*Only Some Sub-Sandwich Marketers.

In the history of deceptive marketing, Quiznos and Subway opened a new chapter. Their marketing promotions caught my attention. I devoted my time, effort, and trust. I converted all the way up to purchase, when I realized that the promotion did not deliver on its promise. Does this exemplify evil marketing?

Shame on me: fooled twice by Subway and Quiznos

Yesterday I received an email:

“[Friend] has sent you an opportunity to get a FREE SUB from Quiznos. Simply click the button below to access our Million Sub Giveaway website where you can register for your FREE SUB today.”

I went to Quiznos “1 million sub giveaway” promotional website, registered, force opted-in to their marketing, and printed my coupon for a free sub. After work, I jovially walked 15 minutes to the nearest Quiznos.

“One free sub please. I have a coupon ”

“We do not accept that coupon.”

“What do you mean. It reads ‘One FREE SUB’ in 96 pt font.”

“This location is not honoring the coupon. Look at the tiny, illegible print: valid only at participating locations.”

I left, vowing never to go to a Quiznos again.

[Note: this was not an isolated event. Most Quiznos in NYC and major cities do not accept the coupon.]

I decided to go to Subway–the ultimate burn: defecting to a competitor.

I recalled Subway’s ads: Any Footlong Sub for $5.

“One Footlong Chicken Piziolla please.”

“That will be $7.42″

“It’s $5. There is a sign behind you reading ‘ANY sub for $5.’”

“There is an exception. It excludes premium subs–see the footnote?”

Why Deceptive Marketing?

It’s reasonable for Subway and Quiznos to practice such marketing. The economy is rough and every fast-food chain is competing for price-sensitive customers. In a total advertisment war, Dominoes  fiercely entered Subway’s market, claiming their new oven-baked sandwiches beat Subway’s 2 to 1 (ironically, Subway sued, arguing that the “2 to 1″ study was deceptive). Further, Quiznos is a premium sandwich brand, and it likely found itself cornered as competition heated (oddly, Subway sued Quiznos over unethical advertising in 2008 [via Alan Wolk]).

To a marketer at Subway, “ANY Sub for $5″ is a compelling statement. Similarly, Quiznos’ “Million Sub Giveaway” resonates with consumers, especially given the environment.

Deception and Evil Marketing

Deceptive advertising is synonymous with evil marketers (a la Seth Godin). And it’s popular. Consider the following marketing “tactics”: Hidden fees and surcharges, Bait and Switch, Advertising the maximum, and “Selected item” Sales. It’s why consumers associate terms such as “misleading,” “fraudulant,” and “false” with advertising (via Max Kalehoff).

Given the need to attract customers in this environment, a free or discounted promotion is an effective tactic to engage consumers. It’s short-term win. But an angry customer is a long-term loss.

Could Subway have chosen a more appropriate word than “Any?” Could Quiznos have informed registrants of participating locations? This is just a sandwich. It’s not like Subway and Quiznos are advertising cigarettes to children.

But to quote Godin, “Just because you can market something doesn’t mean you should.”

In Short: As marketers, we have a responsibility; people actually trust our beautifully designed messages. Let’s focus on giving advertising a good name and stop pissing off consumers.

It astounds me. It’s 2009; the Internet is over a decade old. Only now is it sensible to actively monitor online customer opinion.

Every business journal, academic, and guru has advocated for years that companies must listen to consumers to keep their business sustainable (or not). Why is every company suddenly hopping on the online “listening” band-wagon?

Ignoring the Signals

Social media did not immediately surge in 2008. Since the Internet’s inception, people have used the medium to contribute opinions. Usenet, one of the first online public forums, began in 1980. Blogging began as early as Usenet, but the term existed since 1997. Blogger and LiveJournal both launched in 1999. By 2004, “blog” was the “word of the year.”

In 2003, two iPod owners, pissed off about the device’s failed battery, released their anger on the Internet. They created a website and video, protesting the $250 battary replacement fee. With over 2.3 million visits to their site, Apple lowered the price, demonstrating the power of two consumers’ voices and establishing the credibility of “social media,” at least in my eyes. This PR nightmare, however, had little effect on corporate behavior.

Marketers Get a Reality Check

It’s easy for a marketer to ignore these signals. But two shifts recently occurred, changing the game for the Fortune 500.

Online Convergence of Marketers and Customers – Previously, commentary on blogs and forums was siloed. Most marketers and CMOs never physically observed consumer opinion in their normal online activity. But marketer and customer behavior converged. Twitter and Facebook are scalable, popular, mass communities that bring the two groups together. No longer could marketers continue their arrogance and ignore their customer’s voice, especially when it’s directly in front of them (i.e., if a CMO observes a nasty comment on the company’s Facebook fan page, sh*t goes down).

The Media’s Lovefest with all things “Social” – Not only are customers and marketers frequenting the same sites, but so is the media. Their incessant coverage of “social media,” as noted by the ridiculous emphasis on the Motrin and Tropicana backlash, places an overwhelming emphasis on online consumer opinion.  A few negative comments on Twitter are interpreted as a PR nightmare, ignoring the fact that this has occurred for years on the Internet, only on obscure sites. The possibility of media coverage is huge, placing corporate PR in a frenzy, monitoring as closely as possible.

In short, it’s one thing for customers to rant in a dark corner of the Internet; it’s another to actively observe it, especially via major media sources. It’s great that companies are beginning to monitor customer opinion, but it’s definitely for all the wrong reasons.

Gilt Groupe is one of those sites that I never saw coming. No coverage on Tech Crunch. Hardly any blogger mentions. No Silicon Valley funding. But  it’s damn popular for a start-up under a year old: 417,000 visits last month; the perfect example of Nascar Blindness.

Gilt Groupe is not a web 2.0, social media, or long tail success story. No community or Twitter. Every blogger preaches that there are “new rules” for competing online. Well, Gilt Groupe is ignoring the “new rules” and staying true the old ones.

What is Gilt Groupe?

Gilt Groupe is an online sample (fashion) sale. Access is invite-only, limited to friends of other Gilt users (a la Gmail invite-only access). The sales are announced by email a week ahead of time. “Gilt Groupe offers several new designer sales each day, with most sales lasting 36 hours or until everything is sold.” (via VentureBeat). “The sample sale truly is a phenomenon that generates mass hysteria in the city,” CEO Alexis Maybank said. Gilt Groupe is an “opportunity to take it to a national audience” (via RedHerring).

And it’s crazy addicting (so I’m told). A popular sale eerily quiets my office. I’ve witnessed a director at Amex, during a meeting, open an email alert of the latest Gilt sale on her Blackberry. It must have been good–she excused herself from the meeting to run to her computer.

Following Old-World Rules

Browse Gilt Groupe. It’s almost as if the founders ported the physical shopping experience to an online environment. The “air of exclusivity” is maintained by the invite-only policy. Like sample sales, the site is no non-sense. People know what they want–the shopping experience is purely pictures and prices.

Digital experts argue that there are new rules for competing online. This includes many of the buzz topics of late: conversation, relationships, dialogue, engagement, social media, etc. Gilt Groupe does none of these. The site is ugly, designed as if it was 1998. No familiar nods to social media. And this is perfectly OK.

We must not apply the same web 2.0 formula to every site, brand, or category. Gilt works because it kicks ass meeting its customer needs: bring the sample sale to a national, scalable audience. Think it needs a community or “customer dialogue?” The reality is that Gilt’s customers don’t care, and it surely would not match the essence of the callous sample sale.

In short, the “new rules” are irrelevant if your customers don’t expect them (and definitely don’t use them). Gilt Groupe’s success is built by remembering that the old-rules worked for a reason, and exporting the traditional sample sale to an online platform reaped huge customer value. No new media. No “dialogues.” Just happy customers.

For websites, how does information get there? How does the URL (www.xyz.com) know where to look? How does it all come together? These are the important questions that every online marketer should be able to answer.

Suppose we create a website, called new-site.com. Ignoring the technical mumbo-jumbo, here’s the minimum knowledge required to understand how content appears on the Internet.

Web Hosting

You know what a webpage is; but how did it get on the Internet? Did someone upload it somewhere?

Imagine there was a hard drive that was connected to the Internet. Place a file on the hard drive–access it online. We refer to such a device as a Web Server. They are special hard drives that are connected online and can be accessed from any computer.

The first step to creating a website is to purchase and setup a web server. If you’re a big company, you can pay someone to setup and purchase servers. Most people (like me) can’t, so they pay another company to “rent” their servers. We call this Web Hosting. There are hundreds of web hosting companies, like Go Daddy, Dream Host, and Web Air (which I use). Pay them $5 – $25 per month, and you get a few gigabytes of “online storage.” This storage is where all of the files for websites live.

Domain Names

You’ve purchased a web hosting service; how do you get a URL or domain name to connect to your web servers?

First, you need to own (register) a domain name. Customers can purchase domains on GoDaddy.com, or really any site. The only difference is the registration cost (largely based on competition). Complete the registration for an available URL (e.g., www.new-site.com).

Connecting Domains to Web Servers

Now you have a domain; how do you connect it to your web servers? If you used the same web host and domain registry (e.g., GoDaddy, which offers both), you should be all set. If they were different, you need to point the domain name to your web host. This is done using Domain Name Servers, or DNS. Your web host should have communicated its name servers (e.g., ns1.webhost.com) when you purchased hosting services. You then input the name servers into the domain name settings (e.g., “settings” for www.new-site.com), and everything should automatically sync-up!

Adding a Web Page to the “Internet”

Now that the domain name is connected to your web servers, you need to add content, like an HTML file, to your web server.

The Web Host will supply a way for you to access your web servers. I use FTP, but a simple interface should be available. When you access your web server, its appearance should be similar to your hard drive on any computer. You will see a directory with a few folders for each your domains. In this case, a folder titled “www.new-site.com” should automatically populate in your web server.  There might be a button titled “upload files to servers.”  If you upload a file (e.g., cool.html) to this folder, it will live “on the Internet” at “www.new-site.com/cool.html.”

Need more information, specifically, the technical background?

• Web Hosting Tutorial – w3 School
• How Domain Name Servers Work – How Stuff Works
• How Web Pages Work – How Stuff Works
• Web Host Guide – Tizag

Recently, a couple of my favorite bloggers argued that TV commercials and logos do not ultimately affect purchasing behavior. Same can be said about banners, print ads, and billboards. After all, isn’t it the product that ultimately sells, not something superficially crafted for a brand campaign?

I want to call attention to a type of branding, one the most antiquated of them all : Subway’s 5-dollar footlong jingle. Links:

• The Jingle (and Commercial)–for those who haven’t heard it.
• Over 2,000 remixes, commercial re-posts, music videos of the Jingle on YouTube.
• The $5 Curse.

This jingle impacted my life. Given the economy, high-cost of food in NYC, and personal distance from a grocery store, Subway sandwiches now comprise a sizable portion of my diet. I see a Subway–the jingle replays in my head. It’s an advertisers wet dream. (awesome write-up from Slate Magazine).

But I’m not suggesting that the jingle be added to every marketer’s toolbox. Most jingles suck. “When a jingle’s bad, it’s very bad…done wrong, it can make your eyes bleed” (via Slate).

But with enough luck, creativity, and strategy, there will be a few successes in a sea of failures (and go Black Swan-esque).

Your Facebook app will probably fail. No one will follow you on Twitter. The corporate blog has no subscribers. The authors of such company efforts probably looked at Whopper Sacrifice or Zappos’s Twitter and assumed a mediocre job would lead to similar success.

In Short: discounting marketing tactics that historically performed poorly overlooks the few companies that innovate and serve as the future industry model. But a half-ass, imitative effort will definitely not get you there.