Posts Tagged ‘reputation management’

Airlines and Loyalty … It’s Not Getting Better

by on Wednesday, June 29th, 2011

Bill Hanifin of Loyalty Truth recently posted about airlines and customer service, a post prompted by his trip around the world (Malaysia and back – that qualifies). My trips are rarely as exotic but I fly almost every week, primarily between Newark and either FLL or PBI, and primarily on Continental. Like Bill, I have a soft spot for airlines, having begun my career in aircraft finance. Again like Bill, I am amazed – and not in a good way – by the unforced errors airlines commit when it comes to customer service.

Bill writes that airlines should be using the wealth of data available to them to build in more flexibility in dealing with customers, some of whom may be very valuable to the airline. I agree, but I think that ignoring their own data is only half the problem. A lack of empowerment is the other. Associates can only be as flexible as the rules allow. And I have a hunch that consolidation has made carriers more rigid and reduced employees’ sense of ownership (anyone have similar – or different – experiences at newly-merged carriers?).

Bill isn’t a fan of unbundling, but my view is mixed. I think baggage fees are a slap in the face to passengers. Airlines ask us to cooperate in limiting what we carry aboard, then charge us for our cooperation. Nice. On the other hand, unbundling food is a win-win, because concourse food concessions are improving steadily at many airports just as on-board food is disappearing. Carrying on our own food is one of the few freedoms we have as passengers, and I wouldn’t want to turn back the clock.

via Flickr - where are the jonses

Maybe it’s because there aren’t any bosses or unions at 35,000 feet, or maybe it’s because the airlines know how to hire for the cabins, but most flight attendants do a great job despite more crowding and fewer amenities. One recent flight departed “on time” by pushing back before the aircraft was fully catered. Not surprisingly, grumbling ensued. Very surprisingly, the flight attendants up front decided to open bags of almonds left over from the inbound flight and serve them in wine glasses. It showed that the flight attendants cared and it put a smile on every face in first class. Airlines can’t teach that kind of resourcefulness, but I hope they reward it.

One of the biggest customer engagement problems the airlines face as they impose more rules, charges and limitations is that the customer-facing staff is constantly required to disappoint or frustrate the customer. The trick, whether in the cabin, at the gate or at the ticket counter is to avoid turning delivering bad news into delivering bad service. Being told your bag has to be gate-checked is bad news; being made to wait for it at baggage claim is bad service. Being handed your bag at the Jetway is a smart way to ease the sting.

Flexible rules, empowered associates and a premium on resourcefulness can do wonders for an airline’s word of mouth. At a time when consumers are increasingly willing and able to share their experiences effectively, bad service is just reckless. If I hated Continental – and I don’t – I’m sure I could find a different way to get to Florida every week. Travelers under fewer constraints can drive to a more distant airport or just drive to their destination. And many people would just as soon stay home. Customers like me who really have to fly can use social media to make sure that everyone in our social graph – including whoever runs social media at the airline – knows exactly how and what the airline is doing.

The Zavee takeaway:

  • Airlines need empowered, resourceful associates applying flexible, data-driven rules. The alternative is an ongoing low-intensity conflict with customers that the airlines can’t win.
  • Every customer has an alternative to a bad airline, even if it means staying home.
  • Social media levels the playing field for airline customers. They can sit us down, but they can’t shut us up.

0 comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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.

0 comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

What Can We Learn From Airline “Unbundling”?

by on Tuesday, August 24th, 2010

Anyone who has flown recently has experienced what the airlines call “unbundling”: separate fees for optional services that used to be bound up in the ticket price. Unbundling means, for example, that a passenger who flies with just a laptop bag will pay less than a passenger who checks baggage in the hold. The passenger who fills up at McDonalds or Starbucks before boarding will pay less than the passenger who wants an airline meal. The economics of unbundling fees for ancillary services have been amply discussed elsewhere: The airlines do well and the passengers … well, it depends.

From the passenger’s perspective, unbundling works best when (1) the service really is optional (i.e, the passenger isn’t coerced to to incur the fee) and (2) the fee itself doesn’t seem like an unreasonable money grab by the airline. Airlines are most likely to be successful unbundling services that a substantial number of passengers either don’t want or need or that they can easily live without or replace on their own.

Suitcases (via Malias - Creative Commons)

Airline food is a perfect candidate for unbundling: It’s easy to get cheaper and better food on the concourse and the airlines no longer forbid passengers from bringing their own on board. Seating is another example. Want a reserved seat? Pay for it. Willing to take your chances on your seatmate? Save your money. Some airlines charge more for seats that are larger or closer to the exit. Worth the extra fee? You decide. These fees are relatively easy to explain to passengers, but airlines on the whole have been lax in communicating with their customers.


Checked baggage fees are also economically defensible, since every piece of checked baggage adds to the fuel required for the trip and thus to the airline’s cost. But airlines are fooling themselves, and doing a disservice to their customers, if they think the economic rationale is self explanatory. While many passengers, especially those on business, don’t check bags and don’t pay the fee, other passengers, especially families, find the policy coercive. One unintended consequence is that passengers have an economic incentive to carry on bags they might otherwise have checked. As the Steven Slater incident reminds us, trying to stuff oversized carry-ons into undersized bins can end badly.

As Bill Hanifin points out, it’s essential that airlines communicate the policy both on the plane and via social media. This is especially important with airline policies that are new, subject to change and may be perceived (rightly or wrongly) as unfair to the passenger. Why are airlines so lax about communicating with their customers? One guess is that there hasn’t been a storm of complaint about most of these fees. But the likely reason for such acquiescence is not consumer satisfaction, but its opposite. As a frequent flyer I hear a lot of grumbling, but most of it sounds more resigned than angry. Many airlines survive consumer dissatisfaction, but only because consumers often have few alternatives and, except for the most egregious service issues, have simply given up. This is the sign of an industry in trouble.


The Zavee takeaway:

  • Communication of any significant business change is essential. Customer dissatisfaction will fill the void if you let it.
  • Don’t assume that customers understand the economics of business decisions that affect them. They aren’t stupid, but economic rationales require explanation.
  • Don’t confuse the absence of complaint for approval. In fact, if you do something that should generate (some) complaints and don’t get them you have a problem that you need to address immediately. Unlike airlines, few small businesses can count on getting away with taking their customers for granted.

4 comments
Tags: , , , , , ,

Can Social Media Clean Up BP’s Image?

by on Tuesday, June 8th, 2010

Imagine that something having to do with your business goes catastrophically wrong, in public, and you don’t look like the blameless victim. That, and worse, is the situation BP finds itself in following its disastrous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. And, perhaps even more than the Toyota recall, social media is affecting perceptions of the disaster and those involved in it.

via Noah Scalin

BP itself is providing a real-time video feed from a dozen cameras of the oil spewing out of the wellhead. This feed is becoming the defining imagery of the disaster, the constant flow representing for many the helplessness of the “experts” on the surface a mile above. BP also maintains a YouTube channel. BP has supplied its wellhead video feed to the web site of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, which has maintained a steady flow of press releases focusing on BP. In addition to video, BP’s own site contains maps, claims forms (in English, Spanish and Vietnamese) and, of course, press releases.

BP is also trying to participate in the conversation on Social Media, but does not appear to be having much success in overcoming anti-BP sentiment. The “Boycott BP” page on Facebook is liked by more than 450,000 users, although it is unclear whether this movement will be able to affect BP’s business. On Twitter, an anti-BP impostor has amassed almost 140,000 followers while BP’s own Twitter feed is hovering at about 12,000 followers.

Much like Toyota several months ago, BP cannot expect to be portrayed other than as the villain. All BP can do is communicate openly and actively, and if its mea culpas come off as somewhat self-serving, at least the company isn’t stonewalling. The difference between the recall and the oil spill is, of course, scale. Toyota fixed the problems with its cars relatively quickly and was able to begin to rebuild its reputation. BP faces a much greater challenge, because the spill has not been contained quickly, the environmental impact may be enormous, and as an oil company BP did not start out with the kind of reputation Toyota had among the public.

So far, BP has demonstrated a certain sophistication in not trying to shut down the parody Twitter feed or the flow of satirical treatments of the company’s logo. In March, the environmental activist group Greenpeace provoked Nestle into overreacting to critical videos and Facebook postings that included modified versions of the Nestle logo. BP hasn’t fallen into that trap. Nor has it attempted to co-opt the fake Twitter account. This is a wise choice, since if trying to shut down the account would be bullying, trying to fold it into the company’s own communication strategy would seem, um, slimy.

The Zavee takeaway:

  • In a bad situation, openness and honesty really are the best policies.
  • The better you do at solving the problem, the easier it will be to rebuild your reputation.
  • Frustrated people need to express their frustration. Don’t try to stop them.

0 comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Can Social Media Help Toyota Repair Its Reputation?

by on Tuesday, February 2nd, 2010

As most of the world now knows, Toyota’s US unit has announced the recall of approximately 2.3 million vehicles to repair a condition that has resulted in gas pedals sticking while the car is being driven. Safety issues are perhaps an automaker’s greatest threat, and Toyota clearly is taking the situation seriously. The company has even halted production of the affected vehicles until the problem can be solved. Nevertheless, according to auto blog The Truth About Cars, the Japanese business publication Nikkei (think Wall Street Journal) claims that the crisis “is seen as a major dent in the side of the leading Japanese automaker’s reputation as a builder of reliable automobiles.”

The Toyota issue is the largest product recall since the rise of Social Media, but it is not the first. In November, 2009, UK stroller manufacturer Maclaren recalled approximately one million strollers after reports that children were getting their fingers caught in the folding mechanism. The company put recall information on its web site, which, according to the New York Times, promptly crashed. Like Toyota, Maclaren’s stellar reputation resulted in a case of “the bigger they are, the harder they fall.” Time reported that parent blogs were merciless toward the company. Maclaren posted a video PSA to YouTube announcing the recall and the availability of a repair kit, but apparently did not take advantage of either Facebook or Twitter to communicate with parents.

Moving Forward?

Moving Forward?

Toyota is already receiving some criticism for being insufficiently engaged with its customers. The company has a page on its site dedicated to the recall, with links to FAQs and a video news release consisting of talking head sound bites from COO Jim Lentz along with ad-quality footage of the cars and the factory. The video is disappointing: Lentz’s comments sound blandly reassuring but never manage to engage. Today’s Ad Age reports that Toyota’s video is now on the company’s Facebook page, where it is said to have been well received. If the video is posted on the Toyota page, however, the company has not made it easy to find. Most of the wall postings appear to be from car owners and most are in the “I love my Toyota!” genre (it’s not called a fan page for nothing). There appears to be no company-supplied content relating to the recall (unless that video is there somewhere) and certainly no conspicuous attempt to leverage Toyota’s 70,000+ Facebook fans.

Toyota does have a presence on Twitter, but until yesterday the company was using the feed to point to information on the company’s web site. On Monday afternoon Lentz spent 20 minutes fielding questions on Twitter. The Q&A was announced only shortly before it began, and greater lead time might have yielded more participants. However, car bloggers such as @jalopnik and its editor @raywert were on the feed as well as several Toyota dealers. Although this was not the smoothest exercise, it strikes us as a good first step toward engaging with customers, not just making announcements to them.

Toyota is using a wide range of media to announce that it knows how to repair the faulty parts. Now let’s see how Toyota uses Social Media as it tries to repair its reputation.

0 comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,