Now I know some small business owners think that to get good solid marketing advice they have to pay through the nose. But this is not necessarily true. A consultation on the habits of your customers and how that plays into delivering strong messages may be all it takes. Marketing isn't just advertising (which is where an awful lot of money is spent). A small business marketing consultant should save you money and increase your sales.
You don't need a glitzy, glamorous advertising agency to help you get a handle on your marketing. Check around. There are entrepreneurial marketers out there with the experience and skills to review your plan and give advice, without having you tie yourself to full agency services.
Do yourself a favour. Stop thinking you know how to do everything. You don't. And no one expects you to - except maybe yourself. Get a marketing advisor just like you get a lawyer or accountant.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Know your audience means save your money
I just finished reading a newspaper article about a government program for interest-free, forgivable loans. The director of municipal housing for London, Ontario was interviewed:
So let's take a look at the city's tactics in this "well-publicized" plan versus audience behaviours.
Families with less than $50,000 income are probably not hanging out at the bank. And a majority of folks under 40 years of age do their banking on-line so they're rarely in the bank, if ever. So using funds to promote this program in lending institutions should probably have been kept to a minimum. A nice message to the lending officers might have been enough on the off chance that someone making $50,000/year decided they could afford a house (never mind all the public relations nightmares going on in the US about housing costs and loans and the impact rising interests rates have had on people's ability to pay their mortgages - that has had so much play in the Canadian media that lower middle income families are likely stepping cautiously).
Libraries. Hmm. I love the library. Bought my house because the library is right next door. But I know I am an anomaly. Reading for fun is becoming less and less a popular hobby, especially with people in lower income and lower education brackets. Research is done online for those with a computer rather than wading through the stacks at the library. And in this time of over-packed schedules, I can't think of anyone in my experience intentionally wandering around the library to find adverts from the city or anyone else.
Would you have a chat with a realtor if you didn't think you could afford a house? Of course, they would want to be aware of the program, but again, not necessary to put much money under it.
And now the buggaboo of all buggaboos - the media. And by this, she means mainstream media. Newspapers and radio. Maybe even some television.
Newspaper readership has been deteriorating for over a decade. Partly because people are less interested in reading, partly because mainstream journalism has become an entertainment industry rather than a credible news source in many cases and finally because the internet allows people to streamline their experience with less newsprint in the house and less black smeary ink on their fingers.
Loads of statistics across the country show that newspaper readership goes up with higher education and household income. So, doesn't look like a favourable buy for households under $50,000.
And beware of misleading comments in the readership statistics of newspapers. London Free Press says that 71% of adults 25 - 49 read their newspaper each week (notice it doesn't say every day). Which properly translated means these people open the newspaper a minimum of once a week. So which section? How many of them only look at Friday's entertainment section? How many only look at the classifieds? Sports page? Lifestyle?
Radio is challenging at the best of times. Each market has more radio stations than you could possibly need. London has at least seven stations, not including all the stations from surrounding areas that spill into the market. Radio is terrific if you can really nail down the habits of your audience, but again you are trapped with figuring out when they are actually listening. No point in running ads when your audience isn't there.
And then television, one of the most challenging things to buy on a tight budget. London does have a local station, but with all the specialty channels and major networks, how many Londoners are actually watching? Not many.
So it is easy to criticize but is it easy to figure out what might have worked? How about an online component, even it is only a targeted ad on the newspaper's website? How about unaddressed admail directed to those neighbourhoods with the correct demographics? How about some kind of partnership with Walmart or Zellers? An insert for their shopping bags?
Municipality employees often make tactical decisions based on their own life experience, not through any solid research into the habits of their audience. Which is why so much municipal marketing money is wasted. And don't get me wrong - municipalities aren't the only ones who do this. Large corporations right down to the mom-and-pop corner store are frequently guilty of this.
Don't waste your marketing dollars. If you don't know the habits of your audience, find someone who does. And be open to new ways to talk to your audience.
"We promoted the heck out of it" is obviously a relative statement, but I certainly don't think the tactics she listed would equal promoting the heck out of anything.
'Louise Stevens, London's director of municipal housing, said the program was well-publicized in London in lending institutions, libraries, realtors and the media.
"We promoted the heck out of it," she said.'
One of the conditions of this program, in which renters can get a loan for a downpayment on purchasing a house, is household income of $50,000 or less.So let's take a look at the city's tactics in this "well-publicized" plan versus audience behaviours.
Families with less than $50,000 income are probably not hanging out at the bank. And a majority of folks under 40 years of age do their banking on-line so they're rarely in the bank, if ever. So using funds to promote this program in lending institutions should probably have been kept to a minimum. A nice message to the lending officers might have been enough on the off chance that someone making $50,000/year decided they could afford a house (never mind all the public relations nightmares going on in the US about housing costs and loans and the impact rising interests rates have had on people's ability to pay their mortgages - that has had so much play in the Canadian media that lower middle income families are likely stepping cautiously).
Libraries. Hmm. I love the library. Bought my house because the library is right next door. But I know I am an anomaly. Reading for fun is becoming less and less a popular hobby, especially with people in lower income and lower education brackets. Research is done online for those with a computer rather than wading through the stacks at the library. And in this time of over-packed schedules, I can't think of anyone in my experience intentionally wandering around the library to find adverts from the city or anyone else.
Would you have a chat with a realtor if you didn't think you could afford a house? Of course, they would want to be aware of the program, but again, not necessary to put much money under it.
And now the buggaboo of all buggaboos - the media. And by this, she means mainstream media. Newspapers and radio. Maybe even some television.
Newspaper readership has been deteriorating for over a decade. Partly because people are less interested in reading, partly because mainstream journalism has become an entertainment industry rather than a credible news source in many cases and finally because the internet allows people to streamline their experience with less newsprint in the house and less black smeary ink on their fingers.
Loads of statistics across the country show that newspaper readership goes up with higher education and household income. So, doesn't look like a favourable buy for households under $50,000.
And beware of misleading comments in the readership statistics of newspapers. London Free Press says that 71% of adults 25 - 49 read their newspaper each week (notice it doesn't say every day). Which properly translated means these people open the newspaper a minimum of once a week. So which section? How many of them only look at Friday's entertainment section? How many only look at the classifieds? Sports page? Lifestyle?
Radio is challenging at the best of times. Each market has more radio stations than you could possibly need. London has at least seven stations, not including all the stations from surrounding areas that spill into the market. Radio is terrific if you can really nail down the habits of your audience, but again you are trapped with figuring out when they are actually listening. No point in running ads when your audience isn't there.
And then television, one of the most challenging things to buy on a tight budget. London does have a local station, but with all the specialty channels and major networks, how many Londoners are actually watching? Not many.
So it is easy to criticize but is it easy to figure out what might have worked? How about an online component, even it is only a targeted ad on the newspaper's website? How about unaddressed admail directed to those neighbourhoods with the correct demographics? How about some kind of partnership with Walmart or Zellers? An insert for their shopping bags?
Municipality employees often make tactical decisions based on their own life experience, not through any solid research into the habits of their audience. Which is why so much municipal marketing money is wasted. And don't get me wrong - municipalities aren't the only ones who do this. Large corporations right down to the mom-and-pop corner store are frequently guilty of this.
Don't waste your marketing dollars. If you don't know the habits of your audience, find someone who does. And be open to new ways to talk to your audience.
"We promoted the heck out of it" is obviously a relative statement, but I certainly don't think the tactics she listed would equal promoting the heck out of anything.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
