Netflix Blog Leaves Out What's In It For The Customer

If you read Netflix's reasoning for a price hike, you'll notice that it doesn't say anywhere what's in it for the customer. Well, except it's the "lowest price for DVDs only" but that's not true if streaming was valued at $7.99 because streaming had been only 2 dollars more.

But the blog post clearly states what's in it for Netflix. And the tone of the blog comes across as "I gotta get mine." The post should have sought some sort of value the customer could perceive from the 27% hike. For example, Netflix could have at least talked about how the price increase was going to help them get better licensing deals with studios to provide more desirable content.

I think most business-savvy people understand where Netflix is coming from. But a whole bunch of the Netflix customers are not business-savvy and simply saw the price increase as just that, a price increase with no added value. I think more people were angry at how it was communicated than actually having to pay more. The crux of where the post went wrong is that they just didn't anticipate and manage perceptions.

Here's the post.

An Example of Bad Typography Getting In The Way of Good Copy

From the June 2011 issue of WiredThe copy in this print ad is strong. It's authentic, visceral and resonates with the ego of the audience. Unfortunately, the typography gets in the way. It's confusing, misleading and distracting. A message that is so bold and direct should have typography that matches it. It's critical art & copy are in lockstep. This is probably a case where the team focused on the art and not the reception of the message by its audience.

A Great Video On How Important Copywriting Is

Why nikebetterworld.com Is Brilliant

 

Yesterday, some folks on Twitter and I, were having a discussion about whether or not nikebetterworld.com is an effective site. When, I really think about it, we really have no information about this site. We didn't see the brief. We didn't see the strategy. Most importantly, we don't have any visibility to the success metrics. So, all we know is what we have and that is, this one website that lives out on the internet.

While I was mostly alone in defending aspects of nikebetterworld.com, most everyone agreed the design was slick albeit simple. Most of the criticism comes from a respectable point of it not being interactive enough or having a strong call-to-action.

So, giving the creative team for nikebetterworld.com the benefit of the doubt, I'm assuming the objective here was part of an awareness effort. The site seems to be a compilation of gateways to the diverse efforts of Nike's Corporate Social Responsibility initiatives; each "Learn More" link to takes you to various Nike microsites and CSR partners of Nike.

Everyone had good stuff to say about the site but there were many criticisms. Justin Spohn of Fight called it a poster. And Tyesha Snow said it looked like it would make a great billboard campaign. However, I don't think either one of those descriptions are a bad thing. Perhaps nikebetterworld.com is a billboard along the information superhighway.

Billboards have to be sharp, succinct and speedy. You are driving by at 65 mph and the message has to hit you quick and make a point. On the internet, attention spans are so alarmingly short. But there is so much information to consume, messaging has to be fragmented down and simplified yet be provocative to break through the chatter. Nike does a lot in regards to social change and creating this type of site gives the audience a quick glimpse of the large amount of worldly good they are doing.

There were two criticisms yesterday that I'd like counter. One is that the site is lacking in content and two, that it is not interactive enough.

Ben Fogarty said the site was a very slick design but the content left him wanting more, and a couple of others felt pretty much the same. For me though, not only are people trying to compete for my attention on the internet, so are other things like work and my wife and my kids and the books I am trying to find time to plow through. Anytime someone shares a link, I usually estimate, "How long is this going to take and is it worth it?"

So, nikebetterworld.com leads with a 1 minute 24 second video/infographic thingy that is captivating and bold. That right there is long enough for a CSR video. From there, you scroll down 10 pages of sophisticated unique design with short-copy that links you to the relevant site. So if you do go off on those links, there is more content than you can handle. I assume the weakness of "Learn More" call-to-actions is the gap impairing your desire to go to those sites; I can understand that argument. A provocative headline of where you could go with the link would be much better than "Learn more" like, "Beat Homelessness Through Football." But overall, given the fierce competition for attention spans, there seems to be plenty of content--just the right amount with options for more.

About the site not being interactive enough, I don't know. I'm a writer. I think a book is interactive if it's good. If something is stimulating and persuading you intellectually and emotionally, I'd call that interactive. You are responding while it may only be internally. But for nikebetterworld.com, I'd say the design is clever and there are plenty of opportunities to click and explore past the site. The copy is positively abrasive and stimulating. My question to my friends that are interactive designers would be, what do you think a site has to have for it to be called interactive?

After you read, "Wage Sport on War," this is what happens if you click the Twitter icon.

Also, some of the discussion yesterday was about the lack of inspiring the audience to take action to get involved. I don't think that's the objective of the site. Again, I assume it's a compilation of some of Nike's CSR initiatives. A CSR report with life.

Unfortunately, none of us in the discussion know how successful the site is. If you search nikebetterworld on twitter, designers are either loving it or scoffing at it. People that seem to be into sports display positive sentiment as well as people who's brand seems to be sustainability. But that's a very crude measurement I know. Anyhow, I love it and think it's great. What do you think?

Update on Thursday, January 6, 2011 at 4:28PM by Jeremy Pair

Just wanted to put out there that the screenshots of the people's tweets I used were part of a much longer conversation from people I consider friends and some of the brightest folks in the industry. The twitter conversation was largely positive and always respectful. I didn't intend for it to appear I was taking people's tweets out of context. I was using them more as quotes and snapshots of the conversation about the valid points they were making.

Rudolph Was A Freak And So Are You... Hopefully

Rudolph's big red nose made him a freak until he found a way he could use it to help others. Sometimes we see our weaknesses as something that holds us back. But usually, it is just holding us back from being incredibly unique.

Rudolph could hide his laserbeam nose, which he tried and failed, or he could find a way it could be useful. Thankfully, someone he respected pointed out to Rudolph that his freaky-deaky red nose could save the day. If he hadn't had the nose, Rudolph would have been just like all the other reindeer and would have been lost in mediocrity.

Lots of companies have turned their weaknesses into strengths. For example, Domino's used negative customer sentiment to generate authenticity with their audience as well as use it as a catalyst for rebirth. Avis won second place in the car rental business and used it to say they "try harder" than the number 1. 3M was making an adhesive but accidentally made a bad batch and as a result we now have Post-it notes.

And me personally, I thought to transition to a career in copywriting, I would need to just look like I was just another creative who'd been slugging away in the industry for years. But that just made me seem like another creative who'd been slugging away in the industry for years. I didn't stand out or have a USP until I started touting my 17 years of business experience in retail and exposing my litany of creative endeavors. Basically I thought my career was a freakish shiny red nose that I should hide but thankfully I had several Santas around me that said I needed to use it as my strength.

Whatever your red nose is, think about how you could use it as an advantage.