Tricks, gimmicks, and shortcuts

This comment I received overnight (about 2 a.m. EDT) certainly seemed flattering.

Dude, GREAT blog. This whole site that you have set up is top-notch. Well done. I stumbled across it as I was looking for an article on general contractors.

I’m really looking forward to reading all of your archives. Terrific job, keep it up!

However, my sixth sense immediately told me something didn't ring right here. Why would anyone write such flattering remarks for an old posting relating to the Ontario General Contractors' Association? Must be, I ultimately correctly deduced, an effort by someone to steal a back link through a form of comment spam/management.

However, the back link wasn't obvious from the surface. I only discovered the trick when I posted the remarks and discovered the link embedded in the name "Janee Martin". I then immediately deleted the comment, after a cursory examination of the referenced site.

Paradoxically, the site may have had some value to the blog's readers. But why should I extend it any respect if the organization seeking attention is playing tricks and games, and presumably using an offshore service, to manipulate things.

These observations lead to a larger, more challenging question: Is it wrong to use tricks, gimmicks and short-cuts to achieve your marketing aims? And here, I cannot give you a clear answer.

Earlier in the day, for example, I saw how I could get a (purported) "free ride" with an email "blast" to thousands of people, many of whom have asked to be removed from my mailing list.

The extra mailing would take just a few minutes to set up, and would not cost a cent financially -- at least in the immediate sense. And I probably would recover some valid names and maybe a few clients, while others, perhaps fuming at the spam, would simply hit "delete" or send a spam complaint to the mailing service, not me.

Why not go for it?


But I hesitated, and then rightfully decided to stop. Maybe a follow-up or verification mailing can be justified, but it needs to be handled carefully and the intent of people asking not to be bothered again by me must be respected. Until I can scrub the list clean of anyone who asked to be removed, the email won't be sent. And if I send it, I will think hard and fast about the content and relevance first.

Then, late last night, one of my talented representatives saw for the first time the "send" list of a regional construction association. We certainly don't have permission to use this list for advertising or marketing -- but he deduced that he could send out an email inviting readers (if they wish) to submit suggestions for a guest column or editorial contributions to the publication. It is unlikely anyone will be offended by that kind of offer. A trick? Maybe, but good marketing as well (as long as he doesn't routinely repeat the exercise with the same list.)

So, what, after all, are the rules here?

In the perfect world, I suppose, we would all only send and receive marketing messages we really wish to get. And when we achieve this perfect match, we almost inevitably succeed. Consider the natural flow of personal relationships, word of mouth, and inbound inquiries.

Potential (and current/former) clients want to do business with you, so they seek you out. Undoubtedly this is the easiest and most enjoyable way to sell anything.

However, most marketing communications efforts involve some waste and (worse) irritation of people and organizations who, often for truly valid reasons, will never do business with you.

This sort of thing happens when you "force your pitch" on someone at a networking event (rather than focusing entirely on the person you are speaking with's real interests), in intrusive advertising, telemarketing, and (painfully) spamming. Telemarketing and canvassing probably are the most intrusive approaches, but they come with a trade-off -- the need to personally interact with the person you are troubling. So you either pay handsomely for the canvassers or callers to "take the rejection" or you endure it, knowing that you can gracefully back off and move to the next "prospect".

Spam, frankly, is one of the most challenging (and perhaps tempting) options. If you have a list, it costs virtually nothing to force it out on people's email, and you don't (directly) have to face the rejection. So why not just do an email blast!

The cost, of course, is in your reputation and your chance at a future relationship. Remember as well, spam can be on a small scale. Some Public Relations agency, trying to interest me in a marginally relevant story, sent the same release -- and follow-up "personal" email to me and two employees of my organization on leave, so all three emails landed in my mailbox yesterday. I deleted them all.

But another PR representative sent a straightforward news release, without any purported personalization, to more than one address. Most of these announcements land in the round basket (okay) but this one stood out -- I followed up and will probably write a story on the topic. When does spam become newsworthy?

I believe the more you can engage people with good stuff and the less you resort to intrusion and disrespect, the more you will succeed at your marketing. But sometimes it doesn't hurt to break the rules. Just be aware of the risks and real costs when you do.

Read More

Getting your phone calls returned

Mel Lester posts some worthy suggestions in his blog entry: Getting your phone calls returned. Lester wisely points out that you won't get far cold calling with a scripted message that doesn't meet your prospective client's interests.

Yeah, coming up with a good reason for the client to return your call (what I call your "entree") isn't easy. But it works. It requires more work up front. So you can make 20 shotgun calls to prospects and maybe get 3-4 to return your call. Or you can offer your entree to 5 prospects and get 3-4 to return your call. Which seems the better strategy? By the way, your chances of eventually making a sale are substantially increased when you take the more client-focused approach, starting with that initial contact

Alas, these days, the number of "bad calls" seems to be increasing disproportionately. This is because the in the era of email, the phone is used much less for casual conversations, and much more frequently for important or meaningful connections. Almost all uninvited and scripted calls are from inept marketers, and are simply not worthy of a response.

As a good example, today, one of my top sales representatives received an unsolicited call from someone representing one of our competitors, pitching advertising in an association publication.

Alas, the caller had absolutely no knowledge of our real relationship with the association -- or, for that matter, our business, or he would have never called us -- as he rattled on in a lengthy and (for us) amusing voice message.

So how do you get calls returned, and meaningful action? Assuming you have a good reason for your call, I'll add one idea to Lester's list, especially if you are calling a senior executive or CEO of a larger company with much authority.

When you call, don't ask for the person directly, ask for his (or her) executive assistant. Better, find the EA's name first (often through the receptionist) and then call the EA.

Explain your purpose, provide whatever documentation s/he requires by email or fax, and seek her guidance on the best way to proceed.

I've never had a legitimate call to an EA shunted aside or not followed through properly. Today, for example, I received a return call, not from the company president, but the person who could really answer my inquiry -- and he was being really courteous to me because he knew the company president wanted him to speak with me.

Executive assistants know which buttons to push, and more importantly, they can handle your inquiry in the most appropriate manner for their busy executive's schedule, perhaps by forwarding an email note, faxed documentation or the like, and getting the response you need. If an appointment directly with the decision-maker is appropriate, they will set one up, but usually on a cold or initial call this is way too presumptuous.

But your stage is set for discussions with more junior employees of the organization and you have a natural follow-through with the EA if you need to communicate further at the higher levels.

EAs may be "gatekeepers" to keep uninvited intruders out -- but they also facilitate your entry if you really have something of relevance to offer. If not, why are you calling in the first place?

Read More