How I Would Market a School Training Program to Save the Lives of Students from an Armed Terrorist
April 26, 2011
What are the odds that a school will suffer a terrorist attack the way Columbine did? Extremely small.
Would you like your child and others in the school to reduce the risks even more? Probably.
Why would you want this, if the risks are so low? Here are my reasons.
When it's life or death, vote for life.
It is good for young adults to take responsible action.
It is good for everyone to reduce fear.
It is good to put terrorists on the defensive.
It is good to acknowledge reality: risk exists.
When it's cheap to reduce risk, pay for it.
I have come across a company that trains school administrators, teachers, and students how to prepare for an attack. I approve of its goal.
I think its marketing could be better.
Part of the marketing is to put videos on YouTube. This is a good strategy. Here is one of the videos. It's very good. It has a section spliced out: raising the desk. But the basic defensive tactic is good. Watch it.
Classroom coordination and training are what makes this tactic work: a systematic response. The key is speed. A would-be shooter can't respond fast enough. He is confused. The students aren't.
The trainer does not mention this fact. If someone has a gun pointed at you, he has decided not to shoot you for now. Whatever reason he has for not shooting you is an inhibiting factor. It slows his response. This classroom tactic uses this against him.
The company sells training to schools. That's also a good idea. It sells DVDs and manuals. This is legitimate. www.actcert.com.
It prices the training package at $2,500 for schools. It's cheap for the benefit conveyed.
But if I were in charge of marketing, I would do it differently.
A MARKETING STRATEGY
I would put everything on-line for free: videos, manuals, promotionals: the whole shebang. Why? Because this is what I call a priestly service. It is aimed at saving the lives of innocent people. So, give it away.
Here is what I find. People want information. But they also want personalized, hand-on training to implement the information. They will pay for the training if they (1) think the benefit is high enough, (2) they trust the trainer, (3) they think they can do it. The free videos/manuals provide all three aspects.
People want to be taught in person or at least individually on the phone or Skype. The best way to generate income by teaching anything that requires a major commitment to implement is to persuade lots of people with money that they need the benefit. Then sell them the training to implement the program.
Here is my recommended marketing strategy. Give away the digital training that can be delivered for free. Sell the personal, one-on-one implementation .
Who is the market? Parents, teachers, students, administrators, and school boards. There will not be one negative voice against the benefit. The company need only overcome price resistance. That is a unique position to be in.
There should be two marketing avenues. The first is based on YouTube. It is aimed exclusively at parents: each grade level of school. The videos direct the viewers to the main site.
The site is in two sections: free (parents) and members-only (school officials).
The parent's section offers three separate classifications: elementary school middle school, high school. Each video is embedded on a page devoted to one problem/solution.
The goal of this part of the site is two-fold: (1) to inform parents of what can be done and should be done to protect their children; (2) to motivate the parents to contact their principals and invite them to join the members-only part of the site.
In the members-only part of the site -- also free -- the materials are presented on what the school must do: A through Z. To get access to these videos (hosted by Amazon S3), the person must register: name, school, district, position, and email. He/she must agree to let the firm send updates to the email address.
It's all free so far, but to get the proprietary information, the person must get on the mailing list. Here is where the sales will be made: personal training on actual implementation. This is not free.
MOTIVATION
A parent thinks: "I wish our school district had this program. I'll tell the principal." The principal thinks: "I would like this, but I'm just not sure I could pull it off." The superintendent thinks: "I want reduced liability. My employees need training to do the training."
Nobody thinks: "Most parents would not want their kids ready to defend themselves in a Columbine-type crisis."
If my child were killed as a first-line, trained responder in a coordinated effort of the entire school to disarm the attacker, I would figure: "Death in the line of duty is the price free men occasionally must pay." What I would not want is for some maniac to go through the room shooting terrified kids in the head, one by one. My preference is for a terrified, now-disarmed maniac wondering if some kid -- now holding the weapon -- is going to kill him. When it comes to motivation, I think a kid holding a gun at a terrorist's head and saying "don't move, or I really will pull the trigger" is highly motivational.
I think most students would think the same. The ones who don't think so can run for the sidelines, as trained. The two who think they are ready to bear the responsibility to be a front-line responder can volunteer. Those two get to the door, ready to flatten the intruder.
I presume that the several more students are trained to reinforce the first two as soon as he goes down: to get the gun.
Schools want to teach self-esteem. I can think of no better way to teach it.
I doubt that any student in the worst inner city school would think, "This drill is a waste of my time. I'll ridicule this." That student is in an environment that places him or her most at risk from an armed student who goes on a shooting spree. You will not have to motivate kids in that classroom to cooperate.
To get a fast response, everyone has to know in advance what to do. It requires drill. Students in those front chairs must know: "With the seat comes responsibility." It's like sitting in a exit aisle in an airplane.
In the video, two girls take down the intruder. In an all-girls school, I'm for it. But I don't think girls will have to volunteer in any high school or middle school with mixed genders.
If a teacher is present in the room, he or she should be the first line of defense. That comes with the territory. I think the biggest boy in the room will be by the door, too. My guess is that, if the teacher is female, two big boys will greet the intruder. That is what big boys do.
If I were a terrorist, I would choose another school.