Attract More Customers

Buying anything online or from a TV infomercial these days seems to automatically include a one or more bonus items. (“And if you call right now, we’ll double your order!”)

Would you rather get one (or more) free bonuses when you purchase a Snuggie or Sham-wow? Or would you rather buy them as a set, for the same price? Same items, same price, just presented differently. Which approach has the higher perceived value?

Let me ask the same question a different way, which might make the answer clearer. On Christmas morning, would you rather open one huge box containing all your presents – or lots of smaller boxes?

In a soon-to-be-published book, “Priceless: The Myth of Fair Value (and How to Take Advantage of It),” author William Poundstone explains that the central principle of infomercials is what the economist Richard Thaler calls “Don’t wrap all the Christmas presents in one box,” meaning that consumers value freebies that come with a purchased item more than purchasing the same items presented as a set.

“Thaler deduced that marketers should devote less energy to promoting how absolutely wonderful their product is, and more to breaking it down, feature by feature, or selling several products in one bundle,” Poundstone writes. “The one thing you can’t buy in an infomercial is one thing.” NY Times

By the way, Consumers Union tested the Snuggie and was less than impressed. The Snuggie was hard to walk in, created lots of static electricity, pilled and shed when washed and left your backside uncovered. Watch the video.

People buy your services or products for a lot of complex reasons — or so you think. But if you dig a little deeper, you find there are really only two reasons why anybody buys anything –  and that’s great news for your marketing efforts.

I just posted this article on my main website, Maine Creative Services. Please check it out here. If you find it helpful, please spread the word.

Thanks and happy holidays to all!

Tom “No figgy pudding for me, thanks” McKay

Talk about a hot and sexy USP (Unique Selling Proposition): Reebok says their new EasyTone walking shoe will firm up your butt and sculpt your legs so well, “your boobs will be jealous.”

That’s according to one of their ads. I haven’t seen that particular ad, but I read about it in the NY Times, so it might be true.

I did see one TV ad claiming the new sneakers tone leg and buttock muscles better than regular walking shoes. Is it just marketing BS, or could it be true? A lot of people seem to think (or at least hope) so. Sales are smoking hot, just like your legs will be.

Reebok says the EasyTone is their biggest hit in five years. And no wonder. They were designed by a real rocket scientist, former NASA engineer Bill McInnis, now Reebok’s head of advanced innovation.

But what about the controversial claim? Can the shoes live up to the boast? According to the Times,

“The claim is backed by a single study involving just five women, walking on a treadmill for only 500 steps. Some wore the EasyTone or another Reebok walking shoe, some were barefoot. Sensors indicated that the EasyTone worked glutes 28% more than regular walking shoes. Hamstring and calf muscles worked 11% harder.” (Edited slightly for length, clarity and emphasis.)

Wait — who cares if your leg and butt muscles work a little bit harder? All we want to know is, do boobs really get jealous?

What happens to a company’s image, brand and stock price when the news gets out that it foreclosed on a farm, evicted the owner, and made no provisions for taking care of the animals?

That’s what Wells Fargo did in Rhode Island, according to the the Providence (RI) Journal (via Consumerist, who incorrectly reported that it was an animal shelter rather than a farm).

Wells Fargo claims it arranged for the Rhode Island Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals take care of the 130+ cats, dogs, chickens, pigs, horses, sheep, goats. Not so, says RISPCA. According to its president Ernest Finocchio, the bank said it didn’t want RISPCA’s help.

An inspection yesterday revealed that some animals had no food or water. Others had been carted off by strangers – hopefully for humanitarian reasons.

“Two llamas are gone. A turkey is gone. Some waterfowl have left, as well as a number of pot-bellied pigs. I don’t know where the animals went, or who took them. I saw people walking around the farm yesterday and have no idea who they were,” said Finocchio.

But wait a minute. The bank isn’t the only bad guy here. Foreclosure laws require multiple eviction notices, so the farmer himself knew a long time ago that trouble was brewing, yet made no plans for taking care of his animals. Mucho bad karma for him.

UPDATE: Wells Fargo says hey, it wasn’t us who foreclosed– it was them, that mortgage company. But we’ll do the right thing and take care of the animals. Actually, it’s the Rhode Island Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals that’s assuming care, according to the Los Angeles Times.

James at Men with Pens has a great post today. He asks, “Are Bloggers Creating Their Own Sweatshop?” and wonders aloud why bloggers give away so much good stuff for free.

“Can you walk into your local garage and ask them to teach you mechanics for nothing? Can you go to a lawyer’s office and become his apprentice without paying a dime? Could you walk into any business in your town and say, ‘Hey, will you teach me what you know for free? So I can do it myself and not have to pay you to do it for me?’ Of course not. Yet blogs do just that.”

I posted this response in a comment:

This is exactly why I’ve been reluctant to embrace blogging, James. My entire career has been spent in writing, broadcasting, advertising — the whole communications field. After 30 years, suddenly I’m supposed to work for free? Forever, with no end in sight? Gee, what an appealing proposition.

I agree with Michael Martine’s wise comment: blogging IS marketing. Just like handing out free samples of your latest candy or cookie. I view my own blogging as (1) a demonstration of my ability, and (2) a free sample of my paid info-products.

Marketing is necessary and good. But there are limits. Even television restricts the number of commercials you can broadcast per hour.

This constant firehose of free content — good and bad — has increased the noise, the static. The good stuff gets harder and harder to find, while the “same old stuff” is repeated, in slightly different form, ad nauseum.

A big part of the problem, I think, is the blog format itself. First, it’s a crappy way to organize content. Reverse order by date? Huh? Imagine if your library organized its books that way. Good luck finding anything…

Second, the blog format subtly increases the pressure to produce frequently – even if your content is lame. “Gee, James posts 3X per week, maybe I better do that, too.” NO! Please don’t –  unless you have something new and/or worthwhile to contribute. If you do, fine. Go for it. Otherwise, please sit down.

Maybe we should impose limits — like hunters and fishermen have– on how many posts a blogger can add per week. (High-value contributors like James and Remarkablogger and Seth get a pass, natch.)

For the rest of us, once we’ve “bagged our limit” of, let’s say, one really great, thoughtful post per week, we should shut up and let others have the floor.

What an idea! I think I’ll go blog about it right away.  /irony

[And now I have, thus doing my small part to keep the noise pollution high.]