Following up on my last post:
I was just on a flight (Alaska Airlines - usually a really good company), where they wanted to charge us $10 for a portable entertainment device thingee. It sits on your lap and plays movies, TV shows, music, etc.
Looking around, it appeared that maybe one in 10 (if that) people actually paid for one.
So, let's do the math:
Assuming 1 in 10 buy, a plane with, say, 200 passengers = 20 buyers.
At $10 each, that's $200 revenue.
Compare this to the "old way" of just having a few screens drop down from the ceiling.
If the airline simply added $1 to every ticket on the flight, revenue would also = $200.
Cost-wise, both options have their own pros and cons.
As far as actual "product", I'm sure the personal players are better in many ways, since they allow users to pick and choose their entertainment.
But, all these other things being equal, what's the brand impact?
Personally, I feel that the airline is being cheap with the "personal player approach". It just serves to remind me of all the other things that used to be included in the price of a flight that are no longer available (at least not for "free"). I'd much rather pay an extra buck for my ticket and put up with a mediocre movie or two. Or, ideally, still keep a handful of the personal players for those passengers who want them -- treat it like an extra, not a substitute.
I'm a cheapskate, so I appreciate airlines reducing costs by cutting services. That's especially good for short, low-price, regional or commuter flights. But when we're talking about a several-hundred-dollar, multi-hour flight, how many passengers would care about (or even notice) a price difference of less than, say, $10 on their ticket?
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Saturday, July 26, 2008
A Quick Question
Has nickel and dime-ing customers every worked? Ever? For anyone?
If anybody has an example of this business model or direction working for a brand, let me know.
Airlines and banks are the worst offenders, but there are plenty of other industries that have started to do this.
"We won't raise the price of our core product or service (much), but we'll add a 'fuel surcharge' or a 'convenience fee' or a 'service charge'..."
I'd really like to know if this has worked in the real world, or if the airlines, banks, etc. are fooling themselves thinking that this direction will help save their failing businesses.
If anybody has an example of this business model or direction working for a brand, let me know.
Airlines and banks are the worst offenders, but there are plenty of other industries that have started to do this.
"We won't raise the price of our core product or service (much), but we'll add a 'fuel surcharge' or a 'convenience fee' or a 'service charge'..."
I'd really like to know if this has worked in the real world, or if the airlines, banks, etc. are fooling themselves thinking that this direction will help save their failing businesses.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Digital Is Unlimited
There's virtually no extra cost or effort involved in making something "bigger" in a virtual medium.
Yet for some reason, some brands act like they're paying by the word.
I've been planning a trip for the last couple of months and in the search for places to stay I'll often come across online listings like "Great accommodations near town. Low prices. Includes kitchen."
That's it.
Why not write something descriptive? I'll even excuse poor writing if it means I'm getting lots of content.
Same goes for Web sites. It's incredible how many sites have almost no useful information in them. It almost seems like the company has purposely held back. Why not share everything that you'd like people to know? Put it on a sub-sub-sub-sub page if you don't want it to distract users. But at least make it available.
This isn't just an "online" concern, now that almost any medium could incorporate digital aspects.
Here's an idea: Payment machines at parking lots usually have a tiny little LCD screen and about three or four buttons. How often do customers have a question about operating hours or emergency contacts, or some obscure question? Pretty often, I'd venture. So most lots have rules and regulations posted on signs scattered throughout the area. Why not turn the machine into a payment AND information centre? How difficult could it be to add a simplified "FAQ" to the machine, and let people scroll through information about common issue? The display doesn't have to be pretty.
Another example along the same lines: Why are security system panels so brief and vague? You know the ones -- a small scrolling LCD window that says something like "Dr 4 Zone 3 warning". Is there really any reason why this couldn't say "Obstruction detected in south side of warehouse, near kitchen door" ?
Information is great, and having it available will (usually) immensely help improve the customer's experience.
Yet for some reason, some brands act like they're paying by the word.
I've been planning a trip for the last couple of months and in the search for places to stay I'll often come across online listings like "Great accommodations near town. Low prices. Includes kitchen."
That's it.
Why not write something descriptive? I'll even excuse poor writing if it means I'm getting lots of content.
Same goes for Web sites. It's incredible how many sites have almost no useful information in them. It almost seems like the company has purposely held back. Why not share everything that you'd like people to know? Put it on a sub-sub-sub-sub page if you don't want it to distract users. But at least make it available.
This isn't just an "online" concern, now that almost any medium could incorporate digital aspects.
Here's an idea: Payment machines at parking lots usually have a tiny little LCD screen and about three or four buttons. How often do customers have a question about operating hours or emergency contacts, or some obscure question? Pretty often, I'd venture. So most lots have rules and regulations posted on signs scattered throughout the area. Why not turn the machine into a payment AND information centre? How difficult could it be to add a simplified "FAQ" to the machine, and let people scroll through information about common issue? The display doesn't have to be pretty.
Another example along the same lines: Why are security system panels so brief and vague? You know the ones -- a small scrolling LCD window that says something like "Dr 4 Zone 3 warning". Is there really any reason why this couldn't say "Obstruction detected in south side of warehouse, near kitchen door" ?
Information is great, and having it available will (usually) immensely help improve the customer's experience.
Friday, July 18, 2008
Lower Price Alternatives
Depending on the airline you use, it's now becoming cheaper to ship your bags ahead of time rather than checking them onto your flight.
This chart breaks down several options, including two ends of the airline spectrum, a couple of couriers, regular mail, and a couple of specialty operations.
Assuming that the trend continues, here are my two cents:
1. Fedex, UPS, and other courier companies would be very smart to open branches inside airport terminals. Both Fedex and UPS own chains of business service retail outlets (Kinkos and what used to be Mailboxes Etc.), so they certainly already understand the model of a small storefront location. Bonus: they could offer airport customers other services like Internet access, printing, and so on -- something severely lacking in most airports.
2. Comparing the two airlines on the chart... Southwest's fees are low and they're doing relatively alright. Delta's fees are high and they're constantly in financial trouble. Coincidence, or is this just an illustration of how screwed up the big "legacy" airlines are? Hmmm, I wonder.
This chart breaks down several options, including two ends of the airline spectrum, a couple of couriers, regular mail, and a couple of specialty operations.
Assuming that the trend continues, here are my two cents:
1. Fedex, UPS, and other courier companies would be very smart to open branches inside airport terminals. Both Fedex and UPS own chains of business service retail outlets (Kinkos and what used to be Mailboxes Etc.), so they certainly already understand the model of a small storefront location. Bonus: they could offer airport customers other services like Internet access, printing, and so on -- something severely lacking in most airports.
2. Comparing the two airlines on the chart... Southwest's fees are low and they're doing relatively alright. Delta's fees are high and they're constantly in financial trouble. Coincidence, or is this just an illustration of how screwed up the big "legacy" airlines are? Hmmm, I wonder.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Oblivious
My wife finally closed a mostly-inactive bank account last weekend.
She would've liked to have kept it (for a number of reasons) but was finding it hard to justify paying fees each month for something that she used for paying a single recurring bill (and even that was recently changed to a different bank).
Anyway, it struck me while we were there just how out of touch with reality the institution was. They seemed entirely oblivious to:
- what their competitors are offering
- the fact that consumers have a choice
and
- what's standard in other industries (and therefore coming to be expected by customers)
They seemed to have no knowledge of (or even interest in) the fact that other financial institutions had zero-fee options.
We were there mid-afternoon on a Saturday, and they were already closing up for the weekend. Meanwhile, the stripmall they're located in was still packed with people going to various other businesses. Not to mention that at least two of their major competitors are quite aggressively promoting their extended operating hours.
Adding insult to injury, peppered throughout the branch were signs announcing their new fee structure, in which the majority of the most-common transactions were increasing in cost.
And then there's the brand impression of the actual closing of the account:
First, they didn't seem too concerned to be losing a customer. Made no effort to try to find a solution that might keep us happy.
Second, the actual process involved a security check (to make sure they give the balance remaining in the account to the right person) in which they had to request a signature card from my wife's "regular" branch (that she hasn't actually been to in years). This signature was from 1980-something. Really useful. And of course the account is in her maiden name, so her current ID wasn't sufficient. After much waiting around, they eventually decided to just give her a bank draft in her maiden name, without actually requiring any valid ID. So much for security.
They somehow simultaneously managed to make the process both:
a.) Pointless
and
b.) Time consuming
One of these is acceptable, but both is bordering on an airport security level of ridiculousness.
I really wonder if this institution will continue to exist for many more decades if they don't change. How many people out there are actually satisfied with the extremely-limited bankers' hours, being forced to go in-branch for things that could be done by phone or Internet, paying fees for (literally) nothing, etc. etc. etc.?
She would've liked to have kept it (for a number of reasons) but was finding it hard to justify paying fees each month for something that she used for paying a single recurring bill (and even that was recently changed to a different bank).
Anyway, it struck me while we were there just how out of touch with reality the institution was. They seemed entirely oblivious to:
- what their competitors are offering
- the fact that consumers have a choice
and
- what's standard in other industries (and therefore coming to be expected by customers)
They seemed to have no knowledge of (or even interest in) the fact that other financial institutions had zero-fee options.
We were there mid-afternoon on a Saturday, and they were already closing up for the weekend. Meanwhile, the stripmall they're located in was still packed with people going to various other businesses. Not to mention that at least two of their major competitors are quite aggressively promoting their extended operating hours.
Adding insult to injury, peppered throughout the branch were signs announcing their new fee structure, in which the majority of the most-common transactions were increasing in cost.
And then there's the brand impression of the actual closing of the account:
First, they didn't seem too concerned to be losing a customer. Made no effort to try to find a solution that might keep us happy.
Second, the actual process involved a security check (to make sure they give the balance remaining in the account to the right person) in which they had to request a signature card from my wife's "regular" branch (that she hasn't actually been to in years). This signature was from 1980-something. Really useful. And of course the account is in her maiden name, so her current ID wasn't sufficient. After much waiting around, they eventually decided to just give her a bank draft in her maiden name, without actually requiring any valid ID. So much for security.
They somehow simultaneously managed to make the process both:
a.) Pointless
and
b.) Time consuming
One of these is acceptable, but both is bordering on an airport security level of ridiculousness.
I really wonder if this institution will continue to exist for many more decades if they don't change. How many people out there are actually satisfied with the extremely-limited bankers' hours, being forced to go in-branch for things that could be done by phone or Internet, paying fees for (literally) nothing, etc. etc. etc.?
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
How To Tell That An Ad Was Written Elsewhere
I just heard a radio spot for a credit card that earns airline mileage points.
It's a discussion between two people. Pretty standard: one talks about all the miles she's earning just by making regular purchases.
Here's the great part: she's excited by the prospect of earning enough miles to fly to Seattle.
From Vancouver.
A three hour drive.
A trip that can actually take longer by plane due to check-in requirements, waiting for luggage, the fact that both cities' airports are located somewhat outside of the city centre, and other factors.
A trip that few people would really get excited about taking. (Nothing against Seattle, but people in Vancouver hardly think of it as an exotic destination)
A trip that nobody in Vancouver would actually spend mileage program points on.
I get the funny feeling that this ad resulted from the following conversation:
Toronto Ad Agency Account Manager: "We need a Vancouver version of the radio spot."
Toronto Ad Agency Creative Type: "The usual?"
TAAAM: "Yup. Two people talking. Excited to earn miles. Flying to a fun destination. Blah blah blah"
TAACT: "Okay. What destinations are within the lowest reward level for Vancouver flights?"
TAAAM: "Ummm. Vegas... Portland... LA... Seattle..."
TAACT: "Vegas and LA are a little overdone. I don't know anything about Portland. Seattle sounds nice."
TAAAM: "Beautiful. Go for it."
It's a discussion between two people. Pretty standard: one talks about all the miles she's earning just by making regular purchases.
Here's the great part: she's excited by the prospect of earning enough miles to fly to Seattle.
From Vancouver.
A three hour drive.
A trip that can actually take longer by plane due to check-in requirements, waiting for luggage, the fact that both cities' airports are located somewhat outside of the city centre, and other factors.
A trip that few people would really get excited about taking. (Nothing against Seattle, but people in Vancouver hardly think of it as an exotic destination)
A trip that nobody in Vancouver would actually spend mileage program points on.
I get the funny feeling that this ad resulted from the following conversation:
Toronto Ad Agency Account Manager: "We need a Vancouver version of the radio spot."
Toronto Ad Agency Creative Type: "The usual?"
TAAAM: "Yup. Two people talking. Excited to earn miles. Flying to a fun destination. Blah blah blah"
TAACT: "Okay. What destinations are within the lowest reward level for Vancouver flights?"
TAAAM: "Ummm. Vegas... Portland... LA... Seattle..."
TAACT: "Vegas and LA are a little overdone. I don't know anything about Portland. Seattle sounds nice."
TAAAM: "Beautiful. Go for it."
Friday, July 11, 2008
More Than Art
I just re-read my last post and think I should elaborate or clarify one point.
When I mentioned the need for a campaign's intangible "atmosphere", I'm referring to a lot more than art direction or the literal look-and-feel. And when I say "pervade", I'm not simply talking about lots of impressions or a heavy ad frequency.
Pervasiveness throughout every possible aspect of the marketer's contact with the target audience is key.
Everything in, say, a horror movie conveys "scary" (except when it's dramatically more noticeable or necessary to lighten things up): the music is deep and spooky, the lighting is a little bit shadowy, things don't always appear in perfect focus, the costumes have a certain roughness to them, there are lots of subtle sound effects, and on and on...
Same with a light-hearted romantic comedy: the music is light and usually uses a familiar hum-able tune or two, everything is well-lit, the main characters are dressed immaculately and have perfect hair and clothes...
I should get the same feeling from a marketing effort. I might not even consciously notice most of the little details that are creating this "feeling", and maybe that's a sign of success.
When I mentioned the need for a campaign's intangible "atmosphere", I'm referring to a lot more than art direction or the literal look-and-feel. And when I say "pervade", I'm not simply talking about lots of impressions or a heavy ad frequency.
Pervasiveness throughout every possible aspect of the marketer's contact with the target audience is key.
Everything in, say, a horror movie conveys "scary" (except when it's dramatically more noticeable or necessary to lighten things up): the music is deep and spooky, the lighting is a little bit shadowy, things don't always appear in perfect focus, the costumes have a certain roughness to them, there are lots of subtle sound effects, and on and on...
Same with a light-hearted romantic comedy: the music is light and usually uses a familiar hum-able tune or two, everything is well-lit, the main characters are dressed immaculately and have perfect hair and clothes...
I should get the same feeling from a marketing effort. I might not even consciously notice most of the little details that are creating this "feeling", and maybe that's a sign of success.
Making A Movie
The topic of "direct response" vs. "branding" advertising came up during some meetings yesterday. The consensus is pretty obvious that some combination is necessary for virtually any campaign. I like the analogy of filmaking:
You've got the straightforward, memorable, quotable, easy-to-tell-others-about aspects like the script, locations, and the big special effects sequences.
But equally important is the intangible stuff -- the score, the camera angles, focus techniques, editing style...
Sure, you could do without the latter, but it will probably be pretty boring story (even if the actual dialog is amazingly written). This part (the atmosphere, for lack of a better term) is what makes a film stand out with fans and critics. But in the business world, its marketing equivalent tends to be overlooked or under-appreciated.
Branding and the overall "feel" of a campaign need to somehow pervade everything you do. It's almost impossible to attach an ROI to this type of thinking, though, and even harder to be quantify the impact it has on the success of the more tangible components.
You've got the straightforward, memorable, quotable, easy-to-tell-others-about aspects like the script, locations, and the big special effects sequences.
But equally important is the intangible stuff -- the score, the camera angles, focus techniques, editing style...
Sure, you could do without the latter, but it will probably be pretty boring story (even if the actual dialog is amazingly written). This part (the atmosphere, for lack of a better term) is what makes a film stand out with fans and critics. But in the business world, its marketing equivalent tends to be overlooked or under-appreciated.
Branding and the overall "feel" of a campaign need to somehow pervade everything you do. It's almost impossible to attach an ROI to this type of thinking, though, and even harder to be quantify the impact it has on the success of the more tangible components.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Something Airlines Actually Get Right
Airlines have a bad reputation for customer service. Very few have a strong, respected brand when it comes to treating us like anything but cattle or anonymous seat-fillers. However... generally, if there's a serious problem with a flight (delays being the most common, of course) they'll actually try to compensate the affected passengers.
Here's the important thing: they don't just compensate you with "Here's your money back; you can have this flight for free" or something similar. They will often go an extra step and offer an additional flight (usually anywhere in the region), a free upgrade to Executive class, or something else that's above and beyond what you "lost".
Restaurants sometimes do this as well. Your entree was screwed up? Have the entree for free, and we'll give you a free dessert, too.
Sadly, though, most businesses (most industries, actually) don't take this approach. Even companies well-known for taking care of customers will stop at "making it right". No-hassle return policies, for example, or replacing a broken item with a brand new one.
I'd like to see more brands go that extra step. They should recognize that it's not just about the broken product, or the delayed flight this time, or whatever. Beyond the negative brand perception caused by a problem, there's generally a literal, tangible extra "cost" to the consumer.
Thanks for replacing that broken DVD player with No Questions Asked, but:
a.) Why did it break in the first place? I'm not so sure about buying from you again... What happens if the replacement breaks, too? Am I going to look like the bad guy?...
and
b.) I had to unhook the broken unit from my home theatre, package it up, hop in my car, drive to the store, explain the situation, get the new product, and re-install it.
(The above's just an example. This exact situation hasn't actually happened to me, but you could substitute a hundred other things in place of "DVD player")
Once in a while, I'd like to see a customer service clerk actually say "Sorry about the broken DVD player. Here's a new one. Want us to test it out before you take it home? We'd be happy to attach a bunch of the cables for you as well to save you time when you get home. And here's a $15 gift card. Go ahead and pick out a DVD of your choice (or anything else, for that matter) while we're doing that..."
Now THAT would impress me. I'd have no hesitation about buying from that store again. My impression of the product manufacturer would also improve. It would simply be nice to see that the full impact of the problem is recognized and appreciated.
Here's the important thing: they don't just compensate you with "Here's your money back; you can have this flight for free" or something similar. They will often go an extra step and offer an additional flight (usually anywhere in the region), a free upgrade to Executive class, or something else that's above and beyond what you "lost".
Restaurants sometimes do this as well. Your entree was screwed up? Have the entree for free, and we'll give you a free dessert, too.
Sadly, though, most businesses (most industries, actually) don't take this approach. Even companies well-known for taking care of customers will stop at "making it right". No-hassle return policies, for example, or replacing a broken item with a brand new one.
I'd like to see more brands go that extra step. They should recognize that it's not just about the broken product, or the delayed flight this time, or whatever. Beyond the negative brand perception caused by a problem, there's generally a literal, tangible extra "cost" to the consumer.
Thanks for replacing that broken DVD player with No Questions Asked, but:
a.) Why did it break in the first place? I'm not so sure about buying from you again... What happens if the replacement breaks, too? Am I going to look like the bad guy?...
and
b.) I had to unhook the broken unit from my home theatre, package it up, hop in my car, drive to the store, explain the situation, get the new product, and re-install it.
(The above's just an example. This exact situation hasn't actually happened to me, but you could substitute a hundred other things in place of "DVD player")
Once in a while, I'd like to see a customer service clerk actually say "Sorry about the broken DVD player. Here's a new one. Want us to test it out before you take it home? We'd be happy to attach a bunch of the cables for you as well to save you time when you get home. And here's a $15 gift card. Go ahead and pick out a DVD of your choice (or anything else, for that matter) while we're doing that..."
Now THAT would impress me. I'd have no hesitation about buying from that store again. My impression of the product manufacturer would also improve. It would simply be nice to see that the full impact of the problem is recognized and appreciated.
Do You Really Know What's Important?
Here's a great video of Malcolm Gladwell from the 2008 New Yorker Conference.
He discusses the "mismatch" problem of using the wrong metrics to predict success. Some really interesting ideas here. As usual, after listening to his perspective, you tend to think "Well, obviously." Yet it's quite likely a completely different perspective than you started with.
Why do we automatically assume, and simply accept, that smaller class sizes are better for students?
Why do we automatically assume, and simply accept, that testing athletes' strength, endurance, etc. through a series of drills will show their capacity to compete in their sport?
Plus a bunch of other examples.
In a way, his ideas relate to my previous post about trying to quantify the qualitative. It's not just that we've chosen the wrong metrics to examine, but that some things are simply too complex or variable (human, in other words) to even try applying any fixed metrics.
This perspective adds credibility to the shotgun approach. Perhaps we're better off trying many different things (on a small-scale, test basis, of course) to see what really works.
Instead of job interviews, for example, what if every halfway decent candidate actually tries doing the job for a couple of weeks? Sure, it would be expensive and time consuming, but is it any worse than having an ongoing staff turnover problem because you're constantly the wrong people?
When launching a new product, how do we know if it will be successful or not? Most companies apply a series of assumptions: the price is similar to what customers already pay for a comparable product... it fulfills a need that focus groups tell us customers want... it's the same shape and colour as the industry's best seller... And on and on. Yet even though we "know" all these things, an enormous number (I would even suggest the majority) of new products fail miserably.
I'm looking forward to reading Gladwell's new book when it comes out this Fall. In the meantime, this video has made me think about a few things:
1. Re-evaluate the metrics and success criteria. Do I actually know that a certain measurement is a good indicator, or is it just a long-standing assumption?
2. Re-evaluate the very "quantifiability". Can success even be measured at all using a strict, quantifiable set of criteria?
3. Test and trial. Whenever possible, see how well alternative ideas/people/products/directions work.
He discusses the "mismatch" problem of using the wrong metrics to predict success. Some really interesting ideas here. As usual, after listening to his perspective, you tend to think "Well, obviously." Yet it's quite likely a completely different perspective than you started with.
Why do we automatically assume, and simply accept, that smaller class sizes are better for students?
Why do we automatically assume, and simply accept, that testing athletes' strength, endurance, etc. through a series of drills will show their capacity to compete in their sport?
Plus a bunch of other examples.
In a way, his ideas relate to my previous post about trying to quantify the qualitative. It's not just that we've chosen the wrong metrics to examine, but that some things are simply too complex or variable (human, in other words) to even try applying any fixed metrics.
This perspective adds credibility to the shotgun approach. Perhaps we're better off trying many different things (on a small-scale, test basis, of course) to see what really works.
Instead of job interviews, for example, what if every halfway decent candidate actually tries doing the job for a couple of weeks? Sure, it would be expensive and time consuming, but is it any worse than having an ongoing staff turnover problem because you're constantly the wrong people?
When launching a new product, how do we know if it will be successful or not? Most companies apply a series of assumptions: the price is similar to what customers already pay for a comparable product... it fulfills a need that focus groups tell us customers want... it's the same shape and colour as the industry's best seller... And on and on. Yet even though we "know" all these things, an enormous number (I would even suggest the majority) of new products fail miserably.
I'm looking forward to reading Gladwell's new book when it comes out this Fall. In the meantime, this video has made me think about a few things:
1. Re-evaluate the metrics and success criteria. Do I actually know that a certain measurement is a good indicator, or is it just a long-standing assumption?
2. Re-evaluate the very "quantifiability". Can success even be measured at all using a strict, quantifiable set of criteria?
3. Test and trial. Whenever possible, see how well alternative ideas/people/products/directions work.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Great Expectations
1. Google Analytics has been giving me troubles lately. For some reason, the tracking code disappeared from this blog, but Analytics was still saying that data was being received correctly.
My expectation was: "It's weird that I'm no showing any visits, but hey, it's Google. It'll probably fix itself. This should be idiot-proof."
I guess there's a real risk in people thinking too highly of you.
2. Waiting for a bus last week, the one scheduled for 10:00 never arrived. No sign of it anywhere. No notice on their Web site (or anywhere else) that there was a problem. The 10:30 bus arrived a couple of minutes late, but within the normal time. It was as if the 10:00 bus never existed.
My expectation should be: "It's the bus company. Their entire purpose is to move people around on a specific schedule."
Instead, my expectation (because this has happened countless times before) is: "Don't count on the bus system to get you anywhere at the time its supposed to. Only use the bus when you've got plenty of time to kill."
No wonder ridership never reaches the levels it should.
3. Went up a local mountain yesterday for a hike. Discovered that there's a lot of snow up there still, but we decided to hike up anyway. Nothing too dangerous or steep, but it's still a good workout to walk in the snow uphill. Coming down we decided, totally out of the blue, to pull a plastic bag out of the backpack and slide down the hill. One of the most fun things we've had a chance to do for a while.
I knew I was going to have an enjoyable hike, but had no idea that it would be such a fun day.
Based on these rigorous experiments, here's my expectation formula:
s = a/e
"s" being "satisfaction"
"a" meaning "actual"
and
"e" meaning "expected"
When the actual experience is better than expected, satisfaction is high. When the expectations are set high, and the actual experience is relatively poor, satisfaction is low. When actual and expected experiences are similar, satisfaction is minimal.
Might be a bit obvious when you think about it, but it looks more impressive as a formula, doesn't it?
Thinking about changes over time, you could make this more complex...
As "s" decreases or increases due to the above, it causes "e" to decrease or increase, which then sets a new level of "e" (e2), resulting in a new "s" (s2)...
I guess the main thing I'm getting at is that it's a good idea to think about this relationship from time to time. If you aren't keeping up with expectations, you need to either improve your actual experience or lower the expectations that you're setting. If you don't, consumer expectations are going to change anyway (and you've lost the chance to direct that change in a desirable direction).
My expectation was: "It's weird that I'm no showing any visits, but hey, it's Google. It'll probably fix itself. This should be idiot-proof."
I guess there's a real risk in people thinking too highly of you.
2. Waiting for a bus last week, the one scheduled for 10:00 never arrived. No sign of it anywhere. No notice on their Web site (or anywhere else) that there was a problem. The 10:30 bus arrived a couple of minutes late, but within the normal time. It was as if the 10:00 bus never existed.
My expectation should be: "It's the bus company. Their entire purpose is to move people around on a specific schedule."
Instead, my expectation (because this has happened countless times before) is: "Don't count on the bus system to get you anywhere at the time its supposed to. Only use the bus when you've got plenty of time to kill."
No wonder ridership never reaches the levels it should.
3. Went up a local mountain yesterday for a hike. Discovered that there's a lot of snow up there still, but we decided to hike up anyway. Nothing too dangerous or steep, but it's still a good workout to walk in the snow uphill. Coming down we decided, totally out of the blue, to pull a plastic bag out of the backpack and slide down the hill. One of the most fun things we've had a chance to do for a while.
I knew I was going to have an enjoyable hike, but had no idea that it would be such a fun day.
Based on these rigorous experiments, here's my expectation formula:
s = a/e
"s" being "satisfaction"
"a" meaning "actual"
and
"e" meaning "expected"
When the actual experience is better than expected, satisfaction is high. When the expectations are set high, and the actual experience is relatively poor, satisfaction is low. When actual and expected experiences are similar, satisfaction is minimal.
Might be a bit obvious when you think about it, but it looks more impressive as a formula, doesn't it?
Thinking about changes over time, you could make this more complex...
As "s" decreases or increases due to the above, it causes "e" to decrease or increase, which then sets a new level of "e" (e2), resulting in a new "s" (s2)...
I guess the main thing I'm getting at is that it's a good idea to think about this relationship from time to time. If you aren't keeping up with expectations, you need to either improve your actual experience or lower the expectations that you're setting. If you don't, consumer expectations are going to change anyway (and you've lost the chance to direct that change in a desirable direction).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
