Monthly Archives: January 2014

January 31, 2014 · 9:44 am

Tapas

Foodie Friday and the subject is tapas.

Español: Tapas en un establecimiento de Barcel...

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Most of you are probably familiar with them although you might not know from where the term derives. A “tapa” is a cover, and tapas originated as pieces of bread to cover glasses of sherry in between sips to keep the flies out. At some point the bread began to be topped with other food; bread became plates and what we know as a tapa came to be.

The original tapas were very salty meats and, as with bars that serve salted nuts as free snacks, the salty food encouraged more alcohol sales.  Obviously the Spanish bar owners weren’t the only ones to figure this out.  The Italians have cicchetti, the Brazilians tira-gostos, and other cultures have their own versions as well.  Even if you’re not a bar owner, there are things you can learn from tapas that are applicable to your business.

Free food is customer-friendly, especially if it’s exceptionally good.  Does the fact that the free food is designed to sell more high-margin drinks detract from that customer-centric point of view?  I don’t think so, and even those customer who recognize that fact will probably acknowledge that they are getting quite a bit of value in the exchange.

Tapas are small plates, generally no more than two or three bites of food on each.  They always leave me wanting more but I also appreciate the fact that I haven’t really “committed” to a dish when I’m eating tapas.  I can graze, figure out which dishes I like the most, and have a much broader dining experience than if I simply orders an appetizer and an entrée.  As businesses we need to think that way.  There is a tendency once we have their attention to overwhelm our customers or prospects.  Less really is more.  Let them graze our information and product offerings until they feel as if they’re ready to commit.  That’s the nature of conversational marketing.

Tapas are just one expression of a tasting menu, something most high-end chefs offer.  Small plates have become a dining norm in a number of restaurants as well.  I suspect that while the cost per dish is lower customers order more of them and they lead to bigger profits per meal served.  All that while being incredibly customer friendly.  Isn’t that what business is supposed to be about?

Enhanced by Zemanta

1 Comment

Filed under food

Tagged as , , , , , ,

January 30, 2014 · 11:44 am

The Devil You Know

The folks at Forrester issued a study on marketing and customer experience the other day and it makes a number of interesting points.

Image representing Forrester Research as depic...

Image via CrunchBase

Maybe “interesting” isn’t the right word; maybe it could be more like “disappointing” or “confusing.”  Entitled The Convergence Of Brand, Customer Experience And Marketing, the study deals with the intersection of brand, marketing, and customer experience.  One might expect those three areas to be operating in sync.  One would be wrong.

Forrester found that 63% of Chief Marketing Officers consider customer acquisition their number one priority, while only 22% give precedence to retention. Kind of a silly choice, because there is a lot of  evidence that shows that generating loyalty and holding onto existing customers is better for a brand financially  than spending resources to bring in new customers.  In fact, the 22% statistic represents a decline in the focus on retention.  In 2011, the number was 30%.

What’s a little strange is that many of the CMO‘s do believe that they are, in fact, highly customer-focused.  The research found, however, that they are highly transaction-focused and are trying to foster conversions, not conversations.  Lifetime value is only a concern to a little over a third of these folks while two-thirds focus on segmentation studies to pursue new customers.

It’s almost as if there are two completely different experiences – one for prospects and one for existing customers – while it seems obvious that those experiences should be united into a vision that derives from the brand itself.  Otherwise, as the study found, there is customer confusion, dissatisfaction and departure.

No one likes to be treated like royalty when they’re being wooed only to be given short shrift once the deal is sealed.  Even worse, if a brand is a promise to the customer, no one likes to be confused about what that promise is or how it is to be kept.  Heck, even accounting recognizes that and puts something called “goodwill” on the balance sheet.  The disconnect cited in this study is disturbing and the trends it recognizes are even more so.

I’m a believer in “the devil you know” and the value of doing everything I can for existing customers.  I’m a believer in making the brand the source of strategic thinking about customers, current and future and expressing that thinking in a cohesive way.  Are you?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Leave a comment

Filed under Consulting, Huh?

Tagged as , , , , , ,

January 29, 2014 · 8:27 am

Is Creepy Dead?

I’ve had beacons on my brain lately.

Start Point Lighthouse, in the south of Devon,...

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I’ll explain what they are and why in a second but they raise a larger question in my mind, which is our topic today:  has the “creepy” factor left us?  Not long ago, the notion of someone, much less some business, tracking our every move and approximating what we’re thinking would be…creepy.  Have we become so immune to the fact that said tracking occurs almost constantly caused us not to even care any more?  Let’s see what you think.

First, why beacons and what are they?  Here is a good explanation:

Beacons are devices that communicate with a shopper’s smartphone in the hopes of improving the in-store shopping experience. When placed in a store, beacons use Bluetooth technology to detect nearby smartphones and send them media such as ads, coupons or supplementary product information. They can also be used as point-of-sale systems and to collect information on those consumers — particularly how consumers maneuver through stores.

Who you are, what you’re looking at, where you go and how frequently you shop there are all part of the equation.  Maybe not so awful.  A store with an attentive staff can generally say the same about any regular customer and the information delivered about a product should be more complete than any clerk can remember across hundreds of products.  Many stores use cameras to do just that.  Apple, of course, is in the forefront of this with their iBeacon.  It’s built into every device – iPhone or iPad – sold in the last few years.  They recently deployed the technology in all of their Apple stores:  what they set up uses the Bluetooth technology of the iBeacon to detect where a shopper is within a store so Apple can send location-specific product information to his or her Apple device.  Helpful or creepy?

That’s one example.  Combine the beacon with an app and it becomes simple to send targeted messages to devices.  For example, at a sporting event, you might get messages providing discounts on concessions and merchandise or maybe even seat upgrades if you’re a VIP.  Of course, in the process a lot of information about you is gathered.

So back to the question:  is it creepy or don’t we care?  If we use credit cards, our purchasing habits are known.  If we use an in-store scanner at the supermarket, how we wander the store is recorded along with what we buy even as we’re offered coupons and discounts.  Is the prospect of a better shopping experience worth giving up yet another remnant of our privacy?  Amazon and other retailers know how we wander their virtual stores via click-tracking.  Why should physical outlets be disadvantaged?  More importantly, when the online experience can be mirrored and continued by a retailer’s brick and mortar store, doesn’t the shopper benefit?

I don’t know how many iPhone users know they have this technology in their pockets already.  I don’t know how many people realize what they’re giving up when they opt-in to this technology.  Google has deployed something in newer versions of Android that will allow retailers to bid on serving ads to people conducting product searches and Google can then track the person via their phone to see if they visited the store.  I do feel that many wouldn’t be quite some comfortable if they knew all this.

Are you, or is creepy dead?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Comments Off on Is Creepy Dead?

Filed under Huh?, Reality checks, Thinking Aloud

Tagged as , , , , , ,