Dr. Philip Kotler is one of the world’s best thought leaders on marketing management and marketing strategy, and I think his definition is the best one: “Marketing seeks to minimize the randomness in the market’s response by creating, communicating, and delivering value to the firm’s target customers.”

Last week I brought in a SEO (Search Engine Optimization) and SEM (Search Engine Marketing) expert in to talk with one of my classes.  About half-way through his presentation I was thinking about some of the application of SEO and SEM on some of my projects, and then it hit me like a left hook from Gerry Cooney (ramdon reference I know): from an integrated marketing communications perspective, SEO and SEM are one of the few ways that you can actually ‘minimize randomness’.

The depth and breadth of how people become informed, evaluate options and make decisions is all over the place.  However, when has there been a better option for marketers to engage with individuals when it is appropriate for the customer and not the firm?  When has there been better insight into how potential customers are thinking about products or services?  When has there been a better option to learn about the top of mind words or phrases associated with a good or service?  Yes, SEO and SEM can get expensive-anything that is effective typically is.  However, the one thing I learned the other night is that unlike hanging a billboard on 490, using SEO and SEM to drive awareness and engagement requires patience, thought and  continuous adjustment.  You can literally have your assumption tested by the market in minutes; I think these 50 terms reflect the market’s association with my good or service?  True or False?  Moreover, one can see what the true pain points are in the market.  Have an idea?  Go see if people are searching for resolutions.

Marketing is about minimizing randomness, and leveraging SEO and SEM can reduce the randomness in marketing strategy and tactics.

At a high-level, the theory states that all industries go through a series of changes from which the market makes decisions on them. At first, when an industry or product category is relatively immature, people make their decision on product features; which product is delivering the most innovative and unique aspects to the product. In the HD TV industry this would be picture quality and other features of the television. Eventually, as the Basis of Competition slides down, the product attributes begin to all look alike and it becomes more difficult for the consumer to differentiate one product from the rest; thus, they make purchasing decision on reliability or brand. Which product do I trust more all thing being equal. This is one of the many reasons that branding is such a hot topic; as product mash together from a functionality perspective, people choose the safe harbor.

Eventually, all players in the market become relatively safe decisions and people make their decision on convenience (where can I get this where it causes me the least hassle), and ultimately, the last rung on the basis of competition ladder is price: consumers make their decision on price more than brand, convenience or product attributes.

Going back to the HD TV market, for the most part, the functionality, reliability and convenience of buying a HD TV are fairly similar and people are looking for the biggest set at the lowest price. Thus, a classic example of the Basis of Competition sliding towards this consumer-controlled reality.

So, what happens when people are forced to buy on price? Does this automatically drive the basis of competition, in a given product category, to the commodity level? If I have built a lot of time and effort in brand-building a given product, is it all for naught because people are less likely to pay a premium? When the downturn begins to improve, can firms recondition to the market that brand is important again?

The question is this: how does an economic situation, like we have now, affect the Basis of Competition theory? Do product categories jump from product based consumer decisions right to price? How strong does a brand have to be to prevent sliding? How do firms manage this over the long-term?

This year’s Boston Celtics team, from a truly product perspective, have as much in common with the Celtics teams of the 80s as the RIT Women’s team. Again, from a truly product (players, coach, style of play, etc.) perspective, there is very little in common-not better, not worse, just different. However, to the credit of the franchise, and the networks, they consistently leveraged the yesteryears of the Celtics organization, created an emotional bond with the targeted demographics, and convinced the market that yes, the Celtics brand is not dead, it was just on hiatus.

Imagine if the organization and the networks took on a different strategy this year: let’s forget the past, and redefine the Celtics brand as more relevant with today’s younger demographic; let’s make it more hip and highlight the attributes of our current team (kind of like Cadillac did with the Escalade and DTS strategy). Forget the stodgyness of Red’s cigar, Larry’s tight shorts, Bill’s sweeping skyhook, and let’s rebuild the brand through KG’s thunderous slams, a cooler logo, and the promise that the Celtics are the most in your face, entertaining team in the league. This is exactly what the Philadelphia 76ers did when they reinvented their franchise and exchanged the attributes of Dr. J and Moses Malone for a more younger, urban-relevant, brand when they went to the finals in 2000-2001.

The marketers knew where their bread was buttered through convincing the public that yes, this is the old Celtics experience, we are going to beat LA, and the glory years are back like you remember them; all of the emotional ties to the brand were reconnected, and things are back to “normal”. To reinforce this: the public didn’t even care that during the finals, it was suggested by a former referee that playoff games have been fixed, and even this series could be. It bounced off the consumer’s mind – don’t mess with this trip down memory lane media.

Of course, winning creates interest, but it was very interesting how every advertisement, statistic, etc reinforced the attributes of the old Boston Celtics experience: this is the Cadillac organization of the NBA and the Lakers are the Mustang. We were hammered over and over with these messages, and as a result, The Boston Celtics brand is back.

It was a very good conversation, but one thing kind of scared me: the solution to a lot of the perceived problems was not a more focused analysis on their marketing processes and strategies, but to get more technology and layer it on. Individuals stated that they are investing in web site redesigns, incorporating more blogs, etc. These tactics may yield dividends, but there seemed to be some uncertainty on aligning messaging to segments, and aligning messaging to the hierarchy of effects or decision making process; seemed to be more mass messaging using more technology.

There is no doubt that prospective students are learning and becoming aware of colleges and universities through many more channels. However, fundamental messaging alignment to personal value drivers cannot be ignored. One question that enrollment marketing professionals may want to ask, whenever a new mar com initiative is deployed, is: does this convey the right message, to the right person, at the right time, using the right medium.

An enrollment marketing model that may be helpful is: http://www.datatel.com/datatel/Uploads/95AA0CE9-E429-06DF-099825AE3B1E72A7/Marketing_Strategies.PDF

Apparently, according to the service rep and her manager, USAIR outsources the management of their website to a company that purchases flights in large quantities from USAIR and sells them as an independent broker.  Thus, www.usairways.com might as well be expedia or some other online channel.

Two questions come to mind: a.) What are the legal issues with this?  As a consumer, I assume that my personal information is being managed by a ‘trusted’ company like USAIR to conduct my business; when in fact, it is going to someone completely different.  b.) How much longer can this industry survive?  There was an interesting article in Business Week that predicted business travel would significantly decrease over the next few years based on a variety of economic factors and improvements to technology.  When the industry kicks its customers over and over again, and demand continues to slow, it does not seem to be a good picture.

Also, two nights ago I checked into a Radisson down in NY.  I made my reservation online (at www.radisson.com) and made a request for a King bed.  When I checked in, they had me in a queen.  I asked if they could see the notes in my reservation; she said no, online reservations are managed by a separate company.  I guess the hotel industry is doing the same thing.

Of course, assuming utility spikes and Metcalf’s Law being in full force, there are huge implications for higher education. The first being in marketing, branding and relationship building. Although they are diminishing in importance, colleges and universities still spend a significant amount of staff and financial resources traveling the country attending college nights and college fairs. The goal: to establish a close enough relationship with the student and parent so that the institution becomes part of their evoked set, or in their checklist for consideration. Imagine a college fair that is open 24 hours, allows institutions to disregard current geographic barriers, and provides a fairly meaningful experience? Moreover, at the hours and times that are convenient to students: any time. Colleges and universities have been organizing around “one-stop shopping” for a long time (putting commonly needed resources in a like area). Now, it may take on a new meaning. It could truly be the most disruptive technology to enrollment marketing yet. Exciting.

From a learning perspective……forghetaboutit (if you go to school in Jersey). As robust as learning technologies are, they don’t provide much of an experience to the student, or for that matter, the faculty member. Literally, raise your hand in class; show emotion when someone in class challenges your thinking; do a team project with all team members standing in front of class. This does not seem too far from a Second Life reality.

We are in an experience economy, and in the business of higher education, institutions are rewarded for creating a great experience for their students and families, alumni and other stakeholders. For those institutions that are held back by geographic disadvantages, or have missed the transition of adapting more relative marketing processes, Second Life may be just what the doctor ordered. It will be interesting to see which institutions will be the pioneers of applying Second Life to their infrastructure. Hopefully, it will provide a more equal level playing field between the super brands (Ivy, Big-1o, etc), and the schools that have a lot to offer but are overshadowed by current media mediums.