Marketing Consulting Blog

I neglected to elaborate on the "bad client" story as mentioned earlier in the week so here are some of the things I learned from a recent client relationship that went bad in a hurry in spite of my gut telling me to avoid it all costs at the outset. Oh well, live and learn right?

Follow Your Gut
Often times on "The Big Idea" Donny Deutsch talks about "when all else fails, follow your gut." I've had a couple of experiences like this since starting my own firm back in 2005, but none was greater than the recent "bad client" I'm referring to.

First off, I'm not a high pressure individual when it comes to doing things for others. I generally figure if you don't get the value of what it is I'm offering, it's not up to me to pressure you into a decision you're not comfortable with. The same can be said in reverse--I don't respond well to high stress individuals because they've got problems well beyond my capabilities and patience so it's best to avoid these types of people if the project is going to be successful. Every successful relationship I have built in my business has had a few things in common, and clients that trust me/us to deliver is at the top of that list. Unnecessary stress isn't going to accelerate a thing.

The lady I'm speaking of is extremely stressed out about everything, and she wasn't having any part of me explaining that it takes 3-6 months for an SEO campaign to produce the results she was looking for. She wanted to be #1 yesterday and wanted to get off of PPC before that. My gut told me "no," but my mind and ego told me "this shouldn't be that difficult so let's give it a whirl." Bad decision!

High Stress Clients = Low Probabilities of Success
Whenever someone pushes you or your firm to do something outside of the normal deliverables, that's a recipe for disaster, and it doesn't matter how well you perform at the outset. The client is always going to think you didn't do enough or that things could have been done faster or more thoroughly. It doesn't matter if you can demonstrate documented progress--they expect the moon regardless of how many conversations you have to the contrary. Their subconscious expectations exceed those of their conscious so that manifests itself in the way of complaints, regular daily phone calls, a blown up e-mail inbox, and demands for additional services without additional compensation or, worse, unwarranted refunds. In other words, their high stress contributes to your escalating levels of stress to which no one wins.

Expectations Get Ignored
Regardless of how many times the client agrees that your timeline or milestones are in line with their expectations of the moment, bad clients will turn the tables at the first sign of things not exceeding elevated expectations. The "rules" don't apply to them because they are "special" (in their mind).

Your Other Clients Suffer
Bad clients sap the energy of your organization to the point your good clients end up paying the price. Bad clients will hound you like a bad date that calls every day and won't take a hint. Eventually they wear you down, and you consequently ignore your better accounts to oil the squeaky wheel. Again, not a good decision.

Anyway, I hope this helps someone out there. It's ok to say "no" to a prospect, and you're probably better off saying that if you sense any inconsistencies with the way you do business and you're uneasy about the decision maker you are dealing with. After-all, it's like a dating relationship--you have to deal with this person on a regular basis. More so if they're a high stress and/or bad client. Breaking up can be ugly and take longer than expected with a bad date, and a bad client is no different.

Ever had one of those days where you question whether you've made wise business choices lately? Today has been one of those days, but I'm afraid the answers I uncover over the next few weeks aren't going to be to my liking. I know I violated my own gut instincts with one decision in particular, and I'm kicking myself for it pretty hard right now.

If you're in a business venture with others, is it clear to everyone involved whether the business could succeed without you or not? If the business could succeed without you, why do you continue to hang around in a decision making capacity? Why should your partners listen to you if the organization could survive without you?

If you bring nothing unique to the mix, and someone else is primarily responsible for the success of the organization, why not do the right thing and get out of the way by taking on a diminished role? It doesn't mean you have to leave completely, but move aside to let the others grow the business. Chances are you're not helping; you're in the way! I'm just sayin'.

Is the generation gap between Boomers and Generation X THAT wide?

Is new media good for business or bad?

How much do you engage in social media for your business? How's it working out for you?

Are there any business "secrets" anymore? What about new ideas?

Why is there such reluctance from the older generations to embrace new media and accept the fact that the new rules of journalism are vastly different from the good old days? There are newspapers and television outlets that struggle with this mightily, and my suspicion is those outlets are run by elder statesmen. Time to wake up, people! Or get out of the way to let the younger generation take the organization to the next level. I'm just pointing out the elephant in the room that everyone wants to ignore. Don't shoot the messenger!

If you could start any new business today, what would it be? What would be your first step?

Am I crazy to think $1 million isn't that much money and shouldn't be that hard for a business to generate?

Do you know of a sharp Internet marketer that is looking to be a part of a startup? How about a copywriter? If you do, please send them my way.

When starting a new venture, what's the first hire you make?

Enough ramblings and ponderings for now . . . would love to get your take on any or all of this.

Since I've been on a good vs. bad kick lately with TV ads, what is your opinion of the Cadillac spot featuring Kate Walsh? Good or bad?

There are several poorly written articles circling the bowl on a daily basis, and this may end up being yet another one, but it's alarming to me that professional journalists consistently botch spelling and grammar. It used to be newspapers, magazines, and books served as an example of the proper use of punctuation, word groupings, grammar, and synonyms. Not anymore.

On any given day, I challenge you to count the number of typos or grammatical miscues in your local fish wrap. In the past, you'd be lucky to find one per month. Nowadays, you'd be lucky NOT to find one per section. Online versions are even worse, but that is likely due to the push to get more and more content live and the desire to make the online versions more "free flowing."

That said, is it too much to ask of someone paid to write for a living to pay attention to the squiggly lines in the word processor? Those lines are trying to tell you something! At least pay them some lip service, and double check your work before you submit it to an editor. Speaking of an editor, what are these people responsible for now? In the old days, they served as quality control, but today they seem to be more interested in cranking out material to meet or beat a deadline. Quality doesn't seem to matter anymore and we, the public, don't seem to care because we still read the stuff even if it is sub par without complaining loud enough for anyone to hear us.

Another reason sub par material may have become acceptable is the big business management approach of the major literary outlets. When larger companies attempt to manage numerous resources by stretching everyone thin in the interest of "productivity," things naturally slip through the cracks. I run a small business so if a larger firm came to me and offered to buy me out for a nice chunk of change, I'd have to listen. It would be nice if there weren't so many mergers and spin-offs of media companies, but that is the world we live in today.

You regularly hear phrases such as instant gratification, microwave society, what have you done for me lately, etc. when describing the order of the day. They all apply, but are we in such a hurry that we can't take a little more pride in the work we produce? I would hope the majority of people would be embarrassed by producing a widely viewed article or literary piece peppered with poor grammar and/or spelling errors. The good old days of looking to print media as an example to follow are long gone, but I wish they'd return at least in this aspect. Am I asking for too much?

I'm not sure if you watch the Apprentice or not, but I happen to be a big fan of the show. It's one of the few "reality" shows that appeals to me. I won't bore you with the details if you don't watch because you probably won't even get this far into the post.

Last night, one of the early favorites to win fell (Heidi). I was very shocked by this as Heidi probably turned in one of the worst performances of anyone this season after being a consistent high performer. I'm not sure if she just couldn't work with Frank, or she took forgranted that she'd move on in the competition so she neglected to prepare appropriately. Her board room behavior was non-Heidi like based on what we've seen thus far so it's good to find this out now instead of after the process is over, and The Donald has a bad hire on his hands. That said, I'd hire Heidi not only for her obvious good looks and charm (yes, they do matter in the business world), but she's got a good head on her shoulders. My only question would be--does she have to work with mostly women to be effective/most comfortable? She was flustered the entire time with Frank, and that is what was so alarming about her behavior. I know men shouldn't cause a problem for Heidi--she probably has to smack them off of her most of the time, and her fun and upbeat personality should enable her to befriend just about anyone.

As for the four that are left, let's break them down.

Nicole (8:1 odds)--very attractive girl with a bubbly personality that also seems to generate some good ideas, but she was horrible in last night's episode to the point I thought Trump should have sent her home as well. Falling asleep during a task?!? Not double checking your presentation to make sure it boots up before hand?!? Fumbling through the presentation as if it were the first time you had ever seen it? All horrible mistakes that would have gotten anyone else fired immediately. For some reason, Trump is really going for the dark hair types this round instead of the blondes. Not that I mind--I'm equal opportunity for good looking women. ;) Still, Nicole has maturity issues to overcome, longer term, if she is to become the next Apprentice which is why I just don't see it.

Frank (7:1)--strong player with good street smarts, Frank has earned his way into the Final Four, but this is where his run ends. His roughness around the edges and somewhat lack of attention to details will get him knocked out. I like the guy though and could see hiring him, too.

Stephanie (3:1)--very strong player in this game with the physical features to top it all off. She's been a very quiet performer for the most part, but she seems to be a very good team player above all. I haven't seen her lead a lot, but she seems to be able to influence people very well without being loud or overbearing which obviously can carry you just as far. I like her chances if she ends up as one of the final two, and I'd definitely hire her to work for my firm. She's very mature emotionally or so it seems so she'd get the nod over the other three if it comes down to that. Maybe the defense attorney is coming out in her to where she's harder to read, but I haven't seen her get flustered during this process.

James (2:1)--while he's had his bumps at times in this "interview process," he's been a good idea guy who prepares well when it's crunch time. His positive attitude is contagious, and he's obviously got some smarts to go with that which are attributes hard to come by in the proper combination. I look for James to be one of the final contestants, and odds on favorite, for Trump to choose from.

Overall, I think this is a good Final Four with some surprises mixed in. I really thought Heidi would be around until the bitter end especially with the way she started off. Perhaps she got worn down, but that's part of it.

I think last night's episode further drove home the point of preparation--all three teams had some good things to bring to the mix, but James and Stephanie prepared far more than the other two teams combined, and it showed immediately. A lack of preparation will always show when a little pressure is added.

What are your thoughts? Do you like this bunch? Would you hire them at your firm? What about them would make them good or bad hires?

An interesting piece I found on Talking Biz News that is worth a gander: Where Business Editors and Newspapers are Failing.

Think it may be a good idea to find some top flight bloggers and syndicate them across many newspapers? I think that's a viable solution. Many of us are finding and sharing good content throughout the day so why not include that research in a news rag?

Unless you live under a rock or pay zero attention to the sporting landscape, you've heard the news that Bobby Petrino is leaving Louisville to take over the Atlanta Falcons' head coaching position. Steve Kragthorpe from Tulsa will be announced as Petrino's replacement later today.

At first, like most, I was angered about this because I felt lied to and betrayed by Petrino throughout the year. He turned down the Oakland Raiders' head coaching job last year to the tune of 10 years and $52 million then signed a lucrative extension with UofL that, upon his insistence, included a $1 million buyout. Most reasoned that if he were going to turn the Raiders down, he must be extremely sincere in wanting to stay here in Louisville. He repeatedly told the media that "this is where I want to be," and he even joked about other open positions of late (see the post game of the Orange Bowl when asked about the Alabama job should Nick Saban have turned it down), and I honestly believed the guy was uninterested in leaving UofL for ANY job.

Oh well, it is what it is so we must now move on without the man. With that in mind, I am going to take a stab at being objective to figure out why Atlanta is so appealing to Petrino and why it's actually not so hard to blame the guy for taking the job.

First off, it's no secret that Atlanta has wanted to move Michael Vick. The "experiment" that is Michael Vick isn't working, and Vick has been referred to as a "coach killer." I'm not sure he's quite that, but he's definitely a talent that is hard for "traditional" football coaches to maximize his many talents. Oakland was rumored to be interested in acquiring Vick this past season. So imagine this scenario playing out--Atlanta trades Vick to Oakland for their first pick in the upcoming draft and another player. Brian Brohm announces he's declaring for the draft instead of returning for his senior season with the Cardinals. You see where I'm going already . . . Atlanta takes Brohm with the first pick of the draft. Matt Schaub is a quality backup already on the roster that could serve as the starter until Brohm is ready to take over the reigns at QB.

Next, Atlanta currently owns the 15th pick (I believe) in the 2007 draft. Should Calvin Johnson (Georgia Tech) or Dwayne Jarrett (USC) be available there, the Falcons would likely use that pick to obtain a potential game changing receiver. Two brand new pieces that figure to be around for awhile are now in place. Mix in current players such as Alge Crumpler (TE), Warrick Dunn (RB), Jerious Norwood (RB), and Ashley Lelie (WR) and things start to make sense as to why this job is very appealing for someone like Petrino.

Atlanta is a playoff caliber team, and he could further feed his enormous ego by having some substantial early success in the NFL. If that happens, he's set as an NFL coach for years to come even if they can him after four or five seasons in Atlanta. Once you're in the professional coaching carousel, and you've exhibited some success at some point, it's not hard to get hired on by other teams because they recycle coaches like society recycles aluminum and paper. There's no recruiting, practice time, or academic restrictions involved like there are in college. For that, I can't blame the guy even though I wanted him to be here at UofL for decades. I envisioned national titles, streets being renamed after Petrino, facilities being built in his honor, etc., but I was obviously sipping the kool-aid a little too heavily. In an objective reality, if given the same choices under similar circumstances, I would likely do the same thing.

It all hinges on what to do with Michael Vick though. I don't think Petrino's style will mesh well with the ultra talented yet temperamental QB. It's not that match-made-in-heaven scenario you look for when matching a coach and quarterback, but that doesn't mean it's an impossible situation. Vick has a cannon for an arm and is lightning fast--that much is obvious, but he hasn't had a coach capable of maximizing his talents while instilling the discipline to make consistent good decisions. One thing that Petrino preaches, despite his occasional personal slipperiness, is discipline. During the Orange Bowl, UofL was whistled for one penalty for five yards. That's almost unheard of from an aggressive team playing in a big game, but it speaks to the discipline the man demands from his players. Will that sink in for Vick? Who knows, but I don't look for Bobby Petrino to fall on his face despite the personal angst I feel at this moment. He's a damn good football coach that should succeed because of his preparation, discipline and offensive mastery of the game. He's a tireless worker, and people who work extremely hard at something rarely outright fail (there's your business tie-in for the day).

While I'm personally frustrated by the move, I can objectively understand it. Thanks Coach Petrino for everything you've done for the University of Louisville and its football program. I can't say I'm necessarily wishing you well today, but I'm grateful for the things you accomplished here, and it was a fun ride while it lasted. I'll likely be cheering for you and the Falcons in due time, but the sting hasn't worn off enough yet for me to say "good luck."

On October 22, 2006, I posted an entry outlining five CEOs that must go. On 1/3/2007, #1 on that dubious list took a dive--Bob Nardelli from Home Depot. Reports say he "resigned," but that's being kind--it was a forced resignation, and Bob had been under tremendous heat thanks in part to his antics on investor conference calls and his insistence to devalue customer service at the store level. The guy was downright horrible when all was said and done.

He came in as an outsider from GE who self-admittedly didn't understand retail. It puzzles me as to why he was given a shot to begin with, but he didn't help himself by being so arrogant and defiant. Early on in his tenure, Bob reduced inventories and staff counts to levels that alienated customers and employees. Several talented employees walked, and Lowe's chipped away at the customer base quite effectively as a result.

Have you shopped at a Home Depot lately then visited a Lowe's on the same day? The experience is night and day--the people at Home Depot act as if they can't wait to get you out of there while the Lowe's people seem genuinely eager to help you complete your home improvement projects correctly. Home Depot's slogan is "you can do it, we can help," but the knee jerk reaction one might have when hearing that is "you can help, but you won't." For my money, I'd pay more at Lowe's just to avoid dealing with certain malcontents at Home Depot. Don't get me wrong, there are some very helpful people still working at Home Depot, but you have to work pretty hard to find them now whereas they used to be sprinkled generously throughout.

So much for GE making a mistake (in Nardelli's eyes) by not turning over the keys to the top post when Jack Welch retired. They said "thanks, but no thanks." Home Depot should have said the same thing, but they are now on the hook for a $210 million package to make Nardelli go away that includes $20 million in severance. Don’t feel bad for him as he obviously isn't going to be hurting. How many positions throw exorbitant amounts of money at you to make you go away when you do a bad job? The only positions I know of are within sports and CEOs.

Here's my overall take-away and hopefully thought provoking tidbit out of all this: The "resignation" of Bob Nardelli further underscores the leadership void we have in this country at some of our larger corporations. According to an August 2006 Corporate Library Survey, 52.7% of CEOs today are on the job for less than five years. On one hand, five years isn't long enough to change a company's ultimate course, but five years is way too long if you have the wrong person at the helm. There are a lot of wrong people guiding companies today that will play out in less than the next five years so that alarming 52.7% can be viewed as an "error rate" of sorts. Let’s focus on reducing that error rate shall we.

I read today on Marketing Shift where Google is planning to capitalize on You Tube videos with paid streaming advertising. Supposedly the ads are going to be related to the video tags, but you knew it wouldn’t be long before You Tube went from being fun, new, and interesting to becoming the next mass marketing device. The beauty of You Tube was the sharing of videos without the annoying sponsorships before, during, or after the videos.

I understand Google didn’t buy You Tube to keep it “as is,” but it wouldn’t surprise me if somebody starts up another You Tube like video sharing service that prohibits any sponsorship whatsoever. Many of the videos on You Tube are commercials themselves, but they are commercials the user community elects to watch. There’s a value in that—why can’t Google capitalize on the videos that are already commercials and charge people based on the click rate of their ad? Then we won’t have to be force fed messages we really don’t wish to see in the first place. Maybe I’m naïve to think things can work well this way for any extended period of time, but I’d like to see someone at least try to pull it off for a change.

Am I an idiot? What are your thoughts?

I'm sure many of you have read or heard about the Microsoft blogger "scandal." If not, click here to read an E-Week piece on it if you wish. To summarize, Microsoft and AMD sent some prominent bloggers a honking Vista based laptops for them to test out. Initially they said the folks receiving the machines could keep them, give them away, or send them back upon completion of the "testing." The next day, after some public outcry, they requested the PCs back. Good marketing idea; bad execution. Or was it really a good marketing idea? I say it's terrible especially because of the execution--it backfired completely!

What were Microsoft and AMD really attempting? They were hoping to buy a favorable review from a few influential bloggers and gain some word of mouth marketing. This isn't uncommon, but it's a delicate tightrope to walk in order to keep things pure. The key to word of mouth marketing is honesty and the natural progression of the message. Once the public gets a sniff of anything that smells remotely of dishonesty, the word of mouth suddenly turns against the offender. Why is that? You've made the people who thought they were spreading something natural and believable look foolish. You've jeopardized their reputations. Buying word of mouth won't work--it's unnatural, and it makes people feel sleazy for engaging in such tactics.

Microsoft has been a pretty good marketer over the years, but this is a misstep for them that is disappointing to say the least. What did they really think would happen? Did they think the people getting the souped up laptops would write completely honest reviews after receiving a "free" machine? Of course not. Receiving anything of value for free is always well received, and it's a great way to initiate a word of mouth campaign. If the goal was to gain positive word of mouth, the machines should have been given to some random folks in some sort of drawing without any mention of a review or how the machine was to be used. Let people naturally decide what they wish to do with the thing and if they determine they wish to write a good or bad review, let it occur naturally without trying to influence it in any way. Imagine how much someone would talk up such a product if they "won" the thing fair and square in a drawing of some sort. By picking out people with popular review based blogs, the motivation behind such product placement is rather obvious so any reviews would likely be met with a heavy dose of skepticism unless the products were sent without any prompting whatsoever.

Imagine answering your door and seeing UPS there with a set of boxes that you had zero idea about before hand. Your first reaction would probably be "I didn't order this" then you'd probably open the boxes, look for clues as to what was in the boxes, then you'd try to convince yourself that someone made a big mistake in your favor. Eventually you'd begin to use the goods in time or try to send them back to the sender. Unless of course there was a letter outlining expectations--that's where Mr. Softy screwed up. They obviously engaged the review bloggers in some sort of sign up process prior to sending these laptops out so there were expectations implied. That ruined the whole thing.

If you're hoping to initiate a word of mouth campaign, allow it to happen organically and surprise people by doing something out of the ordinary. Then back away and let things progress on their own. That's the best bet if you want things to spread quickly and keep foul play suspicions out of the equation.

Michael Wade posted this on his execupundit.com blog, and it's a very interesting read. Thought I'd share the wealth a little instead of boring everyone with my Christmas shopping thoughts and musings. That'll have to wait until tomorrow I suppose.

Enjoy!

---------------------------------------

1. Unless you’re working in a coal mine, an emergency ward, or their equivalent, spare us the sad stories about your tough job. The biggest risk most of us face in the course of a day is a paper cut.

2. Yes, your boss is an idiot at times. So what? (Do you think your associates sit around and marvel at your deep thoughts?) If you cannot give your boss basic loyalty, either report the weasel to the proper authorities or be gone.

3. You are paid to take meaningful actions, not superficial ones. Don’t brag about that memo you sent out or how hard you work. Tell us what you achieved.

4. Although your title may be the same, the job that you were hired to do three years ago is probably not the job you have now. When you are just coasting and not thinking several steps ahead of your responsibilities, you are in dinosaur territory and a meteor is coming.

5. If you suspect that you’re working in a madhouse, you probably are. Even sociopaths have jobs. Don’t delude yourself by thinking you’ll change what the organization regards as a “turkey farm.” Flee.

6. Your technical skills may impress the other geeks, but if you can’t get along with your co-workers, you’re a litigation breeder. Don’t be surprised if management regards you as an expensive risk.

7. If you have a problem with co-workers, have the guts to tell them, preferably in words of one syllable.

8. Don’t believe what the organization says it does. Its practices are its real policies. Study what is rewarded and what is punished and you’ll have a better clue as to what’s going on.

9. Don’t expect to be perfect. Focus on doing right instead of being right. It will simplify the world enormously.

10.If you plan on showing them what you’re capable of only after you get promoted, you need to reverse your thinking.

One of the toughest things for a CEO or business leader to handle is their own transition plan. When you're in the everyday running of a business, it's difficult to instinctively know when it's time to get out of the way. To that end, we've come up with a list of five current CEOs that should transition themselves out of the head cheese role.

1. Bob Nardelli—Home Depot. Good old Bob has managed to screw up one of the best home improvement retailers in the land by taking away customer incentive programs and overdoing cost cutting measures. High level management changes haven’t addressed the root of the problem—Nardelli! Is it any wonder Lowe’s has become the preferred home improvement retailer?
2. Michael Cherkasky—Marsh McLennan. This guy has seemed to be out to lunch on repeated conference calls and doesn’t seem to understand the company’s business. Revenue has flattened the past three years, and Putnam has declined tremendously. It’s time for someone who understands the business model to take over the helm and get this company growing again.
3. Meg Whitman—E-Bay. Meg is more concerned with crashing the upscale “benefit” (term used very loosely) circuit and being liked than she is capitalizing on E-Bay’s unique position in the market. They have virtually no competition, but they could do so much more with their cash than an undesirable acquisition of Skype which E-Bay vastly overpaid. That poor decision in itself is enough reason to make a change at the top.
4. James Tobin—Boston Scientific. The Guidant purchase should seal this guy’s fate all by itself. Talk about an acquisition that made little sense and didn’t contribute to any corporate “synergies.” This bad deal was all created when Johnson & Johnson initially bid on Guidant then backed away once Boston Scientific decided to overbid in their haste to acquire another company. Guidant had all sorts of lawsuits surfacing as others were bidding so it’s a puzzle why both companies didn’t immediately retract their bids and walk away to leave Guidant to figure out their own legal problems. Kudos to J&J for ultimately outfoxing Boston Scientific and James Tobin!
5. Terry Semel—Yahoo. Yahoo has been slow to act as Google continues to gain world dominance in the search arena. Yahoo should be strategizing for growth and considering buying smaller niche companies, but the management seems to be absent minded to doing anything. Message to Terry: sell the company to Microsoft and enjoy the proceeds.

There you have our short list of CEOs that ought to start their succession planning now if their companies are to return to the glory days of eye-popping growth.

Have comments? We'd love to hear from you.

October 19, 2006—Wow!!! First Google reports another blowout quarter. Earlier the same day, Nielsen publishes search results for September 2006, and Google put the hammer to the competition there also. They garnered 50% search share which equates to 24% growth year over year (YOY). Talk about impressive numbers—the Google train obviously isn't slowing! How does this impact the major search game?

Does this sound the warning siren to Microsoft that maybe they ought to reconsider buying out Yahoo? It makes perfect sense given the fact that Microsoft's search results continue to fall (-12% YOY to a 9.23% share), and Yahoo isn't keeping Google within an eyeshot either although they still maintain a nice share of the search market (23.4%; up 12% YOY). The two of them combined would give Google a little competition, and we, the consumer, would benefit from greater services and advancements in software along with online options as the companies battle it out in the marketplace. If not, Google is going to run off and hide.

Perhaps Yahoo (with a lot of cash to spare) will buy some smaller niche companies to make themselves even more attractive to Microsoft, but I don't believe Microsoft will sit by idly while Yahoo postulates what to do next. It’s Microsoft’s move to make, and the time to act is now; not a year from now when their collective search share is even lower. Google is a formidable threat to Microsoft, and they aren't going to take a breather just because they've hung up yet another blow out quarter financially and in search.

Yahoo has shown they can’t keep pace on their own so they’re going to need some help if they have any intention of ever catching Google. Google smells blood, and that signals the time to push harder; not back away. YouTube is likely just the beginning of an intriguing acquisition spree for the gang in Mountain View.

Microsoft would be wise to snatch up Yahoo right now after Yahoo posted a rather blah quarter earlier in the week which will shrink their market capitalization a little where Mr. Softy could acquire Yahoo at a "discount." They didn't like the idea of buying Yahoo at $29/share a couple months ago, but they should probably like it at $25.

Yahoo isn’t “dead.” It’s not like they’re stinking up the joint (they are still growing albeit much slower), and they do understand the search game which Microsoft hasn't quite yet figured out. It seems to make a logical marriage at this stage of the game.

Bottom line: this is shaping up rather nicely as a good ole fashion duel that may take some time to determine the ultimate winner, but we’ll be anxiously monitoring the three "big dogs" as they ponder their next move in this high stakes search engine chess match. Stay tuned, the best is yet to come.

By Roger Bauer

It struck me the other day during lunch at a local Moe’s Southwestern Grill that a new phenomenon has swept the restaurant landscape in the form of poor attempts to differentiate from the competition—renaming accepted terms of business with cutesy nicknames. This is readily visible in the faster food sector, and it’s becoming more prevalent as companies struggle to connect with the consumer in manners which create loyalty and/or preference.

Take Moe’s as a primary example. Personally, I believe they have a very good product to offer, but they’ve gone and out “cuted” themselves with ridiculously silly nicknames for their fare which only serve to confuse and frustrate the customer. It’s easy to see them thinking behind the scenes, but it’s a risky attempt at product differentiation. They’re in fierce competition with franchises such as Qdoba, Baja Fresh, Chipotle, LaBamba, Taco Bell, and Tijuana Flats, (plus many others) but those competitors don’t require a translator to order a simple burrito or taco. Try popping into one of those places one day or night to order a “Joey” or an “Alfredo Garcia.” You’ll get looked at like you have three heads (with good reason).

What would possess a franchise to resort to childish nicknames to try to differentiate themselves? It’s probably an executive’s poor excuse of a marketing concept designed to separate from the competition, but that’s not the type of separation that enables your concept to survive long term. It will ultimately separate them all right—the competition will eventually gain as the initial shtick gives way to annoyance and turns consumers off to the point they prefer the competition even with all other factors being relatively equal.

Sure, things look great for Moe’s presently, and the concept seems “fresh” today, but that can change on a dime without warning. Their current growth could be sapped with one false step because there is less room to wiggle when you’re attempting to retrain your customer base to conform to your concept. What happens if the consumer collectively says “I’m no longer in the mood for Moe?” Would being “cute” be overruled by a desire to becoming truly different (i.e. better)?

Don’t get me wrong, there are a lot of positives. Their restaurants are well laid out, the décor is modern, the lighting is appropriate, and the food is tasty not to mention reasonably priced. The physical atmosphere is hip and inviting. There are glaring negatives, too. The staff collectively insisting on yelling “Welcome to Moe’s!” at the top of their lungs as a new customer enters doesn’t make me want to setup shop for very long. I can’t wait to get out so I don’t have to hear that any more than I have to. I’d like a little peace and normalcy with my meal Moe, thanks.

Topping off the frustrating concept Moe’s obviously insists upon cramming down the consumer’s throat is the staff correcting the customer when ordering by the desired ingredients instead of its nickname. You’re not training me Moe, you’re supposed to be providing a quality and quick meal which I am going to ring your register for—don’t correct me, simply make the food, take the money, and let me eat in peace!

Moe’s is not alone in this feeble attempt at differentiation, and they won’t be the last, but the lesson to be learned is to keep customer service just that—customer service. The customer is paying so don’t believe you’re going to train the customer as long as the equation is structured that way. If you begin to pay people to come into your franchise or business, you’re well within your rights to try to train them to do business your way. Stick to doing business as the industry dictates until you develop a better way of doing things. Then, and only then, you will have a true differentiator. Simply renaming a common item or process doesn’t make you different—it makes you contrarian. Don’t confuse the two.

Roger Bauer is Founder and CEO of SMB Consulting, Inc., a Louisville, Kentucky based small business consulting firm specializing in strategic planning, web presence, internet marketing, SEO, technology, and business analysis. To learn more, point your browser to Business Consulting. To contact a small business consultant today, e-mail info@smbconsultinginc.com.