You Didn't Have To Do That

I'm really impressed by the development company that I recently bought an investment property from, Mosaic Homes.

First of all, they did a good job. The quality of construction is great, the development is well designed, most of the project was completed on schedule...

And they also seem to understand the concept of customer service. They see the value in building trust and a good reputation.

For example, they've been extremely accommodating with any requests for repairs or adjustments to the property since purchasing it -- all those little things that are technically covered by the warranty, but that they could probably make excuses about and try to get out of fixing.

They've also been very good at proactively keeping in touch. During construction and after, it wasn't unusual to receive little thank you cards and updates ("Don't worry about all the flooding concerns in the news lately. Here's some info from our surveyors..."). Two weeks ago, the strata held their first AGM and not only did several representatives from Mosaic participate, but they also treated the owners to a few snacks and beverages afterwards.

All of these are nice touches and, really, they're things that every company should be doing for its valued customers. But in this case I'm particularly impressed because there's not much direct, financial benefit to doing so. Very few of the property owners will be buying another place anytime soon. There's really not much chance of gaining repeat business, and therefore little need for "retention" or "loyalty" efforts.

But... they get it. They recognize that the handful of us who will be buying again will probably seriously consider other developments by the same company. They recognize that it's important to build a general consensus that "Mosaic is a good company to work with" in the marketplace and within their own industry. They know that people talk. They know that bad vibes can be as dangerous to a company as an actual, tangible mistake can be.

So, if this company has figured it out, why do so many others - especially those that actually have a direct, financial incentive to build long-term customer relationships - fail to do so?

Okay, I'm sure they make a fairly good profit on each property the sell. So it's not a big deal, financially, for them to take these extra steps. But since when has "we can't afford that" been the only obstacle to doing the right thing?

My guess is that most companies just can't be bothered. Too many are run by accountants and analysts who can't get their minds past the potential (or lack thereof) for immediate, obvious, direct returns. They see "customer service" as a necessary expense to put out fires, not as an opportunity to invest in gaining new business or extending a customer relationship.

Not Right or Wrong, Just Smart

Had an example this morning of the difference between a "professional" businessperson and someone who just runs (or works at) a business.

In a nutshell, we got ripped off -- bought a little coupon book a few weeks ago, went to use a coupon for Sunday brunch today and was told by the restaurant staff that our coupon was a fake.

Now, we don't doubt that the restaurant is being honest. They probably aren't just trying to get out of honouring the coupons.

But, their reaction could have been better.

They said: "Sorry about that. Write down your name and number though, because we're working with the police and we should be able to get you compensation."

They should have said: "Sorry about that. Tell you what, we'll honour the coupon, since it's not your fault that this is a fake. But, we'll have to confiscate the coupon book. Give us your name and number and we'll try to get you reimbursement for the original cost of the book."

Even with the coupon, the restaurant is probably still making a net profit on our purchase. If not, it was at least an effective loss-leader to get us in the door. (If the offer is too rich to honour now, why was it okay earlier, even with the cost of the coupon book?).

Regardless of how the restaurant was impacted by the actions of the third-party that sold the coupons illegitimately, the business has just lost most, if not all, of the positive impression they had made on us until that point.

It doesn't matter who's fault it is; it matters whose customer it is.

First and Last Notes

One day, I'll get around to chronicling the ridiculous customer experience situation I went through when buying a new jetted bathtub for our house.

For now, let me summarize by saying that it took over six months before I actually received the correct product in working order and was able to install it.

In the end, blame for the various problems fell on both the tub manufacturer and the retailer I bought it from. Problems included the "local" warranty repair person being located about three hours away, the wrong products being either ordered or shipped (I'm still not sure which was the case) several times, product arriving in broken condition, and slow responses from the companies involved, and an and on.

Finally, though, the right thing was delivered in proper condition. Obviously, we weren't too happy about the delays and problems. Because of the various issues we were out of pocket for related materials that we could no longer use, we were without the use of a bathroom for months, we lost a lot of storage space holding other construction materials for the room, and we spent countless hours on the phone, traveling too and from the store, waiting for delivery people, etc.

Anyways, before I end up writing the whole tale, here's my point: I still like the retailer, but I will never buy from the manufacturer again.

I think I'd be justified in disliking both parties equally. But, the difference came down to treating me properly and fairly.

The retailer was always responsive (if a bit slow) to our concerns. In the end, they compensated us financially for the problems. They didn't hesitate to try to make things write. They spent I-don't-know-how-much on deliveries (which they normally charge for), picking up broken tubs, and other extra expenditures.

The manufacturer, on the other hand, hasn't even bothered to contact me to apologize or check that everything worked out alright. Now, normally I wouldn't expect them to do anything-- the retailer is the intermediary after all. But in this case:
a.) The product comes with a very clear message in the instructions to contact the manufacturer directly if there are any problems.
and
b.) The small amount of contact I did have with the manufacturer and their representatives early on in the process was poor.

Back in elementary school, our music teacher would drill into us the importance of hitting the first and last notes of a song perfectly, because that's what the audience will remember most.

Same thing goes here. I remember the manufacturer bumbling early on, and I remember the retailer helping us out at the end. And its meant the difference between keeping or losing me (and anyone I tell about this) as a valuable customer -- the only difference that really matters in marketing.

Quality: Part 2 Subsection A

A little follow-up: Saw this article about Ford on CNN.com.

Basically, Ford execs are admitting that previous model years of the Taurus weren't very good.
On the plus side, it shows that they're be a bit more transparent and acknowledging their flaws. Hopefully it will lead to better products in the future.

On the other hand, it kinda shows that the whole "Quality is job one" positioning was just something the advertising department came up with and had nothing to do with how their vehicles were designed, made, or distributed.

Quality: Part 1

I have a challenge for every Brand Manager and Marketing Manager out there:
When you describe your brand, write a positioning statement, and try to define your competitive differentiators don't use the word "quality".

It's entirely too common to take a very black-and-white approach to branding and decide that a company or its products are focused on either:
a.) Quality
or
b.) Bargain

Since there's only room for one or two "Lowest price. Guaranteed" competitors in any market, that means that the majority of companies are going for the quality angle.

It's lazy and, even worse, almost meaningless. What does "quality" mean, anyway? It seems like a very arbitrary term like "value" and "unique". As a result, most consumers probably ignore the word any time a company claims it.

I'm not saying that quality isn't an important attribute. It definitely is. There's too much garbage out there and I'd love to see more companies strive for a higher level of quality. But, it's too vague.

Pick some different words. Something more detailed. Even just one step more specific would be great. How about "innovative", or "remarkable" (a great term that Seth Godin uses regularly), or "shocking", or "guaranteed", or "unbreakable" for starters?

There are some industries where every single competitor claims to provide "quality". It might be true, but they all take a different approach and have a different definition. I want to see what those differences are.

Remove the word from your vocabulary and I bet you'll get more creative and descriptive.