Value-Added is Over-Rated

At some point, you have to commit to a standard of excellence. Whether it is high or low, if you are a business owner, leader, or developer, you must pick a level. Proclaiming high quality standards when price and execution reveal the opposite confuses customers and will inhibit sales.

Some business owners try to get around the common incongruence by offering basic services with value-added options; however, that's confusing too. It's like those old infomercials when the pitchman would add in all kinds of items just to make a sale. Can't you hear it now? "For $19.95 a set of Ginsu knives!"

Value-added has become trite and meaningless.

It would be better to do what you do, obviously assuming you know your clients well enough to know what they need, and offer options without claiming some have more value than others. If the base package meets a basic need, fine. Set a price for it. If base plus additional services meets a greater need, find. Set a price for that too.

For example, as a professional speaker, there is a rate to book me for a keynote or general session. If the conference attendees would benefit from a keynote and a breakout, or a keynote and an emcee, or a keynote, breakout, and follow-up series, there are prices for those. However, the services beyond the keynote are not value-added. They are customized to meet the clients' needs, not an indication of value. If a conference simply needs a keynote, they get a high-value keynote.

 Adding for the sake of trying to hit on something that attracts clients diminishes the value of the service offered. Value-added lost its luster within the last few years. Just provide high value and whatever you do, and you won't have to sound like the infomercial pitchman screeching, "But wait! There's more!"

Teleflora shows what it thinks of women and it's not good

The New England Patriots receivers may have dropped some passes in last night’s Super Bowl, but the worst offense of the Super Bowl was Teleflora. In their television commercial, the florist blatantly implied that men who give a $70 vase of flowers will be repaid with sex.

Pundits are using that ad, along with a few others, to prove the old adage that sex sells. Other ads showed scantily clad women and one showed nearly all of David Beckham. Those ads are saying, “You can look sexy by wearing/driving/using this.” That is much different than what Teleflora’s ad said.

The florist’s ad said, “If you give this to your woman, she will have sex with you.” Said another way:  for a $70 bouquet, women will have sex.

Clearly, the florist thinks women are prostitutes. For a cheap $70 bouquet?!

I have three issues with the ad.

First, Teleflora is insulting women. Teleflora is telling men to send a vase of flowers that says, "I'm paying $70 for you to get naked." What self-respecting woman would fall for that cheap gimmick? Ladies, how impressed will you be if your man's Valentine's flowers are from that company?

Teleflora thinks women have low expectations, low morals, and low standards. Contrary to what that company thinks, women do not want flowers that say, "Get naked for this cheap bouquet." 

Second, the company is insulting men. Most men are not so stupid to send an overt demand of sex to a woman they care about. While men may have thought the model and ad were sexy (heck, women probably thought so too), smart ones will know they would be sending the wrong message if that gaudy red vase were delivered to a woman who saw that ad.

Third, I wonder how the company treats its female employees. It is obvious that the company does not hold women in high regard. How does that show up in department meetings? How do male managers speak to women there? Are women compelled to downplay their intelligence to get by in an antiquated culture? What were the meetings with the ad agency like—did the good old boys who revere the agency in Mad Men listen to any real women in 2012?

I say women should make sure that old sex sells adage is proven UN-true!

Ladies, tell your men you do not want flowers from that company. Men, you know your woman better than the florist does—if you know her expectations, morals, and standards are high, don't send her a cheap, gaudy vase that sends the message you think she is cheap and gaudy.

Don’t let the florist ruin your message by sending the wrong one on Valentine’s Day.


What do you think?
Leave a comment or answer the survey question above.

Speakers: we've got to do better!

Some young business colleagues posted this video with the caption "this is why we all hate speakers!" Oh, sure, a few bad lecturers give all speakers a bad name. The only way to change that reputation is by being interesting and impactful--not like this video!



What do you think: are the thoughts conveyed here realistic or way off base?

Does brand congruency really matter?

Is a Kardashian baby news worthy of CNN? Apparently, yes. News of a Kardashian baby made CNN's web site today, along with a video clip of Tori Spelling talking about a naked tweet, a video titled 'Bin Laden buns' sell like hotcakes, and Donald Trump's daughter's proclamation that her father should be President.

When CNN began twenty or so years ago, it was a news organization. Now, it spends as much time devoted to celebrity topics as it does real actual news. Actually, CNN spends more time on celebrity than news.

Do you know how many of the 133 stories on CNN's home page are about Iraq today?

One. It was about a hotel chain buying hotels in Iraq. Not one mention of the war. More than 100 headlines and not one about the wars Americans are fighting in the Middle East.

Do you think CNN's in-congruence diminishes their brand? Can you take CNN seriously as a news organization when it spends more time on trashy reality stars than it does on American soldiers?

Yesterday, CNN ranked second to Fox News Channel for the day.

Lest you think FNC won the day because they are more news-centric, you should know their home page also includes Kardashian news among many other celeb stories.

I suspect we viewers/readers are just used to the mix now. News junkies have reduced their expectations of the news channels, while the channels are trying to appeal to non-news-junkies by dumbing down their topics. So, even though we are used to it, does it damage their brands?

Even more important to think about...when your company does something similar, is your brand damaged?

For example, as an entrepreneur with professional business clients, is your brand power diminished by MLM emails selling purses, jewelry, vitamins, travel, or furniture? Or, as an attorney, is your brand affected when you blog about getting out of a speeding ticket? Or, as a financial services executive, is your influence among employees impacted by padding your expenses?

If, like CNN or FNC, your brand is well known and rock solid, brand in-congruence might not matter. If you are like most entrepreneurs, attorneys, and executives, however, the inconsistency can do more damage that its worth.

What do you think: does brand congruency matter?

Branding: It's all in the details

The buzz about branding is everywhere from corporations to job seekers. Branding is about the customer-, or interviewer-, experience at every level of communication with the brand. Organizations obsessed with branding stand out, as shown by two different companies over the last week.

Last week, I spoke at a conference held at a hotel. The first day, I pulled into the parking lot and noticed an empty soft drink bottle discarded in the spot. It was there the second day, and the third too. It wasn't in my way and was no big deal, but it stood out that the hotel did not clean its parking garage.

How often should a hotel clean its garage? What is the standard of excellence for that? I don't know, but as part of their brand, it stood out that they do not clean it daily.

One of the reasons it stood out to me is because of a different experience elsewhere.

The same week, I was eating in a window booth at Burger King. The window was on the drive-thru side of the restaurant. A uniformed BK employee was crouched on the ground in the drive-thru lane. I worried she would get run over by a hungry driver, but she moved when she heard the car coming. After the car took its food, she went back to the lane and bent down again.

This time, I could see what she was doing. She was scraping gum off the drive-thru lane. She was using a putty-knife-looking-tool to scrape gum! I couldn't believe it!

Burger King cares enough about their brand, and their customer experience, to ask an employee to scrap gum! Frankly, it made me think they must pay close attention to their food too.

Branding is essential because every experience impacts trust. Every time your customers interact with your organization, trust is affected for better or worse. Build bridges to your customers by paying attention to the details, or risk burning bridges. Both depend on the details.

Ashton Won!

In the war between one man and the "establishment," Ashton Kutcher became the first twitter user to reach one million followers.

To the surprise of many, the real purpose of this competition extended beyond the ego of a movie star. It's about having a voice in the media. We create it and report it, and as Ashton said, "We can change media forever!"

About 8 hours ago, CNN used its television anchors and tickers to encourage people to follow it over Ashton. Ashton used the internet. It came down to the wire. And, Ashton won.

In the meantime, I lost 2 followers.

Ashton Kutcher v. CNN v. Kelly Tyler

Within the next few hours, movie star and producer Ashton Kutcher or CNN will become the first tweeter to reach 1,000,000 followers. As of this moment, I have 119 followers. Okay, so I'm not really in the competition with the big boys of twitter.

It's been only a month since I joined the tweople on twitter. "Tweople," that's what they call "people" over there. Here's what I've learned so far, just in case it would help those thinking of joining:

1. There's a whole new abbreviated language to learn. Luckily, my teenage niece and nephew have taught me a few things through their texts, but there's more to learn on twitter.


2. The ability to write complete thoughts in 140 characters is not possible for everyone but is a wonderful talent to master.


3. There are a gazillion SEO marketers out there, and they will follow you, hoping you follow them too. They measure value in terms of # of followers.


4. Don't pat yourself on the back too quickly when people follow you. Some are doing so only to sell you something, shocking as it is.
   
5. If you do not follow everyone who follows you, some of them will stop following you. Don't let that hurt your feelings.


6. You can find anything on twitter--newscasters, comics, coffee enthusiasts, chefs, shoe enthusiasts--anything!


7. Since you can find anything there, twitter also can become time consuming. Limit the number of times and minutes you twitter during the day.


8. If twitter bores you, follow more interesting people.

Twitter is all over the place lately. It's the talk of the country, especially with the Ashton versus CNN contest and the rumors of a Google buyout. Some people love it and others balk at the whole concept. I'm still undecided but definitely see some benefit to it. The twitter bashers probably need to see how it is evolving. If you're a basher, take another look. If you haven't looked yet, get over there. (http://www.twitter.com/) Be in the know, at least.

Unlike Ashton and CNN, I am not on a quest to have the most followers. I am fine with 119--oh, 121 now--followers who really want to be in touch with me. If that includes you, you'll find me there at: http://twitter.com/KellyTyler I like the idea of a little cluster of like-minded people being linked via twitter. Oh, wait, linked? Linked In, that's a different story!

By the way, my vote is for Ashton because it was his use which propelled twitter to the center of attention in the US. Plus, I get CNN updates from their web site already. If you'd like to follow Ashton, here's his link: http://twitter.com/aplusk

It's a tight race to the million! Only 999,879 more to go!