Poor marketing practices by companies

“Michael, the initial request is created automatically. Unfortunately, it’s not always a perfect match, but it’s good for getting into conversation with people. As a marketing expert, I’m sure you can relate to that, right?”

Yes, automation is also taking hold in initial contact initiations. In the vast majority of cases, however, the mail texts do not fit the situation – how could they, when hundreds or even thousands of people in companies are addressed with one and the same message.

And yes, it is a numbers game – if there is interaction in a few cases, opportunities for sales arise and the approach pays off. But at the same time, they are wasted opportunities to get to know people and their true needs. It’s a pity if you’re not prepared to invest a few minutes to at least formulate an individually suitable cover letter.

“No, Martin, I can’t relate to that!”

A selection of bad marketing practices

There are numerous practices that can be observed in marketing that I do not find good. Common approaches, widespread patterns or actions not thought through to the end that I would keep my hands off. Here is a selection of worst practices¹.

• Companies include people in your newsletter without any consent. Or they trick people into your newsletter by offering them a download in exchange, but only sending it if the newsletter subscription is confirmed.
• Companies resend unopened newsletters – possibly with a slightly adjusted subject and modified texts – on the day after the initial mailing. However, many people read newsletters using the preview function, so that the selection of the corresponding mail addresses is incorrect. Often little happens at first, but after the next newsletter the number of unsubscribes increases because the “new” frequency does not meet the expectations of the recipients.
• When unsubscribing from a newsletter, a notice appears saying that the message has been received and that it could now take up to a week for the corresponding adjustment to be made in the internal system. Apart from the fact that manually unsubscribing email addresses may seem a bit antiquated in 2023, companies must ensure that no further newsletters are sent to the recipient. Violations can lead to warning letters.
• Companies use fantasy numbers to advertise, often in combination with euphemistic statements: “40,000 people love our newsletter.” If you’re like me, you may really like some newsletters, but you won’t love many newsletters.
• Companies contact people with cold-call emails promoting their products or services. If you want to avoid subsequent messages, you “may” reply to the message with a defined term in the subject line or unsubscribe via a link. Impressive, however, when neither of these works and you receive the next message a short time later.
• Companies do not organise their cold-calling, which leads to several employees wanting to canvass one and the same person. It is especially nice when all employees use the same text…
• Companies start emails with “Re:” to suggest that there has already been an exchange before. However, many people know very well who they are communicating with and immediately recognise the “scam”.
• Companies end the acquisition after a rejection without reacting to it with regret. There is no quicker way to show people that they are just a number, just a means to an end.
• Companies use logos as proof of competence on their websites, but this is done without the consent of the “references”; easily recognised when logos are displayed in black and white and only take on their original colour by mouse-over. Since many logos are word-picture marks, companies will never agree to the alienation of their logos. This can only build trust at first glance, but at the latest when you take a closer look, the trust is immediately disturbed.
• Companies use logos on their websites without further information, which makes the whole thing rather pointless. What product does the reference use, how satisfied is she with the service or product?²
• Companies use quotes from testimonials on their websites, but without mentioning names or positions.
• Companies use illustrations from comprehensive books to market a white paper or a list of tips. How good can the content be if 10 pages are provided on a topic, but beforehand the impression was given that prospective customers would receive a comprehensive book on the specific topic? This is bound to lead to disappointment.
• Companies ask employees to report positively about the company via their social media accounts or to “advertise”. Such communication by employees is often positive, but should be voluntary and not “forced”.³
• Companies buy likes and followers. Ouch!
• Companies include “read more” links on web pages that are neither necessary nor meaningful in terms of content or structure, only to send tracking tools corresponding interactions.
• Companies integrate promotional videos on their websites, but not with the primary aim of imparting useful knowledge or necessary information, but with the intention of increasing the length of stay on the respective websites. However, session duration is a myth.
• Companies send reminder emails when training videos have not been watched to the end. You inform participants of webinars with a set of countdown notifications, you “flood” the inbox with countless mails. Presumably there is a good reason why a training video was not watched to the end, perhaps people activate the notification function in the calendar so as not to miss the desired webinar, perhaps less is sometimes more?
• Companies display various pop-ups when people visit a website, for example to attract new newsletter subscribers. In fact, this increases numbers, but unfortunately it also increases the amount of dissatisfied visitors who are prevented from doing what they are actually doing: reading a text.⁴
• Companies use greenwashing to show people their environmentally and climate-friendly side. Unfortunately, words and deeds often do not match.
• Companies use logo or rainbow-washing to show their support for the LGBTQ+ community, which is entirely desirable, but only happens when it does not have a negative impact on business. “In the regions where people, with a sexual orientation different from the ‘norm’, are persecuted, punished, imprisoned or even killed, any rainbow flag is missing from the logo.”

Surely this list can easily be extended, right?

Some practices worth considering from other areas of the company

Not to give the impression that only marketing is engaged in practices worthy of consideration, areas such as sales or human resources also have a lot to offer:

• Why do companies use displays in sales presentations that show their company locations, or logo parades that are solely to show that they have prestigious clients? Is it an advantage for the client if the potential partner has an office in Rio de Janeiro? Is the prospect also in the automotive industry and looking for an industry expert? If it is important, companies should provide this information – preferably a little more creatively than just with a world map or a logo parade. But if it is not really important, it makes sense to make better use of the participants’ attention at the beginning of the presentation, e.g. by focusing on the local people with their wishes, concerns, needs.
• Why do companies increase prices for any subscription models by more than 50 per cent? Communicating moderate price increases is already a challenge, but drastic price increases cannot be justified even with improved content or functions. They declare the end of a good price-performance ratio and must lead to dissatisfied users, even if many an organisation cannot stop using the subscription solution at short notice.

A particularly “interesting” practice can currently be observed in human resources:

Do you know what the biggest challenge is when developing software as a service? The design of the software architecture and the actual software development may be complicated and challenging, but the real problem lies elsewhere: What exactly does the client want?

What seems simple at first glance is in very many cases not clear in detail. What do companies do to overcome this problem? They carry out elaborate order clarifications, they organise joint workshops to gradually approach the goal and the ideas of a project.

And what do HR departments do in the age of artificial intelligence and prompt engineering? They ask applicants for a cleverly formulated prompt – i.e. a command that delivers a corresponding result with an AI-based tool⁵. Unfortunately, this is how HR professionals prove that they have little idea about working in specialised fields. How can a good result be produced if the concrete context is missing? Moreover, they demonstrate a lack of understanding of AI: the same prompt not only produces different results with different AI-based tools, it often does so with repeated input in the same AI.

Even if the input is important for such systems, for clients or customers it is the output or outcome that matters. Since AI systems are developing rapidly and the refinement of initial outputs will continue in the future, the importance of corresponding initial prompts will also decrease. Ergo: If artificial intelligence is important for the performance of a job, it is better to exchange experiences and expectations.

Questioning one’s own actions

I have a heart for marketing. I worked in sales for many years and was able to deepen my knowledge of human resources during my studies. It is not my intention to badmouth these areas, on the contrary: I would like to make a small contribution to questioning one’s own actions and putting them to the test. In all areas, patterns and procedures can be identified that are frequently used, but whose effects are often not exclusively positive. In addition, there is a kind of oversaturation when a previously creative idea can be found on virtually every website in the world.

In many cases, the effect of individual points cannot be determined exactly, but if you listen within, you will probably identify practices that you as an addressee or recipient do not really like. If you feel this way, why should other people feel differently?

Of course, one or the other example can be discussed and of course you do not have to refrain from all activities. However, doing things just because many others are doing them is rarely a good idea, in my experience. Blueprints may or may not fit.

Happy marketing!

Notes:

If you like this post or want to discuss it, feel free to share it with your network.

[1] The use of English terms in German texts for which there are suitable German words is also not recommended. Just as little as the integration of links that do not provide any new or in-depth information … 😉
[2] Ideally, references have a concrete connection to the situation and context of the people who are interested in your company. How do you find this out? By citing appropriate references when first needed and thus proving your competence in the specific case.
[3] Kathrin Erasmus has an interesting discussion about this on LinkedIn (in German).
[4] By using the so-called cookie consent, which visitors to a website have to confirm, people are already coerced into an interaction that offers them no real benefit (and in some cases no real cookie choice). Forced interactions are not desirable per se.
[5] Futurepedia offers a very large list of AI tools.

Michael Schenkel has published more articles in the t2informatik Blog, including

What does t2informatik actually do? One click and you'll know.