We all know that "marketing" is actually the collective name for a vast assortment of tasks and activities -- advertising, sales, customer care, distribution, and so on. But, it seems like the most important aspect of this collective is one that most people don't even think belongs under the marketing umbrella.
I've mentioned this area before, but recent personal experiences have reminded me of it.
I think the key to marketing and branding is: human resources.
Obviously having good people in your customer service department and other customer-facing roles is vital. But it goes a lot further than this.
Here's an example:
I was recently visiting Paris and trying to enjoy the city. The obvious "customer service" side of things is apparently not-so-obvious to the French. Unfortunately, the majority of employees simply did not even bother to pretend that they were happy to see me, let alone serve me. (There were exceptions of course -- most staff at my hotel were quite good, for example).
But, this was hardly a surprise. To be honest, even before the trip I assumed that I would get the stereotypical, almost cliche, French attitude to "service" and didn't get my hopes up.
Who really let me down were the behind the scenes people.
The people who would call themselves "logistics" or "operations" or "administration" or anything except "marketing".
Why, for example, would a person in the transit system's planning department create a ticket structure that requires a new ticket to be used for each journey but not account for the fact that some "journeys" require leaving a station (or section of a station) and re-entering another (and therefore need a new ticket)?
Why does the operator of a paid toilet facility have an employee who's sole purpose is to take a 50 cent coin and give a token (worth 50 cents) back for the customer to use in a turnstile?
Similarly, when there's a line stretching around the block at the entrance to a museum, why use a valuable employee to - instead of selling tickets and alleviating some of the lineup - glance at each customer's ticket as they enter? (A ticket that was sold to the customer 10 seconds earlier by another employee just a few feet away. )
Who would schedule room service in a hotel to start at 9am -- long before check-out time and before many people are even out of their rooms?
Back to the transit system: Why shut down the EXITS from a station when it's closed, but leave the ENTRANCES open?
I bet that NONE of the people responsible for setting up or maintaining the above systems, processes, procedures, etc. would ever describing themselves as working in a marketing, branding, or customer service department.
Maybe we shouldn't even have marketing departments. Instead, change the CEO into a CMO and make it clear to all staff that they are actually reporting to this head of marketing. Continue doing the same job, but perhaps change mindsets so that everyone is thinking "My job is to profitably do XYZ for customers and clients".
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Monday, August 25, 2008
The Last Minuters and Other Exceptionals
Traveling by plane and going to a show (concert, film, or whatever) have some strong similarities.
-You're supposed to show up at a certain time.
- You go through some sort of production where you're searched or a piece of paper is scanned, ripped, marked, etc.
- You either have an assigned seat or there's a mad rush to find a good one.
- You sit or stand for an extended length of time, pretty much staring forward the whole time.
And so on.
Both types of experience are often ruined by a certain group of people. I'm not referring to the staff (though there are plenty of horror stories about them), nor the majority of the other patrons. I'm talking about the handful of exceptional people. And not "exceptional" in a good way.
These are the folks who show up at the last second and have to be rushed through the lineup so that they don't miss their flight.
Or the couple of guys who decide to start jumping up and down and whistling during a concert (while everybody else is still seated).
Or the family that wanders into a general admission show five minutes before the curtain rises and shove their way into the empty area in front of the front row, only to get upset when people try explaining that they can't sit there.
Or the person who thinks that it's perfectly acceptable to have "carry on" luggage that's so big and heavy that they can't actually CARRY it ON without a great deal of struggle and assistance. (Rule of thumb: if you need little wheels on your carry on, it's probably too big).
I won't even try to understand what goes on in their tiny little brains. Maybe they're selfish, maybe they're just oblivious, or maybe they're complete idiots.
Regardless, the actions of the Exceptionals hurt the experience of everyone else. And therefore harm the brand. Brands need to recognize this and push back (nothing gives me greater pleasure than to see a security guard, gate attendant, or other employee explain the rules to someone and send them away).
(Can you tel that I've been traveling a lot lately?)
-You're supposed to show up at a certain time.
- You go through some sort of production where you're searched or a piece of paper is scanned, ripped, marked, etc.
- You either have an assigned seat or there's a mad rush to find a good one.
- You sit or stand for an extended length of time, pretty much staring forward the whole time.
And so on.
Both types of experience are often ruined by a certain group of people. I'm not referring to the staff (though there are plenty of horror stories about them), nor the majority of the other patrons. I'm talking about the handful of exceptional people. And not "exceptional" in a good way.
These are the folks who show up at the last second and have to be rushed through the lineup so that they don't miss their flight.
Or the couple of guys who decide to start jumping up and down and whistling during a concert (while everybody else is still seated).
Or the family that wanders into a general admission show five minutes before the curtain rises and shove their way into the empty area in front of the front row, only to get upset when people try explaining that they can't sit there.
Or the person who thinks that it's perfectly acceptable to have "carry on" luggage that's so big and heavy that they can't actually CARRY it ON without a great deal of struggle and assistance. (Rule of thumb: if you need little wheels on your carry on, it's probably too big).
I won't even try to understand what goes on in their tiny little brains. Maybe they're selfish, maybe they're just oblivious, or maybe they're complete idiots.
Regardless, the actions of the Exceptionals hurt the experience of everyone else. And therefore harm the brand. Brands need to recognize this and push back (nothing gives me greater pleasure than to see a security guard, gate attendant, or other employee explain the rules to someone and send them away).
(Can you tel that I've been traveling a lot lately?)
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Doing the Math
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?
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?
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.?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
