Your customers aren’t listening to you!

I often scan through the consumerist a blog that forms part of Nick Denton’s Gawker empire. As an aside, I was fortunate enough to meet with Nick when I worked at WPP and told him that he was a ‘trend surfer’. That was a compliment as he always picks up on trends early, creates businesses which capitalize on those trends and does very well at it. A smart man.

Anyway, the editor of the consumerist Ben Popken posted ‘The five things your customers aren’t telling you’. And, as the editor of the consumerist, presiding over the endless stream of customer service horror stories, he is well placed to make the call.

I have picked up two points from the five because they should be emblazoned on the wall of every marketers office. These are simple and true yet the barrage of push advertising that inundates us daily tells us that very few of our colleagues in the profession are stepping out of their comfort zones and actively listening and engaging honestly.

Here are the two points:
“Your customers aren’t listening to you. They’re talking to each other, and your disgruntled employees, online. Communication channels are so broad and splintered that flooding the marketplace with repetitive messages is increasingly ineffective. Have you ever tried telling the truth? Not all products are meant for all people, so let’s stop pretending that they are. You deliver certain benefits at a certain price. And when you mess up, own up to it. Customers respect a business that truly acknowledge its shortcomings and makes honest efforts to fix them.”

Many clients and agencies are thrashing around trying to work out how to do social marketing. Stop, think and internalize two points and you may stand a chance of really understanding how to be successful in your social efforts – and in your overall marketing and advertising goals.

Customer Service?

We were in discussion with a potential client last week about channel preference and how people tend to interface with your brand or buy your product. The question centered around how we could predict channel preference to ensure that the experience was optimal.

Offering choice of channel makes much more of an impact than we realize. Once again I am going to refer you to Rory Sutherlands excellent blog where he makes the point that ‘in determining the size, breadth, nature and reaction of your target audience, the medium of engagement is often far more important that what might conventionally be called the “core product offering”.’While the cynical amongst us may attribute this to laziness, as marketers we have to make it as easy as possible for customers to get to where they need to be. UI people know this and yet you still see products with arcane interfaces and companies that make it incredibly difficult to get help when you need.

Consumer issues blogs have created a niche business chronicling the poor service stories that come out of the biggest companies in the world. Yes I know it is hard to control that many employees and there are a few of us who have not behaved as politely as we should when dealing with your local utility company. But doesn’t it seem as if the customer service mechanisms companies set up have the exact opposite effect – effectively setting up both sides badly when all we want is a quick and peaceful resolution?

One of the issues is the cost of scaling customer service operations which are normally very reliant on human capital. We try to come up with ways of routing people around via automates systems or force them to read FAQs and only speak to a human at the last resort. The obvious direction is to use the community to do what communities are naturally are doing anyway – help others sort out common and isolated issues.

Sharing of information; openness; and  a willingness to actively engage with the community  and arm them with the information they need to help get past some of the more opaque company policies will help support departments scale from one to one resolution to one to many resolution with very little increase in cost.

Agencies don’t get it

Usually agencies are pretty good at following client needs but every so often the game changes and creates shifts in the landscape that can be capitalized upon by the smart thinkers and nimble of foot.  We could start a separate blog about agencies failing to change with times but for the sake of brevity let’s focus on something I saw yesterday. The latest report of agency of agency foot dragging is from TNS Media Intelligence/Cymfony  who  polled clients about social media. Quoting directly, “Clients complained that their agencies — creative, media, public relations, design and others — typically treat social channels like blogs as traditional media. In other cases, their ideas are not backed up by practical skills in the area. What’s more, one client pointed out that his agencies have little of their own experience using social networks or video-sharing sites for themselves.”
 

When I look at that paragraph, two things come to mind. The first is that if you are used to making money in a certain way it is generally hard to break that model. You have established modes of thinking and delivery that need to be challenged internally and reconstructed. The second and more pertinent point to this discussion is that there is definitely a disconnect in terms of understanding the pull factor as opposed to the push media that we have all grown up with.   

Marketing has shifted in emphasis from push to pull. In-control consumers demand richer and more relevant experiences, and will choose where, when and how to consumer the media. We call this the Channel of Me where technology has enabled the individual to demand “what I want—when, how and where I want it. “

In this Channel of Me

·         Every search is a consumer directing media content.

·         Every online experience is an example of a consumer seeking relevance and value.

·         Offline DVRs are tools enabling consumers to ignore media content selectively.

·         Online RSS feeds, podcasts and iPods: give  consumers control. 

And social networking behavior forces change not only in how businesses communicate but in how they behave. There is no alternative to being inclusive, open and honest.  Social networking forces redefinition of the consumer value proposition. There is a new dimension in which value is created by users and amplified by collaboration among consumers in the use of a product or service. Social networking forces brands to include the consumer throughout their value chain, not simply at the end of the distribution line. 

So you can see why people are having a hard time adapting. As a final note, it is not fair to put the blame squarely with the agencies. Many client organizations are also not structured to include the consumer or have not thought through how social media can be utilized across all divisions – from PR to customer service.

The measurement holy grail

Looking through the latest press releases this week there are a number of companies looking at ways producing a fuller picture of behavior online and how that tracks back to actual ROI.For example, Microsoft have just announced Engagement ROI, engagement measurement reporting will be added to the company’s Atlas Media Console. This moves them away from a pure CPA measurement.We believe that all these moves are going in the right direction but don’t go far enough. Partly because too many people own data in too many areas – and as we have discussed before on this blog, success will be about connecting disparate data sets to build a clearer picture of how marketing activities like WOM or viral are impacting sales.Of course, this is easier said than done. No one has got there yet but there are people starting to build great bases for this holistic approach. One of these companies is our sister agency ZAAZ who has built a world class online analytics practice.One our common clients has a huge annual budget for online efforts, but no view into the return on online investment for different brands and campaigns (all online properties across their brands).ZAAZ used its Monetization methodology to create models for tracking the value of each web channel’s specific behaviors, as well as rollup view for an overall online value index. Instead of tracking the trending of more traditional web metrics as a measure of success, ZAAZ has merged web metrics with financial data to measure the value of the client’s web properties in dollars.The internal view of the site is now one of an asset that creates value, vs the previous view of the site as a cost center.This is obviously one small step in building the bigger picture but the value that is being created by methodically joining up data sets starts to appear immediately as the connections are made.

The Connected Agency

Forrester have just issues a very interesting paper called ‘The Connected Agency’ which encourages marketers to partner with an agency that listens instead of shouting.What they are saying resonates deeply with what we believe and have been saying for some time now. Here is the exec summary “Today’s agencies fail to help marketers engage with consumers, who, as a result, are becoming less brand-loyal and more trusting of each other. To turn the tide, marketers will move to the Connected Agency — one that shifts: from making messages to nurturing consumer connections; from delivering push to creating pull interactions; and from orchestrating campaigns to facilitating conversations. Over the next five years, traditional agencies will make this shift; they will start by connecting with consumer communities and will eventually become an integral part of them. “So how do agencies make the shift? The first step is connecting parts of the agency that have never previously connected, that is, if your agency has the appropriate capabilities and can facilitate the connections. And by these connections I don’t mean media neutrality.  It is embarrassing to see agencies attempting to embrace a ‘media neutral perspective’ when the game has changed completely. This is thinking straight out of the 90s. You may laugh but you still see this happening. If you are a client and your agency pitches you this way then I would consider dismissing them immediately. The point they are missing completely is that it is about the customer and connecting up their experiences rather than how you would push out messages to them in all channels. That thinking is simply all upside down.So how do we connect the experience? By connecting data sets. Agency expertise has always tended to be siloed so things really become interesting when you connect media behavior with front end data for segmentation and predictive modeling with back end website analytics. Suddenly a different picture starts to form. Tracking value from engagement and pull activity becomes a reality and you can start to monetize what previously looked like disparate customer behavior.That is not to say we have it all figured out but the dust is settling rapidly and we feel that we now can start to apply a very traditional test, measure and learn approach to pull marketing. Over the next year you will see more social media marketing measurement moving from word of mouth pass through to actual impact to the bottom line.

Norman Rockwell and Viral Marketing

I’ve been lazy with this post by simply cutting and pasting a great piece by David Sable, COO of Wunderman:

Viral marketing.  A pillar of the digital world.  Check out any new campaign today reported by any of the industry magazines from anywhere in the world.  Look at websites.  Listen at conferences.  Read the experts — amazing how this newly invented form of marketing has swept up everyone’s time and attention. 

But wait!!! Have you ever seen the following?

Norman Rockwell, the famous American Artist who created this, didn’t know about viral communications. He called it Gossip…

Rockwell’s neighbors in Arlington, Vermont modeled for this picture. Norman Rockwell included himself in the painting in the bottom row (he is the one pointing to himself). Rockwell’s wife Mary is one of the gossips – she is the second person from the left in the third row. There are two views of each person: first listening and then passing along the story.

“I used my neighbors in Arlington as models for the gossips cover. ‘Gee’, they said when I showed them the sketch, ‘we’re not gossips, are we?’ So I put Mary and myself into the cover to avoid any suspicion that I was insulting my neighbors.” — Norman Rockwell

His message was pretty clear:  the power of the pass along viral but its inherent danger as well.

Funny, isn’t it—that the word viral has so much negative meaning at its core.

We shudder thinking about viruses.  We have software and protective systems to shield us; the obvious bio references are clear.  What many consider Viral others look at as spam and clutter.

Think on this definition of Virus:

“Something that has a corrupting or poisonous effect, especially on the mind”

Now take a synapse leap with me to Metcalf’s Law:

Robert Metcalf’s law states that the “value” or “power” of a network increases in proportion to the square of the number of nodes on the network.

In other words, if you have four nodes, or computers, on a network, say, an office intranet, its “value” would be four-squared (4^2), or 16.

If you added on addition node, or PC, then the value would increase to 25 (5^2).

Above is an example of a four-node network. The math actually works out to
value = node^2 – node. Or 4^2 – 4 (12).
This can also be expressed as node * (node – 1). Or 4 * (4-1).

Marc Andreesen, one of the founders of the web, said:

A network in general behaves in such a way that the more nodes that are added to it, the whole thing gets more valuable for everyone on it because all of a sudden there’s all this new stuff that wasn’t there before. You saw it with the phone system. The more phones that are on the network, the more valuable it is to everyone because then you can call these people. Federal Express, in order to grow its business, would add a node in Topeka and business in New York would spike. You see it on the Internet all the time. Every new node, every new server, every new user expands the possibilities for everyone else who’s already there.

(Quoted from the Smithsonian Institution Oral and Video Histories.)

Now look again at the Rockwell print…and imagine the conversation…but more importantly imagine all the people now involved that you don’t see as each one of the “nodes” pictured moves on to attach themselves to other nodes and on and on…think about the definition…

One more jump.

E-mail.

The kind you and I send all day. The kind that has a “To” box; a “CC” box and “BCC” box.

E-mail is our viral contribution to the digital world every day; every few minutes I imagine—and like all that is viral it multiplies and multiplies and the exponent grows with the cc and bcc…

And like all that is viral it can do good and it can do bad.  In fact, the exponential effect (Old Robert’s Law) makes the “good“ really good and the “bad” really bad.

The good effect is clear; the bad should be clear.

Think about the consequences of any e-mail you send, and the Metcalf effect of the cc or bcc list.

Think about what happens when you ask about; or simply just pass on information that is inaccurate or worse – just plain wrong.

Think about what happens when you accuse based on information you receive this way and add more names to the list.

Now think about the scurrying around and the wasted time and the waste opportunities that multiply as angst increases; as more e-mails get sent; as more people get involved…Metcalf got it right.

Bottom line

The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie—deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
~ John F. Kennedy

John F. Kennedy was of the Rockwell generation. He didn’t know about viral and probably never thought about the Metcalf effect. But he understood the issue.

Think on it.  The danger is the opinion without thought. The Viral effect…

Looking for a viral program to be successful – really successful with a positive ROI – look no further than your own-mail…

What’s your view?

A human powered surveillance network

YouTube announced yesterday that they were extending their service to cover wider range of mobile devices -giving them somewhere in the region of 100 million potential mobile users. For me, the more interesting nugget was buried further down the release. They are testing software that will allow you to directly upload video from your phone.

If they get the user interface right then both the volume of ‘reality’ clips; posting speed and subsequent propagation speed will increase dramatically.

An increasing number of celebs are being exposed through the use of phone video clips – the latest being the Amy Winehouse crack smoking clip. And just today there was AP release about Parkland High School in Allentown where pornographic video clips and images of two students were transmitted by phone to classmates and then on to the wider world.

 With the increased ability to surreptitiously film a ‘dirty deed’ and to upload it to a larger audience, are there any negative social implications? Privacy issues and copy cat behavior are two that come to mind.

What intrigues me is that it is almost as if video surveillance monitoring, which has become ubiquitous in some city centers, is going to scale dramatically via social media.

With a central data repository for all this information, open yet controlled by Google, are there any positive societal implications? Or will the big brother aspects outweigh freedom of expression?

Let the debate begin.

Vanity and Self Importance

Read an article this week in the UK Guardian on Facebook from Tom Hodgkinson, the founder of the delightful and very British Idler Magazine – an anti-work publication released at the suitably glacial pace of twice a year.

There was all the funny stuff you would expect from Tom about avoiding email etc. but somehow he tried to convince the readers that Facebook is one or all of the following: a neoconservative libertarianism plot; a deliberate experiment in global manipulation; and an extension of the American imperialist program crossed with a massive information-gathering tool. Now I don’t have a Facebook presence – I am on linkedin which is suitable for my needs but surely 59 million other people can’t have been suckered into this evil scheme. Or are they just like my wife who uses it to stay in contact with friends, relatives and old colleagues because Facebook makes it easy to do?

And it isn’t just Facebook. With applications and personal information moving from the hard drive into the ‘cloud’ we can find and maintain connections with others effortlessly.

I have always believed that consumers drive technology adoption so if an application or device doesn’t have demonstrable value or utility then people won’t use it. Given the 2 million people that are signing up for Facebook each week, there must be some intrinsic value.

Unless Tom is right and it is all simply about vanity and self importance.

Sometimes advertising isn’t required

My good friend Rory Sutherland writes a fantastic blog for Campaign Magazine over in London. A recent post really resonated with something which we know in social media – allowing people to discover and find their own reasons for using a product can be far more powerful in terms of generating adoption than ‘push’ advertising.

He makes the point that if an agency had been asked to promote SMS when it first was released, we would have probably ended up with an advertisement which depicted a bunch of teenagers of various ethnic origins excitedly texting and this would have implicitly conveyed the message that texting was unsuitable for any other age group.

Quoting Rory directly, “In the event, with no excuse to reject it, people discovered their own various reasons for using SMS. For some people it saved money; for school kids it was a furtive way of messaging in class; for grandparents, interestingly, it became a non-embarrassing way to communicate with grandchildren. It is a triumph of universal adoption. And of not advertising too early.”

Most of the time we are driven by the need to show results this quarter but the SMS story speaks volumes about patience and belief in both the product and in people to find cool uses for that product.