Jes' Blog

Shopping hell

2005-12-09T11:30:00.000-08:00

I am on a shopping quest for the perfect present for an impossible-to-shop for person. “Why me?” is the phrase that about sums up what I’m feeling after days and hours of searching online. I’ve searched big name stores, little name stores, blogs, newspapers, magazines, and other people’s wish lists, and nothing has presented itself. Usually, at this point (or probably quite a while ago) I would have just asked the recipient for some gift ideas, but this is a “true” gift in the sense that I genuinely want it to be a surprise.

Part of the problem, I believe, is the way most web sites are set up for holiday shopping. Stores have “for him” and “for her” sections, among others, but the gift suggestions are in no way tailored to specific personalities, they are designed for the broadest possible audience in the hope that in their generality more people will find the items appropriate. I long for some sort of a system that would narrow down the options, enabling me to find products that fit MY hard-to-shop-for friend. Something akin to Amazon’s personalized suggestions… Don’t they have enough personality profiles by now to be able to compile lists for other purposes (completely anonymously, of course)? For instance, “these items are the most-often suggested for women shoppers of a certain age and certain income bracket”. It would at least get me started in the right direction…

Something I have seen this year that I’ve haven’t seen in years past are online gift list services. Think bridal registry for your Christmas wish list. It’s a great idea for people who want certain gifts or simply want to share their gift ideas, and it seems people are having fun with it (one gift list on Yahoo!: I Want to be Napoleon Dynamite), but you still have to scroll through pages and pages of lists in order to find those that might apply to your gift-giving needs. Where’s the search on these services?

Now that school is winding down I’m going to do the unthinkable and actually go to a store to see what I can find. That’s a whole other world of problem-shopping, but maybe I’ll get lucky.

A late entry into the Sony "Rootkit" Debate

2005-12-08T22:12:00.000-08:00

Sony has recently been in the news for placing “rootkit” spyware on some 50 of its artist’s CDs. When consumers load the music onto their computers the spyware secretly embeds itself in the computers’ hard drives send information back to a server (at least that’s my hazy understanding). Most of the negative press has focused on Sony, but I have to wonder whether the artists themselves are suffering from the backlash as well.

The music business is notoriously hard on artists – only something like 90 percent ever climb out of the debt the go into to create their albums. So what happens when the company they are indebted to makes it even harder for them to sell the very records that serve as a portion of their income? What happens to the relationships they have worked so hard to build with their consumers? I haven’t read anything that indicates any of the artists have spoken out. I guess that would mean biting the hand that feeds them.

I also found the list of artists that were involved interesting (see the list at http://cp.sonybmg.com/xcp/english/titles.html). What made Sony choose these particular artists’ work as vehicles for their spyware? Was it a conscious decision on Sony’s part? Or were these CDs simply released during the time span in which Sony chose to launch this effort? If it was a conscious decision, it’s worth looking at the audience Sony was trying to examine. A lot of these titles seem to me like they would appeal to an older audience. Did Sony figure that with more and more of the youth market focused on downloads, this audience would be buying more CDs?

I’m posing a lot of questions I don’t have answers for, but the situation is an interesting one that is bound to pop up again in the near future. Everyone is pointing the finger at how bad Sony looks, but there also needs to be an examination of why Sony did what they did the way they did it.

Colleges Drop the Ball

2005-12-07T15:54:00.000-08:00

As I filled out my final course/teacher evaluation form today it occurred to me (and not for the first time) that I wish I would have the opportunity to fill out such a form for my particular program and the University-at-large. Even if the University threw my suggestions in the trash (without my knowledge, of course), it would make me feel that I had been given the opportunity to air my grievances, my praises, etc.

I think I’ve earned a voice, especially considering the years of debt I’ve consigned myself to attending these hallowed halls. I mean, what other business asks you to fork out upwards of fifty grand and doesn’t bother to find out whether you’re happy with your purchase and/or the purchase experience? Shoot, I paid fifteen bucks for a meal yesterday and my waitress asked me no fewer than four times if everything was satisfactory… What kills me too, is that my particular line of study is completely based on consumer evaluation. “The consumer is key” is drilled into my brain from every possible source. And yet, the program/University doesn’t seem to be practicing what it preaches. I am the consumer in this situation, right?

And it isn’t a problem unique to this University. I maintain to this day that my undergrad alma mater will never seem a dime of my money beyond what I owe them for my education. While I was in school there, no one bothered to ask how things were going, there was no forum to express problems one might be having adjusting to college life or with the programs themselves, but now, it seems they care a lot about what I’m doing. I get letters and calls from them every few months wanting to know how much money I’m going to endow them. Um, none. And that will forever be my answer.

A university could gain so much by giving its students a voice (beyond student government). A simple online poll or in-class survey would suffice. Not only would it give somewhat frustrated students like myself a chance to point out flaws in the system, highlight possible problem areas, and tell schools what they’re doing right, but it cuts down on cognitive dissonance for the student. Schools could not only improve themselves in ways that resonate with students, but likely increase donations from alums. I understand that a university is a bear – both schools I’ve attended have had enrollments of over 50,000 students – but there are companies out there with hundreds of millions of consumers that manage to successfully interact with and respond to their customer base.

Check Please!

2005-12-06T17:54:00.000-08:00

I sit here at Kerbey Lane eating my chips and queso and thinking about customer insights, and I can’t help but remember my own experiences as a waitress and how as I ran (yes, literally ran) from table to table I wished that customers had some insight into the vagaries of my job. How a little understanding on their part could have made their overall dining experience better. It seemed an impossible dream, but now I wonder…

There are those who believe that an educated consumer is a better consumer. In fact, isn’t part of the role of branding to educate the consumer to the benefits and services one brand provides over another? But, what if certain brands and industries would benefit from an experience education? Something akin to teaching kids their table manners…. At first, I admit, it sounds like a rather rude concept, but if the end result would be that consumers have a better store experience and your business works better, wouldn’t it be worthy, at the very least, of consideration?

One of my favorite Oprah’s was broadcast a few years ago, and it involved Oprah spending the day doing other people’s jobs. In one segment she worked the window at McDonald’s, and unsurprisingly was doing rather poorly. The really funny part occurred when Oprah’s lawyer drove-through, and frustrated with the service, berated Oprah over the speaker! He was horrified when he drove around and discovered his faux pas, and apologized profusely. However, had it not been Oprah he wouldn’t have thought twice about his behavior.

I bring this episode to light because it illustrates how little credence people give to other people’s jobs – especially where there may be whispers of an inherent class bias. People go out to eat to be “waited upon,” which unfortunately, some interpret as “personal servitude.” Let me assure you, waiters (or counterpersons at McDonald’s) are not servants, and just because a consumer may have certain expectations of what their experience should be does not mean that is what reality will allow.

I know conventional wisdom dictates that the customer is always right, but the saying isn’t always true. The customer sees a very narrow sliver of how things operate, and as such, can interpret situations wrongly. But, if consumers were educated as to the bigger picture, might it influence how they perceive certain experiences? For instance, if the restaurant is extremely busy, and I (as the waitress) at my first table visit explain the situation, and give polite suggestions as to how we can work together to make the meal run smoothly, would customers react more positively to the service (which still wouldn’t be equal to the service they might receive during less busy mealtimes) than if I hadn’t explained the situation? Would it have an effect on food and drink consumption, or (equally important) my tip?

It would be an interesting experiment. And while it may seem to benefit the waiter more than the consumer, I would argue that, in fact, it could create a more positive overall experience. It is just as important to keep your employees happy as it is to retain customers, and I guarantee that if you don’t achieve the former, you won’t achieve the latter.

Read All About It

2005-12-03T17:19:00.000-08:00

A recent post on the Customer Evangelists blog (1) introduced a rather obvious, but (r)evolutionary, idea to spur sagging newspaper readership – make newspapers free. It caught my eye, a) because I’ve spent the last year and a half studying media trends, and b) because it’s the first time I’ve heard it suggested. Initially, I thought, “what a simplistic, yet brilliant idea,” but the more I thought about it, it dawned on me that there are a few things the author has neglected to take into consideration.

Firstly, the suggestion is made based on the assumption that price is the main barrier for consumers. In fact, newspaper circulation has been declining steadily for the past twenty years (2) and the phenomenon has not been attributed to any one factor. Other reasonable explanations include: the role of lifestyle shifts and technological advances in how consumers consume media, high marketplace clutter (as technology has improved, local and regional news sources (including television) may have replaced the national newspaper as a primary news source), or even a distaste for the type of news being reported.

Secondly, the author assumes it is wise to keep the printed newspaper alive. While I will admit that for purely sentimental reasons I would be sad to see the demise of the newspaper, sentiment does not a good business model make. Internet newspaper sites are seeing record growth, and offer the benefits of lower overhead for newspaper companies, and convenience for the consumer.

So, is free really the answer? Is it really what the consumer wants? Or is it simply a short-term answer to a long-term problem?

1. “The printed newspaper: Time to make it free.” (2005, November 14). Retrieved December 3, 2005, from, http://customerevangelists.typepad.com/blog/
2. “The State of the News Media 2004.” (2004). Retrieved December 3, 2005, from, http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/narrative_newspapers_audience.asp?cat=3&media=2

Media Makes Its Move

2005-11-08T13:49:00.000-08:00

The big media news today is that NBC and CBS have announced that they will begin to offer pay-per-view reruns of their primetime programming for the nominal fee of .99¢. The separate deals have NBC partnering with DirecTV, and CBS with Comcast Digital. (For more details visit: http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.showArticleHomePage&art_aid=36044.)

So what does this have to do with consumer insights?

Due to the very nature of media, it is one of the most recent industries to be effected across-the-board by a shift in consumer behavior. The dawn of the Internet completely changed the media landscape. Consumers rapidly adopted the new medium, and began to expect its growing personalization capabilities across all other media. This meant that television, radio, and print companies all had to reevaluate what they had so long taken for granted – their consumers.

The move by NBC and CBS to offer content is a rather tardy entry to the field, but the first that network television has made to address its consumers’ needs in this age of personalized media. Network television has been under considerable fire from advertisers in recent years for its rising costs despite a declining viewership. While media companies have refuted the latter claim, crying out for better measurement methods (which are under development), they have done little to work to proactively (or retroactively, depending on whose side you’re on) change their operating models. So, the NBC/CBS deals are huge for the industry, but does the move really reflect what consumers want?

I can’t imagine that either of these media behemoths would have entered into these deals lightly and without considerable consumer research. But, at the same time, I find it hard to believe that there’s such a demand for programming reruns that the service will be at all successful. (I know, I know – I am not my consumer.) Could this have been the outcome of a race to the finish line? The mere need to show that network television is changing with the times, rather than an industry addressing the true needs and wants of their consumers? Only time will tell.

Response to Desiree's Blog: Employees are Only Half the Battle

2005-11-08T08:56:00.000-08:00

Desiree’s blog about using employees to gain insights and increase sales got me to thinking about my own experiences, both as a consumer and an employee. After reviewing several companies’ policies and practices, Desiree’s conclusion was that employees can have a huge impact on a consumer’s experience – and I don’t disagree. However, I would add that the emphasis on superior consumer/employee interaction will only be successful if the given product or service successfully delivers on it’s other promises first. Superior customer service is like icing on the cake.

I can think of countless times when I’ve experienced poor (or worse) customer service, but have continued to frequent the establishment. Why? Because I liked the product or it at least met my expectations. In general, consumers are able to separate an interaction with a bad employee from a positive product or service experience. It’s when companies don’t have all their ducks in a row that things begin to break down.

For instance, I worked at a popular tourist restaurant here in Austin for a cumulative total of about 5 years. The restaurant was known for its great sunset views, high prices and mediocre food. Despite its negative associations, people would come in droves because it was a great outdoor venue, and it provided the opportunity to show off Austin to visitors. During the summer, the waitlist for a table would extend upwards of three hours. Waiting tables at this establishment had its obvious drawbacks – working for 12 straight hours in Texas summer heat, and running up and down stairs all day chief among them, but more frustrating than anything were those tables that sat down already disgruntled because they had to wait so long, or because they didn’t get the table they wanted. I could be as sweet as humanly possible to these tables, the food could deliver above expectations, but these people would never change their attitudes throughout the meal – they had already made up their minds that their experience was going to be negative because of flow issues. For these people, customer service didn’t even come in to play – the restaurant had not delivered on what they considered its primary role – to get them sat quickly at the best table possible so they could show off and enjoy the view.

Companies need to concentrate on finding out where they fit in the consumers’ mindsets, and set about delivering on those aspects of business first. For some businesses, superior customer service may not need to be a primary concern, for others it may. The Four Seasons, The Ritz Carlton and The Cheesecake Factory have one thing in common, they have all worked to perfect the operational aspects of their businesses and layered great employees on top, had it been the other way around they wouldn’t be where they are today.

Consumer-driven Entertainment

2005-11-07T19:11:00.000-08:00

The study of consumer insights has begun to change the way companies do business, the products they create, and how they advertise, but the practice has yet to filter in to more “artistic” industries. Take television, if we know so much about what consumers watch, when they watch it, where they watch it, who they watch it with, and much, much more, then why aren’t entertainment companies using this knowledge to create targeted programming?

Right now, companies develop programming they think will resonate with an audience, film the pilot, put it in the fall line-up and cross their fingers. But, with all we know about consumer habits couldn’t we take the last part out of the equation? Theoretically, entertainment companies could conduct consumer research with a given target audience, and create a show they would watch. Companies could go one step further, not only creating programming, but delivering it at times and via technologies that the target consumer would be most likely to consume it. Advertisers could pay to develop programming that best spoke to their target audience, and use the shows as testing grounds for their new products. The potential for success is enormous - companies could be making millions (if not more) off this stuff. So why hasn't it happened?

This use of consumer insights brings up an interesting conflict with regard to when the practice best serves its audience. In this particular case, using consumer insights may take the fun and creativity out of entertainment. If we’re always given what we want, we’ll never discover something we never dreamed of. All of the shows might begin to look alike… (But its arguable that they already do - how many versions of CSI and Law & Order are on the airwaves right now?) It could also be supposed that creating popular programming in this manner might lead to certain moral and value shifts based on popular thought, which leads us into dangerous territory.

In the end, it comes down to what people expect entertainment to provide - something they want, or something they can discover. Perhaps when it comes to entertainment the latter is more applicable, maybe that's intrinsic to entertainment. Maybe entertainment in this form would seem too commercial, and thus lose its appeal. Or maybe, it's just that no one in the industry has thought of this yet...

More than What We Want, What We Need

2005-11-07T18:40:00.000-08:00

We had a discussion in class not long ago about RFID tags, and the benefits and threats they pose to business and the world-at-large. It was mentioned that several companies are developing technologies that could arguably have unintended social effects – the equivalent, say, of the invention of the television becoming a factor in the rise in obesity. This, however, is evidently not to be the concern of big business, small business, or any business for that matter. My belief – it should be, and business can benefit.

Using the RFID example… There are obvious negative implications to the technology, chief among them, a concern for privacy. There are also not-so-obvious implications, especially when we begin to consider how this technology may eventually be used. For instance, an example that was brought up in class was a refrigerator that reorders when someone is low on given items. Well, what if those items were high in fat, fueling even higher obesity numbers? What about the decrease in social interaction that it might create? What effect could that outcome have on our society?

Sure, these are extremely hypothetical ideas and outcomes, but what if they were used to improve developing products? The refrigerator that can order on its own – what if it had programmable diets that didn’t allow it to contain products with more than certain amounts of fat and/or calories? Potential lawsuit averted and an additional product value for the consumer. It wasn’t necessarily a product feature that the consumer may have consciously or unconsciously indicated that they wanted or needed, but it is a feature that businesses could predict may have an eventual impact on the consumer’s life and the company’s bottom line.

Obviously, companies will be hesitant to spend money on this line of research and product development because it would require making predictions about behavior that may never actually come to pass. But think about the brand implications for the company that does take the risk – they alone will be able to say that they have the consumers’ well-being first and foremost in their minds, and they alone might create even more revolutionary products that change the way we live and work. They could drive completely new behaviors, and positive ones at that.

It may not be a realistic vision, or even a balanced one, but if we begin to expect more of what businesses can create, maybe they’ll begin to deliver.

One Size Fits All?

2005-10-14T10:18:00.000-07:00

The short-lived bout of cool weather that recently breezed through town prompted one of my bi-annual shopping sprees. In what has become a tradition for me, the change of seasons always brings the panicked realization that I have nothing appropriate to wear. Where did all the clothes I wore last fall go? I have no idea. Every year (presumably sometime during the summer when I’m not looking) they seem to walk out of my closet to freedom, and leave me with paltry pickings when I need them most.

I have three stores that I shop when I need clothes – the Gap, Banana Republic and J. Crew. Mainstream, I know, but these stores fit my shopping style. They are predictable, their sales people leave you alone, they offer enough style variety for me to dress up or dress down my wardrobe as needed, and I can be in-and-out reasonably quickly. I’m no fuss when it comes to shopping, and I tire of the process quickly. There’s also a considerable emotional tug-of-war I go through as I shop. Financially, buying clothes is a luxury I can’t necessarily afford right now, so money anxiety is always haunting me, but I also embrace the feeling of recklessness that shopping allows me to have. It’s like I’m doing something I shouldn’t, but at the same time, I know these purchases are needs, not wants, so I’m able to justify my spending. There are also the ever-present body issues, but those are not as great as they once were. I’ve been big, I’ve been small, and lately I’ve been in-between. A shift in size may dampen my shopping day, but it will no longer bring it to a screeching halt. But, I digress…

On this particular outing I was fascinated by how differently the clothes fit in each store, and how the size charts differed from the images I associate with each. This year, I tried on jeans at the Gap and at J. Crew. The jeans at Gap were sized appropriately (at least as far as waist-lines go). I know I’m a size 8, and that’s what fit. However, when I traipsed over to J. Crew, I was a happy size 6. It’s no secret that stores up their size charts to counter-act the negative emotions that may be associated with trying on clothes. Even with this knowledge, I still bless J. Crew for jumping on that bandwagon. (Is it right? Not really. Do I care? No.) What surprised me about this mini-experiment though, was that J. Crew sized-up and not the Gap. To me, the Gap represents a much more mainstream audience – their price points are lower, their advertising much more broad. J. Crew I associate with a slightly higher, more elite group of people, which I also associate with smaller body-types. Given what I know about each company, I would have expected the two sizing strategies to be reversed. I can only presume that there is reasoning behind these decisions based on consumer research and profiles. Perhaps, women (and men?) that shop at J. Crew are more body-conscious that those that shop at the Gap, and thus need more reassurance when it comes to fit. The Gap has sizes on the rack that go much higher than those at J. Crew, perhaps they decided that they could sell more clothes through a wider product range, than through subconscious emotional appeals. Whatever the reason, the issue illustrates micro-decisions that companies make that may have larger sales implications.

For the record, I bought the jeans from J. Crew. And not because they were a smaller size, but because the overall fit was better. Or at least that’s what I like to think.

Too Much of a Good Thing

2005-10-10T13:13:00.000-07:00

This week’s assigned reading converged nicely with a subject I have been contemplating since the General Mills’ representatives came to talk about their experiences with consumer insights – the idea that just like anything else, too much consumer insight can be a bad thing.

The knowledge we garner from consumers should be used to help create better products and services, and improve those already in the market. Consumer insights alone should not be used to make business decisions. What caused me concern in the General Mills presentation was their use of customer insights to make advertising decisions. This, I know, isn’t a new bone of contention between ad execs and their clients. Quite understandably, clients want assurances that the decisions they make will have positive results, but that attitude doesn’t create a productive environment for innovation, ostensibly the very thing consumer insight research is intended to produce. Accountability is a huge issue within the ad industry right now. It’s reshaping agency/client relationships, and the way we evaluate everything from media placement to the definition of a “successful” campaign. But by placing too much emphasis on always hitting your mark you may get to that mark, but it will never get you beyond it. Being too careful will never make you a market leader.

Perhaps the question isn’t “what if consumer insight research is wrong?” but, “what if you’re using consumer insight in the wrong part of your process?” Consumer research, no doubt, played a huge role in the success of the creation of the Aeron chair. What made previous models inferior? How could they be improved? But consumer research could have killed the product had its creators listened to consumer response during product trials. Is there a formula for determining where customer insight is most helpful and effective during a product’s life cycle? It may seem like common sense, but such an outline may prevent such erroneous interpretation of data, as in the case of the Aeron chair. There’s an implicit understanding that products are marketed and advertised differently based on type and/or position in life cycle, consumer research should be no different. Perhaps I am arguing for something that already exists, in which case I wonder that there isn’t more emphasis placed on it in our learning process.

An Apple a Day

2005-10-07T13:38:00.000-07:00

Last week my iBook crashed, and as I dealt with the aftermath I was struck by two things, 1) how dependent I have become upon this little plastic box, and 2) how brand loyal I am to Apple.

The former realization was not a huge revelation. Had someone asked me before all this went down what products I depend on most, my computer would have been high on the list. For me, my computer is a life category-crosser. I use it for work, for school and for personal reasons. What I didn’t realize however, was how much I depend on my computer to communicate, especially with my work and school contacts. When my computer crashed, I felt silenced and cut-off, which quickly descended me into a panic. It seems funny to me now, but one of the first things I did when I was able to access a computer was to set up a temporary email address and essentially email everyone alerting them to the fact that I didn’t have email access anymore. I was still clinging to the technology that had gotten me into this trouble in the first place. And as I sent out those insane emails, I realized how compartmentalized my communication preferences had become. My temporary email address book was full of business and school contacts, but no personal contacts, because when I want to communicate with my friends and family, I call them, but when I want to communicate with classmates or coworkers, I email them. (Even if I had wanted to call my group members I couldn’t have, because we had never exchanged phone numbers – which leads me to believe that I am not alone in my tendencies.) The divide can likely be partially attributed to the nature of those three groups. It is rare that I need to produce a document outlining something my father said to me last month, but in business or school environments, that concept isn’t out of the question. It may also have something to do with the nature of communication itself, it could be argued that speaking to someone is a much more personal form of communication than is writing to them. In any case, my computer usage patterns were revealed by removing my computer from the equation, and by examining what I did to compensate for its loss, which is an interesting approach to discovering consumer insights.

My second realization did take me by surprise, especially given the context in which this revelation came to light. This particular repair was the third hard-drive replacement I’ve had on this computer. The first took me several months of convincing tech support that my computer was inherently flawed (and the intermittent crashes were not the result of outside devices), followed by several unsuccessful repair attempts, and finally, two hard drive replacements. During the course of the year that it took me to have those issues addressed, I was ready to throw my computer off the tallest building I could find. But, being poor and unable to purchase another computer, it wouldn’t have been the best decision. So, when the latest hard drive crashed I was once again ready to throw my iBook – this time through the front of the Apple store window, which I planned to follow-up by picketing at the scene of the crime. But even as I entertained these thoughts, I also recognized that this time, I might just have to purchase another Apple computer. Yes, another Apple computer. Despite all of the problems I had experienced with my first computer I was ready and willing to go in and buy another to replace it. As soon as I had that thought I was acutely aware of how that decision was absolutely insane given my history with Apple. I still haven’t come to a satisfactory conclusion as to how Apple has been able to grow this level of brand loyalty in me. It could have something to do with how they market their computers and how I perceive myself in relation to them, it could be all those years of playing Oregon Trail on Apple computers in grade school, it could be that it my mom works there, thus indirectly this company helped me get to where I am today, or it could be that I just really hate PCs. I don’t know. I haven’t been able to figure it out. But I find it fascinating.

A [Typical] Kind of Car Company

2005-09-25T12:57:00.000-07:00

Almost four years ago I purchased my first new car. At the time, I made sure to do my homework – I researched safety ratings, compared prices and test-drove countless models. In the end, I purchased my vehicle from “a new kind of car company.” The decision had been relatively easy – I was familiar with the company’s products (my parents owned one), I felt safe in the vehicle (probably an unconscious link to my parent’s influence), and the sales people didn’t pressure me, talk down to me, or hound me.

In the intervening years, my car and my car company served me well. That is, until I approached the end of my extended 60,000 mile warranty. What began with a desire to fix a few minor problems before my warranty ran out resulted in seven visits to the dealership for repairs. Five for one issue alone!

Here are a few highlights of my experiences:

• EVERY time I went to the dealership for new repairs I was told at check-out and/or during the course of my repairs that I owed money because I was no longer under warranty. This despite the fact that I was under warranty, and after the first instance of confusion, made a point to tell the service rep and anyone that would listen that I was under warranty.
• I used the shuttle service (a.k.a. the cheapest car at the dealership) once and only once. Not only did it take over an hour for me to reach my destination (which in actuality was a fifteen minute drive from the dealership), but I got to hear all about the recent illness and subsequent death of the driver’s nephew.
• For one repair, the dealership had to order a part. I was told that I would be contacted when the part came in. I wasn’t. In fact, the only way I found out the part had reached the dealership was when my father spoke to the customer rep who calls a week after every service visit. She called the dealership and relayed back to us that the part had been received and was ready for installation.
• In one instance I had to drop my car off after hours. I called the dealership to let them know I would be doing so, and to find out what the procedure was. I was rudely brushed-off by a service rep who answered my questions with one-word answers, and who spoke to me as if I were asking the dumbest questions in the world. The next day when I dropped my car off at the dealership, there were no drop-off supplies or posted instructions (despite the rep’s condescending assertions to the contrary). I made a makeshift order, dropped my keys in the slot, and prayed that someone would figure it out.
• The two bright spots in this ordeal were Tony (a service rep), and Bart (the GM). They were courteous and apologetic, and as things wore on and my patience grew thin – they never told me no.

While this company claims to put “people first” I’m no longer convinced. Tony and Jeff aside, there was not one aspect of this process that seemed intended to put me first. Where was the streamlined service? Why weren’t my records (and my warranty) on file? Why didn’t the company use their nicest car to shuttle me quickly to my destination (and maybe sell me on a new car experience along the way)?

As far as I’m concerned, this particular car company has gotten complacent. They are no longer “a new kind of car company” in my mind, but one that has blended in to become like all the rest. They say actions speak louder than words… Evidently, at this particular company, being a loyal customer doesn’t mean much. They’ve done a great job of showing me that.

Before It's Too Late...

2005-09-18T10:25:00.000-07:00

I’ve been uneasy about the implications of customer research since reading “Why Service Stinks” (Brady, 2000). The article infuriated me. While tiering products and services to consumers who drive revenue is arguably good for business, there is a humanistic element missing from the theory. Are all products created equal? No. Should they be? Of course not. Is it OK for a company to deliberately make life harder for the little guy so it can make a buck? (Wait, let me climb onto my soapbox…) NO! NO! NO!

However, it wasn’t until I saw Dallas Cowboy’s coach Bill Parcells giving an interview this morning that I was able to put my finger on what was really bothering me. The interviewer was asking Coach Parcells whether he had difficulty switching loyalties to the Cowboys when was hired away from the Patriots. Parcells replied that for him, his allegiance was synonymous with his job, an idea that wasn’t easy for fans to understand. People today, he said (and I am admittedly paraphrasing) are used to personalizing things. And that’s when the wheels started turning, the stars aligned, and my uneasiness was finally articulated – what kind of consumers are we creating?

Personalization/customization has become a ubiquitous trend since the public dawn of the Internet in the mid-1990s, but in truth, it goes back much further than that. I would argue that personalization has traditionally been an accessory of wealth and power. Long before the masses were enabled to get what they wanted, when and how they wanted it, the wealthy and the powerful had full grasp of the concept. Think the pyramids, the creation of the independent Church of England, and “only green M&Ms in my trailer, please”. But now, everyone has that ability.

On one hand, it’s good for businesses because it allows them to increase profits and brand equity by creating unique relationships with their consumers. On the other hand, we may be creating a global society of brats. Everything I’ve read and heard thus far in my education has assumed that personalization is a good thing for everyone concerned, and that companies will continue to innovate and respond at the rate of consumers’ expectations. But what happens if consumers begin to expect and demand more than companies can provide? (Tip of the iceberg: Napster.) Companies like to believe that they’ll be able to stay ahead of trends by staying in touch with their consumers, but what if that isn’t the case? Will companies have to say “no” to even their core consumers? How will consumers react?

From a different perspective, it is also interesting to consider the social implications of creating a personalized society. The wealthy and powerful I mentioned before have been fun to watch for their eccentricities and their diva-like behavior, but what happens when it’s your next-door neighbor, your mother, or worse (and more likely), your own child? Help us.

These outcomes are obviously extremes, and truth be told, I do think that consumer research is a good thing. But a key dialogue is missing from this rush to innovate and to personalize – what and whom are we actually creating? It is time to consider the implications of our actions before they reach beyond our control.

Source: Brady, Diane. (2000). Why service stinks. BusinessWeek, 3704, 118-125.

Business Response to Tragic Events

2005-09-09T12:39:00.000-07:00

A few days ago my father and I were discussing the social and political congestion that has occupied much of the news media content in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. In the midst of the conversation my father mentioned he had heard that Wendy’s© was going to continue paying its displaced employees their salaries, in addition to providing them with a stipend and help finding jobs for the short-term. He thought this was great – and it is. But it brings up an interesting conundrum for businesses – how should companies react when their customers’ and employees’ lives are substantially effected by outside events? Should they react at all? What constitutes an appropriate response? An inappropriate one? What elements contributed to these perceptions?

Not long ago I researched the response to advertising after September 11th, specifically with regard to nationalistic versus patriotic appeals. In the process of my research I found a study by Katherine N. Kinnick (2003) that sought to identify the technical elements of post-September 11th advertising that led to positive and negative consumer reactions. Below are a few of the very top-line elements Ms. Kinnick found to have a positive impact on consumer response:

• It is appropriate for businesses who are directly effected or whose sales may be effected to respond to the event(s).
• Ads that used compassionate or emotive language were well received.
• Full-page ads are perceived as reflective of the enormity of the events.
• Text-only ads are just as likely to convey the message as more visual ads.

Ms. Kinnick also found that those ads that were not well received after the tragedy had similar elements. They either, “failed to emphasize themes of compassion and patriotism,” “used fewer emotionally-charged words or images,” or “included discussion of product benefits, special sales, and appeals to ‘return to normal’.”

Ms. Kinnick’s findings are interesting in that they indicate there are some very basic technical elements businesses can employ to communicate to customers during like events that will not alienate the public they are ostensibly trying to help. Whether these elements hold true for all types of disasters and all types of companies is certainly an area for further research.

Some may ask, is such research appropriate? I would argue that it is absolutely appropriate and necessary for businesses to explore these issues further. If we are to buy-in to the popular line of thought that brands can actually become trusted friends, social networking tools, and important parts of our daily lives, then it is also necessary for those brands to react in the manner of a trusted friend or social network. Which, going back to Ms. Kinnick’s work, may explain, at least in part, why some advertisements were received more positively than others. Those businesses that responded with compassion and with help were universally accepted, perhaps because they were living up to the roles in which they had so skillfully cast themselves. The negative reactions to advertisers may be attributable both to the technical elements of the messages they sent, and to the subsequent disconnect they created from their traditional brand image.

These arguments are all heavily steeped in branding ideology, but (following such lines of thought) gaining further insight into the needs and wants of consumers during tragedies can only benefit both the brand and the consumer. Provided businesses stay away from exploitative messaging, and genuinely, without hint of self-serving, reach out to consumers when those consumers need them most, both parties can benefit from the efforts.

Reference:
Kinnick, Katherine N. (2003). How corporate America grieves: responses to September 11 in public relations advertising. Public Relations Review, 29(4), 443-459.