TEDMED: brilliant minds to present breakthrough ideas in fields of medicine and health care

I am extremely fortunate to be attending what is certain to be one of best conferences of the year, TEDMED 2009, being held at the Hotel del Coronado next week from Oct 27 – 30. For starters, if you are familiar with TED, you know attendees are always in for a treat.  To be honest, I have attended only one TED event in the past, TEDxBoston this past July, and I was simply blown away by the degree of innovative thinking, caliber of presentations, and passion of those involved. (Note: TED and TEDMED are independent organizations, which share the same founder, Richard Saul Wurman.)

So after a five-year hiatus, Marc Hodosh and Richard Saul Wurman are re-launching TEDMED focused squarely on remarkable people, their ideas, and their inventions in the fields of medicine and health care. I expect the TEDMED sessions to be nothing short of inspirational and uplifting, because the common underlying mission is to improve quality and length of life in ways and to degrees that many technology products and services simply cannot.  And there couldn’t be a more relevant time as President Obama and Congress work to bring a historic health care reform package to the finish line. A total of 54 speakers will open the minds of TEDMED attendees to the world of opportunities and possibilities in this fascinating field. Below is a small peek at what’s in store, a very short list of speakers and their speech topics:

• Ezekiel Emanuel, Special Advisor for Health Policy, OMB, Executive Office of President Obama –Can We Reform Health Care In America?
• Dean Kamen, President, DEKA Research & Development – Can A Prosthesis Be Better Than The Real Thing?
• Deepak Chopra, Chairman & Co-Founder, Chopra Center for Wellbeing – Can You Yourself Change Your Genes?
• Sanjay Gupta, Chief Medical Correspondent for CNN – Can Media Deliver Accurate & Trusted Medical Information?
• Paul Jacobs – Chairman & CEO, Qualcomm – What Does A Wireless Band-Aid Do?
• David Pogue – Technology Columnist, New York Times – Can My iPhone Save My Life?
• Keith Black – Chairman of Neurosurgery, Cedar-Sinai Medical Center – Can Neurosurgery Be Non-Invasive?

I’ll end on a slightly more personal note. Aside from the reasons already mentioned, I expect to find TEDMED especially refreshing. As someone who spends a great deal of time staying abreast of the latest digital strategies and communication tools (social media alone warrants a significant personal investment), I don’t have much time to attend product-oriented conferences. Don’t get me wrong. I became a B2C marketer for the opportunity to directly interact and engage, build relationships, earn trust, etc. But sometimes by being so customer-centric, I don’t fully appreciate many of the extraordinary breakthroughs in modern science and technology, or the brilliance behind them.

Note:  TED and TEDMED are independent organizations, which share the same founder, Richard Saul Wurman.

Starbucks and CRM don’t mix

This isn’t the first time I’ve gone on a rant about Starbucks (nor will it be the last I’m sure). Each time I feel slightly guilty, because it’s not uncommon for me to blog from Starbucks. Then again, they get more than a fair share of my wallet, so I’ll get over it by the time I’m midway through this post.

The subject of this rant is the Starbucks Card. First, some background. The card itself offers customers the convenience of electronic currency, though I’m pretty sure baristas get screwed on tips now that fewer customers are dipping into their pockets and receiving loose change. Registering a Starbucks Card means creating an online account where contact details, credit card info, etc. are stored. This gives you access to free Wi-Fi, lets you avoid $0.40 surcharges for soy milk, and enables you to auto-reload your card. This last feature could backfire for certain folks who are super-vigilant of their credit cards transactions (as I am). In fact, ever since I saw how often Starbucks was charging my card 20 bucks, I’ve cut back, perhaps not on my total caffeine consumption, but certainly in downgrades from espresso drinks to house blends and dark roasts.

No, I’m not complaining that Starbucks has made me more financially responsible. As a marketer, I am in disbelief that the company has not better seized the opportunity that registered card holders present. It’s a database marketer’s dream to have access to such a wealth of customer data, including purchase history, buying habits, personal preferences, etc. We’re talking about brand evangelists here, engaged and loyal clientele who are presumably the most receptive to special promotions and offers. Why not a rewards program? A referral incentive? Or dare I say something even more tailored and creative – “Because you like X, we think you’ll like Y, so here’s a one-time coupon.” I have my “regular” drink, but I’m always open to something new.

This is just another example how Starbucks has vastly underutilized the power of CRM. As far as I can tell, aside from an occasional offer to complete a survey and receive a free drink (which may be completely random anyway), I’m not aware of any targeting that Starbucks does to uniquely position its product to the various customer segments it reaches.

This isn’t the first time I’ve gone on a rant about Starbucks (nor will it be the last I’m sure). Each time I feel slightly guilty, because it’s not uncommon for me to blog from Starbucks. Then again, they get more than a fair share of my wallet, so I’ll get over it by the time I’m midway through this post.

The subject of this rant is the Starbucks Card. First, some background. The card itself offers customers the convenience of electronic currency, though I’m pretty sure baristas get screwed on tips now that fewer customers are dipping into their pockets and receiving loose change. Registering a Starbucks card means creating an online account where contact details, credit card info, etc. are stored. This gives you access to free Wi-Fi, lets you avoid $0.40 surcharges for soy milk, and enables you to auto-reload your card. This last feature could backfire for certain folks who are super-vigilant of their credit cards transactions (as I am). In fact, ever since I saw how often Starbucks was charging my card 20 bucks, I’ve cut back, perhaps not on my total caffeine consumption, but certainly in downgrades from espresso drinks to house blends and dark roasts.

No, I’m not complaining that Starbucks has made me more financially responsible. As a marketer, I am in disbelief that the company has not better seized the opportunity that registered card holders present. Think of the wealth of customer data it has collected, including purchase history, buying habits, personal preferences, etc. It’s a database marketer’s dream to have access to such information for segmentation and targeting purposes. We’re talking about brand evangelists here, the most engaged and loyal clientele, presumably those most receptive special promotions and offers. Just another example how Starbucks has vastly underutilized the power of CRM.

RUNmyERRAND: An eBay for Services

Recently I met up with Leah Busque, internet entrepreneur and Founder & CEO of Cambridge, MA based RUNmyERRAND (view recent appearance on Hubspot TV). Prior to our meeting, I was astounded that a math and science grad who had spent virtually her entire career (7 years) as an IBM engineer, had conceived of the on-demand errand service just a year and a half ago. You’d never know it by the traction and buzz RUNmyERRAND has already generated, albeit limited to the local Boston market (for now). After our 1 ½ hours together, it was clear Leah is not your stereotypical engineer. Putting her passion, energy, resourcefulness, keen business instincts, and acquired marketing acumen to work, Leah has almost singlehandedly created a solid foundation for success. Aside from Leah’s impressive leadership qualities, here’s a short list of what RUNmyERRAND has in its corner:

• Clear and Compelling Value Proposition. The demands for our time and expectations for results are greater than ever. Leah has done a fabulous job addressing the various target personas and messaging how the service works. The site’s branding, look-and-feel and ease-of-use were initially what caught my eye.

• fbFUND Winner. RUNmyERRAND was the only east-coast fbFUND finalist. Being selected for such a prestigious program has afforded the company unique opportunities. Leah has had the privilege of tapping into Facebook wisdom and resources. Networking opportunities abound, it also means she stands a far better chance than most to raise additional funding when needed.

• Zipcar Synergy. Fortune Magazine recently named Zipcar the best new idea in business, and Zipcar’s Scott Griffith is on RUNmyERRAND’s Advisory Board (along with Timothy Ferris, author of #1 New York Times bestseller, The 4-Hour Workweek). Like Zipcar, RUNmyERRAND promotes green living by reducing urban transportation (in this case by consolidating errands to fewer individuals). Hence, RUNmyERRAND has participated in Zipcar marketing campaigns, including the recent Low-Car Diet Challenge, for which the company gave away free “runner credits” to reduce the urge for participants to take back their cars. RUNmyERRAND will likely follow in Zipcar’s footsteps and only expand to other cities once its initial hyperlocal model (relying on  demographics, supply/demand economics and other operational logistics) is optimized in Boston.

If the points above don’t have you convinced that RUNmyERRAND has great start towards a bright future, consider this. Though it’s an ambitious endeavor to say the least, think about how useful it would be to have an auction site like eBay, but focused on services instead of products. Or put another way, imagine an online exchange version of CraigsList.

What do you think? Are there other impressive startups meeting this need? Please share your thoughts…

Kindle and the future of books(tores)

I love reading books. These days, mostly business books, as time allows. And yes for me, a good part of the experience is physically holding the book and turning the pages. I have heard the same argument for newspapers and magazines, whose recent demise is well documented. In their case, they’re not only readily available online but also easily customized to an individual’s preferences through RSS feeds, Google Alerts, etc. Thus, digital is well on its way to supplanting the hard copies available at your local newsstand.

On the other hand, good business books start with a foundation and build on those core concepts, illustrating with examples and case studies along the way. Hence, you miss out on important takeaways if you don’t read a book cover to cover. And let’s face it, no one wants to read a 200+ page book on a computer.

Enter the Kindle and all of the look-a-like e-book readers that have started and will continue to penetrate the market over the months to come, and you have the perfect example of disruptive technology. While I don’t own a Kindle as of yet (I’m usually an early follower when it comes to gadgets and wait for the price to drop a bit before I jump in), my friends and colleagues tell me they read more quickly and it’s easy on the eyes. Apparently digital ink technology has eliminated one of the top reasons to do your reading offline.

Now, let’s use the following evolution of movie rentals/ownership…

Blockbuster –> Netflix (via mail) –> Video on Demand (VOD)

…as an analogy to see how it relates and whether it can help us predict the future of printed books and bookstores:

• Instant gratification – Because the internet is accessible 24/7, consumers have grown accustomed to getting what they want in real-time. Netflix pioneered cost-effective overnight delivery of movies, and now along with the broadband providers, is moving its library to VOD. Let’s face it, if you have some free time now, would you rather spend it traveling to the book store or downloading the title at the top of your list and reading the first few chapters?

• Convenience – Netflix made it simple to return movies without incurring late fees. When you’re on vacation or in your second office (i.e. the airplane), the Kindle stores all of the books on your reading list and weighs far less.

• Scarcity of time and space – Except for a select few real classics, most people don’t watch the same movie more than once in a short time frame. Hence, it makes little sense to own a movie, especially since Netflix has removed the pain points from the return process and the marginal cost of re-renting a Netflix movie later on is nearly zero (under most price plans). Similarly, while some folks like keeping good books on display at home or in the office, the trend towards urban living and cubicles means space is at a premium. (Trust me, it hurts me to say this, as I have dreamed of having a library in my future home. I really worry that our society will lose all of its character, and our abodes will resemble sterile laboratories in the not too distant future.)

You might claim the analogy is flawed in that, my definition of “movie” is as a secondary market (i.e. for the most part, movies are available on DVD/Blu-ray/VOD only after they have hit the theater), while books, by nature, address a primary market (i.e. there is no previously released version). It’s true some consumers watch a movie on the big screen and then rent it again at home (largely due to the low cost). There’s no doubt an e-book has similar residual value (as a reference tool or refresher), because it’s difficult to absorb and digest all key learnings after just one read. However, since you don’t have to return an e-book as you do a movie rental, this argument doesn’t hold weight.

So what’s my conclusion? Book stores will not disappear in the very near future; some genres with illustrations and other characteristics that appeal to the senses (e.g. travel books, cookbooks, children’s books, some novels) will still be preferable in hard copy. But if the Barnes & Noble’s of the world know what’s good for them, they had better innovate more quickly than Blockbuster has in this decade. Providing couches and chairs where shoppers lounge, sip lattes and leisurely preview the latest best sellers is not a viable business strategy. Further investment in e-commerce is insufficient. And with all of that costly real estate on their hands, they can ill afford to be defensive and simply rely on imitation Kindles to save their legacy businesses.

JCrew adds personal touch to website

In my last post, I blogged about how a relatively unknown brand, Forzieri, integrated innovative product marketing tactics into its e-commerce solution. Staying on this same theme, I recently had a surprisingly positive experience on JCrew.com. It’s been many months since I visited the site, so it’s quite possible JCrew has been doing this for a while.

I was looking for a pair of men’s shorts and clicked on a specific item on the initial results page to get the product details. Most websites selling apparel include a basic description and a size chart, but JCrew added a real personal touch. Beneath the button to add the item to my shopping bag, was the caption “Not sure about size? Need help putting it all together? Email Erica, our personal shopping expert, at Erica@jcrew.com.”

As I suspected, it turns out “Erica” is not a single person but rather an alias for a staff of personal shoppers who field questions and answer via email (as opposed to by phone in a call center). I was a bit disheartened, because I really would have liked to see JCrew pull that off. Nevertheless, when I am in the mindset of shopping online, I prefer to interact and transact electronically end-to-end versus interrupting the flow by making a phone call. As I argue in my previous post, I believe that’s where Zappos gets it wrong.

Granted there was latency while I awaited a response from “Erica,” whereas a call center rep might have answered my questions in real-time. But whether perception or reality, JCrew had me convinced “Erica” would be better equipped to answer my question. Hence, it would be worthwhile awaiting her response, which arrived about 5 hours later and included her direct contact details, both phone and email.

My guess is this feature isn’t widely used (it’s a bit buried on the page), because I don’t get how it would scale, especially since there is no form, or at the very least, instructions on what information to include in your email. That said, I am convinced a meaningful segment of online consumers will see this as a refreshing alternative to picking up the phone and speaking to an agent, whose performance is largely being measured on standard call center metrics (i.e. production, efficiency and sales).

Zappos and Amazon still have much to learn

By now most everyone knows Zappos was recently acquired by Amazon for $850+ million. For investors who put in a total of $40+ million and employees, this is a home run. And most folks I know have lauded the company for beating the odds to build the largest and most recognizable online shoe store. Along the way, Zappos’ other successes include fostering a close-knit internal culture, providing superior customer service (including a 365-day return policy), and pioneering a free shipping both directions policy (which is now a standard in the industry, also offered by ShoeBuy, Piperlime and others).

People love Zappos, because 1) in their view, the company has removed much of the hassle in buying online, and 2) unusually friendly call center agents go out of their way to please customers. #2 is indeed unique and refreshing and deserves some praise. But, this is also a backwards way of thinking in that personally, I don’t shop online to talk on the phone (the exception being expensive highly considered purchases). And if I do need to call on more than a rare occasion, it’s a sign that not enough hassle has been removed in #1.

For the most part, I care about great selection and availability (Zappos gets good marks here) and a user-friendly easy-to-navigate site that makes it quick and painless for me to find the shoes (or apparel) that matches my needs and preferences (Zappos.com is a cluttered mess and fails miserably here).

Let’s face it, there’s a big hurdle to buying shoes online to begin with (when I bought shoes on Zappos in the past, I ordered 5+ pairs and kept none), so the site should start off clean and the shopping engine and flows should be as contextual and directed as possible. The more inventory a site has, the more important this is. If companies in industries with tens or hundreds of thousands of options can build scalable solutions (e.g. Kayak in travel and Indeed in job search), so too can an e-tailer like Zappos.

Zappos gets kudos for how it communicates and interacts, whether in the call center or through social media channels like Twitter (@zappos has over 1 million followers), but there are many other dimensions to servicing customers. Zappos, and even its acquirer Amazon, can learn from a company called Forzieri, a much less known Italian clothing and accessory retailer, with a fairly decent website.

I browsed around briefly and added a sweater to my shopping cart. I also found a nice pink button down on sale, however my size was unavailable. But instead of a “Sold Out” message, the site had a button labeled “Check Availability”, which I clicked. I assume this prompted the inventory system to check the warehouse(s) and/or stores. Pretty cool. Far larger retailers don’t integrate their online and offline properties so elegantly. After a few more minutes, I left the site without making a purchase.

Fast forward a few days when I had forgotten about Forzieri. I received a “Courtesy Reminder” advising me that the abandoned item in my shopping cart would be saved for 2 weeks, and if I completed the order in the next 2 days, I could use the private 10% off coupon provided in the email. Brilliant. A super-targeted discount with a clear and time-sensitive call-to-action. I liked the sweater enough to put it in my cart, so perhaps all I needed was a little extra incentive.

This is simple to do in e-commerce. Just deposit a cookie on the user’s machine and have functionality to accept unique coupon codes on your site (most Tier 1 and 2 sites do both of these already). Now you can not only distribute the codes to those who’ve visited and taken a specific action, but also track conversion rates of various offers and optimize.

As for the pink shirt, Forzieri let me know they couldn’t find my size after all. But it didn’t end there. The email included a link to a page where the “newest arrivals” by the same manufacturer were available for viewing and purchase. Sure they were full price, but as these were just added to the selection, they were the latest, most up to date styles. That warrants a premium, right?

Verizon FiOS: A Case Study of Anemic CRM

I’m sure many others are laughing along with me as Comcast and Verizon spend ridiculous amounts of money attacking each other on TV, stretching truths and greatly exaggerating the other’s fallbacks. As is true of virtually all negative advertising, the message about customer benefits gets diluted in all the bickering. When it concepted the campaign, Verizon likely was aiming to replicate Apple’s “Get a Mac” ad series success, portraying a Verizon technician as cool and clean cut, and his Comcast counterpart as disheveled, overweight, and anything but hip.

But alas, Verizon is no Apple. Apple delights with elegantly designed products and fuels demand with brilliantly executed clean and bold marketing. Verizon is inherently disadvantaged as a tech hardware and infrastructure company. There’s no argument it provides cool services, but it cannot create the same emotional connection, because these days a landline phone connection is BORING, wired broadband is a commodity,  and credit for the sharp picture in your living room goes to your high quality HDTV.

But enough with the Apple comparison, as that is not the focus of this post. My point is simple. The hoards of cash Verizon and Comcast are spending to one-up the other in this fight would be far better invested in sophisticated CRM systems.

No question, price and number of HD channels are two factors to consider when choosing a cable provider. And internet speed is important. But at the end of the day, are the companies’ capabilities really all that different? On the other hand, if you buy a bundled package (i.e. at least 2 of these 3 – phone, internet and cable), before long you’re bound to have a technical issue with at least one of them. Lord knows, FiOS has had numerous outages and glitches since I started using them around 2 ½ years ago. Working in the high-tech/internet space, I understand complex systems sometimes fail and service upgrades often don’t go quite as planned. So, I’ve been patient with FiOS as they’ve gone through their growing pains.

But recently, when my credit card was triple charged almost $300 (i.e. $900 in total) due to a glitch on the FiOS website, I wanted answers, and I wanted them immediately. The fact that it happened in the first place is very disconcerting. That I still don’t have the issue resolved a couple of months later after speaking to over 10 Verizon reps (including a couple in the Collections Dept.), is inexcusable.

My initial experience with FiOS was great. The installation was fairly smooth, a local manager stopped by to inspect the work and ensure my satisfaction (he even gave me one of his cards), and they waived the installation fee of an extra phone jack for my fax machine. Judging on this one-time event alone, I would give FiOS a solid “A” for service. Therein lies the difference between simple customer service, and its far more powerful cousin CRM, which requires deep commitment to put systems, procedures and people in place to foster relationships with customers throughout the life cycle. It is here that FiOS has failed.

As one of the first subscribers in my town who’s still with FiOS, by definition, I am one of their longest standing (i.e. loyal) customers. My guess is I’m also in their upper tier of monthly spend at ~$160. And perhaps my best quality of all: I always pay my bill on time. Undoubtedly, these are 3 of the most important factors in assigning value to FiOS’ member segments. Not rocket science.

So CRM 101 should reveal to FiOS that if nothing else, I’m an above-average customer. Work even a little to keep me happy (e.g. a priority 800#) and show me you care (e.g. actually call me back when you say you will), and there’s a good chance I’ll stick with you. Take it to the next level and show you understand early adopter = influencer with potential for real evangelism, and watch how many people I bring to your service. And if segmentation is too much to ask, at the very least try following the no longer new Web 2.0 trends and establish a presence on social media channels, such as Twitter. Score one for Comcast, which is leaps and bounds ahead with its @ComcastCares initiative. Obviously Twitter alone is an insufficient strategy, but it symbolizes Comcast’s commitment to differentiate on service.

Hertz’s Loyalty Disincentive

Disclaimer: It is likely the commentary below applies to a broader set of rental car agencies, but as I have been tracking the Hertz website over time, my complaint is directed at this one company.

As a Hertz Club Gold member, I book with the company on a regular basis. And each and every time, I am amazed at how they try to take advantage of their best, and presumably most loyal and lucrative, customer segment. If your sole aim is to book as quickly as possible, or price isn’t a primary concern, you can easily pay 50% more than a typical visitor to the website.

For a recent one-day reservation in Las Vegas, I compared three different rates for a daily rental: 1) the standard rate (i.e. no discount code), 2) the “exclusive” Gold rate, which requires log in, and 3) the AAA-promotional rate. For a midsize “Madza 6 or similar” rental, the rates were $45, $65 and $19 respectively. That’s right, the “loyalty” rate was $20 higher per day than the rack rate and $46 higher than the AAA rate (which did not even require validation). Fortunately, you can still book the lower promotional rates while you’re logged into your account; you’ll just need to know (or learn) your way around the site and be willing to spend more of your precious time.

Yes, I am quite familiar with the business rationale behind price discrimination, but these rates were available on the same Hertz.com website at the same exact time, and none of the rates required manual entry of a coupon code. It seems to me like Hertz feels entitled to collect a huge premium in exchange for the convenience of having a car waiting when you arrive at the airport, the one real perk of a Club Gold membership. No wonder why it’s so easy to have the $50 initiation fee waived.

There’s always the chance, however slight, that Hertz has done thorough pricing analysis, and from a pure revenue optimization standpoint, this has proven the optimal result during the testing period. Still, I imagine that many other frequent travelers have had the revelation that Hertz considers gouging its premier customers as sound business practice, which no doubt has led to negative sentiment towards the brand. I’m relatively certain Hertz has no clue what that bad will translates to in terms of lost revenue in the medium to longer term.

My love-hate relationship with Amazon

I admit it. I buy on Amazon.com all of the time. The bottom line is prices are aggressive and the return policy(ies) are typically consumer friendly (this varies depending if you are buying from Amazon directly or from one if its merchants). If a smaller “category-killer” e-tailer is competitive on these measures, it has a good shot of earning my business. That said, if it’s a registered Amazon merchant, I’ll likely opt to buy through Amazon.com instead of on the company’s website, because I am less confident that the rinky-dink operation shipping out of its garage observes best-in-class privacy and security practices. And, I believe if a merchant feels accountable to Amazon – with the risk of being removed should Amazon receive too many complaints – it will be more inclined to resolve consumer issues quickly.

Amazon is approaching a “one-stop shop” in the truest sense, so I can get my online shopping done at one destination, without providing my credit card and shipping details multiple times. I know it’s lame, but I also enjoy the challenge of qualifying for free super-saver shipping with as close to the minimum $25 purchase as possible.

My issues with Amazon relate to user experience. In its effort to rule the land of web commerce in a head-to-head faceoff with eBay, Amazon has drastically complicated the browsing and buying experience and thoroughly confused shoppers. Average consumers don’t know that Amazon has two distinct business models, 1) taking inventory and shipping from local distribution centers, and 2) passing orders onto merchants who drop ship from their own stores or warehouses. Despite Amazon’s efforts to explain within the selection and checkout processes, most consumers don’t grasp why items do or do not qualify for free shipping or why they have to pay multiple shipping fees.

Perhaps even more difficult to understand is why the same product can show up multiple times on a search results page, often with a range of prices (if you’ve never experienced this before, just do a search on Melissa and Doug Deluxe Wooden Multi-Activity Table and look at the top 3 results). Again, this is because numerous merchants within the same category – or “department” in Amazon terminology – are selling the same product. Sometimes price disparities are due to games retailers like to play (e.g. charge a lower price and make it up in the shipping and handling charges), which consumers have grown accustomed to when viewing cross-merchant product availability and pricing on shopping engines like pricegrabber.com and bizrate.com. But, this is awkward and unexpected behavior for a single website. My favorite scenario is when Amazon has its own inventory to display, and its prices are higher than its merchants. This probably does not happen too often though, and when it does, Amazon still gets a bounty on the sale, collects valuable consumer data, and owns re-marketing rights.

So what’s the solution? For starters, I’d love to see Amazon more intuitively organize and display its departments, merchants and product selection. Perhaps it should consider mimicking the metasearch and parametric filtering combination used by Kayak.com (travel) and Indeed.com (job search), but instead of clicking away, keeping users within the Amazon storefront. This would make the seller’s name more visible, clarifying when Amazon is the merchant or just the middleman, who is charging which fees, etc. In addition, it could allow shoppers to drill down to the details (e.g. shipping fees, merchant rating) they need to gain comfort with the purchase and complete the selection. Then via an open pane in the window, customers would return to the main Amazon site where the purchase is funneled to a central shopping cart.

Why are big brands like Starbucks and Pepsico so darn sloppy?

So I’ll start off by admitting that I’m in a bit of a funk today. I don’t have much of an explanation, except that it’s Monday. The weather’s actually quite nice for early May in New England.

Right to the point. I have two beefs, and I’m going to cover them together, because neither is worthy of a post on its own.

My first one re-visits Starbucks’ pricing. I’m already bitter that not all Starbucks (e.g. airport locations, Barnes & Noble stores) accept my Starbucks card (yes I understand why), so I pay 40 cents extra for soy milk. Today, I ordered a tall latte with an extra shot (a regular tall has only one, so what’s the point?) and I realized I paid the same price as a grande (which has 2 shots), except a grande has quite a bit more steamed milk. I looked more closely at the latte pricing and noticed that adding a shot to a grande makes it more expensive than a venti (which has 3 shots and also a lot more milk). Yes, I’m familiar with the concept of volume pricing, but in principle the regular price you charge for a larger size should at the very least be higher than the price for the smaller size. Why? Forget business sense. Because if you don’t follow this common sense principle, consumers are bound to be bitter once they figure it out.

The other one strikes a chord, because it relates to a personal pet peeve I’ve already blogged about twice in my Turner Broadcasting and BMW posts. Pepsico already has egg on its face over the Tropicana fiasco. And now, a chief marketing pitch for the new Gatorade drink G2 has an obvious grammatical error (see Google search results image at top). The page and tons of other ads are plastered with the phrase “Less Calories” (instead of “Fewer Calories”). This should never have made it past even the most junior copy editor. Truly embarrassing!