shannonsays.com

A Thought Over Coffee... With A Lawyer

One of my favorite "blogs of the minute" is Jason Duncans "A Thought Over Coffee":

"Follow me through my journey towards opening Cafe Evoke. From my final semester at Belmont University in Nashville, TN to opening day in Bozeman, MT I will share my expirences with writing the business plan, doing the research, and opening the cafe."

In amongst the commentary on the fun and games that are taking place as he attempts to establish his new cafe (Evoke), Jason offers lots of great quotes, lessons and other cool links.  Today he pointed me to this article on Jeffrey Hughes:

Thirsty for justice? Jeffrey Hughes' two Legal Grind cafes in the Los Angeles area offer "Coffee and Counsel" to those who may not otherwise seek legal advice. Through his innovative venture, Hughes has worked hard to both provide a valuable service to his community and change the public perception of attorneys.

It's Starbucks meets LA Law, and it's great stuff:

Over a dozen lawyers work out of Legal Grind on various days, generally between 3 and 6 p.m. For example, on the first and third Monday of every month, attorney Michael Goldstein offers a $25 "Coffee and Counsel" session on employment rights, worker's compensation, wrongful termination, sexual harassment, personal injury and civil/business disputes between 5 and 6 p.m. Another lawyer simultaneously offers advice on landlord/tenant disputes, auto accidents, restraining orders and small claims.

During the day, before the various experts come in, people can use the document preparation service, pop in to get something notarized or drink coffee while browsing the self-help books on the shelves, including "Your Divorce Advisor."

Coffee.  His point of difference is as simple as coffee, good coffee of course:

"We don't want to serve bad espresso, because then people will think we'll screw up their divorce"

It's a great story and is another example of what can happen when you really think about what your customers would really like from you, and it is almost an example of how Chris Carfi's "Transaction to Community" model works.

I don't know that you can ever feel like you are part of a lawyer's community, but at Legal Grind it is about as good as it is going to get.

Sydney: Australia's Krispy Kreme Export Hub

Sydney seems to have become the Australian Export hub for Krispy Kreme Doughnuts.

I was in Sydney this week, and I noticed that two of the seven Sydney stores are at the airport!  And given that they don't have any stores anywhere else in Australia, that means that two of the seven stores, or about 28% of Australian Krispy Kreme Stores are at Sydney Airport....one right at the Virgin Blue departures gate.  Now that's clever.

Why?

Well, for interstate travellers like me, there is an aura of mystique about Krispy Kreme, their stores and their doughnuts.   Most of us have heard of Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, but have probably never visited a store, let alone wrapped our mouth around one of their famous super-sweet glazed doughnuts.  Thus travellers are drawn, out of curiosity if nothing else, to the store at the airport to watch the doughnuts being made, to taste some samples, and to buy a box (or two) to take home with us (if the straw poll on my flight is anything to go by, about one in three passenegers will do just that).  The guys at KK put them all in a box, and then into a carry bag that you can take onto the plane with you. It's great fun, and you can't wait to get home to tell others about it.  It's all about the experience.  Of course when back home, we'll either gorge on the doughnuts ourselves or share them with others; relating the experience (which given the scarcity of locations is both unique and exclusive), furthering the buzz and continuing the mystique that exists around Krispy Kreme.  Peter Davidson noted recently:

"The key is for Krispy Kreme to understand that they are selling more than just doughnuts. They need to understand that they are selling experiences. The excitement in the eyes of a child when told they're going to go get Krispy Kreme Doughnuts. The experience of presenting a box of KK Doughnuts to someone who loves them. The experience of a warm sweet doughnut on the tongue. Savoring the last bight of the last one in the box. These are the moments they are selling. Not just another box of doughnuts on the shelf."

Far from the dilution of the branch that appears to be happening in the US (where you can buy them in Supermarkets), in Australia, the folks at Krispy Kreme seem to understand what Peter suggests, and deliver an "experience" to many Australians, via two key locations at our busiest airport.

Cinema Contraband

What a bizarre decison by Greater Union Cinemas to ban movie-goers from bringing thier own food and drink into thier cinemas.  Their new policy means that moviegoers will only be allowed to take in food and drink that is bought from the complex's outlets.  How bloody dumb can you get?

I understand that food and drink sold in their Candy Bar's are probably high yielding, and that their are trying to maximise their profits as a business, but such a policy is almost akin to creating a monolpoly; a captive market left with no choice but to pay through the nose for food and drinks (Greater Union charges $4.50 for a 600 millilitre bottle of Coke that costs $1.99 at Woolworths. And its 100 gram bag of chips costs $3.50 compared to $1.65 at Woolworths).

But I don't understand the merit behind a policy that is destined to invoke confrontations with your customers.  Imagine being bailed up on the way into a cinema, and being frisked on the chance you might be smuggling some contraband food through the turnstile....Ridiculous.

Also, what about people, and parents who don't want their kids to eat the crappy popcorn and watered down Coke, but would prefer a water and an apple?  Or diabetics and people with other dietry needs?  Stiff, I guess.

I just can't help but wonder whether the costs of people bring in their own food and drink are worth all the bad publicity this decision wil bring them...

Responsible Fast Food

Keith Hammonds from Fast Company Now reports that McDonalds has released its second "corporate responsibility report" (the first appeared in 2002):

"Yes, granted, Ronald McDonald is no Mother Theresa, and Mickey-D's is no one's idea of an ideal social citizen. But then, how many companies really are? It's not like we're all out there selling products and services that can better mankind.

So the question is, if you're going to sell people artery-hardening fast food that's high in sodium, calories, and saturated fat--and heck, someone's going to--what's the most responsible way to do so? If you think about it that way, McDonald's actually comes off looking pretty good.

A few examples from the report: Since 1993, McDonald's has tracked waste in detailed studies of a few individual restaurants. It's hard to universalize from these few, but it looks like the pounds of waste per thousand dollars of sales has dropped from about 110 to 70 in the course of a decade. In 2003, the company introduced new carryout bags that required bleaching and had less post-consumer recycled materials than their predecessor--but it offset the impact by increasing recycled content in napkins and using lighter-weight paperboard for fry cartons.

McDonald's Japan has reduced CO2 emissions by an average of 14.6% since 1990. In 2003, the first hydrofluorocarbon-free McDonald's opened in Vejle, Denmark. McDonald's Australia reduced electricity consumption by 1.5% from 2002 to 2003. As of this year, all batteries in Happy Meal toys contain no mercury.

You get the idea. McDonald's sells crappy food that I don't particularly want to eat--but it's clearly thinking about its impact in some creative, surprising ways. Can your company say as much?"

Whilst we are talking about FC, here's a good post from John Moore over at Brand Autopsy that asks how fast Fast Company really is.

Low Carb Nation

Saw an ad today for a "Low Carb" Subway sandwich. What is it with the "low carb" trend? Lately it has been hard to miss the constant salvos being fired by the "low carb" militia.

Thirty years after Dr. Robert Atkins published his first diet book, low-carbohydrate dieting—or as its devotees call it, the "low-carb lifestyle"—has planted its hooks into dieters around the world and refuses to let go. It was derided for years as a pseudo-scientific fad, but in the past few years it has swept the globe, partly because some recent studies have supported its efficacy while allaying short-term health concerns, and partly because millions of low-carb dieters have quickly shed pounds after failing to do so by other means!

But it is scary when editors at the Oxford English Dictionary are considering adding an entry for "Atkins" and you even buy low-carb pet food for your fat little dog!

But the whole thing got me thinking (for a minute anyway!); with the public’s appetite for low-carbohydrate food products on the rise, what is the right strategy for a baker or spaghetti maker these days: Buck the trend or join in the feast?

Atkins and all those other low-carb diets have gotten so much attention in the last few years that consumers may think it is a simple decision for a bread or pasta company to launch a low-carb product line.

But I guess the question is to what extent is the Atkins diet and the whole low-carb thing a fad and to what extent is it a genuine shift in consumption patterns that will remain with us for a significant period of time

So do bakers invest in capital to cater to something that might be a trend or not do it and risk doing nothing? They might end up like this bakery if they do nothing.

It's a classic management problem isn't it! Is "it" here to stay, or just "cool" at the minute? And if so what do we do?

I got nudie today!

Have your brought a drink from your local Milk Bar, Service Station of Lunch Shop lately? It's a bit like trying to buy a toothbrush! The fridge is packed with a plethora of tempting beverages; from juices to flavoured milk, energy drinks to "performance waters". So if you are going to have a product in this over-crowded "fast moving consumer goods" segment, you'd better be different.

Nudie Juice is different.

I had heard of Nudie Juice before, only because their factory had burnt down! But I had my first Nudie Juice today, something called “strawberry, banana and more” in a bottle marked “Limited Edition Fire Fighter Nudie”.

It got my attention enough for me to take a closer look at the bottle (usually I am too scared to read through the ingredients and other product information on the sides of such products), which explained the reason for the limited edition:

"On Thursday May 27 2004, nudie headquarters burnt down. Fortunately, thanks to the efforts of brave fire fighters, no one was hurt. But we lost all our squeezing machines and lost of good fruit. Which meant we couldn’t make any nudies for a while. But it takes more than a fire to keep nudies down. And this “limited edition fire fighter nudie” is proof.

We were going to call it the “limited edition phoenix nudie.” (The phoenix is a mythical bird that rose from the ashes of some big fire.) But if it wasn’t for the firefighters, the nudie fire could have been much worse. So for all you fire fighters, this nudie’s made for you”

Cool huh! Find me another bottle in the 7-11 fridge that is as entertaining.

In 18 months, this cheeky little juice company has,with little or no advertising, generated sales in excess of $12 million.

So what is the secret? Owner Tim Pethic puts it down to a "distinctly different" product and a marketing technique based on "customer dialogue rather than monologue":

"I wanted a dialogue with our customers; that's why we use the website and I answer 40 emails a day personally," he said.

"It has worked; our customers have become salespeople simply by asking shopkeepers to stock our juices.

"It is an amazingly powerful tool and the response has been overwhelming."

The only potential downside in this story? This innovative Australian small business little has recently merged with the Pulp group of juice chains - 20 per cent owned by Richard Branson and 80 per cent by the public company Signature Brands.

Hopefully they keep the "it" that they have at the moment!

Oh, and the juice tastes really good too!

Spitting Chips

A couple of weekends ago I saw the film/documentary Super Size Me. I am sure you have heard of it. In case you haven’t hears the rub: Documentary filmmaker Morgan Spurlock decided to eat nothing but McDonald’s for a month. The result was as catastrophic as the target was easy, with Spurlock getting sick ,swelling by 11kg, losing his libido, suffering depression and at one stage vomiting out of the car window. The film attempts to define the line separating corporate from personal responsibility, which sounds a bit boring, but it is framed so amusingly that is never drags or condescends. I left the cinema feeling pretty bloated myself!

The film has been a huge success in Australia, in the two weeks following it’s June 3 release it has made more that $1.5m.

But like McDonald’s in the US, the Australian arm refused to talk to Spurlock during his publicity tour earlier in the month. But this week, with Spurlock safely back home in the States, it seems as though we have been bombarded with damage control ad’s from McDonalds.

The new ad features McDonald's Australia CEO Guy Russo describing the film as being "about a person that decides to over-eat". But, in a super-sized rebuke to the flick, Mr Russo responds to Spurlock's claims that eating burgers for 30 days is bad for you by saying simply:

"You're right." "Doctors told [Spurlock] to stop after three weeks. I would have told him to stop after one day. Surprise surprise, he finds out it was an error. I could have told him that," Mr Russo says in the commercial

I wonder why they left it so long to carry out this damage control exercise? I would have thought that Macca’s could have been a bit more pro-active with its marketing strategy. McDonald's Australia is the first McDonald's in the world to use advertising to publicly attack the movie. Until now the strategy has been to ignore it, but recent research from customers indicated that McDonald's silence might be taken as an admission of guilt.

McDonalds are guilty all right. Guilty of letting the situation get this far. If they had come out on the front foot a month ago, attacked and debated Mr. Spurlock when he was here they might not be in this PR mess. But they adopted the silent approach, which didn’t work.

Oddly Mr. Russo claims "If someone from America produces a film, and then comes out to Australia and attacks us, I'm not going to take that sitting down."

But, yes you did Mr. Russo!

Like your McFriends in the US, you sat around when Spurlock and wanted to talk to you. You sat in your office, not coming out and not answering calls. Why wouldn’t you talk? If you are that angry and that concerned about the attack on your business, the spreading of misinformation and the risk of being perceived as guilty, why not talk? Why wait?

No doubt they had hoped it would all "blow over". Macca's obviously did't anticipate the success of the film, or the amount of news space the issue of childhood obesity has been getting.

But now Mr. Russo wants to assure us all that McDonalds is not as bad as the movie says. And the spin-doctors, or more accurately McDonald’s ad agency DDB explain that the ad’s aren’t a defensive move, they are about “correcting inaccuracies in the film.”

Sure they are.

Also, I am not sure that these ad's are the type of brand journalism that Larry Light, McDonald's (US) chief marketing officer, has been spouting about. (Seth has a great blog entry on this)

Interestingly, despite McDonald's claims that its healthier options are good and that all is not as grim as it may seem, I have not eaten at the Golden Arches since seeing"Super Size Me".