Ruth Lukaweski

Ruth Lukaweski, founder of RML Research, has over 30 years of market research experience and has operated almost exclusively as a business-to-business specialist in a variety of areas including: transportation and logistics; construction and real estate; electronics and communications; academic (colleges and universities); business services.

She has also demonstrated expertise in specific business research and marketing areas such as B2B targeting (defining business target audiences), and triggering (for defining purchase priorities and practices). Ruth also specializes in business branding research – she has participated in numerous business branding pitches and has focussed on the effectiveness of research in the B2B branding process. Her particular areas of B2B branding expertise include: The dynamics of business “marketing” versus business “branding”; The principles of business branding - a checklist for success (in business branding).

Ruth is active in a number of respected professional organizations: the National Board of the Marketing and Research Intelligence Association of Canada (MRIA) and a Board member of the B2B Division of MRIA for several years -- where she has initiated a number of projects such as the Toronto B2B Learning Series. Ruth developed and hosts the International Webinar Series for MRIA - a series of webinar featuring prominent international speakers in business research and marketing. She has been editor of the B2B Reporter since 1996 - a monthly column for VUE, the national monthly publication for MRIA.

Ruth is also a member of most other business research and marketing professional organizations worldwide including BMA (Business Marketing Association) and BIG (Business Intelligence Group). RML is a member of the Canadian Marketing Association and Ruth has actively participated on the CMA B2B Conference committee.

More on B2B Advertising-- Whatever Happened to The Man in The Chair?

The Man In The Chair was voted the best business ad of the decade (1950’s, that is) by Business Week Magazine and the best (#1) business ad of the entire 20th Century by B2B Magazine and Crain Communications.

The Man In The Chair is iconic – and even beat Intel which was voted the second best ad campaign of the last century.

This ad was sponsored by McGraw-Hill Magazine Division and is a classic from that era – featuring a very stern-looking executive sitting in his chair with both feet planted firmly on the ground, a scowl on his face, hands folded together in front of him with elbows resting on the armrest.

Leaning slightly forward he says: “I don’t know your company...I don’t know your company’s product...I don’t know what your company stands for...I don’t know your customers...I don’t know your company’s reputation. NOW – what was it you wanted to tell me?” Across the bottom is the simple selling proposition: sales start before your salesman calls – with business publication advertising. The great David Ogilvy considered this to be “the single best definition of advertising ever given”.

The origins of The Man In The Chair – the ad originated with Fuller, Smith and Ross advertising. It was written by a 31-year-old copywriter. A professional model was hired for the job but an account supervisor (Gil Morris) sat for a Polaroid shot (a rehearsal) – but his grouchy look was sufficiently stern that he wound up being used in the final shot.

The Man In The Chair re-visited – McGraw-Hill has made several attempts to update its iconic ad: in one version an Asian was used to reflect changes in business customers and the general population. But these tweaks were not enough for a B2B conference organizers last year. A complete re-make of The Man In The Chair was acted and staged for conference participants – to portray how new media paired with technology could be incorporated into an updated version of this ad which can be found on Youtube:

• The re-make features a harried man (a prospect) running around and talking to a salesperson on his cell phone – while checking his email and looking at LinkedIn.

• He confirms he received the sales proposal but “don’t know who you are”.

• The prospective customer checks with his online community and reports: “I don’t know your company" – either. The website is thin; they have no presence on LinkedIn and a former employee is blogging (negatively) about the company.

• NEW environment; SAME message.

So why has The Man In The Chair been given so much prominence for over 50 years?

• Mainly because it offers an ageless and focussed message – landing worthwhile new business takes repeated and concerted efforts. (Research at Harvard University established that a prospect must see an advertising campaign nine (9) times to take them from apathy to purchasing readiness.)

• The basic message is still considered to be valid – 50+ years later and even in the electronic age.

Ruth Lukaweski

The Increasing Complexity of B2B Products

And the hidden Challenges of B2B Branding.

The first time I ever noticed Little Giant ladders was in a series of Billy-Mays-type television ads the campaign featured a serious looking ladder that could be adjusted into 24 different configurations: the traditional A-frame look; the scaffold for uneven terrains; the extension to reach tree tops...and so on. You wouldn’t even consider taking this ladder out of the box without reviewing a demo video. Nobody in my household will climb a ladder higher than 4 feet – but I didn’t care. I just thought it would make a wonderful house accessory regardless of practicality.

A few years later a research project on industrial ladders warranted a closer look at this market: industrial ladders are a very serious business on both sides of the U.S./Canada border:
• Serious buyers (such as contractors) rely on serious (and complicated) looking comparison charts – detailing three or four basic ladder categories grouped by key factors (such as weight and height limits). In Canada these are based on CSA ratings and classifications.
• Ladder companies don’t sell ladders – they sell ladder systems. Even the 24-in-1 is available in three different models.
• And don’t forget key features – like tip and glide wheels and triple locking hinges and Light Wave Technology.

Little Giant is not much of a competitor in Canada’s industrial market but the company has developed a unique marketing (and branding) approach:
• It leverages its corporate brand name especially with the 24-in-1 ladder (which is targeted at consumers).
• On the industrial side the company has developed some sub-brands – the Synergy; the Big Trex; the Skyscraper.
• Little Giant also markets a whole series of ladder accessories: leg levellers; wing spans (for uneven surfaces); ladder racks.
• And there’s an info centre: with instructional and demonstration videos focussing on ladder configurations, ladder safety and ladder maintenance???
• Major players in the Canadian market adopt similar approaches – but not to the same extent.

There are many industrial product categories that have become more complex – the residential basement insulation market in the U.S. is dominated by three types of products: tar; membrane sprays; the much more complicated air gap drainage systems. Air gap products are fairly new to this market and are much harder to market.

There are several implications for the marketing of more complex business products. There has to be more of an emphasis on:
• Communication strategy - making sure target audiences understand all aspects of the product category (think about the home insulation company that realized its sales staff did not understand how its product worked).
• Target audience priorities - what messages to articulate and emphasize (think the marketer of construction materials emphasizing a 40-year warranty to homeowners who move every five years).
• Differing priorities among various groups – for ladders this could mean owners versus purchasers versus users.
• Understanding the difference between purchase requirements versus brand differentiators.
• The role and importance of the various distribution channels in the purchase process, as a source of product information; as a source of influence (think about research where we underestimated the role of retailers like Home Depot in the distribution chain).

More on What's Right (and wrong ) with B2B Advertising

“We find it truly surprising that businesses full of smart people produce so much advertising that isn’t...Why then is good business-to-business advertising so hard to come by?” DAVE AND ALEX.

Dave and Alex are a pair of advertising executives who evaluated 79% of a set of 200 B2B print ads as “poor”. They followed up this assessment with a 12-page (highly entertaining) supplement called: “Why do so many business-to-business ads suck?"

1.The misunderstood business customer: some ads would have you believing that business buyers are “soulless automatons with parallel processors for brains”.

MY OPINION: the individual making an organizational purchase is weighing unique parameters – the B2B and B2C purchase processes are not equivalent. Emotions do play a part in B2B decision-making but it is qualitatively different from consumer decisions. The B2B campaign should focus on the feelings generated about the product or the company – the B2C campaign focuses on how the customer feels about himself.

2. The sales guy culture: B2B marketers are more likely to be drawn from sales and engineering backgrounds, and sales guy advertising tends to resemble product brochures.

MY OPINION: somewhat true. B2B marketing efforts are often reactive rather than proactive (i.e. prompted by a specific turn of events). There is a lack of strong training programs focusing on the business marketing, branding and advertising processes.

3.Lazy agency syndromes. According to Dave and Alex, agencies creating B2B ads tend to resort too easily to business terms and clichés such as handshakes and globes and mountain climbers. An internet search (by Dave and Alex) turned up thousands of clichés: “Why we mean business...When we say internet we mean business...We mean business in space”.

MY OPINION: again, a lot of this reflects a lack of understanding of the business marketing and advertising processes including: the role of emotion in business marketing and advertising; the uniqueness of business products and services.

4.Corpo-babble: the inability to speak clearly and directly to the target audience such as the following example: “Anticipating millions of connections your network will support, we deliver a business optimized infrastructure that provides scalability”.

MY OPINION: business marketing has become better than ever at communicating a single meaningful message and utilizing effective creative. Note the following headline for an IBM ad: “Stop thinking like a bank. Start thinking like a customer”. This is an ad informing bankers how IBM can ensure that their customers can open a new account in minutes rather than hours! It effectively uses copy and visuals to back up benefits suggested in the headline.

5. Marketing schizophrenia: Dave and Alex say the typical B2B marketer knows how he has to “differentiate” his product but when push comes to shove tends to back away from creative opportunities and seeks “credibility” and “security”.

MY OPINION: a fading problem – as evidenced by the many good examples of focused B2B marketing and advertising out there but some may be going too far (but that happens in the B2C world).

6.Trying to hard: when they do go out on a limb, B2B marketers will try to be unique and draw attention to themselves in almost a “frantic and hyperactive” fashion”.

MY OPINION: this is still very true – sometimes it is very hard to tell who some business ads are targeting. Fortunately it’s not all bad news. Many more B2B companies are investing in business marketing and there is a noticeable increase in the variety and number of business advertising campaigns. BtoB Magazine, for example, in its monthly evaluation of business advertising campaigns (Chasers) has no trouble digging up examples of both well and poorly executed B2B campaigns. This suggests we’ve come a long way as an industry but there remains lots of opportunity for improvements.

What's Wrong with B2B Advertising? -- Not as Much as You Think

“We’re not saying all business-to-business advertising sucks – many achieve mediocrity and a few are excellent”.
Dave and Alex

A few years ago a pair of young advertising executives (Dave and Alex) rated 200 B2B print ads: only 5% were rated as excellent; one-fifth as mediocre and the large majority (79%) as poor. Dave is still around and is currently paired with someone called Eddy (of the Dave and Eddy show) but the evidence shows that B2B advertising has matured substantially in just a few short years.

Dave and Alex received a lot of attention for their opinions – but by their own admission they admit that their approach was not very scientific: they basically selected an assortment of ads from six trade magazines. Nevertheless business advertising executives would agree with a number of their conclusions about what constitutes a poor or mediocre business ad:

No creative concept
Business ads with a simple product photo shot and headline with a poorly worded selling proposition: Everything you need is a router at half the price...Why not cut costs without cutting corners. Compare these to another ad for a healthcare company targeting HR personnel in small companies: Cut costs, not coverage – a captivating headline in bold white copy or red background which meshes with the selling proposition.

The trite analogy
B2B ads riddled with clichés such as: canyons (symbolizing depth); geysers (dependability); lurking wolves (competitive threats); bouncing balls (flexibility).

The creative misfire
Usually refers to tasteless ads such as one targeted at the beef trade featuring a live cow over the image of a cooking fire with the headline: Smoke gets in your eyes.

Sponsors of the five excellent ads mainly included large and well known companies: Microsoft; EDS; Internet Security Systems to name a few. In most cases the production values tended to be described as competent and noted for their clarity: single message and easily understood; their creative indivisibility (where the headline and visuals work well together); their restraint (simple graphics and tight copy).

Reality check
Even though this study was conducted a few shot years ago, the measly 5% of B2B ads classified as excellent would easily climb to 40% or more today:

-B2B advertisers include some of the biggest companies in the world – Intel’s Intel Inside campaign continues to be regarded as one of the best campaigns of the 20th century; and the gold standard for B2B ingredient advertising.

-BtoB Magazine in its monthly feature called 'Chasers' probes into the mechanics of B2B ads and has no trouble finding both the poor and excellent examples.

-Chasers recently compared two airline ads targeted at business customers offering 'comfort': one featured a stylized visual of a woman blissfully at rest on a flight but the rest of the copy failed to exploit this theme; the second ad featured the business class section (of a new airplane) floating on clouds and displaying extra wide comfortable seating and luxurious in-flight service.

Hybridization -- And the Changing Landscape of B2B Branding (the hidden challenges)

About a year ago I upgraded my laptop. My search for a new model started at the Dell website but ended up at the company’s booth at the consumer home show (somewhere between the condiments and electronic brooms) and ended at the Dell kiosk at Sherway Gardens shopping mall. What’s Dell to do with customers like me who look for a serious business computer at shopping malls and consumer home shows – but that, unfortunately, is the essence of “hybridization”.

The “fruit” wars -- iPhone versus Blackberry – last winter the New York Times featured a run of full back page ads for the iPhone in the business section – targeted at business customers and focussing on the iPhone’s powerful access to Internet business applications. RIM, on the other hand, has claimed for a while that the large majority of “new” Blackberry customers are consumers (not traditional business and government users).
In addition to overlapping into each other’s “territory”, RIM and Apple also appear to have different marketing approaches: Apple basically markets ONE smartphone model (the iPhone), tends to focus on a myriad of applications.

By comparison, the Blackberry comes in several models (at last count there are nine featured on its web site excluding half a dozen versions for each of the Pearl and Curve).

Dell, Apple and RIM are all basically marketing “hybrid” products – a trend initiated mostly by B2B companies expanding into the consumer world. Even companies that deal mostly with business suppliers and customers are becoming more and more conscious of end users and consumers.

Hybrid products (and companies) have a unique set of challenges -- how to match different products/models with specific target audiences; how to accommodate consumer versus business audiences and differing (and sometimes incompatible) needs and requirements; how to prioritize all of these issues.

“Hybridization” is more complicated than it appears:

• About one fifth (22%) of the Top 100 Interbrand brands can be categorized as hybrids and outnumber the “pure” B2B brands (8%). But the fact is that many “pure” business brands don’t have a hope of making it to the top of anybody’s list. The top hybrid brands spend an enormous amount of money ($$$) on both consumer and business marketing which substantially increases their brand profile (and equity).

• “B2B companies shouldn’t try to become consumer brands... but they should seek to attain the maximum value possible within their industry (from the Hidden Wealth of B2B Brands)”. Pure B2B brands consistently achieve lower brand equity scores – in a recent ranking by Corebrand the strongest “pure” B2B brand was Caterpillar with an equity rating of 12% (versus 18%/19% for hybrids like Fedex and UPS); the next highest “pure” B2B brand was Emerson with an equity measure of only 5%.

• B2B versus B2C – these represent two very very different buying, marketing and branding processes. The problem is that the business side of these processes is not well understood. Identifying and profiling business target audiences is a complicated process: there can be several audiences within a client company (from C-levels to buyers to end users); there are secondary influencers (external to the business customer but either directly or peripherally involved).

• B2B trumps B2C – business suppliers, customers and intermediaries often have excellent “insight” into end users and consumers. Business intermediaries should be asked to provide feedback with respect to new products, services or marketing strategies before they are rolled out to consumers.

• “I find that there is currently a blurring and fusing of B2C and B2B research... and there is less of a desire to identify B2B and B2C research as separate or different disciplines” – these are the words of Phyllis Macfarlane a longstanding member of the U.K. B2B research community. B2B research has the same issues as B2B marketing – and also requires a better understanding of the business buying, marketing and branding processes.