In a recent post on his “positive disruption” blog, Tom Martin makes the point that “You Can’t Buy Customers. You Have to Earn Them” and asks for reactions.
His basic point is that with few exceptions marketers who deliver a substandard experience are no longer able to hold consumers captive. One reason is that new and better products are easier and cheaper to develop than ever. The other reason is that it’s now so easy for consumers to inform and influence each other that bad experiences have nowhere to hide.
My list of exceptions may be longer than Tom’s. His example is AT&T and the iPhone but it’s easy to think of others: How many cable providers can you choose from? How many electrical utilities? How many airlines fly the route you want to travel?
I’m also not completely sold on the notion that good, new products can rapidly drive out bad, old ones. I think that probably depends a lot on the category. The barriers to creating, say, a new social network application, which we have done at Zavee, are not the same as the barriers to creating a new car.
Where we agree completely, however, is on the importance of access to information. It isn’t just that media companies are no longer the gatekeepers and large marketers are no longer the only ones who could pay the price of access. It’s that the web is finally sorting itself out as a communications medium, with public micro-messaging streams (a la Twitter) as the primary focus for disseminating and accessing information such as links.
So, does an environment in which consumers have lots of information and lots of options mean that they are hopelessly fickle and not worth talking to? Does it make sense to invest in a brand if consumers are making purchase decisions based on information and reviews from each other rather than messages from the marketer? What are marketers actually paying for?
I think that a strong brand is more important than ever in today’s environment. First, consumers who maintain for themselves a highly efficient information market are being rational, not fickle. Marketers need to participate in that market, not resist it. Second, consistency with the brand promise is one of the things that consumers will test for themselves and tell each other about. This favors brands whose promise is clearly defined and well communicated, something that still requires investment. Third, consumers want – and now can demand – relevance. This, too, favors brands that are strong and highly differentiated. Finally, as Tom himself has persuasively argued, there is always a place for brands that inspire passion.
Bill Hanifin recently wrote about Chick-fil-A, a brand in a highly competitive category (fast food) that uses a mix of quirky advertising and old-fashioned promotion to build passionate loyalty. And while Bill refers to Chick-fil-A as an offline brand, the company’s Facebook page, which isn’t updated very often (the Events section doesn’t list the opening Bill attended) has more than 1.23 million fans. It would not take much for Chick-fil-A to leverage these fans into a powerful online community.
Marketers never “bought” customers. At best they took advantage of inefficiencies in the information marketplace, inefficiencies that are rapidly disappearing. Marketers now should look to “rent” customers long enough to prove their relevance, demonstrate their value, inspire loyalty and deserve passion. It’s a tall order, but as Chick-fil-A shows, it’s possible – and worth it.
