Archive for the ‘Marketing / Tech Interface’ Category

“About the Blog” as a Post

Wednesday, March 14th, 2007

I had a request to publish my “About the Blog” page as a post so people could comment on it.  Here ya go Jacques.

From the Drilling Down newsletter, 12/2004:

What is the number one characteristic shared by companies who are successful in turning customer data into profits?  The company fosters and supports an analytical culture.

Web analytics and Pay-per-Click Marketing in particular have served to teach many people the basics of applying the scientific method to customer data and marketing – creating actionable reporting, tracking source to outcome, KPI’s, iterative testing, etc.  The web has allowed companies to dip a toe into the acting-on-marketing-data waters at relatively low cost and risk when compared with offline projects.  And many have seen incredible ROI.

I think web analytics could be poised in the future to serve a greater role – teaching people / companies the optimal culture for success using analytics, also at relatively low cost and risk.  It’s going to be much harder to drive this concept but more rewarding if as users we can make this happen, because today’s web analysts (and maybe analytical apps) could potentially be among tomorrow’s leaders in a data-based, analytics-driven business world.

For example, do you think analyzing / understanding new interactive data streams where the interface is not a browser will be any different, in terms of the culture required to turn interactive customer data into profitable business actions?  I don’t.

Look, a “request” is a request, whether a click, IP phone call connect, cable TV remote button push, verbal command, card swipe, RFID scan, etc.  You’re still asking a computer to do something.  The request has a source, is part of a sequence (path), and has an outcome. 

Analysis of these requests will face challenges and provide potential benefits similar to those provided right now in web site analytics.  This is the beginning of analyzing the interaction of computers, people, and process.  

Without a doubt, no matter what form these requests take, there will be a “log” of some kind to be analyzed.  Usability?  Conversion?  ROI?  These issues are not going to go away, and companies need to develop a culture that properly embraces analyzing and addressing them.  Companies not developing this culture will find themselves continuing to bump along the “drowning in data” road and will never optimize their interactive customer marketing.

As I see it, here’s the “culture” issue in a nutshell: as a company, you have to want to dig into data and really understand your business.  This pre-supposes that you (as a company) believe that understanding the guts of your business through analytics will drive actions that increase profits.  If the company doesn’t generally support this idea, there is no incentive for anyone to pursue it and the company just happily bumps down the road.

Of course most people don’t really relate to the “company”, but their own division or functional silo.  So you might have manufacturing / engineering groups who live and die through analytics but marketing is not held to the same standards and thought processes.  This is where the idea of Six Sigma Marketing comes in, it’s a “bridge” of sorts that tries to say (perhaps to the CEO and CFO), “Hey folks, if the engineers can engage in continuous improvement through ongoing analytics, so can the Customer Service silo and the Marketing silo and perhaps others.”

At a higher conceptual level, analytical culture takes root when management makes it known they are not afraid of failure, and want employees not to be afraid of it either.  

Another way to say this is experimentation and testing are encouraged throughout the company.  Failure is a regular occurrence, and is even celebrated because through failure, learning takes place.  Show me a company with no failures or that hides failure and I’ll show you a company that is asleep at the switch, afraid of its shadow, a company soon to be irrelevant to the market it serves.

Hand in hand with accepting failure must be continuous improvement.  Even though failure is embraced as a learning tool, the lesson of the failure both prevents it from happening again and results in new ideas with a higher potential for success.  These twin ideas of embracing failure / continuous improvement are at the heart of every business successful in using analytics to improve profitability.

“Evidence” of a company with the right bones to grow an analytical culture is this: you see the various levels of employees working in cross-functional teams with a common problem-solving mission.  Instead of people in a silo groaning about members from other silos being present at a problem-solving meeting, people are instead asking, “Where is finance, where is customer service?”

The most common place “analytics” live in a company is in Finance with the “Financial Analysts”, who are mostly tasked with analysis related to financial controls and producing financial reports.  If marketing or customer service was willing to expose themselves to the rigor of these analysts, they would undoubtedly be able to improve their business areas.  But that exposure takes substantial guts and confidence in your abilities, and a “culture” that supports a scientific process.

And you can’t engage in this process without analytics; success and failure need to be defined and measured.  The easiest way to encourage this culture to take root is to team a department head with a Financial Analyst familiar with the area.  

Often, you find this finance person already has insightful questions that could lead to improvement, but “never asked” because “it’s not my job”.  And often, to make changes in a business today, you need IT support of some kind.  That’s the basic cross-functional unit – Finance rep, IT rep, and a department head.  

I would also argue that if Marketing has a seat at the table in the strategic, “Voice of the Customer” sense (as opposed to being relegated to Advertising, PR, and Creative), then marketing is part of the core unit.  Then you add other disciplines as needed based on the particular problem you are trying to solve.

If the culture is flexible enough, this can turn into “Business SWAT” where the best and brightest cross-functional teams roam through the company as “consultants”, tackling the hardest business problems, which (surprise) are usually cross-functional in nature.  And “blame” is never on the agenda, it’s about “how can we help you make it better?”  You need a culture that is clear about this idea in order for people to expose themselves to the analytics-based scientific process.  Success and failure are defined by the analytics.

If you think about it, web site management ruled by analytics is a microcosm of this Business SWAT set-up.  You have marketing, finance (ROI component), and technology all working together based on the data.  That’s why I think there is a higher mission for the web analytics area / people; they are building the prototype that can teach companies how to go about measuring, managing, and maximizing a data-driven business.

At the highest level of this culture, managers “demand” these SWAT teams because the success rate and business impact is so high.  As the various departments or functional silos produce wins and losses, capital (budget) flows to where the successes are and away from the failures.  When managers see this happening, they jump on board, because they want the budget flowing their way.  This creates a natural economic supply and demand scheme with a reward system for participation built into the process.

One caution: when the culture gets to this level, the analytics group must be sanitized from the reporting hierarchy.  It can’t report to finance, or marketing, or IT anymore.  It has to be completely independent, which usually means reporting directly to the CEO.  There has to be confidence in the integrity of the results of all testing based on standards.  All the little “pools” of analytical work throughout the company must be gathered into one.

What kind of companies do you see really engaging in this kind of culture right now? Those that for legacy reasons have always had access to their operational and customer data and have been using analytics for years.  For these legacy players, web analytics is a “duh” effort – they get it right out of the box, because it’s more of the same to them.  But many types of businesses have not had this access to data before and web analytics is the first taste they are getting of the power and leverage in the scientific method.  I think this “accountability” disease we’ve created in web analytics and search marketing will continue to spread and infect every business unit.

The longer-term question is, can we flip this model over, can the successful culture of cross-functional approach and continuous improvement used in web analytics be used to create a “duh” moment for other areas of the company?  Will “best practices” and success stories create an environment where people say to the (web?) analytics team, “Hey, can I get some of that over here?”  In other words, will the analytical culture develop?

Methinks there is more going on with web analytics than meets the eye; it’s potentially a platform for the creation of a new business culture, a culture based on the scientific method – Six Sigma Everything.  Sure, it’s awkward and maybe the web is not meaningful enough yet to many companies.  But as we thrash all this out, there is something greater being learned here.

Right now, many CRM projects can’t show ROI because nobody knows what to do with the data, how to turn it into action that improves the business.  Sounds very much like web analytics 5 years ago…and look what we talk about now.  KPI’s, turning data into action.  The analytical culture playing out.

What does this mean for the people currently involved in web analytics?  If I was a young web analytics jockey, I would be preparing for the spread of the analytical culture, and seriously thinking about learning some of the tools traditionally used in offline analytics – the query stuff like Crystal Reports, the higher end stuff like SAS, SPSS, and so on.  Search the web for “CHAID” and “CART” and see if you like what you read about these analytical models.  If this kind of stuff interests you, you are much closer to being a business analyst than you think.  And guess what?  Analysts who can both develop the business case and create the metrics and methods for analysis – like you have to do for a web site – are rare.

It takes a particular mind set, and that mind set is not common.  Most of the people with the right mind set go into the hard sciences, but demand on the soft side of business (marketing, customer service, etc.) is just beginning in our data-driven world.  

On the hard side, (with all apologies to the real engineers out there for the exaggeration) the drug works or it doesn’t, the part fits or it doesn’t.  The development of softer-side marketing and service analytical techniques is always going to be populated with a lot more gray area than there is on the hard side, and it takes a special skill to conceive of and develop the metrics required.  But we should be trying to bring the same analytical rigor to the soft side of business that the hard side has always had to deal with.  The trick is to apply that rigor without damaging the mission.

For example, the whole “fire your unprofitable customers” thing from some factions in CRM.  That’s ridiculous.  What you want to do is identify them and then act appropriately, whether that means controlling their behavior, not spending additional resources on them, or not doing the things that create them in the first place.  That’s the gray showing.  You don’t just hit the “reject button” on a customer.

Customer data is customer data.  It’s all going to end up in one place eventually as the analytical culture spreads, and those with the skills to apply the scientific method across every customer data set are going to be rare and in very high demand.  Don’t spend all your spare time watching the Forensic Files on Court TV.  You’re a business analyst.  Get out there and learn the rest of your craft!

And, please consider doing whatever you can, whenever you can, to spread the analytical culture within your company.  If most of what your analytics involve is “online marketing”, reach out to “offline service” or another silo and ask if you can help them with anything.  What’s the call they would like to take less of, can you use the web site to make that happen – and prove that it worked?  Can you use the web site to generate offline ROI?  

Web analysts, you are the cross-functional prototype.  Please teach others how to optimize the entire business.

*** A Formula for Alignment

Wednesday, March 7th, 2007

I’ve written pretty frequently about the Marketing / IT interface.  This article from CIO Magazine provides a firm roadmap on how to integrate and manage a development team consisting of IT and non-IT people.  The really interesting thing going on with this IT / medical team is some of the clinical folks ending up learning so much about IT processes and techniques they crossed the border and became IT folks!  That is some career move, and testimony to the successful management of the development team.  Check out the article here.

Reporting versus Analysis: The “Actionable” Debate

Wednesday, February 7th, 2007

Gary Angel and Eric Peterson have been having a great exchange surrounding the definition of KPI’s, and more specifically, the requirement that they be actionable.   Gary started out with the position the “criteria of actionability is unsound in almost every way” but I think both he and Eric have resolved in the middle somewhere – it’s really about context.  Gary is right, to take any metric ”naked” at face value without surrounding context is simply not good analytical practice.  But I would argue (and I think Eric agrees) that to build a KPI in the first place, you must already have the required context, or you don’t have a KPI.  So that leaves us with “how you define a KPI” as (I think) the final resting point, and there really isn’t anywhere to go after that.  Your comments on my analysis welcome.

However, I think the ideas Gary has exposed run deeper than just the KPI discussion.  The situation Gary is addressing – making sure people really understand that every metric requires business context to be functional - requires attention because web analytics is a very fast growing field with a lot of brand new people in it who may have not been exposed to proper analytical training. Or, not challenged to do any real analysis by weak managers.

These new people frequently don’t understand the difference between Reporting and Analysis.  A “Reporting” mentality (provide data) leads to the improper use of analytical ideas like KPI.  Analysis (provide insight) would automatically take into account a lot of other factors, as Gary has suggested.  Knowing all those factors (because you are doing real analysis), you can certainly take movements in a KPI as actionable.  As Eric says, that “action” is often a more focused analysis of some kind.  KPI’s are really just “tripwires” that alert you to a problem or opportunity that requires further analysis.

My concern (and in the end, I think Gary’s) is that often the Reporting mentality is Robotic and that the reaction taken to change in a KPI might be equally Robotic if you don’t have the proper context.  What often happens in Pay-per-Click testing is a great example of this, and a lot of the multivariate stuff people are now addicted to is an extreme example. 

You can look at conversion rates, make changes to landing pages, and try to optimize the “Scenario”.  This is Reporting, not Analysis.  Can you provide insight into why the changes you made worked?  For example, can you explain the improvement in terms of Psychology or Consumer Behavior?  Usability?  If so, that would be Analysis, and the answers would be applicable to a wide range of other challenges on the site.  Without knowing why the changes worked, you are left with simple Reporting that applies to only a single specific Scenario.  Nothing was really learned here.

Take this same idea to the extreme, and you get what often happens in multivariate testing.  You can certainly run a multivariate test on 5 variables at the same time, and find a “winning combination”, but this is Reporting, not Analysis – in fact, it’s black-box reporting in the extreme.  For example, how do you know that you chose the 5 most important variables to optimize?  How do you know the options you chose for each variable are the most powerful?  Isn’t it just as likely that the final optimization you achieved is suboptimal, a local maximum, as it is the solution is truly optimal? 

In other words, isn’t it possible that what you have created with the robot is better than you had, but is not even close to being the best it can be?

Dear Reader, you’re asking, why should I care about this Reporting versus Analysis issue?  Because here is what will happen without real Analysis: you are going to “hit the wall”.  One day, there will simply be nothing left you can do to improve on what you have done.  Reporting is only going to take you so far.  Frustrated, you will probably Analyze the situation and realize you have “optimized” yourself into a corner by taking something that was fundamentally broken in the first place and making it better than it was.  You can’t make it any better unless you wipe it out and start again.  That’s a huge waste of resources, right?

See CRM if you need an example of what can happen when you automate worst practices.  And they’re going to fix it 8 years later by bolting on Business Intelligence?  Um, shouldn’t the Analysis have come first?

The Deconstruction of Marketing

Tuesday, January 30th, 2007

Seems to me these days “Marketing” is being deconstructed into a bunch of pieces.  When I was coming up through the ranks, Marketing included Customer Service plus all the stuff now called CRM, Customer Experience, and all the related ideas.  The person in charge of Marketing was in charge of all these things.  It made so much sense to manage a business this way, because to control your fate as a Marketer, you had to control or at least influence all the customer touchpoints.  So why are these responsibilities being split off into little sub-cultures today?

The answer is they’re not really; that’s just the way it looks to me, because every industry I worked in for 25 years was rich with customer data and we used that data to prove why it made so much sense for Marketing to be in charge of all these aspects of the company interface with the customer.  We proved time and time again that by exerting cross-silo influence where the customer was involved, Marketing could generate much improved profitability.  Every Marketing program worked even harder towards generating profits when Marketing got all the silos aligned.

So I guess it just looks to me (and some other data-driven Marketing folks) like these functions are being split out of Marketing.  The reality is that many companies never had any of these data-driven functions before, and when they start getting access to customer data, they created these areas as new entities.  The question: why not create them under Marketing?  This approach sure would have saved a lot of trouble in CRM, for example. 

And I suspect the answer is the Marketing folks took one look at this new data-driven world with the associated need to have a basic understanding of technology issues, and said, “No thanks, I’ll stick to Advertising and PR”.  And as Marketers let go of / failed to capture control of these key operational touchpoints with the customer, they essentially devolved Marketing from a strategic C-Level force into “MarCom”.

And that’s a real shame.  This splintering of Marketing Management by technological issues is a waste of time at best and a long term problem at worst.  Ultimately, after we go through all this CRM and Chief Experience Officer stuff and whatever else you want to call it (seems like a new name every day), people will realize that all of this belongs in Marketing.  And then we’ll just need some brave Marketing folks who think they can handle it to step up to the plate and really make it work.  If you’re a mid-level MarCom person and want to start preparing for this transition, start making some friends in Finance, Technology, and Customer Service.  Find out what it is that keeps them awake at night, and think about how Marketing could help solve their problems.

And to jump-start your brain towards making Marketing decisions based on customer data rather than using nameless, faceless GRP’s, try taking a look at the business side of web analytics.  You’ll be amazed at how much of it transfers directly to Data-based / CRM / Customer Experience Marketing.  Why?  Because the web analytics community has decided best practices require a cross-functional team approach with a focus on Customer Experience and a requirement to examine the Financial implications of actions taken.  Web analytics teams are a functioning microcosm of what Marketing used to be, and what it should be in the future.

I’m not clear on the Chief Customer Officer concept…

Thursday, January 18th, 2007

I don’t have any problem with the direction Jeanne Bliss provides regarding how to become the “customer champion” in your company, especially the idea of aligning with the CFO and CIO.

What I’m trying to figure out is why this is not Marketing’s job; seems to me the CMO should be the Chief Customer Officer, complete with the ultimate responsibility for Customer Service.  Otherwise, it seems like this CCO position is just an excuse for people keeping their heads in their own silos and letting somebody else worry about cross-functional processes, customer experience, and defects.

In other words, do we really need a unique exec to be able to create / enforce / enable cross-silo functionality on the “soft” side (marketing, service, some fulfillment) of the business?  After all, the CIO and CFO operate across all the silos, why can’t the CMO?  As Ron said in his excellent piece What Marketers Should Learn From IT, the CMO now needs to get involved in the whole business and act cross-functionally to be successful, as the folks in IT have learned.

I guess the answer is probably that “Marketing” has been redefined over the years and has somehow lost the strategic seat at the table, morphing downward into “MarCom”.  This has not happened at all companies – I can tell you at most truly data-driven companies, the CMO is the Chief Customer Officer, because these folks / the company understand how the totality of the customer experience affects Marketing Productivity.

Perhaps the answer to Kevin’s question on what happens to the Marketing folks in the catalog business as the web takes over is this: they become Chief Customer Officers or consultants to them like Jeanne Bliss, formerly of Lands’ End.  After all, they already know how to do the Chief Customer Officer job.

Sense And Respond Marketing

Wednesday, January 10th, 2007

Ron Shevlin of database marketing powerhouse Epsilon thinks a new core competency requirement for marketers is the “ability move customers through the buying cycle with a sense-and-respond capability”.  This is something I often talk to people about, it’s really a subset of the “I have the data, now what do I do?” problem.  Marketers are more familiar with creating campaigns based on nameless, faceless GRP’s than the behavior of real people.  And that’s the problem. 

I think part of the problem is in segmentation, they simply don’t understand how powerful behavioral segmentation is, how different it is than using demographics – and they lack the ability to ask for / get this information in a format that drives action-oriented thinking.  The granularity of “people” as opposed to GRP’s throws them off.  With Sense And Respond Marketing, or what I would call Relationship Marketing, you use the Customer LifeCycle to influence messaging which is meaningful to people based on behavior, not demographics.  The behavior is the message, not the age, income, make of car, or whatever.  Using behavior makes so much more sense when you see an 80 year old on a Harley.

Here’s an example.  One thing that happens with interactivity is people tend to “gorge” themselves on something, get tired of it, and move on to the next experience (video games, Friendster).  So you have to work very hard to hold on to them.  At HSN, we used to listen very carefully to what customers said on the air and reviewed comment trends in customer service every single day.  One thing we started hearing was “I’ve only got 10 fingers” which is the customer saying “you are selling too much jewelry”.  At the same time, we were looking at the LifeCycle of best customers and found that most of them were fashion buyers who started buying in jewelry – regardless of how old they were or what their incomes were.

So we have customers telling us we sell too much jewelry, and we end up losing a lot of them because they get bored.  But at the same time, best customers are created when someone starts buying jewelry and moves into fashion.  We have a natural transition from new customer / jewelry to best customer / fashion that some customers found their way to and others did not.  Knowing this behavior exists and that it’s very profitable for HSN, can we influence it?  Can we get more people to make the jewelry to fashion transition with a marketing campaign of some kind?

Well, the first thing is timing.  When to drop the campaign?  You can’t drop it on a “date” to all customers, you have new customers coming on each day and they are going through a LifeCycle.  However, the data said if the customer did not start buying fashion by the 120th day of their LifeCycle, they would probably never buy fashion.  So somewhere in that 90 – 120th day after becoming a new customer, we need to hit them with a “buy fashion” message.

OK, so what is the message?  Well, we know from customer comments (and remote selling in general) that people are reluctant to buy fashion remotely because they are worried about fit.  So what would be the easiest fashion item to sell a remote customer?  How about something like a running suit, you know, Small-Med-Large-XLarge?

So we put together these special fashion shows geared to “no brainer fit” fashions and had them run at very specific times on the network that we could promote to the customer in advance.  We dropped a very simple piece that said, “We’d really like you to try our fashions, here is $10 off, here is when to watch” kind of thing.  And we dropped it somewhere in the 90 – 120 day window after the customer’s first purchase.  Understand, these pieces went out every week but they went to very specific people with specific behavior who were entering “the zone” of 90 - 120 days after first purchase of jewelry.

And we literally printed money from that point on with this program.  For every $1 in cost, we generated $25 in incremental (versus control) profit in the first year of the customer life, every day, day in and day out, as a higher percentage of new customers converted into long-term, highly profitable fashion buyers.

Was that a hard program to design?  Not to me, seems completely logical.  You have behavior, you know the customer, you have timing points, copy is simple and direct.  I think Ron probably had something a little more sophisticated in mind when he wrote Sense And Respond Marketing, but the basic concept is the same (and after all, we were dealing with mainframes and snail mail at HSN in 1994, so cut me some slack!).

So why is it again that people have this “I have the data, now what do I do” problem?  I suspect it’s because they may have the data, but it’s not in any kind of actionable report format that generates ideas.  GRP Marketers simply don’t know how to ask for the data / can’t get the data in a format that lends itself to creating effective campaigns.  And that’s a shame, because it’s pretty simple to have someone do it for you or you can do it yourself.

Do You Read IT Management Magazines?

Wednesday, January 10th, 2007

If not, why not?  Just because you are a marketer?  How then, do you talk to IT people in a language they can (partially) understand and get anything done?  How will you increase the Productivity of your marketing efforts without having a useful dialogue with IT?  If you can’t increase the Productivity of your programs and deliver better results, what will happen is your job will be “absorbed into the Network”, as Regis McKenna would say.

If you are in Marketing Management and are looking for a seat at the strategic table you have to understand some of this stuff.  The CEO, COO, and CFO do; why not you?

At least try to read these magazines:

Intelligent Enterprise – the data / architecture side of Marketing Productivity; Business Intelligence, Data Modeling

Optimize Magazine – More about Business Process Stuff; Modeling, Management, Sensing and Alerting, Six Sigma

BaseLine Magazine – This provides hard core, detailed case studies on Business Optimization.  Amazing stuff, hard to believe they get execs to fess up to some of these giant productivity disasters.  Mostly focuses on operations, but why is operations not of your concern?  Operations impacts the customer, the customer is your main focus (right?).  When you read these cases, imagine how these customer-touchpoint disasters affected the outcome of every marketing program running at the company.

DM Review – this one can be some tough sledding, a lot of it is about systems, but hey, how long are you not going to care about systems?

You will not understand everything these magazines are talking about (especially the last one), but that’s not the point.  The point is to learn what they are talking about, and try to figure out how you can take advantage of it when it happens.

Heck, even help it happen or make sure it happens in a way that is the most productive for marketing.  These magazines are must reads for any marketing person thinking of joining a Business Swat team.

*** Consumers Want One Thing, Merchants Deliver Another

Monday, January 8th, 2007

Internet Retailer Magazine provides this article based on interviews with 2,472 online shoppers.  Shoppers ranked the “helpfulness” of a list of functions on retail websites; merchants ranked the “value” of these same functions. 

Areas where the consumer gave high rankings but merchants gave low rankings:

Product Comparison
Customer Reviews
Order History
Loyalty Program

Areas where the consumer gave low rankings but merchants gave high rankings:

What’s New
Upsell / Cross-sell
Top Sellers
Gift Suggestions

The author of the article does a good job of laying out what this all means about customer behavior and I concur so I won’t get into it.  It’s pretty clearly an example of Marketing Non-Productivity though.  How could this happen?

Well, probably because there were no marketing people involved with the design of the basic shopping cart, or if there were, they didn’t know anything about customer behavior.  The myth of cross-sell and upsell continues today.  You don’t cross-sell or upsell anything to somebody they didn’t already want.  Trust me.  So to waste all this time on cross-selling and upselling instead of producing better marketing, design, and systems is ridiculous.  Offering someone a related product that they would have bought anyway if they had only been able to find it is highly unproductive.

However, the above situation does sound like a very good setup for my friends at Bazaarvoice and Kobie Marketing

***** From Crayons to Calculators

Tuesday, January 2nd, 2007

Not sure Crayons are the best compare, but Calculators work for me.  In this article from CRM Magazine we hear about how the accountability movement is affecting marketers, and about the need for closer alignment with other silo functions to increase Productivity.  That’s pretty much what my blog is about; what do you think?

The “alignment with IT” thing is the really sticky part; it’s interesting that more IT people seem willing to learn marketing concepts than the other way around (see web analytics).  But I have to tell ya, every place I have worked it has paid off big time on the marketing side to get with the engineering or IT folks and try to understand the basics of what they do and how things work in the company.

When I was in cable TV, I went out with the installers and engineers on a regular basis just to figure out what they cared about and what they did.  This interaction led to a string of marketing programs based around engineering issues that not only improved productivity on the technical side of the business but also generated good returns on the marketing side.

The classic was running contests on the system that only cable subs could see, targeting areas where we suspected there was a high theft of service level.  People hooked into the system illegally would call up to claim their prize and we would politely ask them if they would like to subscribe… “Mr. Smith, the contest is for cable customers only and we have no record of service with you.  If you’d like, I can sign you up and then you will be eligible for the prize…”

Yes, engineering, marketing, and customer service had to work together to pull it off.  Is that really such a weird idea?