Seth Godin was kind enough to respond to my email about his Big Opportunity idea for Google Gmail.
Typically I love Godin's marketing ideas. And he raised good points that there are better ways to provide a public service than e-mail and as a business venture, advertisers would want people that can buy online.
Maybe my original post sounded like I was talking about email solely as a social good. Doing good and good business aren't necessarily such separate endeavors. But I wanted to clarify.
First, I think markets worldwide extend beyond the top 10% of the wealth pyramid. For companies seeking greater growth they can't be ignored.
And even though many people do not have credit cards on a global basis, this does not mean they do not buy. Increasingly these shared/rented PCs will allow for prepaid cards and smartcard readers. And advertising online does not need to translate to online sales. Even with credit card holders, people will buy where and how they want to buy and not always necessarily online (I worked for over 4 years in the Internet commerce space).
The family I lived with in Guatemala had one refrigerator shared among 3 families, they did their wash by hand on the pila and I was never sure if there would be running water available for a shower in the late afternoon. But everyone over the age of 12 owned their own cellphone -- they weren't top of the line models but they cared deeply whether they were Nokia or Motorola. The 13-year-old girl was totally obsessed about getting a Sony CD digital music portable player for her birthday.
And, the punitive nature of the proposal ($20 per "spam" -- and it is possible to spoof email addresses) sets up an adversarial relationship (built on mistrust) between every Gmail customer and Google.
I just feel there is no need for the Google e-mail service to be exclusionary or set up barriers that would curb global uptake. Google is a global brand. A global Lovemark.
Lovemarks transcend brands. They deliver beyond your expectations of great performance. Like great brands, they sit on top of high levels of respect - but there the similarities end.Lovemarks reach your heart as well as your mind, creating an intimate, emotional connection that you just can’t live without. Ever.
Take a brand away and people will find a replacement. Take a Lovemark away and people will protest its absence. Lovemarks are a relationship, not a mere transaction. You don’t just buy Lovemarks, you embrace them passionately. That’s why you never want to let go.
Put simply, Lovemarks inspire 'Loyalty Beyond Reason'.
The online community at www.lovemarks.com voted Google #8 in terms of most loved brands, as of this writing (rankings are dynamic depending on additions). Apple (and separately iPod) ranked even higher (not surprisingly if you know any Apple aficionados). IBM was #380. And I finally gave up looking for Microsoft after #500.
Microsoft's other woes pale in comparison to this one, in my view. It's Google's Lovemark and their customers' trust and loyalty to lose.
P.S. I'll be writing more about Lovemarks. Lest you think the Lovemarks concept came from someone that works at Hallmark, the concept was noted and then further developed by Kevin Roberts, Worldwide CEO of one of the most well-known advertising agencies, Saatchi & Saatchi. Prior to joining Saatchi & Saatchi, Roberts was at Gillette, Pepsi-Cola, and Procter & Gamble. Robert's new book, Lovemarks: The Future Beyond Brands will be out in May.
Comments