There was a recent article in the Wall Street Journal titled “Firms Hold Fast to Snail Mail Marketing.” It seemed to be about small businesses who gave up their direct mail efforts in favor of email to either save money and/or because it seemed like the hip thing to do.
The particular companies profiled in this article told personal stories about how email didn’t generate the same positive results. In some cases, the owners actually heard from long-time customers asking what had happened to the letters/reminders/postcards they had received in the past.
This is because email is beside the point. Establishing a connection with a prospect or customer is and always has been what’s most important. Think first about your history and what type of communications have worked in the past. What kind of outreach prospects or clients appreciate. What makes them feel special. What generates orders, referrals and repeat business. One of the owners profiled in the article discontinued his art-based postcard mailings, only to discover the cards permanently displayed in his clients’ offices. His customers started calling him asking whether they’d been taken off the company’s mailing list.
What we have right there, friends, is some serious brand love.
Testing is fine. It would be foolish not to test new technologies, which are usually cheaper and more easily wielded than the old ones. And compromises must sometimes be made in order to preserve cash. But – putting dollars aside – the beginning of the value chain is the relationship with the customer, and at the distant far end is the tactics you choose to reinforce and grow that relationship. Too many executives (particularly those in small companies, who either can’t afford good marketing help or get less-than-great advice) are putting social media at the forefront of their thinking because they’re reading about whatever the heck it is everywhere they go.
I tell these folks that they were right the first time when their gut was to do something special – something that showed they cared. If you can replicate this more cheaply, by all means do it: but don’t let any new whiz-bang communications vehicle get in the way.
There was a bona fide reason that I used to react badly to – well – bad gifts. Despite my mother’s it’s-the-thought-that-counts coaching, and the annual ”You don’t have to actually wear it” rationale, I was powerless to resist the disappointment.
Since 1993, Wharton economist Joel Waldfogel has been studying the value created (or not created) by holiday spending, and how we may react badly to gifts because we see the opportunity cost of not buying ourselves something we actually wanted. In his new book, Scroogenomics, Waldfogel tells us that, although warm and fuzzy U.S. folk gave $66 billion worth of holiday gifts in 2007, the value of recipients’ satisfaction is much lower: so low, in fact, that it actually created an “annual deadweight loss of $12 billion.”
Waldfogel estimates such “lost value” from student surveys he’s conducted at Princeton over many years. When a student is asked to (a) guess the value of a gift and (b) guess the same for items she purchased herself, she will almost inevitably underestimate the price the gift giver paid and overestimate the value of products she buys herself by 18%.
Amazing.
I completely understand the psychology of overestimating the value of something I might buy for myself because doing so helps reinforce my purchase decision. What cracks me up is how low our expectations of others are – and how accurate. The least “efficient” gifts, says Waldfogel tend to be from relatives who haven’t seen you in a long time (and so do not know your preferences).
So suck on that when the niece you haven’t seen for 11 years tells you she hates the color pink – while she’s holding the pink sweater you just gave her. Your goth niece just can’t help it: her reaction to your lame gift is bigger than both of you.
The only smart things to do are give gift cards (less tacky than cash) or overcome your embarrassment about not knowing her and email your niece to ask what she’d really want. She won’t assign as much value to the black nail polish, eyeshadow and lipstick as she would have had she bought them herself… but it’s a start.
New Balance has created an online/social media campaign and (offline) line of shoes that marries both worlds in the most elegant way.
The 574 men’s and women’s collection is made entirely of left-over scraps of cloth in the company’s Lawrence, MA factory and, as a result, each pair is just a bit different – each has its own personality, you might say. A very special, limited line deserves equally powerful promotion, and the company’s ad agency, Mother, knew it.
When you buy a 574 pair from one of ten boutiques in the U.S., there’s a special Polaroid photograph in the box. The owner can then go to 574Clips.com, and match the Polaroid to a special mini-film about the shoe. Once the film has played, the happy shoe wearer can add his/her name at the end of the film. The film for 106Red appears to show a man dipping a carrot into the shoe (for dip, or course), while 115Green has a lovable furry muppet (with green nose to match) admiring a pair of shoes. Each is very short and fun – check out one or two for yourself, and see if it doesn’t make you want to buy the shoes.
574Clips.com also features links to Facebook, MySpace, De.li.ci.ous and Tumblr, so buyers of these unique shoes can tell (and show) all their friends. The campaign is also tied to sneaker culture blogs like High Snobiety and Nice Kicks.
Anyone who watches Entourage (Episode 3, Season 6) knows how culturally important “sneakerheads” are – the (mostly) men who must have the hottest, most limited sneaker available tend to be heavy influencers and leading indicators of pop culture trends and information. It’s a valuable and – in their own milieu – sophisticated crowd, and Mother has delivered an equally sophisticated communications plan. The blending of manufacturing, blogs, web, community, video and product is exceptional.
And now I must sign off – I’m on my way to Reed Space: the only shop in NYC to carry the $75 shoes with the special Polaroid inside…
Yet another result of the flailing economy: truly new brand launches are faltering while brand extensions are succeeding.
In 2008, less than 10% of new products were “net new brands,” even though the pace of product introduction was about on par with the last five years. Take a look at the top food and non-food brand launches of last year:
If you remove the pharma/DTC products (which are in a psychic/regulatory/financial class all their own), all the products on these lists are extensions or reformulations.
In the best of times, launching a truly new product is extremely difficult and expensive. Manufacturing, distribution, marketing – starting from scratch is daunting. In a recession, success is even more difficult to achieve.
Then there’s the consumer psyche to consider: what are the monetary and non-monetary risks of trying something truly new? Who hasn’t been curious enough about a new launch – let’s say something perishable that cannot be returned – to try it out? But when money is scarce, the news is full of stories of imprudent spending and people are making trade-offs among the smallest of purchases, the price of “wasting” money suddenly becomes very high. I will feel foolish if I buy this and don’t like it when there are existing substitutes that I know are good enough.
The other thing that’s noticeable about these lists and others is that the “closest in” extensions win: an existing brand holds a space in the consumer’s mind, a range of functionality and messaging in which that brand has credibility. Hershey’s can launch new candies, Porsche can introduce a “wireless racing wheel” for gaming, Mr. Clean can (sort of) try out the car washing business.
But a $1,200 Disney Sleeping Beauty fountain pen or Kellogg’s hip-hop streetwear? Not so much.
Ah, the sweet satisfaction of being able to vent. You know the feeling: you have an awful customer service experience and vow to tell every man, woman and child all about it until the day you keel over.
And so you do.
But how many people is that – 5, 6, maybe 10? And how quickly did you stop telling anyone about it – a week?
Brands often still behave as if they live in that world when – in reality – that world is gone forever. The “social media” phenomenon has seen to that. And I preach this as often as possible, even making presentations on the topics of online reputation management, the implications of new sites and technologies for marketers and how companies need to adjust to survive.
But we all know that this doesn’t happen. Three of my all-time favorite this-reputation-disaster-could-have-been-avoided stories are Jeff Jarvis’ Dell Hell, the recording of Vincent Ferrari trying for 15+ minutes to cancel his AOL account and KFC/Taco Bell doing nothing for hours and hours while local NY news crews shot video through the front window of a closed store while rats scurried here there and everywhere, thereby turning a gross story into a global event (not a good day for Yum Brands…).
Today, I share my latest fave: Sons of Maxwell creating an absolutely masterful video and song, “United Breaks Guitars,” about an awful experience it had with United Airlines.
It seems that the band, Sons of Maxwell, were on the tarmac in Chicago when some fellow United Airline passengers looked out the window and saw one of the bandmember’s $3,500 guitars being thrown by United baggage handlers. The guitar was severely damaged and unplayable. United did not deny responsibility, but tortured the band for nine months until finally refusing to compensate the guitar’s owner, Dave Carroll, for the loss.
Mr. Carroll subsequently vowed to “write and produce three songs about my experience with United Airlines and make videos for each to be viewed online by anyone in the world.” HERE IS THE FIRST of the three:
The video was viewed 150,000 times in its first 48 hours and several comments on the page are from those who say that the band’s experience has negatively impacted their opinion of United Airlines. One person remarks that, based on the video, he shifted a group’s travel plans to another airline, thereby costing United about $10,000.
Now I’ve worked in plenty of places, and know that sometimes individual employees can be dimwits (the video dramatizes the apparent reaction three in-flight airline employees had when first alerted to the problem). I also know that it’s a fact of life that a company can’t resolve every customer service complaint to a person’s satisfaction: some companies even calculate the likelihood and cost of getting sued, based on past experience, and consciously do not address costly errors. History dictates that it’s more cost effective to take the risk of a lawsuit. But this… is not that.
The guitar cost $3,500. United Airlines does not deny responsibility. By the time Carroll is finished, I predict well north of 1 million views of his videos: videos that will last forever and be ”rediscovered” from time to time.
We’ll see. United says it has contacted Carroll, but first reports say that the airline likes the song (gee, thanks) but has not yet offered remuneration.
In the meantime, the band sold 40 albums on its website in 24 hours after releasing the video. It usually sells one per day.
I have no idea if they’ll sell even one tampon, but P&G’s Tampax is the stealth sponsor of a series of viral videos that tell the story of a 16-year-old boy who wakes up with – uh – “girl parts.” And at least from an art point of view… they’re good. Click HERE if you do not see the ad below.
Leo Burnett created the campaign at Zack16.com. Its big link to the brand thus far is when our hero, Zack, gets his first period in French class and sneaks into the girl’s bathroom looking for a Tampax vending machine.
P&G calls it “a learning lab out on the net” that’s “not very heavily branded at all.” Hmm. And so far the videos aren’t a huge hit, with about 10,000 views in the past week on YouTube and elsewhere.
I really wanted to dislike this campaign and - if I were a P&G stockholder - I probably would. I also wonder if the best way to pitch tampons to young women is with stories about young men baking brownies, but what do I know? I hope it sells something.
In the meantime, I’m enjoying the work of a good copywriter and have started following Zack on Twitter at @ZackJohnson16. He appears to be trying to figure out how to manage menstruating while at soccer camp.
Note: the “hovers like a UFO” comment is from the Day 3 video. Really – these are pretty humorous.
Man, it’s a tough time to be a media company. What with News Corp.’s operating income dropping 47% (99% in the newspaper business and 97% in the TV division) and both Arianna Huffington and Jeff Bewkes declaring the death of big media, what’s a media mogul - or budding mogul – to do?
One obvious answer IMHO should be an enhanced, more enlightened focus on women, because their behavior is changing and not enough advertisers and media companies appear to be keeping pace. 36% of women claim to be reading fewer magazines and 39% are spending less time reading newspapers. These are consumers – moms, in particular – who control 85% of all household spending and are worth more than $2 trillion in US spend each year. That’s “trillion” with a “t.”
A lot of these women say they’re migrating online. The fastest growing segment on Facebook is women age 40-50 in the home; moms aged 25-35 with at least one child are heavy online shoppers (see chart); and twitter moms showed Motrin who’s boss in November 2008. “Power moms” are also increasingly focused on video, and even upload their own on a variety of topics at sites like NewBaby.com.
There have been several articles recently pointing to the rise in both offline and online coupon use. While consumers 65+ are more likely to use newspaper coupons and younger individuals prefer online coupons, there’s no real news here given that these stats will change over time as newspapers become less available and older consumers become more and more comfortable on the Web.
In the meantime, don’t leave home – or buy online – without it!
I’ve become accustomed to checking online for coupons and promotion codes prior to making either a store or Web purchase. There is an art to this and, once you get the hang of it, you’ll become savvier about what sites are likely to bear fruit and which will not.
There are four general categories of sites I’d recommend you consider:
1. Aggregators – these are sites whose sole purpose in life is to offer coupons and “promo codes” from many retailers, typically across multiple industries. Some examples would include:
4. Forums - some activities tend to make people want to vent (like having to take your shoes off at the airport…), and folks on these sites love to let others in on a deal:
If you’re set on a particular brand, it only takes a second to check out that company’s own site, too. KFC, for example, has a pre-set button on its home page pointing visitors to printable coupons. I’m actually surprised that more brands don’t take advantage of this simple way to build a solid customer database. If a consumer is a fan, he will part with valuable demo and psychographic information in exchange for a steady stream of deals delivered by email.
And as a final tip: consider opening a brand new email account exclusively for your interactions with coupon and promotional sites. You’ll be able to see all your coupon- and deal-related email in one place without clogging your own email inbox.
So start looking for coupons online and, pretty soon, you too will understand the nirvana of “stackable codes…”
P&G’s Charmin brand has found a fun sponsorship opportunity with SitorSquat.com.
A woman in New York, Danika Landers, started the site as a blog in 2007, and it uses Google Maps to help you find the nearest public bathrooms anywhere you may find yourself in need of one. It purports to be the largest (only?) “toilet database and locating service” in the world. It is essentially a wiki that is easily accessible via mobile devices including the iPhone and Blackberry. Both the site and the downloadable apps are free to use.
Danika describes the impetus for creating the site as a personal realization that “that the act of relieving oneself is somewhat an artform” that becomes suddenly complicated “when our personal space is not our personal space.” Anyone traveling with an infant or parent – or on any highway road trip in America – can attest to the veracity of such a conclusion.
Danika has a little extra fun with the site by allowing users to submit a rating for the public restrooms in question; a rating of a 2.5 or over will be characterized as a “sit,” while a toilet with a lower rating will be a “squat.” As such a rating might change with every use (ick!), I would suggest that a user make his or her own judgment in the moment: this is truly a case where past performance may not indicate future results. P&G jumped on the opportunity to sponsor the site and its sensibility as a great fit with the brand’s overall efforts to support grassroots activities that make the bathroom experience a positive one. The company has set up mobile bathrooms at events like state fairs in the past, has had Charmin Restrooms in NYC’s Times Square for three years running (see dramatic video here!) and – my favorite – toured the U.S. from 2003 to 2005 with a bathroom mobile nicknamed ”Potty Palooza.”
“Our goal is to connect Charmin with innovative conversations and solutions as a brand that understands the importance of bringing the best bathroom experience to consumers, even when they’re away from home,” says Jacques Hagopian, brand manager for Charmin.
This blog has commented on companies sponsoring public bathrooms before – remember Visa’s sponsorship of porta-potties at a music festival last year? While consumers may always appreciate this benefit, SitorSquat.com is likely to get bigger results for Charmin* based on brand fit and is the only site of its kind with which the brand has associated itself. 1,600 users have downloaded the mobile app thus far and the site has over 500,000 UVs since launch. Nice find!
* Lysol just announced that it’s taking over the women’s restrooms at 9 NASCAR races this year. This also sounds like a decent brand fit, obviously. Assuming Charmin’s sponsorship wasn’t too expensive, though, the remote/mobile aspect of SitorSquat makes it a winner as it puts the Charmin brand in the home and on the phone of thousands of users every day.
Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal had an article about the knowledge management and CRM strategies that are filtering into the U.S. airline industry. Huzzah!
While I’m sure many airlines are experimenting, this particular piece features Alaska Airlines, where Steve Jarvis, the company’s head of sales and customer experience (and a man intensely focused on delighting high-value customers), talks about what they’re doing and learning along the way. Wordlessly delivering a frequent flyer’s favorite drink (in coach) “is not about the cocktail. The point is the recognition and thanks for your business.”
As a frequent flyer desperate just to be treated like a human being when I get to the airport, Steve Jarvis is my hero for recognizing that it’s good to be nice to people you need and actually doing something about it.
This will not be easy. The foundation of my entire career is customer segmentation and CRM. I know – in technicolor – how gigantic the technological and personal demands can be inside a company determined to change.
For starters, identifying even what customers do today – at every touchpoint – requires considerable data alignment. As with banks, airlines tend to have (a) outdated systems, that (b) don’t talk to one another. So whether a customer buys a ticket online (and when and for how much) is likely to be invisible to a gate agent. A phone representative most definitely does not know about the luggage problems you’ve had 2x this year already, and a customer service rep at the airport has no idea whether an email notification re. a cancelled flight was delivered to you or not. If this information exists, it typically sits in silos that either must be refitted or, sometimes, blown up entirely.
Second, the modeling capabilities needed to capture and place a quantifiable value on behavior – evolving usually into some kind of score that informs the type of service a customer receives – is imprecise at best and far more sophisticated in industries that have been at this for decades, like banks and credit card companies. The European airlines have a jump on us, though, and that’s good news for the learning curve.
Third, the really-really stripped down implication of all this work is that the value assigned to a customer will change the marketers’ human behavior. This is very hard – far beyond basic training and comp changes. In a crowded airport, you finally reach the counter, already yelling, and the agent is supposed to capture your name, “read” your score and follow the instruction that would be appropriate for a customer with that score. Good luck. It’s doable, but must be implemented with patience and empathy.
So if this is the direction in which the airlines realize they must head… fantastic! There are a lot of weazened but wise customer experience/CRM/segmentation veterans out here whom I’m sure would want to help. I, for one, will continue to watch for hints of progress, both on the plane and off.
As a promotional tactic, BOGO (Buy One, Get One Free) has been around for decades. Now Coca-Cola has put a fresh spin on the concept.
Coke is offering a free bottle of Vault (its own Mountain Dew competitor) when you buy a bottle of Mountain Dew – a program it’s calling the “Vault Taste Challenge.” That’s right kids, Coke is giving you its product for free when you buy the competition.
Based on the sites I’ve scanned, no one seems to remember any other marketer trying this; it’s really fascinating if you think about it.
Why doesn’t Coke just offer coupons to get its product free? A couple reasons: (1) The gimmick is getting a lot of mostly-positive attention in the marketing world - when was the last time an average free coupon landed on the of AdAge? and (2) Maybe Coke actually thinks that a one-on-one taste test will show customers that Vault tastes better. Mountain Dew has an 80% share of the citrus segment and Vault has 4% so Coke doesn’t have a lot to lose.
I feel I must report that some are griping that the program will be super-expensive, and that “a few million people” who might not have otherwise bought a Mountain Dew will now do so in order to get a free Vault. Not likely. Given the recession and the particular preference for citrus soda that a shopper either does or does not already have, I don’t think that helping the competition (with its 80% share) is a real concern for Coca-Cola in this instance. No, in this case, Coke can only win with the press and the public. And you gotta give the company points for guts.
So, rock on – promotional innovation is not dead! I hope that some sort of results are released; it’d be interesting to see if Vault does the Dew (get it?).
The Web has a wonderful ability to make historically opaque businesses and transactions far more transparent and accessible.
The Internet did this for car buying years ago: between Consumer Reports, Edmonds.com, CarsDirect and a myriad of other sites, the shopper who would have previously driven to whatever dealerships happened to be local now has a lot more bargaining power… and can buy a car from anywhere in the country if the (online) price is right.
To that end, I recently commented on a TechCrunchstory about a new company called DriverSide. Like RepairPal, DriverSide.com intends to help cash-strapped consumers more effectively maintain their cars instead of having to sell or replace them. My point was that these sites will only begin to reach their real potential when a user can write his/her need and have mechanics compete for the work via online bids, a la an eBay auction.
Almost right after I posted this comment, I stumbled on a unique application of this concept from the Netherlands: Spaarbod. You thought Bankrate made it easier to shop for interest rates? Spaarbod permits Dutch consumers to specify how much money they’d like to bank, for how long and on what terms, and the site (like Bankrate) returns the best rates publically available at the time. You can accept one of these offers immediately, or Spaarbod will send your request (minus your personal information) to participating banks who can then bid on your money. Within 24 hours, you get an email listing the five highest bidders.
The service is free to use, and winning banks pays Spaarbod a commission when bids result in new deposits.
It’s not difficult to imagine these auctions going live, where each participating bank would have an employee bidding in real-time for a user’s deposit.
Heck yeah! And why do I have to shop around for the privilege of giving you my money anyway??
Such a seemingly simple idea but – on a marketwide scale – this model has major implications for advertising and marketing overall. If engaged consumers (buyers) approach marketers (sellers) when they are in the market for a seller’s services, those sellers could potentially spend far less money on spray-and-pray mass marketing… and pass the savings on to the customer in the form of lower prices or, in this case, higher interest rates. The advertiser is likely to spend less and the customer gets a higher-value, more customized outcome.
Doc Searls (who also may have been the first person to use the word “conversation” in a marketing context) first coined the phrase “intention economy” to describe the idea of markets designed around engaged buyers instead of message-pusing sellers. I’ll explore the intention economy in another post.
I realize that I’ve taken up a semi-habit of posting something goofy on Fridays… and there is definitely something goofy about McDonald’s new Filet-O-Fish ad.
Have you seen it? If not – and you don’t see a video box in this post - click HERE. There’s just something mesmerizing about it - hypnotic almost, as the fish turns and sings “Gimme back that Filet-O-Fish, gimme that Fish!” in a weird voice. And a lot of people seem to agree with me, given that the ad’s been viewed on YouTube more than 300,000 in less than two weeks! DJs are remixing the song in clubs, and fans are using it as a ringtone.
Most marketers will appreciate the business reasoning: the ad developed from the challenge of producing a spot that could be used in both English and Spanish, minus the idiosyncrasies in dialogue that have plagued many an advertiser in the past. Singing fish turns, dub in any voice and dialogue you wish, and it’s spot-on everywhere.
The online/social media environment has greatly amplified the opportunities for customers who love you (or hate you) to spread the word – and spread it more frequently, to a broader audience and with a greater array of tools.
Colloquy has released a white paper reflecting the results of an October 2008 survey that measured the intersection between reward program membership and online word-of-mouth (WOM) activity among those members.
While I hope it won’t come as a big surprise, membership in and usage of a brand’s reward program is a significant predictor of a consumer’s likelihood to speak positively about your brand online. The more active the frequent user/shopper/flyer in your program, the greater the chance that you will experience the happy halo effect of him/her praising you online. This is particularly true among women, who have become a driving force in terms of discussing and sharing products and experiences on the Web (Motrin, anyone?).
The larger take-away here – the hardest one, I think, for large companies to absorb - is that everything is connected now. The idea that you could treat your customers one way and your employees another, without affecting your public persona, is no longer relevant. Cut your charitable activities without the “outside world” finding out? Forget it. Increase mileage requirements in your frequent flyer program, and it will not only affect the opinions of your members, but also those members’ Twitter readers (who may not even be your customers).
One person with an anonymous blog and a catchy URL can impact your reputation around the world.
Of course The New Champion Customers is just a tip of this iceberg, but it offers an interesting angel and chock-full of great charts. Take a look.
I’ve never been a big Costco person, probably because I live in an apartment the size of a postage stamp. But just this year – when my mom moved close to one in the New Jersey burbs – I took the leap and bought a membership. Now I love going there: the warehouses are like Disneyland! There’s a pie as big as my couch! Cool!
Sidebar: when I finally did buy, it’s because I saw a specific product I wanted that Costco carried at a great price. I bought enough of that product (plus some gum, I think) to “pay for” the $50 membership fee on my first visit. Making a purchase a no-brainer is every retailer’s goal , no?
Now we get a little glimmer into the company’s customer service smarts, as well. Like many membership-based retailers with preferred shopper programs, it’s easy for Costco to keep track of a member’s purchases and to retain specific transaction-related data, such as the date and time of purchase. It turns out that one of the ways in which Costco delivers value back to members based on this information comes in the form of product recall notifications.
While Costco routinely sends letters to customers who have purchased recalled products, it is now the first major retailer to implement an automated calling service that dials and leaves messages for members warning them of problem products.
Costco uses an external vendor that can make up to 500,000 calls per hour. The company estimates that it has already made 1.5 million calls so far related to the ongoing recall of peanut butter products alone.
Would a company focused only on this quarter’s profitability do the same? Probably not…. especially since Costco will give the customer a refund for any recalled product that is returned to a warehouse (with or without a receipt). But how much is a call like this worth to a customer about to serve tainted food to his or her family? It’s invaluable. And, if the company doesn’t already, it would be fairly straightforward to measure the monetary value of the program.
This is a worthy practice. Let me know if you see holes in it.
How long did you think I could go in 2009 without talking about Starbucks, hmmm? C’mon, I think 20+ days is pretty good.
The latest ragging I’m going to do is about Starbucks’ weird Obama-based feel-good advertising effort. WHAT does this message have to do with coffee… particularly Starbucks coffee?
“Starbucks and Hands On Network are supporting the President’s call for national service. From January 21-25, 2009, pledge 5 hours to the cause of your choice and Starbucks will salute you with a free Tall brewed coffee in participating U.S. Starbucks stores.” First of all, I think it’s hilarious that a twist on this message is that you need to work 5 hours to *afford* a small cup of Starbucks coffee. That’s priceless. Second, Starbucks is behaving as if its world has not changed. I’m not saying that a brand should give up its principles in a recession – not at all. What I am saying is that (a) consumers process information and behave differently in a down market (like dropping Starbucks in favor of cheaper coffee), and (b) they look at a brand’s behavior differently, as well. Anyone paying attention knows that Starbucks is closing stores and laying people off. It means nothing to me that you did a cute ad. I would much prefer to see you give the money you spent on this ad effort directly to Hands On Network. Or – better yet – lower your prices on Inauguration Day.
And if you wanted to let me know – because I am a loyal Starbucks customer, and exactly the kind of person you want to hold on to now – you could email me. You know where I am. Too bad I’ve never heard from you except when you want me to buy something. I see no indication that Starbucks has grasped its “new reality,” and predict further self-inflicted pain in its future. This company needs a brain transplant, and fast. Starbucks Hands_On_Network
Outer Mongolia… that’s the place where your favorite stores sometimes locate Customer Service and the Returns desk. It’s all sun-shiny up front when you’re buying, but returning? Not so much.
In November, I pointed out the opportunity to communicate positively with a shopper when he/she is returning an item, rather than turning the event into a hum-drum (or negative) in-and-out transaction. Now comes a survey that drives the point home.
20% of respondents to a survey fielded by Opinion Research Corp. say that their 2007 holiday return experience exceeded their expectations. Only 9% could say the same after the 2008 holiday. Wait time and a lack of adequate staffing were major complaints. That’s rough, because returning customers who have a positive experience are exponentially more likely to shop in the store again and recommend it to others.
Unfortunately, the core of this problem may be an attitude that a consumer buying items has free will and will not put up with a negative service experience, while a shopper trying to return an item has no options. This is short-sighted, at best. Retailers are going to be relying on repeat shoppers – keeping their bases loyal – more than ever. Every contact at every touchpoint will factor into a shopper’s choice of retailers. Don’t overlook those experiences that don’t immediately translate into a sale – returns are on the top of a list that would include parking, bathroom availability and cleanliness. Not the sexiest elements, but vital just the same.
Yesterday, I wrote a post saying that perhaps the press shouldn’t rule out weight-loss companies just yet: that perhaps cost-effective programs will actually fit nicely with the trend toward dining at home.
Now comes news that recipe websites are doing great business. I always knew that someone out there was cooking… [Sidebar: I had dinner with a neighbor the other night. He brought over take-out. He asked me for a big pan and a set of tongs. I had neither. It wasn't pretty.] Allrecipes.com had 8 million unique visitors in October! That’s a lot of tongs.
What other types of business and websites might benefit from the nesting trend? I know that some of the recipe sites allow a user to print a shopping list containing all the ingredients required for a given recipe. What if a site also allowed you to customize that recipe? Say you wanted to make a chicken dish, and you could enter a budget and the number of adults and children you wanted to feed? Or what if a site had a partnership with grocery chains, so it could tell you that chicken is on sale at your local Kroger but not Publix?
There have to be a lot of ideas (or at least good experiments) here for grocers. At stores with floor space, what if a grocer partner clustered all the ingredients for a site’s “recipes of the week” in one frozen and one non-frozen spot on the floor? For the grocers who already offer delivery, what if you could call or contact a grocer online, specify the recipe and have the store know what ingredients you needed?
Grocers have been on my mind as the economy has continued to crater. In a walking city like New York, at least, a grocer probably sees a person more frequently than just about any other retailer. What is that grocer doing to fully leverage that visit? Frequent shopper discounts are good, but standard. Once you’ve got a customer in your store – 3 or 4 times a week – there has just got to be opportunity at a time when everyone is looking for ways to make things easier (and less expensive than eating out). recipe_websitesAllrecipes.com
Check out www.IAmStNick.com. If you don’t know what to get someone for Xmas, Santa will call your finicky recipient and ask her what she wants. You can then go back to the site and listen to the recording of the call. Cute!
If the site comes back around next year, it could possibly make some dough through advertising and sponsorships not only on the site but on the calls themselves. If the callee doesn’t know what she wants, for example, she could be given a few choices such as “Press 1 for environmentally friendly gifts” or “Press 2 for travel-related gifts” and so on. The site could also collect a rev share if the gift-giver actually follows through and purchases a gift advertised on the site or over the phone.
Catalina Marketing and Pointer Media have just released a study indicating that 2.5% of consumers account for 80% of the sales for the average CPG brand. Less than 2% of the over 1,300 brands studied have more than 10% of shoppers generating 80% of their sales volume.
1% of buyers account for 80% of Iams pet food sales volume.
This is really incredible information – and blows the old “80/20 rule” clean out of the water.
There are significant ramifications for messaging, media, customer service, community outreach, packaging, channel management, corporate giving – you name it. Catalina and Pointer are, of course, creating a new service to help brands find these “pivot point consumers,” but these kinds of metrics should generate significant thinking all the way down the value chain.
There was a recent article in the Wall Street Journal titled “Firms Hold Fast to Snail Mail Marketing.” It seemed to be about small businesses who gave up their direct mail efforts in favor of email to either save money and/or because it seemed like the hip thing to do.
In the meantime, I’m enjoying the work of a good copywriter and have started following Zack on Twitter at 
Motrin moms
Colloquy
WOMMA
Costco
peanut_butter_recall
Starbucks 
Hands_On_Network 
Yesterday, I wrote a 
recipe_websites
Allrecipes.com
