Posts Tagged ‘Marketing’

Customer Engagement (Part 1)

by on Tuesday, May 3rd, 2011

Richard Meyer has a typically thought-provoking post about customer engagement on his New Media and Marketing Blog. In the post he tees off on a research report that uses ‘likes” on Facebook as the sole metric of customer engagement. Richard has a big problem with this: “Who the hell cares who ‘likes’ your posts?”

Richard goes on to say that engagement “doesn’t mean a damn thing”. I completely agree that clicking the “like” or “follow” button doesn’t mean that customers are engaged, but I think there is such a thing as engagement. I also think that marketers can and should take steps to encourage engagement, but that ultimately they can’t control it. I also think that we are a long way from effective engagement metrics.

Scuderia Ferrari

(Helena.40proof via Flickr)

I would define an engaged customer as one who acts as if he/she has a stake in the marketer’s business that extends beyond the specific transaction. These are the customers who can provide valuable insights and information both to the marketer and to other consumers. Under this definition, “liking” or “following” is about the weakest possible form of engagement imaginable.

Even in the absence of marketer involvement engaged customers can have a significant impact on sales. Because they may know more than the typical consumer and be more willing to share, they can be effective advocates for the marketer’s brand and products. Even if they point out product flaws or own up to having made a mistake in purchasing the marketer’s product (although Richard disagrees, Yelp and Trip Advisor contain plenty of reviews in which customers take at least some of the responsibility for their negative experience).

If the marketer does involve itself with its cadre of engaged customers it can do more than increase short-term sales. It can increase long-term sales by optimizing its business in areas such as product features, merchandise mix and customer service. By bringing them inside the tent the marketer may make these customers even more engaged and even more vigorous advocates for the brand and its products.

Customers don’t have to become unpaid product testers or spokespeople to be engaged. Engagement can include attending marketer-sponsored events or participating in marketer-endorsed charitable activities. By concretely affiliating oneself with the marketer and — critically — by sharing about it, engaged customers can drive the marketer’s message and build the marketer’s brand. Whether these activities result directly in sales depends in part on how they are structured and how the sales cycle normally works (cars and colas aren’t purchased the same way).

How vital is the marketer’s involvement to customer engagement? The short, if obvious, answer is that it can’t hurt. Perhaps surprisingly, however, some marketers with highly engaged customers have little if any involvement with them. One example, admittedly atypical in terms of both product and customers, is Ferrari. The Italian sports car maker has a passionately engaged base that includes not just current owners but past owners, hope-to-be owners and probably-never-will-be owners. This high level of engagement takes place with virtually no involvement from Ferrari, which pays attention only to the very top tier of its customer base (even for Ferrari, all customers are not created equal).

In the absence of marketer involvement, the Ferrari faithful have turned to enthusiast sites such as Ferrari Chat as well as marque clubs such as the Ferrari Club of America and Ferrari Owners Club (which hear from the marketer mainly when it believes its trademarks are being infringed). They have returned Ferrari’s lack of involvement by creating their own communities, whose benefit to the marketer goes unrecognized and unrewarded, but probably not unnoticed.

If it’s clear that marketers shouldn’t use likes and follows to measure engagement, what are some appropriate metrics? That will be the subject of Part 2 of this post.

The Zavee takeaway:

  • Customer engagement exists, but “likes” and “follows” are its most trivial form.
  • Engaged customers can help marketers improve their business, and not just by purchasing more.
  • Marketers can ignore, monitor or facilitate customer engagement, but it isn’t always clear which strategy will have the highest ROI.

Building Loyalty with Customer Reviews

by on Wednesday, February 23rd, 2011

Kevin Stirtz of Amazing Service Guy has an outstanding post in The Social Customer called, “10 Ways to Turn Online Reviews into More Loyal Customers”. Kevin’s advice is not just smart, it’s easy for any merchant to adopt. Things like, respond to every review; when you’re wrong, apologize; stay positive and consistent. Simple points, but they get at what makes a review platform like Zavee so powerful for local merchants.

I have only a few thoughts to add to Kevin’s. First, I absolutely agree with responding to every review, at least with a thank you. Depending on the platform, merchants can respond publicly (on the platform), privately (via direct message or email), or both. For example, I’ve seen public responses to reviews on TripAdvisor but not on Yelp. I’ve received private responses to reviews on Yelp. Zavee supports both public and private responses. Having access to both domains gives merchants a lot of flexibility but requires thought about how to use them. For example, a general statement of apology probably should always be public, but a promise of specific compensation might best be communicated privately.

Kevin doesn’t make the point explicitly, but underlying his comments is the notion that reviews can be shared socially. An inappropriate response can easily make the social rounds and do more damage than the review that the merchant was responding to. A gracious and informative response can be shared as well, but with the opposite effect. In other words, responses to reviews are marketing communications, and should be crafted as carefully as a news release or an ad.

Shout!

shout! (via Sandra Nahdi - Creative Commons)

Kevin rightly advises against writing fake positive reviews, calling them a distraction from the real work of improving the business. I agree that they are a distraction but I think another reason to avoid them is that they jeopardize the credibility of the review platform as a whole. Think of it as “Gresham’s Law” applied to content.

However, merchants frequently tell us they are more concerned about fake negative reviews, e.g., from a competitor or extremely dissatisfied customer. Merchants can never completely prevent malicious reviews but there are two things they can do to limit their impact: First, merchants should be extra vigilant about not rising to the bait and engaging in an online shouting match with the reviewer. Kevin makes this point about all negative reviews but it the more negative the review, the more important the merchant’s self-restraint. Second, merchants should trust their customers. They are pretty good about spotting outlier reviews, recognizing them for what they are and discounting their impact accordingly.

A more annoying problem for merchants is reviews that are stale. Restaurants that have changed chefs, hotels that have repainted their rooms, and stores that have changed suppliers have all been victimized by dated reviews. No one knows why anyone would wait months to describe a shopping, dining or travel experience they probably barely remember, but it is a common occurrence. Our attempt to limit the impact of both dated and false reviews is to permit shoppers to post a review only after making a purchase and within 30 days of that purchase.

The Zavee takeaway:

  • Respond to every review, if only to say “Thank you” or “I’m sorry”.
  • Treat every review as a marketing opportunity, to both new and existing customers.
  • Treat every response a marketing communication, one that may be shared well beyond merchant and customer.

Big Brands Embrace Social Commerce. Are They Alone?

by on Tuesday, October 12th, 2010

Zavee CEO Alan Pleskow and I attended the inaugural Rise of Social Commerce conference last week in Palo Alto. Big brands (usually) adopt new technologies and strategies earlier than small to medium sized businesses, so the conference provided a fascinating peek at how some of the largest companies are planning for and deploying Social Commerce today.

Social Commerce was defined by the conference organizers as “the use of social technologies to connect, listen, understand, and engage to improve the shopping experience.” For most conference attendees, the goal was removing the the technological, economic and operational obstacles that add “friction” to the online commerce experience.

(via x-ray delta one - Creative Commons)

Does that mean that Social Commerce is only for brands that sell online? And only for enterprise level companies? Not at all. Much of the learning around how consumers interact with brands and each other applies equally to brands whose customers make shopping decisions online but actually buy in-store. And much of the same learning applies equally to SMBs, even if some of their challenges are unique. For example, while SMBs are more likely to ask “How can I find the time?” than “Which department owns this?” using technology to become more customer-centric is something every business can do.

The organizers developed a conceptual framework for Social Commerce that has four phases:

  1. Let’s Be Social
  2. Enlightened Engagement
  3. Store of the Community
  4. Frictionless Commerce

The first phase is where many SMBs are today: working out the basics of consumer engagement on social platforms. Very few business we meet through Zavee still believe that social media is irrelevant to their business. Their most common issues are the time commitment required and the loss of control over their business’ message. Depending on the size of the business the time issue can be a real concern, but small businesses can start small, and increase their investment in social media as they begin to see results. As for the control issue, a few minutes on Twitter should open the eyes of any business owner about how much control they really have.

The second phase should be the destination for most SMBs, and they should get there as quickly as possible. This phase involves adding social content to the shopping experience: reviews from consumers, information and suggestions from the business, even content sourced from third parties. Regardless of whether the actual transaction takes place in the online or offline domain, enriching the consumer’s shopping experience through social content can have a significant impact on businesses of any size. Consumers respond to timely, relevant, personalized content by trying new businesses, becoming loyal customers and sharing their experiences with the community.

The third and fourth phases are over the horizon for many enterprises, let alone SMBs. The third phase involves bringing consumers into the process by which businesses create, buy, stock and price products, and the fourth involves completely re-imagining the retail experience. Some of the examples from the conference, such as Kaboodle and ModCloth, are very impressive. Many of the companies at the conference are looking to leverage Facebook’s enhanced commerce capabilities to bring the online store to the consumer rather than force the consumer to leave Facebook for an e-commerce site. SMBs may not be able to do everything these companies have done, but the underlying insight – that consumers respond to being included in decisions that are made upstream of the purchase – is something SMBs should consider making part of their strategy.

With so much emphasis on the enterprise, why did Alan and I attend this conference? It’s because we believe that the definition quoted above also describes what Zavee does for our merchants and shoppers. Our platform helps merchants use social media to listen, understand and engage with consumers. More importantly, Zavee is a community that supports the shopper-to-shopper and merchant-to-shopper interactions that lead to an enhanced shopping experience and a stronger brand. Adopting a Social Commerce strategy can seem daunting for SMBs, but with Zavee they don’t have to do it alone.

The Zavee takeaway:

  • SMBs can learn a lot from what enterprises think and do, even if these learnings can’t be applied directly.
  • The insight that consumers respond favorably to content that is timely, relevant, personalized can be leveraged by businesses of any size.
  • SMBs need to get into the Social Commerce space, but Zavee can ensure that they don’t take the journey alone.

4 Things to Consider About Negative Reviews

by on Wednesday, September 15th, 2010

Now that a New York court has dismissed claims against Yelp by a New York dentist based on a (very) negative review and on Yelp’s alleged removal of positive reviews, this might be a good time to think about what makes a review “negative” and what negative reviews mean to – and for – your business. You may think that negative reviews are just angry people taking shots at you. Here are four other ways to look at it:

via Marten Bjork (Creative Commons)

Readers recognize – and discount – outliers. Positive or negative, excessive emotions in a review diminish their credibility. It’s great to get an exceptional review for exceptional service. But if the glowing adjectives are out of proportion to a typical customer experience, readers are likely to apply the old saying: If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

Same thing with negative reviews. The surest way to lose credibility IS TO WRITE IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS WITH LOTS OF PUNCTUATION!!! These are actually the best negative reviews you can get, because even if they are accurate, who will believe them? It’s true that some people write reviews to blow off steam, but readers know that, and respond accordingly.

Mixed reviews are not necessarily negative. Have you ever used Rotten Tomatoes to decide whether to see a movie? The site’s “Tomatometer” rating is based on whether published reviews were positive or negative. However, a review can only be either “fresh” (i.e., positive) or “rotten” (i.e., negative), no matter how mixed or qualified the review might be. For “Going the Distance” (51% rating), the fresh reviews include “solid but totally forgettable” and “hilarious in many individual scenes [but] less than the sum of its parts”. Rotten reviews included “funny but forgettable” and “The laughs kept me involved … but after I left the theater, it occurred to me that this slight comedy hadn’t gone very far at all.” Hmm. Many reviews – of anything – are mixed enough that it would be hard to give them either a thumbs up or thumbs down rating. So don’t consider every mixed review a thumbs down.

A mixed review is often more thoughtful, detailed and nuanced than an outright rave or pan. A customer who writes a review that contains some negative feedback isn’t venting, she’s helping. These are the reviews your customers will take seriously – and you should do the same. When you respond to reviews like these (easy to do on Zavee) you can use the review as the basis for an ongoing relationship. If you want a second chance at the customer and a more positive review the second time around, being proactive is the only way to get results.

Yes, competitors can try to hurt your business with fake reviews, but there are reasons you don’t hear about it happening very often. If you are running a good business deceitful reviews are unlikely to harm you, especially if you are actively communicating with your customers. Why? First, as discussed above readers will tend to discount rants whether or not they are malicious. Second, users of social shopping sites tend to be very skeptical of reviews that differ greatly from what most (real) customers experience. The unusual experience is another kind of outlier. On the other hand, negative reviews that go into detail about the experience and/or are written by a reviewer who has demonstrated credibility based on other reviews may well be taken seriously, but how many of your competitors are willing to invest that much effort just to undermine your business? If you are actively communicating with your customers you should be able to deflect even the most sophisticated malicious review. Finally, social shopping sites are trying to safeguard against malicious and fraudulent reviews. At Zavee, our system will reject a review unless the author has had a transaction at that merchant within 30 days of the review. Could a competitor jump through all those hoops just to hurt your business? Probably, but how many would bother?

A negative review is a positive experience. On the most basic level, a thoughtful review that recounts a negative experience provides valuable information for your business. You can’t be everywhere, and if a waiter or a sales associate didn’t behave appropriately, or if a product or service fell short of expectations, wouldn’t you want to know? Of course you would prefer to hear it privately, but in our increasingly social world these conversations are being held in the open. That isn’t necessarily a bad thing. A negative review can be a positive experience because your handling of the situation – again, in public – gives you the chance to move the conversation forward: increasing customer engagement and loyalty, building your reputation and your brand, and even persuading non-customers to give you a try.

The Zavee takeaway:

  • Readers are smart, and they are good at recognizing which reviews to take seriously.
  • Negative reviews can hurt your business only if you ignore them or react passively. Especially on Zavee, where we make it so easy for merchants to interact with customers, make sure you respond to every review.
  • Always follow through on anything you promise – and don’t forget to talk about it.

Fun and Games at Zavee

by on Tuesday, June 22nd, 2010

We came up with a fun idea to attract new Zavee shoppers: a Sweepstakes! Details are available on the Zavee website, but our contest is a random drawing for cash prizes, with a twist. All Zavee shoppers are automatically eligible to win. The twist is that shoppers get an additional chance to win for every new Zavee shopper they refer. The more referrals, the more chances to win. Shoppers can invite their friends right from the Zavee site, which is easy for them and makes tracking referrals easy for us. The contest opened yesterday – the first day of summer – and runs through July 31.

Farmville Badge

via Rusty Boxcars

Adding an element of game play is one of the latest trends in marketing. At first blush, game play might not seem likely to resonate with adult consumers, but we all engage in competition in one form or another from a very early age. The viability of game play can be seen in the popularity of virtual games such as Farmville, which has almost 65 million monthly active users on Facebook. The location-based social network Foursquare also has a significant gaming element, with users earning points and “points” for specific activity.

Why should game play increase marketing effectiveness? The rationale is that encouraging the audience to participate and be rewarded helps a message earn attention in an increasingly noise-filled environment. Game play also is consistent with consumers’ increased expectation of control over the marketing messages they encounter. One result of meeting these expectations is that consumers not only pay more attention to messages presented as games, they have better recall of messages presented in games.

For small businesses, introducing game play into marketing programs can help level the playing field with competitors that have larger budgets. And it doesn’t require a lot of cost or complexity. The key is to figure out how to get the consumer involved in the message. We took a simple contest model and tweaked it by rewarding referrals. Social media platforms make game play even easier to implement. We plan to run a video contest on YouTube later this year, and the cost to us, apart from prizes, should be minimal.

The Zavee takeaway:

  • Marketing messages that have an element of game play increase awareness, attention and effectiveness.
  • The key to game play is user involvement, not expensive technology.
  • Small businesses can and should add game play to their marketing.

Competition and Creativity

by on Tuesday, June 15th, 2010

Competition can bring out the best in marketers, or the worst. It can make them clever and creative, or literal and banal. When Verizon Wireless wanted to respond to AT&T’s iPhone-fueled growth, it promoted its advantage in network coverage with the “There’s a Map for That” campaign. When DirecTV wanted to respond to price competition from Dish Network and local cable providers, it created a campaign called “To Tell the Truth” that uses a game show format to claim that only DirecTV tells the truth about its pricing. Similar competitive challenges, but very different creative solutions.

There's a Map for That

The standard agency creative development process involves identifying a significant consumer insight, turning that insight into a relevant, credible claim and bringing the claim to life in a compelling and memorable way. Verizon’s insight was that a smartphone is only as capable as the network it runs on, and its claim was that its network has more coverage than AT&T’s. DirecTV’s insight was that consumers in this category are value-driven, and its claim was that it provides more channels for less money.

Both campaigns are from major agencies: McCann Worldgroup for Verizon and Deutsch for DirecTV. But while Verizon’s commercials make their point in a clever and engaging way, DirecTV’s spots are uninvolving and numbingly literal. One creative team was able to make the jump from Apple’s “There’s an app for that” to Verizon’s network coverage map to “There’s a map for that” while the other creative team got only as far as an old game show. In fact, one wonders whether DirecTV even bothered trying to be creative, or whether they thought that being literal was the best way to reach their audience.

Creativity is a particular challenge in online marketing. In Zavee’s Google advertising we have a very limited space in which to induce users to click, and every word is analyzed and evaluated. If we weren’t highly literal our ads might not even appear where we want them. Within the Zavee site and this blog, we try to use keywords that will improve our rankings in searches. Search Engine Marketing and Search Engine Optimization are absolutely vital to Zavee’s marketing plan, but they don’t result in much creativity. In fact, it sometimes feels like we are writing for Google, not for our audience.

One online medium where creativity doesn’t have to be sacrificed for effectiveness is YouTube. Many marketers have figured out how to create videos that pull the audience in, expose them to the marketer’s brand and get them talking about it with others. And some of the best YouTube videos are produced by consumers, not the marketer. Look for Zavee to make greater use of this medium in the near future.

The Zavee takeaway:

  • Competition should make marketers more creative, not less.
  • SEO and SEM present challenges to creativity, but they aren’t the only online media.
  • YouTube is one online medium that rewards creativity.

Rebates: The Loyalty Monster?

by on Tuesday, May 18th, 2010

The Palm Beach Post recently ran a story about rebates and how frustrating it can be to redeem them. The article reprints the famous strip in which Dilbert confronts the three-headed Rebaterus monster and finally gives up trying to get his money.

Rebates aren’t something most small business have to concern themselves with, and they certainly aren’t part of Zavee‘s model. Nevertheless, they are an interesting touch point between marketer and customer. How large companies handle the complex questions about rebate redemptions may have implications for how smaller businesses deal with analogous situations in which the cost of making a customer happy may be to lose her altogether.

Consider what happens with a rebate: On the one hand, the marketer is willing to pass along an amount of money that may be significant both in absolute terms and as a percentage of the purchase price. This should create a positive interaction, especially for rebates that result in, say, a mobile phone costing the customer zero out of pocket. On the other hand, a redemption process that the consumer views as overly complicated or simply unfair can leave an unpleasant aftertaste and potentially threaten a relationship that may just be beginning.

Marketers have a legitimate reason for making the redemption process at least somewhat complex: preventing fraud. Fake bar codes and forged receipts are only two of the ways companies could be preyed upon if redemption were too easy. Moreover, some non-redemptions, or “breakage”, is attributable to consumers’ own inability to follow directions, such as mailing in the rebate by the deadline. Unfortunately, it is difficult for the consumer to differentiate between redemption strategies that are designed to protect the company (and, ultimately, consumers), from strategies that are expressly intended to increase breakage. And consumers do not seem inclined to give rebate marketers the benefit of the doubt.

We haven’t seen a great deal of discussion about the potential impact on customer loyalty of rebate redemption strategies, and we think there a great many unanswered questions. Here are a few that we hope loyalty professionals will consider and talk about:

  • If a consumer comes away from the rebate redemption process convinced that the marketer was attempting to (or did in fact) prevent her from redeeming her rebate, how long does that ill feeling remain? What are the variables that determine whether the consumer chalks it up to lessons learned or is lost to the marketer forever? Assuming that a given rebate redemption strategy will result in some loss of customer business, how do marketers calculate those losses in determining the ROI of a rebate program? Does the breakage always pay for the lost customers?
  • Do marketers take into account the propensity for frustrated consumers to share their experiences with their social graph, e.g., on Facebook and Twitter? What steps are marketers taking to participate in the conversation with consumers, e.g., to explain how the marketer’s redemption strategy reduces fraud and keeps rebate programs alive?
  • What are the fulfillment industry’s goals in structuring rebate redemptions? More specifically, is maximizing breakage an overt goal or merely an inevitable byproduct of loss prevention strategies? Is it reasonable for consumers to expect that marketers are capable of balancing their desire to prevent fraud with the customer’s desire to receive the rebate without undue difficulty or delay? Some companies have taken steps to make the redemption process easier, without changing the underlying eligibility rules, by walking consumers through the process on their Web sites. Is this the wave of the future, or do these marketers have unique reasons for making redemption easier?

At Zavee we don’t have answers to any of these questions but we hope the loyalty industry recognizes their importance and gives them the consideration they deserve.

The Positive Side of Negative Reviews

by on Tuesday, April 13th, 2010

Actor, author, shortstop or chef, no one likes a negative review. But when we were developing the Zavee business model we decided early on that we would have to include negative as well as positive reviews. The goal we set for ourselves was to create a framework for reviews that were accurate, timely and fair – and that meant including negative reviews.

Our commitment to getting reviews right stemmed from our insight that reviews were another form of Social Media and, as such, were going to be a vital component of the Zavee experience and value proposition. We also learned, based on research with merchants, that many business owners who expressed concern about potential harm from fraudulent, malicious or even accurate negative reviews also intuitively understood the benefit of hearing about issues directly from the customer affected.

As marketers are learning, people will say whatever they want to whomever they want, and merchants don’t have the power to control their customers’ conversations. They can, however, do two important things.

First, they can listen, learn and respond. Thanks to Social Media, including reviews, merchants can make necessary adjustments to their business almost in real time. This is something that every business should be doing, all the time, through every available channel. Twitter and Facebook are great listening posts, but reviews are a channel that exists solely to provide feedback about the customer experience.

Second, merchants can participate in the conversation. By actively engaging with their customers merchants can address problems quickly and publicly; they can provide perspective that helps customers evaluate reviews; and they can favorably shape perceptions about the business.

  • Responding quickly is important because unresolved issues tend to fester. Responding publicly is important because it gives the merchant the chance to address at one time a concern that may be shared by many customers.
  • Actively participating is the only sure way to get the merchant’s perspective into the conversation. Both the manner and the substance of the merchant’s response can help customers determine how much weight to give a negative review, while the absence of a response does nothing but add credence to the reviewer’s complaints. A measured, factual response may not erase the impact of a negative review, but at a minimum the merchant will have extended the relationship with the customer and demonstrated both interest and respect.
  • Simply committing the time and effort to engage customers in conversation sends a positive message to all customers and can go a long way toward shaping perceptions of the customer experience. This can reinforce the positive experiences of current customers and build loyalty, but it also can lead non-customers to have a favorable impression of what it would be like to be a customer. In other words, an impressive response to a negative review can actually bring in new business.
Creative Commons 2.0

Reviews (via fengergold)

In benchmarking Zavee against other sites that feature reviews we observed a wide disparity in the treatment of key issues. Some sites filter reviews while others list them all chronologically. At least one site that uses filtering algorithms has had to defend itself against allegations that it improperly manipulated the placement of reviews. We decided not to filter or change the placement of reviews, because we believed that the less we intervened in the substance of reviews, the more confidence shoppers would have in them and, ultimately, in the Zavee brand.

We also observed that some sites permitted reviews (both positive and negative) that described experiences that had occurred long before the review was written. We thought reviews that were dated were so likely to be inaccurate that it would be unfair to both merchants and shoppers to have them on our site. We also were concerned, as many merchants seemed to be, that on some review sites there there were insufficient safeguards against fake reviews or even fake merchants.

We addressed these problems by requiring that any shopper who wanted to review a merchant had to have made a purchase from that merchant within the previous 30 days and by permitting only one review per purchase. Zavee solicits a review after every transaction, and the shopper’s My Zavee page lists recent transactions and the time remaining to submit a review. Zavee automatically rejects reviews that do not meet these rules.

We also were concerned about reviews that, while perhaps not fraudulent, seemed hostile or malicious. We initially considered moderating reviews, the way we moderate comments on Zavee Thinking, but we decided not to. There is nothing wrong with having editorial standards for reviews – we are, after all, responsible for the content on our site – but we thought the better way to deal with potential problems was to let shoppers and merchants have their say but remove reviews that violated our Terms of Use.

Because we passionately believe that reviews should be a dialogue, we also made it easy for merchants to post responses to shopper reviews. Merchants are automatically notified whenever they are reviewed and have 7 days to post a response. Responses appear with the original reviews and always show up together in a search. Shoppers can respond the the merchant’s response, and the entire conversation is threaded so it can be seen by everyone who sees the original review.

The Zavee takeaway:

  • You can’t control what your customers say, but you can listen, learn and respond to concerns – almost in real time.
  • Use negative reviews as a conversation-starter, not a relationship-ender.
  • How you handle unfavorable reviews can shape perceptions about your business, for future as well as current customers. Treat reviews as an opportunity to be impressive – you may be surprised by the results.

Update (4/14/10): MediaPost’s Marketing Daily reports that S.C. Johnson has been receiving substantial negative feedback, including reviews, about a new pet care product – and tells Marketing Daily that it is bringing the feedback to its product development team for consideration.

NBC, NYT and Loyalty

by on Tuesday, January 19th, 2010

In the course of an entertaining post about NBC’s current “two hosts, one spot” late-night nightmare, Dean Bairaktaris asks, “Where is everyone’s Brand Loyalty? Is it with NBC, Leno or Conan?” This is an insightful question, because the expensive and embarrassing contretemps has been presented largely as Jay vs. Conan, Old Guard vs. Young Turk, homespun vs. hip.

via mashable.com

via mashable.com

The potential impact on NBC as a major media channel has largely been ignored, except in posts like Dean’s, as Conan is widely presumed to be able to shift his audience, more or less intact, to Fox or another media outlet. But it’s fair to ask whether the broadcast networks actually have brand equity apart from the shows they carry. Is there an “NBC-ness” to the Tonight Show (or any other NBC program) that would not carry over to another network? That arbiter of absurdity, The Onion, would certainly say no.

The soon-to-be-announced decision by The New York Times to put some or all of its content behind a pay wall also involved a debate over the brand equity of the Times versus that of its content (in this case, the paper’s prominent columnists). An outstanding article in New York Magazine details some columnists’ concerns that in its pursuit of subscription revenue the Times would be sacrificing its position as a leading online news brand, giving up both traffic and influence (as well as premium advertising rates, apparently).

I think the two situations have a lot in common. In both cases, the underlying question was whether the locus of customer loyalty is the channel (NBC and NYT) or its content (shows and columnists). I’m not sure the answer is the same in every case. I don’t think broadcast TV networks are differentiated enough to generate brand loyalty, but I’m not sure that’s equally true of newspapers (I grew up reading the New York Times so I might be biased – or just conditioned).

For small businesses, the lesson is to think about what aspect of your brand your customers are loyal to, and not to assume that all customers are loyal to the same thing or for the same reason. You want the locus of loyalty to be your overall brand so that customers will stay with you as your business changes, whether those changes involve staffing, product assortment, location or even store closings. However, until you have the conversation with your customers, you can’t be sure that they are loyal to your brand or to your personable store manager, convenient location or frequent sales.

As a smaller business, you have the ability to engage with customers directly and provide an overall customer experience that embodies your brand’s unique promises and values. Larger brands often (but not always) provide a product experience that is not as closely connected to the brand. This is an advantage for smaller businesses which, unlike large brands, should never need to market brands and products separately. To leverage the direct connection with customers, treat loyalty as a two-way street. There are many ways to demonstrate your loyalty to customers, but the easiest is to listen to what they have to say.

The Count of Social Media

by on Tuesday, January 12th, 2010

Imagine having that on your business card! In a world of Brogans, Vaynerchuks and Mashables there is no shortage of candidates worthy of the title, but this post isn’t about any of them.

Anyone who has kids, or who was one fairly recently, will remember Sesame Street’s Lugosi-eque math whiz, Count von Count. The Count would count anything, anytime, anywhere. And he was much better at it than, say, The Spanish Inquisition:

Imagine, then, what the Count – let alone the Inquisition – would have to say about this: a Flash-based application that provides a real-time count of Social Media activity. Courtesy of Gary Hayes’ Personalize Media blog, here is Gary’s Social Media counter:

Visit Gary’s blog if you want to know about his sources, but the details are almost beside the point. Spend even a minute watching the numbers cascade and you are sure to be convinced – if you weren’t already – that Social Media is a communications channel (or group of channels) that marketers cannot afford to ignore. If you are marketer with a small company and a small budget, Social Media is perfect for you. If you are just starting out, take the simple advice that you’ll get from everyone: listen first.

And if you would like to learn about a Social Media marketing program exclusively for local merchants, feel free to get in touch with us here at Zavee.