The Brand Bull

I've had an interesting experience yesterday. I was invited for an interview on big companies' customer centricity (or rather the lack of it) by Radio1, the national quali radio station in Belgium. They had created a charter and companies were invited to the studio to sign it. You can imagine that all major companies from the energy and telecom markets were present to show their good will.
As I was at the end of the program, I was waiting outside the studio and was privileged to follow the official on air version as well as the 'backstage' comments.
One of the major energy providers had sent their spokeswoman. A very confident and mediatrained apparition that was sent out on her mission to reassure the world that the company she represented was already customer aware today and will be even more customer centric in the future. As a proud protector of her employer she declared that the average waiting time before their call center picked up the phone was 28 seconds. Which was a great average, but it directly reminded me of the story of the man who drowned in the river with an average water level of 20cm. While she was pronouncing her words in front of the microphone her (I suppose) assistant made a small victory dance outside the studio. Suddenly it became clear to me that for them the whole show wasn't about customers but about free publicity on national radio. It had nothing to do with an intention to change their attitude towards the customer. The host of the program immediately interpellated the spokeswomen on the impossible to understand invoices. The selfconfident spokeswoman had no clear answer. End of the interview.
Coming out of the studio, the assistant was clearly in a victorious flush. "You did great! And on the 28 seconds they had no reply! She (the host) immediately started about the invoices. That was low", she almost shouted.
In front of me were 2 brand bulls. Responsible for the official company declarations that their bosses didn't want to pronounce or didn't want to spend time on. The initiative of Radio1 was just anioher competition for them against the other providers. Their point of view had nothing to do with customers or customer centricity. It was once again an attack on 'the others' like a dumb bull running towards the red rag And at the same time a missed opportunity to get fundamental input and insights on their customers. Another missed opportunity to show interaction with the customer. Another missed opportunity to tell their story or to start conversating with their customer. I'll suggest to Peeters and Pical, the hosts of the show, to hang the red rag outside their studio so next time the brand bulls will stay out of the studio...

Dear customer, we still have a very long way to go...

Frankly, Forget Customer Centricity

I’m getting tired of ‘Customer Centricity’. Since markete(e)rs have panicked over the empowered consumer, Customer Centricity is ‘it’. One of the basic ways to start being customer centric, is interacting with your customer. We’re all transforming into conversationalists and storytellers, or at least we should be. However, the thing is that any good conversation starts over a cup of coffee or tea. Meaning that you create a ‘moment’, you make and take time for it and you focus on each other. But when is the last time you did that as a markete(e)r before engaging the conversation with your customer? Right. Because now we’re telling stories everything will be OK?

Last week I received a message from my fellow-author Steven Van Belleghem (The Conversation Manager) asking how companies can start a conversation if they know so little about their customers. A question I also asked through Twitter some time ago. Yep, the conversation sure is a great thing, but we forget to create our coffee-break with our customers. Sorry, no time, no can do?!


8(0)-delivery-gap

Research has shown and confirmed recently (Bain & company) that 80% percent of companies (400 researched worldwide) are convinced that they deliver a superior customer experience. But only 8% of the customers agree with that. Meaning that 92% of the customers are passive loyalists; they stick to your offer because they just got used to it. Because they don’t ask questions (anymore). because they know or presume that elsewhere they’ll get the same (non-)experience. Nothing to worry, unless you’re in a market where the customer feels he gets a pretty lousy deal. And then brands like Virgin pick in. Or O2. Or Zappos. Because Zappos ‘lives’ its customer. And the company lives it values. How many companies that you know have ‘fun and weird’ as one of their major values? How many companies do you know where the financial department keeps an internal parade EVERY FRIDAY, celebrating one of their fellow colleagues?


WHY, tell me WHY!

What seems to be the problem? Why can’t we deliver customer experience? What makes it so hard? Because it is an intangible asset. Because it is difficult and complex to measure.

But consumers don’t ‘measure’ or analyze customer experience. They just live it. No discussion, no argumentation, no thick report to explain and understand. According to Bain’s report most companies don’t grasp it. Do they think that they can still decide for the customer what is a good experience and what is not? They probably still think it isn’t up to the customer himself to decide.


Forget the customer?

Certainly not unless you are suicidal and want to forget your business. But customer centricity just seems to be too high. We, market(e)rs, just can’t grasp it. We can’t work with it. And yes, we try. We try really hard. So what now?

Very simple: make it tangible. Make customer centricity tangible for the market(e)r. Don’t tell stories. We have to create a book of fairy tales or a book full of adventures. With images and heroes. And market(e)rs will start telling stories. But they need that book. Because books and iPads are tangible, stories not. Give markete(e)rs a cozy corner with a coffee machine and some choices of sweet tea. And they’ll sit down, take time and enjoy the moment. Then they’ll engage in a conversation. They’ll even start listening. And chatting. And telling things you never knew but always wanted to know.


So, what is that book in marketish?

You could call it product-service. A service that is created around a product. An example: think about your car. What makes your relationship with that brand? Whatever brand it is. “The product” would be the first answer. But since decades there are no bad cars anymore. They’re all great and drive just fine. And they’re all customer-centric in more or less the same way. As well as they’re not customer-centric in the same way. The customer focus doesn’t come from the product. It comes from the services that are created around it. The product-services. Those services that are created around a product in order to support it.

Successful product-services are very tangible AND they are customer-centric by definition. They support your products and brands, create loyalty if they’re well designed and can be all-present. If they’re not customer centric, they won’t be used. This means that you can instantly track and measure your customer focus. Product-services are customer focus made tangible.

So, forget customer centricity and customer focus. You won’t make it through that path. Embrace those services that support your product. It doesn’t matter whether they are online or offline, digital or IRL.

What matters is that they bridge your 8(0)-delivery-gap.

Deal with the Devil? GAP & Facebook ctd.

GAP has a special relation with Facebook. After handling reactions very poorly with the online community, they had to retract their new logo.

Since yesterday, Google has launched a couple of new features such as single sign-on (yeahaa), location APIs to enhance Facebook Places for theird-party apps and the possibility to offer local deals with that same Facebook Places. These local deals mean that you can check in on Facebook, go to the places app and find out what the local deals are near you.

GAP is one of the first brands to start using this: the first 10.000 customers to check in, get a free jeans. Meaning that the brand is making things up with the online community through 'free'. And those who are too late still get 40% off. Is GAP buying back its customers' sympathy this way?

Unhappy Facefans are already posting their frustration again: you do need an iPhone or an Android. Too bad for the Blackberries... (Me Android ;-) But most Facefans are very enthusiastic.

I wonder wether the jeans have the old or the new logo ;-)

The renewed marketing jive: "customer"

"You got to be kidding" was my first idea this morning. Belgacom, Belgium's biggest telecom provider (the ex-monopolist) is said to 'bow for the customer'. A big leap, I would say, as they leapfrog from 'customer disinterest' to 'customer curtsy' (Belgacom IS a lady), skipping the phase of customer centricity.

However, big disappointment, as Belgacom in their press contacts -or the media in their sensation craving- have created a headline that has nothing to do with customer thinking whatsoever: the big idea is to 'improve' the quality of complaint management. Meaning that the telephonic helpdesk will be 'open' till 10 PM 7/7 and if the technician needs to come by, you don't need to take the day off, as they will be working during the evenings also.

Big misunderstanding.

This is an example of what I call 'termabuse'. Using 'customer oriented' as descriptor for these changes is the same as laughing your customers into the face. Customers that are customer centric DO NOT have massive complaints. Managing complaints is one thing, but putting it under the umbrella of customer thinking is several bridges too far. To be clear: there is always something ready to go wrong in your product, service, delivery or use. Nothing's perfect. And that is OK. But customer centric brands get credits from their customer when things go wrong. Because they can go wrong and they have noticed that when they do go wrong, the brand is helpfull and stays customer centric. Non-customer-centric brands or companies are not helpfull. Not before and not after the moment things go wrong. 

Customer centricity is adapting your system to reduce complaints, not changing your system to cope with the increasing amount of complaints.

Big stress.

That will be the result. Big stress. For the 'agents' manning the Belgacom call center. They will have to work longer, work harder and work more days. Complaints will be more fierce and more frequent; Belgacom just gave the customers the permission to be unhappy and to complain. They've just admitted that things are going wrong and that the only thing they will do about it is foresee more resources to handle the complaints.

1 minute.

The same day that Belgacom announced their 'fundamental' changes, my colleague received a letter from another 'ex-'monopolist Electrabel. The letter stated that Electrabel wants to be more customer centric. Therefore they have improved their ... yes: call-center. All calls will be handled within 1 minute. Poor call center agents. Because call centers are evaluated on the time they need to handle your problem,  not  necessarily on the quality of the solution they provide. 

But finally, what are you interested in? To have a good product and service to start with. To have a brand that offers relevance and gives you recognition as a customer. And if things would happen to go wrong, you 'just' want a decent solution. Not more people to handle the complaint but more people to create relevance in the first place.

That would be a good start for customer centricity...

Jump the technology evolution

People in general and marketers in specific tend to think that 'evolution' is a progressive process without jumps.

True. 

But that doesn't mean that nature never jumps forward and neither does marketing and business. As soon as you introduce an advanced element that fits an environment that was closed before, you can create a jump forward.

Compare it to Australia that meandered through its existence untill some fools introduced rabbits.

Anyway, the BRIC-countries can be considered as former 'closed' markets by their political system or their economic arrears. However, the techno-economic parity that we're living in today, grants full access to these areas to techno-jump over the 'western' heads.

SPICE MOBILITY is one of these techno-jumpers. This Indian telecom-player states on their site: "With "Innovation" as the company’s mantra, Spice began the process of revolutionizing the Communication & Entertainment sector, with its new age technologically advanced state of the art mobile phones." 

Not only are they speaking of a 'mantra', putting their brand's spiritual dimension (cf. 4-D Branding) way ahead of the old approach, they're also actually doing it. Spice recently introduced the first 3D cell phone without 3D specs: "M-67 3D is bestowed with Auto-stereoscopic Display, which facilitate users to view three-dimensional images, enabling objects to appear more real & physical. The dedicated 3D shortcut key on the phone key lets users to switch amid 2D and 3D mode instantly. Further, the phone supports parallel version of 3D Image and Video format for that perfect viewing." And all that for under $100.

Wow.

Or what about the multi-SIM M-4580 that has enough battery to stay stand-by for 25 days. In short, while Europe is still fancying androïd apps and games (over 100.000 androïd apps since yesterday), India is winning the race. Best proof: Spice foresees 8 A&M's in the upcoming period...

I want more Spice in our market...

The GAP Story: 7 days to quickly forget.

DAY 0

October 4, 2010

GAP introduces its new logo on its site. No fuss, no fanfare, no event, just done.

Down With Design Blog reports the new logo is no good: “I really can’t understand the thinking behind this move.” In no time designers express their discontent on the bad design. Some even offer GAP a free redesign of their logo.

October 6, 2010

Kitsune Noir Blog reports: “There was a lot of brand equity in that big blue square and they didn’t move far away enough from the source for this logo to even begin to feel new or exciting.” Twitter explodes and someone (is it GAP?) starts a Twitter to defend the change: http://twitter.com/GapLogo. Gap gets a ro and contra Twitter. The internet community starts talking about Gapocalypse.

October 7, 2010

The logo gets the official name of ‘monstrosity’. GAP states/pretends the new logo is just a way to create buzz for their crowdsourcing project to find a new logo. Their Facebook page says:

“We know this logo created a lot of buzz and we’re thrilled to see passionate debates unfolding! So much so we’re asking you to share your designs. We love our version, but we’d like to... see other ideas. Stay tuned for details in the next few days on this crowd sourcing project.”

GAP is crowdsourcing for a new logo? No way. It’s just a bad PR recovery attempt the online community reacts. Since they want the world to create their new logo, where is the design brief?

Only the Time-NewsFeed seems to like the new logo. “NewsFeed personally does not mind Helvetica, and so this new logo brings to mind visions of a streamlined, technologically dominant future America where everyone wears white suits and cool glasses. Sure, it's generic, but don't you know that in the future everything looks alike?"

October 8, 2010

It takes GAP 2 days to react. Marka Hansen, President of GAP North America reacts in a column in the Huffington Post.

She states: “Our brand and our clothes are changing and rethinking our logo is part of aligning with that. We want our customers to take notice of Gap and see what it stands for today. We chose this design as it's more contemporary and current. It honors our heritage through the blue box while still taking it forward.”

She invites everyone to go into the dialogue and through their Facebook page people can send new proposals. How can she be defending a bad logo and at the same time invite people to make other proposals? One of the reactions says: “it (the logo) looks like something from a corporate powerpoint presentation”.

October 11, 2010

The GAP Facebook page end the story:

“Ok. We’ve heard loud and clear that you don’t like the new logo. We’ve learned a lot from the feedback. We only want what’s best for the brand and our customers. So instead of crowd sourcing, we’re bringing back the Blue Box tonight. “

Bye bye new logo, bye bye crowdsourcing, helo old logo.

Marka Hansen’s full statement:

"Since we rolled out an updated version of our logo last week on our website, we’ve seen an outpouring of comments from customers and the online community in support of the iconic blue box logo.

Last week, we moved to address the feedback and began exploring how we could tap into all of the passion. Ultimately, we’ve learned just how much energy there is around our brand. All roads were leading us back to the blue box, so we’ve made the decision not to use the new logo on gap.com any further.

At Gap brand, our customers have always come first. We’ve been listening to and watching all of the comments this past week. We heard them say over and over again they are passionate about our blue box logo, and they want it back. So we’ve made the decision to do just that – we will bring it back across all channels.

In the meantime, the website will go back to our iconic blue box logo and, for Holiday, we’ll turn our blue box red for our seasonal campaign.

We’ve learned a lot in this process. And we are clear that we did not go about this in the right way. We recognize that we missed the opportunity to engage with the online community.  This wasn’t the right project at the right time for crowd sourcing.

There may be a time to evolve our logo, but if and when that time comes, we’ll handle it in a different way."

Hell yea... I hope so.

 

DAY 7 - the new logo on the site is the old one.

PS: For the occasion the blog is posted in Helvetica ;-)

Is it customer love?

Brands are often referred to as a person. They have an identity, values, a specific style, a certain character and specialists tell us that ‘a brand is like a friend’. So we have brand relationships with love brands or even lovemarks. Marketers must create loyalty through conversation with the customer and consumer and not the brand as such nor its manager but the social surrounding decides on what reputation your brand has.

Now, personification is a damn good trick in brand management as people have learned through evolution to think in examples and very concrete ideas. Meaning that abstract ideas are too hard to understand and even if we understand them, it still remains difficult to actually do something with these abstract ideas. So indeed, it is a good thing to see brands as a person and create brand relationships.

Going further into that thought, it might be interesting to see what actually helps to create a so-called love relationship between people and brands. (Knowing that I’ve never seen a customer weep because his brand was delisted or completely disappeared from the world - but let’s play this ‘brand love’ game.) Love is created through 3 simple methods.

1. Frequency

The more frequent you meet a person, the more loyal you will be to that person. That is the reason why so many (extramarital) relationships start at work: at a certain point you see them more than your own wife or husband and show more loyalty to your colleagues than to your official relationship.

Brands need to create frequency in contact. Just don’t forget to make it a relevant contact.

2. Recognition

That’s why recognition is also important. Sure, you’ll find examples of relationships where there is no recognition from one of the persons involved, but I’m talking about healthy, non-psychopathic relationships. Recognition means that you show that you understand the world of your customer/partner and its attending issues. Relevance is one good way to make sure that you create recognition, but there are other possibilities.

Brands must learn to show recognition to their customers without denying their own characteristic property.

3. Extremes

This might be completely new to marketers, but research has shown that there is a simple way to create a ‘crush’. (And as we all know, being in love is a great start towards real love.) Put 2 people together and let them experience extreme situations together -with a happy ending of course- and chances are high(er) that they will have a crush on each other. Danger is an Aphrodisiac.

Now this is a more difficult one: brands must dare to create more extreme situations with their customers.  

Seen the period of brand courage implosion, I wonder whether brands are up to this…