Karan Chadda

Global digital marketing and communications leader

Business

The alternative close

Ever Been fobbed off by the someone who says they’re happy to meet you but never agrees to a date and time? It happened to me all the time when I worked in recruitment. One day, when ranting again that so and so wouldn’t agree a time and date, a colleague told me about the alternative close.

The idea is simple. If you’re selling something, then there’s no reason your buyer should work to help you. Even something as simple as opening their Outlook calendar and finding an available slot or two can be too much like hard work. The alternative close helps by offering simple, binary choices.

So, the hot lead agrees to meet you. Excellent. Now, let’s get that meeting in the diary.

Me: Next week or the week after?
Hot Lead (HL): Next week

Me: Tuesday or Thursday?
HL: Thursday

Me: Morning or afternoon?
HL: Morning

Me: 10am or 11?
HL: 10am

Boom! The meeting’s been bagged by offering options so the hot lead feels like they’re in control, but there’s only ever two options and, most importantly, not meeting is never an option.

Will banking resurrect its reputation?

I imagine most readers will instantly snap: “No!” They’re probably right, but some of the language used recently by Antony Jenkins, Barclays’ new chief executive, and his counterparts over at Deutsche Bank, makes me think that it’s not a bad outside bet.

One statement, in particular, chimed with me. Jenkins said:

“Our ability to build a franchise over time depends on our reputation.”

He’s thinking long-term and he’s thinking about reputation. Andrew Hill over at the FT points out that Jenkins isn’t the first bank chief executive to trot out this kind of language, although Citigroup’s Chuck Prince wasn’t battling the kind of heavy regulatory onslaught today’s banking leaders are.

In a previous post, I noted the increase in the level of fines the FSA is levying; I’ve updated the chart to include the 2011 and 2012 figures. It quite starkly demonstrates how much more muscular the FSA is being in its role. Moreover, we know the FSA isn’t issuing fines at anything near the levels its US counterparts are.

So, with a hardening regulatory environment, increasing political scrutiny and a raft of new global, regional and national regulation and legislation heading its way, I think it’s a safe bet that these new attempts to address reputational issues might succeed.

How much is a company’s reputation worth?

Always a tricky question and one that no one has ever really nailed down. Is it a percentage (or even all) of the intangibles in its stock price? Is it an approximation of the value of sales associated with people who purchase your goods mainly because they perceive you to be good or ethical? Or is it the amount of money a company is willing to forgo for reputational reasons?

If the answer is the latter, then a small number of banks value their reputations in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

The FT reports that a number of banks have ceased offering products that speculate in agricultural markets, citing reputation issues as the reason. With food prices rising in response to this year’s lower yields, many organisations have campaigned against financial speculation in food and other commodity markets. It seems that some banks have listened. This is in spite of the fact that the IMF and other international bodies have concluded that speculation in these markets is not driving up prices.

An executive at one German bank is quoted as saying that they will “be much more sensitive in future about [their] product range.”

Does this signal a shift in attitudes to reputation in the financial services industry? Perhaps. More importantly, it does help demonstrate, although not define, the very real monetary value of reputation.

This piece was originally posted here on CommsTalk.

Selling inspiration

Quite often I have conversations where I’m left defending the role of advertising, or more specifically, selling. In general, people don’t like being sold to. That’s a fact and there’s no getting away from it. People love to buy things though, so selling can’t be all bad. The key point, in my view, is that there’s a difference between selling something and selling at someone.

Nike’s Olympics-ad-that’s-not-an-Olympics-ad is a case in point. Title ‘Find Your Greatness’, it’s not selling trainers or t-shirts. There’s no plug for the latest football or bit of kit that can make you faster. Instead, it focuses on the achievements of amateur athletes. It lauds the effort and achievement of those outside the elite. It’s inspiring stuff and, crucially, it’s also selling.

It’s selling an idea, it’s saying that all sporting endeavours should be lauded. It’s saying that Nike applauds your sporting achievements. It inspires you to get out there and participate. In the process of all that participation, they’ll sell some more trainers and FuelBands, they’ll probably sell a lot of t-shirts too. It’s selling without selling at you.