Category Archives: Huh?

Most Read Posts Of 2013 – Part 3

Continuing to reblog the posts that got the most readership this past year, we come upon a post from just a month ago.  This one concerned the retailers who fined  a customer over a negative review.  Genius!  In the month since this was written, things have continued to slide downhill for the KlearGear folks, with lawsuits being the least of their worries.  Tens of thousands of negative articles have been written about this mess and it remains a fantastic lesson is what NOT to do in resolving customer complaints.

The holiday shopping season has begun in earnest and so today let’s remind ourselves about how some online businesses deserve the equivalent of a Darwin Award for killing themselves as this big opportunity arises.

Stupid IV

(Photo credit: LauraLewis23)

You might have heard about KlearGear.com, a $47million online retailer of what they call geek toys and goodies.  They deserve the aforementioned Darwin Award for resolving a dispute with a customer in a manner that will, in my opinion, destroy their business.  Let’s see what you think.

A customer ordered something from the company way back in 2008 which didn’t arrive.  The customer then posted a negative review on the web.  Nothing very unusual about this so far, I know.  What happened next is.  Some genius at KlearGear decided it would be a good idea to “fine” the customer $3,500 for disparaging the company, citing a clause in their site’s Terms Of Service that wasn’t even in those terms in 2008.  When the customer didn’t pay, they reported the $3,500 as a bad debt to credit reporting agencies, trashing the customer’s credit rating.  You can read the gory details here.

Unfortunately for the retailer, the customer fought back and looks set to win a $75,000 judgement against the company.  Frankly, that’s the least of the retailer’s worries.  The torrent of negative commentary on social media has prompted the company to hide its Twitter account and to close off other social points of contact because of the overwhelming response.  Of course, by going into hiding the company has pretty much destroyed its own reputation on the web.  My guess is that the rest of the business will follow.

This began with a $20 item.  Instead of accepting that there was a problem – perhaps even one of the customer’s own making (which it wasn’t) – and apologizing, KlearGear escalated the problem.  The lost $20 sale is now a potential $75,000 liability which pales by comparison to the millions of dollars of negative coverage they’re receiving.  As we’ve said before, when you’re doing business the right way, the need to moderate or control customer feedback doesn’t exist.  If your product or service is great, so too will be the general commentary about you on the web and social.  We’ve also talked about how it’s easier and more profitable to sell to repeat customers than to find new ones.  That’s a huge reason why the best retailers go out of their way to minimize (or get rid of!)  bad customer experiences.

This is a textbook case on how not to handle customer service or bad reviews.  It’s about as bad as it gets and reached new depths of business stupidity.  You agree?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Leave a comment

Filed under Helpful Hints, Huh?

The Pandora’s Box Of Content

As we get to the end of the year, many people (myself included) use the leisurely pace of this week to reflect and/or plan.

Pandora's Box Side

(Photo credit: yum9me)

With that in mind, I think we should spend a bit of time reflecting on Pandora’s Box and how it relates to content.  As you remember, said box was said to have contained all the evils of the world.  Modern usage of the expression is more like the Butterfly Effect I’ve written about before – small things leading to major impacts.

The Pandora’s Box to which I’m referring today is that of native advertising.  I’ve written before about this topic as well, but as the pace of publishers to utilize sponsored content that’s made to look like editorial increases, I wanted to pause and reflect on it again.  As The Wall Street Journal reported

Spending on sponsored content is expected to grow 24% to $1.9 billion this year, a faster growth rate than for most other forms of digital marketing. Total digital advertising spending will total $42.3 billion this year, according to eMarketer.

In other words, roughly 5% of all digital ad spending will be on this form.  That’s a lot.  I’m old school – ads should be easily recognized as such.  That said, I have no problem with content put together by a sponsor and a publisher as long as the substance of that content is accurate.  For example, this blog could be considered an ad for my consulting practice.  That said, I go to some lengths to be sure that what I put up here on the screed is fact-based and not one-sided so that you can mind up your own minds.  An article on, say, the health benefits of french fries (good luck with that!) that exists solely because McDonald’s or Burger King commissioned it and seems like every other article on the web page or magazine or TV news report seems well over the foul line.

This Pandora’s Box is wide open.  Even the New York Times digital is accepting this kind of advertising.  Think is will be long before it isn’t 30 minute infomercials we see on TV but 2.5 minute “news updates” that use station talent?    I’m glad the IAB is working on guidelines and I’m glad the FTC is holding hearings.  Ultimately, however, it’s those of us who  are the product (it’s our eyeballs they’re after!) who need to weigh in loudly.  You agree?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Leave a comment

Filed under digital media, Huh?, Thinking Aloud

Has Facebook Played Marketers For Suckers?

Facebook logo Español: Logotipo de Facebook Fr...

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Nearly every client I have worked with in the last few years has had a presence on Facebook and the few exceptions have felt as if they should have one. As you can tell from a number of my posts here on the screed, I’m generally a skeptic of any medium over which a marketer doesn’t have control. Today’s news just reinforces that and makes me wonder if Facebook has been playing the marketing community for suckers. Let’s see what you think.

Facebook puts a fair amount of energy into recruiting brands and other businesses to set up pages.  Once those pages are established, anyone who does it right can tell you that supporting the pages is like the plant (Audrey II) in “Little Shop Of Horrors”: a constant refrain of “feed me.”  Where does that content reside?  Facebook.  Who controls how much of it your “fans” see?  Facebook.  In fact, Facebook themselves said a year ago that pages organically reach about 16% of their fans on average.  Yep – 84% of the people who like a page won’t generally see it unless they take a specific action to seek it out.  In their words: “Newsfeed uses an algorithm to rank content based upon the likely interest to a user to help deliver the most relevant and valuable content.”

That was then.  Facebook recently changed how that algorithm works (which is, obviously, unknown to the brands making investments in the platform and totally out of their control).  Here is one what study found:

Facebook’s December News Feed algorithm change is so far punishing brand pages, regardless of how interested fans are in that page’s content, according to a new analysis by Ignite Social Media. Ignite analysts reviewed 689 posts across 21 brand pages (all of significant size, across a variety of industries) and found that, in the week since December 1, organic reach and organic reach percentage have each declined by 44% on average, with some pages seeing declines as high as 88%. Only one page in the analysis had improved reach, which came in at 5.6%.

So the 16% has dropped to around 3%.  Of course, Facebook is more than happy to have brands pay to promote their content, the very content that keeps the platform interesting and vital.  Many studies have shown that organic content drives better results than paid yet organic is almost impossibly hard to get front and center.

My take is this.  Facebook may just be playing a con where the mark doesn’t want to give up the investment they’ve already made.  Even if unintentional (BIG stretch there!), they seem to be finding ways of restricting the reach of page fans by page owners as a way to force them to advertise.  These same owners already had to spend money with campaigns to build up fan bases.  Now you want the brands to pay again to reach an audience that has already said they want to receive page updates by “liking” the page.  Put yourself in the place of the social media person at a business who has to explain that one.

People are not the customer on Facebook.  Paying brands are.  As with any business, Facebook won’t be around for the long haul if their priorities are making a buck rather than serving their customers’ needs or by playing them for suckers.  That’s my take.  What’s yours?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Comments Off on Has Facebook Played Marketers For Suckers?

Filed under Consulting, digital media, Huh?