Category Archives: Consulting

I Can Hear You, I’m Just Ignoring You

This social media stuff isn’t exactly new anymore, right? I mean businesses have been immersed in it for at least 5 years and many for longer than that. So why do we keep screwing it up?

This crossed my screen earlier:

Thirty-three percent of consumers who contact brands on social media with a customer service question never get a response, according to a new study released today by management consulting firm The Northridge Group. Based on a survey of more than 1,000 respondents, the study finds that 26 percent of consumers choose social media for customer service when they can’t reach a representative through another channel. When companies do respond, more than 30 percent of their responses do not meet the customers’ expectations. In fact, social media has the lowest percentage of issue resolution and follow up of all the channels.

Seriously?  Well, maybe the data isn’t as disappointing as the headline:

The survey also found that just 3 percent of consumers cite social media as the fastest channel for issue resolution, and only 2 percent cite it as their preferred channel. Additional findings from the survey include:

  • Sixty-three percent of consumers have to engage with a brand two or more times on social media before a customer service inquiry or issue is resolved.
  • Forty-two percent of consumers expect resolution within one hour when using social media for customer service inquiry or issue.
  • Thirty-nine percent of consumers say that companies resolve their customer service issues or inquiries on social media within a week or longer.

Oh.  I know from lots of experience that businesses are spending precious marketing resources listening to what’s going on out there in an attempt to understand their customers’ needs.  Bravo!  But as with any activity, if we’re just going to ignore what our customers are telling us – especially when they’re telling it to us proactively – we might just as well spend the money elsewhere.

You can get the report here but don’t bother if you’re not going to use it to improve how you’re providing service via social media.  No one likes to be ignored, especially customers with a problem.  Maybe you should be digging into how many contacts have been initiated by customers?  Maybe you should keep score on how many have been addressed and resolved to the customer’s satisfaction?  Actually, this is one instance where if you ignore something – your customers – it will go away.  Is that the result you’re after?

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Consulting

Stalkers

Sometimes I think that every advancement in technology is made simply to facilitate advertising.  I’m pretty sure that the marketing community sees it that way.  I don’t know about you but I saw the first ads on my Snapchat stream last week and I read a piece ruminating about programmatic ads on watches. To place an ad these days you want data from the device or screen user and more often than not the user had no clue what data is being captured to feed the marketing beast.

I’ll say upfront that I’ve worked in and around marketing for almost 40 years so I get the attention/value equation.  What digital has done is to change that equation, since we’re really not simply measuring the users’ attention but we’re learning a lot more about the users themselves, way more than we ever knew from media measured by panels.  The more you know about what marketers know, the creepier it gets.

Consumers are waking up.  The Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania released a study called “The Tradeoff Fallacy –  How Marketers Are Misrepresenting American Consumers And Opening Them Up to Exploitation.”  From the introduction:

New Annenberg survey results indicate that marketers are misrepresenting a large majority of Americans by claiming that Americans give out information about themselves as a tradeoff for benefits they receive. To the contrary, the survey reveals most Americans do not believe that ‘data for discounts’ is a square deal. The findings also suggest, in contrast to other academics’ claims, that Americans’ willingness to provide personal information to marketers cannot be explained by the public’s poor knowledge of the ins and outs of digital commerce. In fact, people who know more about ways marketers can use their personal information are more likely rather than less likely to accept discounts in exchange for data when presented with a real-life scenario.

The study goes on to detail how an overwhelming percentage of consumers do NOT believe that stalking them and grabbing personal information is a fair trade for the value they receive.  The reason they don’t stop using the services doing so is not because they approve of and appreciate the trade but because they don’t see an alternative.

Maybe it’s time we asked ourselves if identifying the individual consumer and stalking them everywhere (even on their wrist!) is the best way to drive sales or build a relationship with them.  Perhaps we need to do a better job of creating strong brand messages and allowing the consumer to come to us instead of us popping up everywhere?

84 percent strongly or somewhat agreed that they wanted to have control over what marketers could learn about them. 65 percent agreed that they had come to accept that they had little control over it.  We wonder why ad blocking is becoming the norm?  When companies ask for information they don’t need to deliver their product or service, every other company’s ability to get the data they do need is compromised.  For example, the Uber app is grabbing location data even when the app isn’t being used to call for a car.  Stalking at its worst.

Read the study and have a think about it.  While we do need to know about our consumer and engage in conversation with them, none of us want to be stalkers.  Any thoughts on how we can strike that balance?

Leave a comment

Filed under Consulting, digital media

Talk To The Hand

Sometimes I feel as if I’m picking on the same companies all the time.  It’s not intentional, I swear.  It’s just that some brands seem to find stupid things to do and push corporate behavior standards to a new low.  With that disclaimer, let us ruminate over the good folks at Spirit Airlines and their latest genius move:

Florida-based Spirit Airlines, the ultra-low-cost carrier, is taking a different tack. Spirit has instead put a robot in control of its Twitter operation to automatically respond to questions.

“A big social media team costs money, so we put our feed on autopilot to save you cents on every ticket,” the airline explains on its Twitter site.

You can’t make this up.  What have we learned about marketing over the last ten years or so?  Your list of words might include “conversation”, “listen”, “personalized”, and any number of other terms that are diametrically opposed to a robot.  Tweet something to Spirit’s “customer service” account and you get the same automated message as the last guy:  a link to a website with FAQ‘s and a list of phone numbers.  While I haven’t actually called any of those numbers (since I refuse to set foot on a Spirit flight ever again), one hopes that there is an actual human on the other end.   Which raises the obvious question – if you’re paying for CSR’s for one channel (the phone), why not do so for another, more convenient and widely used channel (social media)?

Here is yet another business decisions that’s selfish.  Spirit thinks it can save money by not paying someone to work on social, and will allegedly pass those savings on.  You believe that?  If so, I have oceanfront property in Arizona for you.  If a track record shows us anything, this is a brand that will find a way to wring every last penny out of its customers (first to charge baggage fees, first to charge carry-on fees, first to charge to print a ticket, first to charge to pick a seat – shall I go on?).  How stupid do they think consumers are?

Put Spirit’s move in this context from today’s Media Post:

Overall, 47% of tweets about the five biggest U.S. carriers (United, American, Delta, Southwest, and JetBlue) were negative, compared to just 20% positive, Crimson Hexagon found. The total volume of tweets mentioning these airlines has increased 209% since January 2012.

Is that a channel you want to ignore as an airline (or any other brand)?  Is the message “talk to the hand because the ears ain’t listening” really how any brand wants to be perceived?  Robots? I think not.  You?

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Consulting, digital media, Huh?