Discussion

By Alexandra West on Jan 26, 2009

Interesting to see social media on the same plane as developing traditional content, and to see web 2.0 beating out traditional content. The graphic above makes sense for B2B marketers as a whole, but seems incorrect for the printing industry. There are only a handful of printers who are even close in terms of doing anything in the web 2.0 world.

I work for RR Donnelley, but represent a niche product. Currently I write a blog for SEO, lead gen, and Community-building purposes. For social media I am a group owner on both Facebook and LinkedIn. All of these have been successful in bringing in leads and sales.

The Printing Industry Social Media I see out there is printers interacting with other printers, not printers interacting with customers, unless they are being "salesy". It just doesn't make sense... the person who comes up with a comprehensive way for buyers to interact with printers, without being "sold" to, will be the winner in web 2.0

Cheers,
Alex West

By George Alexander on Jan 26, 2009

I agree with Alex: most printers won't be able to address most of the "bubbles" on the chart above.

But there is one bubble that is relatively high in both "priority" and "difficulty" that most printers could help with, and that is the one labelled "Retention marketing plan/tactics". There have been some great PODI case studies in the "customer retention" area, and they show how a printer can come up with creative programs with a strongly positive ROI that will help a client retain existing customers. Some classic examples are postcards from a car dealer reminding the recipient that it is time for service, or the "happy birthday" coupons sent out by grocery stores or restaurants.

Even with today's high mailing costs, campaigns like these can do very well if they target the right customers.

By Michael Josefowicz on Jan 26, 2009

There is a good argument to be made that CRM and customer retention is the sweet spot for Print+ Web, purls, VDP and personalized Print.

From media post research:

"The Marketing Executives Networking Group (MENG) and Anderson Analytics, in its second annual survey of Top Marketing Trends for 2009, report that marketing executives are going back to basics this year, putting renewed focus on satisfying and retaining customers and investing in research and insights, but are sick of hearing about Web 2.0."
the link:
http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.san&art_aid=98129#comments

By Matthew Flashner on Jan 27, 2009

The article suggests that "Of the 62 identified marketing concepts, faith-based marketing, six sigma, game theory, anti-americanism and immigration were viewed as the least important."

I can understand faith-based, game theory, anti-americanism and immigration as least important, but six sigma can help so much in creating any marketing firm into a place of improvement through culture, not just individual improvements. I bet only the small section that chose six sigma actually knew what potential help it could provide while the rest didn't even know what the idea entailed.

Web 2.0 we can understand as not being something that is at the forefront at the moment. The whole idea of reading and writing might not be the best bet within marketing when thinking about something that is web-based. However, the ideas of Web 3.0, read-write-execute, could potentially be a grander set of ideas that could change how we look at marketing. Its already starting with Purls. Instead of sending a customer an email, they can interact with it and specify what they wish to be given at their convenience.

By David Dodd on Jan 27, 2009

I agree with George that most "printers" won't be able to address most of the "bubbles" shown in the MarketingSherpa chart. But what about all those firms out there that call themselves "marketing services providers?" I'm not suggesting that a marketing services company would necessarily have the expertise and capabilities to address all of the "bubbles," but it should have the ability to address several of them.

For example, wouldn't a competent marketing services company that operates in the B2B marketspace be able to help clients:

- Develop and execute effective lead generation programs ("Identifying new audiences and quality lists")

- Develop and execute effective customer retention programs ("Retention marketing plan and tactics")

- Measure the effectiveness and efficiency of marketing efforts ("Marketing analytics")

- Develop and execute effective "lead nurturing" programs that will deliver the right content in the right channel to prospective customers as they move through the buying cycle ("Mapping content to sales funnel")

Isn't this what being a "marketing services provider" is really all about?

By Michael Josefowicz on Jan 27, 2009

@David,
The fact is that calling yourself a marketing services provider doesn't make you one. If an outfit cannot easily follow the good suggestions you make, they should forget about branding and concentrate on what they really do. Maybe the smartest thing for most printers would be to partner with an expert data mining and marketing company, instead of trying to be a second rate data mining and marketing company.

@ Matthew,
The problem with Six Sigma is that it has oftern been used as a process as opposed to getting real results. A great blog that discusses this issue is http://www.evolvingexcellence.com/blog/

It's maintained by some really experienced pros they talk about a sensible practical approach to lean organizations.

By David Dodd on Jan 28, 2009

Michael,

I completely agree with you that calling yourself a marketing services company and actually being one are two very different things. In a way, that's one point I was trying to make. And, of course, it's always possible for a printer to "partner" with a marketing services company on projects like those I described. But let me ask one question: If a "printer" partners with a "marketing services company" on a project like one of those I mentioned, which company do you believe will capture the lion's share of the project's profits?

By Michael Josefowicz on Jan 28, 2009

David,
I think you've just hit on the real big problem that we have to figure out. Networking is the only way to respond quickly. But how to divide the comp. That is the stumbling block.

Here's my two cents:
1. Agree that no one "owns" the customer. I know it's counter intuitive, but the reality is that these days, "owning the customer" is a total myth. You are as good as your last job. Hate it. But face it.

2. Don't mark-up and resell. If you do they will probably figure it out anyway..sooner or later. Even if they don't it means you have to be nervous all the time that they will. So do the business model up front without the tension. Plus it's a lot easier to be authentic with your customer. And since everyone's bullshit detector is so finely tuned, they will eventually sense it anyway.

3. My top of the head is whoever does the work gets paid for what they do, with a little thrown in for identifying the first meeting. As in
the marketing person gets the first meeting. For that value they get x% of the total bill. Then the printer gets normal comp on the print. The marketing person gets normal comp on the marketing.

And everyone forgets about "marking it up." It's a loser long term anyway. maybe a couple of bucks more in the first place,but lifetime value of the customer...not so much.

Plus it's the primary reason that printers don't want to network.

Back in the day I was a printing broker. You can imagine how much respect I got from most "direct printers."

Meanwhile the most profitable printer in my area was Circle Press. He only dealt with brokers. Charged high prices. Did what he had to and charged you for it. And treated us with respect. ever4y successful trade shop gave up owning the customer a long time. It seems to have worked pretty well for them.