ComBlu specializes in community marketing and influencer programs. Our Lumenatti blog sparks conversation about the best and brightest community ideas.

Home → Blogs → Lumenatti
  • 08.16.2010

    This cupcake sucks!

    I love cupcakes and gleefully embraced the cupcake phase over the last few years. I sought out the best in my home town of Chicago and tried many places and many different kinds of cupcakes. A persnickety friend of mine, whose opinion on food I value, recommended a wonderful, homey spot called Sweet Mandy Bs, which is right in my Lincoln Park neighborhood. It offers wonderful cupcakes with a fine, velvety crumb and yummy butter cream icing that reminds of the stuff my mom made for our birthdays. Sweet Mandy Bs became my standard for a great cupcake experience.

    When I travel, I  try different cupcakes. Cooking magazines and reviews are my guide for where and what to try. While none quite measure up, it is a fun pursuit. And, since cupcakes are somewhat ubiquitous, it is easy to experiment along the way.

    From time to time, the “celebrity rags”  show a star eating a cupcake, usually from Sprinkles Bakery in Beverly Hills. The cupcakes look beautiful and I always wanted to try one. One day, a friend forwarded a link heralding the imminent arrival of Sprinkles in Chicago. Cool…I couldn’t wait!

    The hype for the opening of the Sprinkles Cupcake Bakery in Chicago was deafening. It was suppose to open last spring a few blocks from my office, but ended up debuting a few weeks ago. I kept walking by the location to see if I could try one of their sweet morsels only to be greeted by construction barriers and piles of debris. Not very appetizing.

    Then about a week before its opening, a well-oiled publicity machine cranked out coverage befitting of a Cubs pennant victory. On opening weekend, coupons for a free cupcake went viral. The wait to get in the front door was 4 hours. Really. I don’t care how good the cake, I wouldn’t wait. Fast forward a few weeks. We were having a late summer pot luck dinner for the ComBlu crew at our house. Someone volunteered to bring cupcakes. And, of course, we had to try Sprinkles. Believe it or not, there are still lines, but now with only 10-12 people. I heard through the grapevine, that the way to beat the lines is to have a dozen or so delivered. Perfect. We ordered a few dozen, but were stunned to have to pay $15 for the delivery. Zappos will ship my shoes cross country for free (and back again if I want) and I had to pay $15 delivery charge for cupcakes from a bakery a few blocks away.

    I wish I could say it was worth it! In a word, they sucked. The texture of the cake was more like country bread than cake and had a heavy feel in the mouth. Worse, they had a strange after taste. I sampled little bites of several flavors and the story was the same. In fairness, the icings weren’t too bad.

    To me, Sprinkles is another classic example of a brand that has buzz with little long term positive talk value. Buzz does a great job of generating awareness and stimulating trial. For sustained value, the brand needs more. In this instance, a product that tastes as good as it looks. Brands need to engage after igniting the initial awareness flare or be stuck in a cycle of constantly needing new fireworks.

    If you think about my cupcake saga,  I was so ready to engage and be a customer over time. I love the product category (cupcakes); I am willing to try new cupcake experiences (my travels); I knew about the particular brand (publicity) and was predisposed to try (sought them out several times before I could finally actually experience them.) I was an advocate waiting to happen! And I am, but for Sweet Mandy Bs. They are the best. I recommend them constantly. I purchase from them all the time and several of the people to whom I recommended them, also spread the word. The bakery gives me “surprise and delight” goodies from time to time and recognizes my value. Most importantly, they never disappoint. Their product deserves its great reputation. They don’t have the hype of Sprinkles, but they don’t need it

    Next time you’re in Chicago, give Sweet Mandy B’s a try. Tell them Kathy sent you.

  • 10.05.2009

    Community: More social science than computer science

     

    We’re about to release findings from some research ComBlu conducted to gather insights about the state of online community marketing. Without getting too far ahead of ourselves, let me share one observation after diving deeply into over 125 communities that were built by 45 different brands. Many companies are still taking a computer science approach to community building vs. a social science orientation.

    Here’s the big insight: only a slight fraction of the brands we reviewed show any evidence of a cohesive strategy. Many seemed to still have a “build it and they will come” mentality and left the community to its own devices. This epitomizes the computer science orientation: get a platform, throw a community out there, and hope for the best. This flies in the face of using communities as a core engagement strategy.

    Those communities that were high performers typically exhibited lots of best practices. This is a very important point given that the best practices are almost all some flavor of an engagement tool. And, that’s where the social science comes in. Brands build communities because they want to engage with customers and other key stakeholders. The whole point of having a branded community is to have purpose driven conversations about topics that are of genuine interest to both the company and its customers. This requires the brand to really think through how to provide multiple, meaningful paths to engagement. The brand needs to be an active participant in the community and interact in ways that resonate with members or visitors.

    Conversations are two-way activities; it’s essential that the community sponsor exhibit signs of life. It’s imperative to have a strategy for what to do with feedback, ideas, and insights. One of the worst practices we saw was a community that solicited input and then used an automated response that told the person to contact customer service. Ouch. The community IS customer service! That’s what is at the heart of engagement: knowing customers and using that information to serve their needs.

    Another aspect of engagement is modeling behaviors and organizing activities that make each person feel affinity with the brand. In essence, taking a social science approach to community building provides the gestalt of engagement. The community sponsor needs to unite elements in such a way that the ultimate experience can not be derived from a simple summation of its parts. It is a symbiotic bond that spawns new experiences and deepens engagement from the collective life force of the community. In the process, all parties learn and grow.

    So, it’s no real surprise that those communities that offer multiple ways to engage scored high in our research. What is shocking is the number of brands that go to all the trouble of building a community and then neglect it. Instead of building a significant asset, these brands are simply using a social platform in a very tactical way. At best, this represents a huge missed opportunity; at worst, It just doesn’t do the intended job.