From Maira Kalman's Blog 

Starbucks Going Stealth

Are big corporations sensing a new marketing trend - a growing preference among consumers for local businesses? According to the New Rules Project, Starbucks is "unbranding" three of its Seattle locations in an attempt to make them appear as locally owned businesses. New Rules says this is part of a corporate trend to "imitate and co-opt local-ness." This is a significant departure from the normal policy of large retailers to keep their image, or brand, precisely the same in every location. Fast food chain buildings and menus, for example, are darn near identical wherever they happen to be. If a savvy outfit like Starbucks is breaking with that trend, what does that mean?

Is "local-ness" now a selling feature? Has the reliable predictability of national brands become a disadvantage? Or are corporations attempting to improve market penetration by keeping branded and unbranded stores in the same location? My guess is the latter. If the corner Starbucks has 25% of the market, why not put a phoney independent, "Jake's Java," (my apology to Jake if there is a real Jake's Java out there) on the opposite corner and snag an additional 25%? A different question, albeit related, is whether they can get away with it? As a consumer, I am usually looking to enjoy something with a local flavor - especially when traveling. But how will I know that Jake's last name is really "Starbuck?"

I'd like to hear from the marketing experts out there on this one.

Decline in Direct Mail Means Opportunity

CNNMoney.com reports that the volume of direct mail has declined precipitously in 2009, after gradual declines in 2007 and 2008. And that's bad news for the economy, so they say. "Less junk mail means fewer companies want to sell you their services -- whether that's personalized checks or rug cleaning -- which reflects wider problems in our economy."

Yes, they call it "junk mail," but, hey, it isn't "junk" unless you fail to recycle it. Direct mail is a 100% renewable resource, and the most credible and least intrusive way to reach potential customers. Which brings me to the point. If there is less junk mail arriving in local mail boxes, now is the ideal time to launch a direct mail campaign. There are fewer distractions and a greater chance of your marketing piece getting full attention. This is an especially good time for business to offer discounts or coupons. People still need products and services and they will go to the suppliers that get their attention with a good offer. You can bemoan the state of the economy, or you can seize the initiative to gain a bigger share of the market. And that is not junk.

No Soliciting

Every once in awhile, when I am out prospecting for customers for my printing business, I encounter a "No Soliciting" sign. Those signs always remind me of a cartoon I saw years ago. In the cartoon, a young cavalry officer who looks suspiciously like Gen. George Custer, is telling a subordinate: "Tell him to get lost, I am too busy fighting Indians to talk to some salesman!" On the other side of the tent, out of view of the two cavalrymen, is the salesman, patiently waiting for his opportunity to demonstrate a Gatling Gun, the most sophisticated automatic weapon of its time. I wish I had kept a copy of that cartoon. At the time, I was not in a position of selling, but it taught me to keep an open mind and never close doors to potential opportunities.

To be sure, some sales people are annoying and refuse to accept a polite "No, thanks." But for the most part, the people who call on me are courteous and not offensive in any way. And occasionally, they do have something that interests me. Why shouldn't I at least give them a chance to speak? What does "solicitation" mean anyway? It sounds like some kind of crime. But prospecting for business is about as American as you can get, and it is certainly not a crime. So give the next sales guy a break. Maybe he will have just the Gatling Gun that your business needs.

Nevada "Poaching" California Businesses?

If California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger wants to battle Nevada to keep business here, he need only point out that when California loses jobs, Nevada Casinos probably lose customers in the same proportion. According to a study done for the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority by GLS Research, some 28% of visitors to Las Vegas in 2008 were from California. That is almost one third of all the visitors from the USA to the neon city. And the percentage was even higher in prior years. Why else would Nevada Senator, Harry Reid be interested in a high speed rail line from L.A. to Vegas?

Here's a modest proposal. The Govenator might suggest that Californians take a 30 day hiatus from travel to the gambling mecca on our eastern border. He could temporarily "terminate" the flow of California's silver to the Silver State. Maybe then Nevada Governor Jim Gibbons, and Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman might notice the 800 pound guerrilla in the room. This would have the additional benefits of reducing traffic and air pollution in the dessert, and might also be a boost to California's own gaming and entertainment venues.

L.A. Chamber President, Gary Toebben, says that he takes the threat of losing buisnesses seriously. But he rightly points out that the current economic situation demands immediate attention and relocating won't change that. In truth, this Hatfield-McCoy style battle for businesses benefits neither state. It would be far better to work together to improve infrastructure, and cooperate on trade and transportation issues. If western states cooperate, they may find innovative solutions for some of the common problems we all face like energy, water, agriculture, illegal immigration, and health care. Seriously addressing these issues with less rancor could help build the economies of both states.

L.A. City Council Passes Billboard Ban

It looks like the L.A. City Council is trying to get its arms around the billboard blight that is so pervasive in parts of that city. They will find it tough going. The opposition is well funded and politically well connected. Over the years, state and federal laws have been skewed in favor of the outdoor advertising interests and against advocates of local control. The city of Agoura Hills banned new billboards twenty years ago, but several existing ones remain to this day.

Billboards and huge pole signs are among the most obnoxious forms of advertising. TV and radio ads can be turned off. Newspaper, magazine ads and mailers can all be ignored or quickly dismissed to the recycle bin. Even pop ups on the internet, annoying as they are, can be clicked off or avoided. Not so with mammoth signs. They intrude on our views with no recourse. The equivalent in sound would be a TV commercial with the volume turned all the way up that can't be turned off.

Cities should have local control over this type of signage. Some cities, maybe Las Vegas, may actually want them. Perhaps there are billboards that are actually attractive or perform an important public service. I will concede that possibility. But the value of these mammoth signs, their placement or restriction should be in the hands of the local authorities whose constituents are most directly affected by them. I wish the L.A. City Council success in getting control over the appearance of their great city.