When smart marketing gets stupid
Sorry, Nordstrom. I just canceled my subscription to your free email newsletter after receiving yet another “Not Your Daughter’s Jeans” edition. Last I checked, Nordstrom sells men’s clothes, too, but their email subscription doesn’t ask you to input your gender, what type of clothing you’re interested in, or any information whatsoever. This is a massive missed opportunity for targeted marketing, and in my opinion completely fails to take advantage of the point of email subscription lists.

When “smart marketing” tactics turn out to be just as stupid as traditional tactics (i.e., Nordstrom’s emails are no more targeted than their billboards) it’s not only a waste of capability, it’s frustrating from the consumer’s standpoint. I propose the following rule of smart marketing: if you’re going to offer to send me information about what your brand has to offer, please know enough about me to make sure it’s relevant. If Nordstrom’s website was really smart, they could guess what kinds of things I’d be interested in hearing about based on my behavior on the site (think Amazon, and its recommendations based on your shopping behavior).
Worse yet is when companies collect the information and then fail to use it. You may have had this experience:
- You call your wireless service provider to ask a question or report a problem.
- An automated system asks you to input your phone number to make sure they can “serve you as efficiently as possible.” You enter it.
- A service representative picks up the phone, and immediately asks you to repeat your phone number. You say “I just entered it into your automated system.” They tell you they need it again.
Is this some kind of prank they’re playing on us? The worst was when my wireless company neglected to get in touch with me about a significant change in my contract. When I called them about it, they assured me that it had been included as a note on my most recent bill (it was in the fine print). Sure, it was in their best interest not to tell me about the change, as it caused a fee increase, but there was no need for my wireless phone provider to insult my intelligence by implying they didn’t have any other way of reaching me.
So, rule 2: Once I’ve given you permission to use my personal information for your own benefit, please make sure you use it for my convenience too.
How about you? Any other examples of stupid smart marketing?
P.S. – Nordstrom, I’m no fashion expert—far from it—but when I visited your homepage while writing this and saw these “embellished sandals,” I almost regurgitated my Greek yogurt. God forbid I have to see them again when you mail me your Women’s Shoes catalog.
P.P.S. – Sorry to be a hypocrite, but if you sign up to receive Semantic Argument emails (above), I’ll just assume you’ve self-segmented yourself as someone who’s interested in everything on the blog.


Rob Meyerson works with clients to find creative solutions that inform brand strategy, positioning, identity, and communications.






Paul van Winkle | May 12th, 2009 at 12:34 pm #
First, I’m self-segmented, at least here, so be as dumb as you wanna be, you’re among friends.
Second, I’ve noticed that being ’smart’ isn’t always in the corporate economic interest. Because if their operational model is based on older cultural, ethical and/or technical standards, there’re many ways to bilk, over-charge and/or up-charge customers by simply ‘blaming the system”. (The same one they have, and are running.) Dumb like a fox.
Bob Sullivan wrote a good book about such “stupid” practices
( http://www.amazon.com/Gotcha-Capitalism-Hidden-Every-Day/dp/0345496132 ), and Naomi Klein reported on an even wider view ( http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine )
Third, interoperability is the key technical issue, methinks, preventing well-intentioned companies from linking smart into their value chain. It takes a large and dedicated effort by many committed, smart people. And, funny thing: it’s not that hard. Someone at the top just needs to directly relate “customer care” to “income/revenue”.
“I’m sorry, our systems don’t ‘talk’ to eachother – can you give me that information again?”, really translates as: we’re oblivious to anything that doesn’t concern us and our reality tunnel.
I wonder if corporate cultures that fail to care or ask questions — of customers, employees and in general — just avoid smarts altogether because that’s been their patterning, and they’ve “competed” and “won” so far without ‘em?