Category Archives: digital media

Are We Getting Dumber?

Every day there are more articles written about the vast treasure trove of data marketers, publishers, and others gather from their interactions with customers.  Every mouse click, every social interaction, every store visit is another source of information that a business can use to make the

English: Somerfield, Spilsby One of the last c...

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

customer experience more enjoyable and, hopefully, more profitable.  Nice ideal, but the reality is far from it, since most of the time the data is not collected, analyzed, and organized by capable people.  In fact, I’m willing to bet that the folks who could benefit most from all of this information know the least about it.

Here is something from eMarketer:

In a March 2015 study by Signal, 51% of marketers worldwide reported that they did not have a single view of customers/prospects across devices and touchpoints. In comparison, just 6% said their current solution provided an adequate single view of their customers. And Econsultancy polling in association with ResponseTap in March 2015 found that only 5% of client-side marketers worldwide had a seamless integration of customer touchpoints across channels that allowed for exploitation of opportunities. Just under a quarter had integrated channels but were channel-focused, not customer-focused.

That was about marketers’ understanding of mobile but there is much evidence that the same sort of low integration applies in other channels as well.  I mean think about your own experiences on-line and off.  I know my supermarket knows everything I buy because I’m diligent about using my card to get gas rewards – cents off gasoline purchases. That is a great value received – along with some good store discounts –  in return for me giving up my data.  That said, when I check in the scanner doesn’t acknowledge me by name nor are the coupons I sometimes receive at checkout very well targeted.  The mailings I get from the store – not the circulars – that’s asking a bit much – the coupon packs and email offers don’t seem very well targeted at all.  They have the data – they should be getting smarter and I should never want to go shop anywhere else – but nether of those things are true.

Every customer interaction counts.  We are getting a lot better about collecting them but we’ve got a long way to go to create a better experiences for our customers.  Media need to understand how to create that same better, efficient experience for their advertisers.  Heaping 15 minutes of ads into a 60 minute window isn’t it and the data can show us that.

So are we getting dumber?

Leave a comment

Filed under digital media

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?