Category Archives: Consulting

October 3, 2013 · 8:52 am

Cell Phones And Car Keys

I did a dumb thing a little while ago. I lost my car key. I had another one at home but having only one is a bad idea because apparently one can lose them (ahem). It’s one of those “smart” keys – as long as it’s in (or on, which is how I lost it) the car, the vehicle will start. Since I was due for a regular service anyway (which is where I’m writing this post) I asked the dealer to replace the lost key with another. Want to guess the price to do so?

$275.

I don’t know about you, but I didn’t pay $275 for my top of the line mobile phone. “But your phone is subsidized”, you say. “The cell companies do that to get you to pay for the service.” Exactly the business point and it applies to your business as well.

I don’t know what the key costs to manufacture – it’s a chip, a battery, and a case, basically.  Let’s be generous and say $50.  The woman at the service desk said “it takes an hour to program” as if there’s a coder in the back frantically assembling the software.  My guess is they plop the fob into a holder attached to a computer and it’s done pretty quickly.   But I understand the cost/value equation.  Why do they charge that much?  Because they can.  It’s not as if you can go on Craigslist and find a cheap key.  The issue isn’t can they, but should they?

I bought the car for $31,000 a few years ago.  I’ve spent a fair amount in regular service with them (the car has been worry-free otherwise!) although I could have gone anywhere to get an oil change and new filters.  And now, when I do have an issue, they’re choosing to maximize their profits instead of saying “let’s forego the easy $100 because this guy is a loyal customer and he’s going to have to replace that car in a year or two.”  Their short-term thinking is influencing my long-term thinking.

I know we’re all in business to make a profit.  My job is to help companies to do so.  One model – the cell model – is to tie you to the company by making it easy to become a customer and to make sure you’ll buy highly profitable services through subsidies.  I’m not sure that’s right for a car company – I don’t see them subsidizing your purchase so you’ll buy services.  However, doing the little things that build loyalty do that as well, and there is nothing that feels better when you do something totally stupid than a brand that lifts you up, dusts you off, and helps you fix it in a way that makes you feel good.  I realize the dealer didn’t lose the key.  The question is are they going to lose the customer?

Does that make sense?

Enhanced by Zemanta

3 Comments

Filed under Consulting, Huh?, Thinking Aloud

Tagged as , , ,

October 2, 2013 · 10:29 am

Who Runs Social?

Any time I’m working with a client and the subject of social media comes up, there’s usually a pretty good discussion of how social is seen within the organization.  More specifically, there’s generally an internal tug of war of sorts over messaging and ownership.  I thought maybe my keyhole into this issue was sort of unique but as it turns out it’s actually very common.TCG_0913_SocialMedia

The folks at The Creative Group did a survey of more than 400 advertising and marketing executives about who should own social media and that internecine battle was evident from the results:

Overall 39% of advertising and marketing executives said they think social media belongs in the public relations/communications wheelhouse, compared to 35% who said it should be the responsibility of the marketing department. Meanwhile 15% said it should be delegated to customer service, and 5% said it should be the direct responsibility of the company’s CEO (6% said they don’t know).

Of course, this sort of misses the point.  As I discuss with clients, social media isn’t focused on the brand or on the company – it needs to be focused on the customer.  Figuring out who “owns” it is about you.  Instead focus on the customer’s needs and decide who is best equipped to serve them in the social channel.   The answer may not be tied to one department.  Hmm – working together as a team – what a concept!

The other thing the survey raises is that with multiple internal stakeholders there is bound to be multiplicity of thought on messaging.  The entire organization needs to be aligned on that –  it can’t come with a constant PR or Marketing or Customer Service point of view.  As with many things in the business world, often the politics supersede the thought process.  This is usually the biggest hurdle to an effective social plan.  Once the politics get sorted, the messaging can flow as a customer-focused stream.  Resolving customer issues and carrying on a conversation that engages the customer (and NO they’re not only wanting to know about your latest and greatest product) is social’s role.

Who runs social?  Your customers do.  Any questions?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Leave a comment

Filed under Consulting, digital media

Tagged as , , ,

September 25, 2013 · 10:44 am

Evil?

I’ll admit that today’s screed is a bit more narrowly focused than it is on some days. That said, it’s about a business that touches us all and a business practice that might serve as an example.

English: Google Logo officially released on Ma...

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

You might know that one of Google’s informal mottos is “don’t be evil.” More formally stated (as it is in their business code) it’s:

Do the right thing: don’t be evil. Honesty and Integrity in all we do. Our business practices are beyond reproach. We make money by doing good things

It also made their IPO documents:

Don’t be evil. We believe strongly that in the long-term, we will be better served — as shareholders and in all other ways — by a company that does good things for the world even if we forgo some short-term gains.

So far, so good.  What’s bugging me and many others today is Google’s announcement that they’re going to be encrypting all search data.  They started doing that on a smaller scale almost two years ago (you can read my post on it here).  For those of us who are in the business of helping companies understand how and why people come to their digital businesses, it made life difficult.  If you’re engaged in search engine optimization, it put a dent in your abilities as well.  However, at the time, Google said it was a measure taken to protect user privacy (for users signed into a Google account) and it wouldn’t affect much of the data.

Fast forward.  It HAS affected a lot of the data and yesterday’s announcement means ALL the data about how people were searching and found your site is gone.  Some are calling it the day SEO died.  I think it’s evil.  Why?  Because you CAN get the data – you just need to pay Google for it.  Their idea of privacy is bullcrap. You can’t offer privacy, but still SELL the data to AdWords advertisers.   There’s also some rumblings that they’re doing this to protect against the NSA program but if the data is still available I can’t see how that would work.  Business practices beyond reproach?  I think a neutral party might say not so fast.

I respect that Google offers a lot of free services, most of which are among the best offered anywhere.  But dumbing down how businesses can make the web a better, more usable place hurts everyone.  Part of why Google and other search engines work is that many of us work hard to be sure our content is discoverable by and clear to the search engines.  This could make search results less accurate.  It also means the ads Google serves will be less well-targeted.  It also means that while big companies will continue to pay for expensive services that offer workarounds, start-ups and smaller businesses will suffer.

I come down on the side of this being evil.  You?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Leave a comment

Filed under Consulting, digital media, What's Going On

Tagged as , , , , , ,