Charging Customers for Browsing Doesn't Lead to Conversions

As I was looking for a new direction to guide my posts, an article popped up on reddit that gave me the orientation I needed.  The article is about a clothing store in Australia that posted a notice telling their customers they were going to be charged if the walked in and didn't buy anything.  It is labeled as just looking fee set at $5.

You can find discussions here, here and here.

I find these articles interesting because it often opens up numerous discussions on all kinds of topics but what I find most interesting is the question of why.  The answer is often a response to the discussion of the symptom rather than the needed discussion to a larger solution.

The real question is and should be, "Does this tactic lead to the goal?"  Presumably the goal of the store is to drive orders.  Does this tactic lead to more orders or less?  I would have to assume the latter which is terrible at best.

That said, the new purpose of this blog is to discuss the various marketing tactics that are seen in the media, news outlets and elsewhere and to discuss the good and bad points as well as other options.  Discussing the why and understanding what the goals are and how these tactics align to the goals is fascinating to me.  It gives you an inside view of how the company thinks and how the meetings go behind closed doors.

If they are seeing high traffic and low conversion, that tells me that pricing is a potential issue along with product assortment.  One of the comments from the reddit thread says that you can find the same items in the store as you can at local supermarkets. As products become more commoditized, stores will have to be more creative with their offerings to differentiate.

If you can't differentiate on price, you may have to differentiate on customer service and satisfaction.  Or create a unique shopping experience.  These are no cost or low cost tactics that can often lead to larger gains.  Starbucks for example relies on the experience.  Their coffee is, relatively, very expensive but people come back because of the experience.

It takes a lot of effort, however, to put these in place so maybe this is an issue of motivation?  I'm not sure but it's an interesting response nonetheless.

With all of that, what do you, the yet to be determined reader, think of all of this?  Good tactic? Bad tactic?  Are there other options to combat "showrooming"?

Did the Superbowl Ads Jump the Shark?

After seeing the superbowl ads, I have to wonder: did they just jump the shark?  Personally, I didn't think any of the ads were particularly good, nothing that really stood out at least.  I haven't heard one person mention them at the office unlike years past.  With the ads being reviewed by the Wall Street Journal before they even air, some of the secrecy, excitement and newness is lost.

It seems though I might be the minority though because most people like the ads and find them favorable entertainment.

IMHO, the real advertising "win" was the Real Time Marketing done by Jello, Oreo and others.  That seems to have a bigger impact, in terms of buzz, than the $3.8M spent on 30 seconds of ad spot.

Thoughts?

Does the new iphone screen size matter?

I saw an iphone commercial that showed someone using the phone with their right hand going through menus and apps using only their thumb. The voice over talked about the bigger screen which "allows you to see more content at one time". The implication was that the new iphone was "perfect" because the screen was larger so you see more of a website but not so large that you had to use two hands to use the phone. With pinch and zoom isn't iOS two handed by default? You can't double tap to zoom in like on android so this commercial seems to be misleading.

Smartphones have become two handed devices with games, image zooming and anything that requires horizontal viewing (e.g. Netflix) all usually requiring two hands. People are used to switching from one hand to two when needed. With the new screen size on the iphone 5, they seemed to have a me-too screen size play and then come up with a marketing message to justify it.  Or they "solved" a problem which didn't exist.

**This post was typed on an S3 on a crowded city bus using only one thumb and SwiftKey.

Thoughts?

Buy.com parent buys tablet company

This should help the fledgling tablet company get off the ground.

Rakuten signs agreement to purchase Kobo

I always liked Filene's more than the others

Filene's Basement Stores To Close Doors Forever
You will be missed.

Verizon's turbo button

Verizon To Offer "Turbo" Button To Users To Speed Up Apps, For A Price
Would you post extra for more speed?

Brat Pack Actors by Age

After watching about last night, I wanted to know which of the brat pack actors as the oldest.  Here is a list of the core brat pack actors by age, as reported by Wikipedia.

Judd Nelson	November 28, 1959 (age 51)
Ally Sheedy	June 13, 1962 (age 49)
Emilio Estevez	May 12, 1962 (age 49)
Andrew McCarthy	November 29, 1962 (age 48)
Demi Moore	November 11, 1962 (age 48)
Rob Lowe	March 17, 1964 (age 47)
Anthony Michael Hall	April 14, 1968 (age 43)
Molly Ringwald	February 18, 1968 (age 43)