Last week in this spot I railed on about the lack of creativity and risk that too much process brings to a company. But I'm taking the other side when it comes to B2B relationships. When it comes to B2B, as you can see in our current Inside 1to1 story on the Tri-Arc Manufacturing Company's customer-centric effort, I think process is progress. I've worked for enough companies that sealed big sales with a wink, handshake, and promise of co-op dollars. Data never entered into it. When I was in the entertainment marketing world, I used to work for a guy who always loaded up one of our weakest retailers with outrageous amounts of ad dollars. I questioned the practice. "Listen," he said, "those guys are the bell cow. They may not sell much, but when they take our product in, the other retailers notice." Good riddance to that thinking. B2B relationships are customer relationships. They should be served with a mix of personality backed up by a heavy dose of data and customization.

Posted by John Gaffney at 8:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

"Word of mouth is an outcome and a philosophy, not a marketing tactic. There's no 'marketer' in consumer-to-consumer. But word of mouth can be treated like traditional media in many ways, like tracking its impact."

This quote is from BuzzMetrics CEO Jonathan Carson. He was presenting at the WOMMA conference. This comment struck me because some marketers do talk a lot about word of mouth as a marketing tactic. I would venture to say that although most word of mouth -- good or bad -- happens simply because people are in conversation, it is quite possible to create a buzz that gets people talking. The trick is to create something sustainable, instead of just a one-off that vanishes with the next company's new, cool thing.

It's also possible to create a community that encourages customers to interact, with each other and with prospects -- giving them yet another reason and venue to talk about your products/services. Cymfony CMO Jim Nails says "giving customers a voice empowers them to share their opinions with others." It also shows that you're willing to listen, which, Nails says, will help to build a community of evangelists.

The caveat, of course, is that word of mouth is "an uncontrolled, unprompted 'media' that sometimes behaves wildly," as Carson so aptly puts it. So when you do encourage word of mouth, keep in mind these age-old warnings: Be careful what you ask for; and, Expected the unexpected.

Posted by Ginger Conlon at 10:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I received a press release a few days ago announcing a new pay-per-lead service. Consumers sign up to receive information on product types, provide contact information, and, if they choose to, give other details to help match their specific needs. Companies interested in reaching those individuals bid for the leads. The four highest-bidding companies are given each lead, so prospects can do some comparison shopping.

My first thought was, companies that contact a prospect are simply the highest bidders, not necessarily the most appropriate for that consumer. Perhaps company five is really the best for a particular individual, but simply doesn't have as big a budget. Although the site does offer consumers a choice, it many not be the right choice. It reminds me of those listings in local area publications of the "best" whatever (party venues, restaurants, etc.), but only the places that pay get a listing, so it's not a true representation of what's actually the best.

According to the press release, the service provides companies with better ROI on leads because the bidding creates "market-based pricing of leads." Perhaps. But does it deliver high ROI for customer-centric companies, organizations that aim to create a lasting, value-driven relationship with their customers from day one? Does outbidding for a lead actually make it a better quality lead -- or just make it cost more?

What do you think?

Posted by Ginger Conlon at 8:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Hasbro this week released a British version of the classic Monopoly game that substitutes a Visa-imprinted debit card for the colorful play money. Now instead of exchanging paper money, children will swipe their cards into a palm-sized scanner. Hasbro spokesperson Chris Weatherhead said that the company responded to the fact that consumers now use more debit cards and carry less cash, so the game, he said, should reflect current trends.

Hasbro is delivering on customer expectations, but are marketers ready to do the same? Are advertisers and marketers prepared to treat the New Silent Generation according to the sophisticated technology experiences they're getting in their formative years? As this generation grows into primary purchase decision makers, marketers must start personally and creatively engaging them through vehicles like mobile marketing, social networking, and at the point of sale. If not, they’re going to miss out on capturing this valuable customer group in their prime.

Posted by Mila D'Antonio at 10:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Our Inside 1to1 story this week shows how successful CRM providers have been in emerging markets. That's all well and good because customer management and customer insight is being enabled by technology. Without customer insight any global initiative is bound to fail. But I think that too many companies have been lulled into thinking a global initiative and a Chinese initiative are the same thing. The complete saturation of the academic business press by thought leaders who say China is the future of any growth might lead a company to believe it's the only global opportunity. It's not. China is the fastest growing market in the world and represents a huge business opportunity for many companies. Let's not forget however, that India, Pakistan, Serbia, Russia, Korea and many former Soviet republics are teeming with potentially high-growth customer groups. A global initiative requires a mindset, culture and strategy that is expansive and knowledge-based. It cannot afford to guess. So before you think that opening China is all the emerging market expansion you need, check your facts.

Posted by John Gaffney at 8:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Have you seen the Jet Blue stories page yet? It's very cool. There's a collection of brief video stories of customers sharing their positive Jet Blue experiences. Not only does the site show customers' enthusiasm for the airline, but many of the stories illustrate Jet Blue's commitment to the customer experience -- and not just commitment designed by the marketing department that never permeates the rest of the company, but commitment from all parts of the airline's operations. Consider the story of the family who went to check in at their hotel after midnight ony to discover that there was no room available for them. A Jet Blue-uniformed gentleman who had arrived shortly after them gave up his room so they would have a place to stay. Wow.

What do you think is the most important aspect of creating a corporate culture that consistently delivers a surprisingly delightful customer experience? Is it hiring? Training? Compensation? Executive commitment? Or is there not one most important thing, but a perfect blend of elements that come together like a delicious recipe to sate even the toughest of customers?

Posted by Ginger Conlon at 8:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

With the countless number of blogs available to information consumers, is it really worth it to start or run one? According to a new survey, it seems the answer is yes -- with the caveat that it may take some time and effort to build the level of awareness that creates significant interaction.

A survey conducted by analytics firm Cymfony and public relations firm Porter Novelli found that 76 percent of respondents' companies noticed an increase in media attention and website traffic as a result of their blogs, and 42 percent said that specific blog posts have affected the company or a brand--in the vast majority of cases the effect has been positive. Additionally, three quarters of respondents feel their blogs' have met their initial goals.

Not surprisingly, however, considering the vastness of the blogosphere, despite their overall satisfaction with the general success of their blogs, 71 percent of respondents are not satisfied with the level of interaction on their blogs.

Does your company have a blog? What is its purpose, and do you feel it's meeting is goals for both branding and interaction?

Posted by Ginger Conlon at 7:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

The idea of electronic passports is getting closer to fruition, and it's got security and privacy advocates in an uproar. The new passports will include a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag that will store all the information on the data page of the passport, including name, date and place of birth, and a digitized version of the photo.

The State Department said last week that it is confident the right security and encryption measures will be in place. Critics argue that high-tech identity thieves will have easy access to the data because they won't have to physically touch the cards to steal information. But there's a bigger question becomes, "is it worth it to move to an electronic format?" Do citizens need to have their information stored electronically? Will it increase efficiency and make the customs process easier, or are we using technology for technology's sake?

Sometimes momentum builds internally for an initiative that looks good on paper, but as it goes along the customer focus gets lost and the long-term benefits decline. Yet companies are too deep in to be brave enough to stop. We've seen this happen over the last few years with major CRM implementations, as an example. Now it looks like the government may be following this path, with US citizen information on the line. Have you ever been faced with re-working (or abandoning) an initiative to stay the customer course? What internal challenges did you face? What pitfalls should be taken into account?

Posted by Elizabeth Glagowski at 10:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Ginger Conlon asked the question in Inside 1to1 this week: Is there a seat at your table for the customer? There better be. The customer is definitely coming to dinner. And so are your biggest shareholders. I think the balance between how a company plays the politesse between the two guests is one of the hottest issues in business today. No better example than GM. I would argue that the company's current dinner party with Kirk Kerkorian and Carlos Ghosn is a microcosm of the issues faced by almost every company. At every meal we have customers, shareholders, competitors and partners. I believe the party that is served first is the customer. But there's no reason to think that the shareholders, even if they're as contentious as Kerkorian, can't be served as well. Serve the customer well and the shareholder should be happy. However, in GM's case, the service has tilted too far in the direction of the Wall Street experience. If GM had taken care of its customers needs and values at the same level as Ghosn and his company Nissan, it would be calling its own shots right now. But that's not the case. Because the customer has not been served well, the other dinner guests are clamoring for service, and getting all the attention.

Posted by John Gaffney at 6:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

No may be the favorite word of toddlers and parents everywhere -- heck, even most sales professional see it as an opportunity to learn about customers' real motivations -- but many marketers tend to shun it whenever possible.

Think about it. How often do marketing communications offer a "no thanks" option? Some do, but it's rare and most often found in direct mail for such offers as a subscription to a specific magazine. Personally, I don't think I've ever seen a "no thanks" option in an email offer.

But no can be as informative for marketers as it is for salespeople. "A no is as good as a yes," Ron Swift, vice president of cross-industry solutions marketing for Teradata, explained during his keynote earlier this week at Frost & Sullivan's Sales & Marketing Executive MindXchange event. "It tells you not to market that product or service to that person anymore."

Think about the many benefits of this: you save money, time, and effort; you boost customer satisfaction by not repeatedly sending offers on something the customer is clearly not interested in; you might even improve your results over time by communicating with those customers who have clearly noted their interest in receiving information and offers on specific products/services.

One of the ideas behind Return on Customer is that marketers are potentially destroying customer value by overcommunicating with customers, especially when those customers feel the communications aren't relevant to them. When you send a mailing and get a 10 percent response rate, in a way, 90 percent of the recipients have said no by not responding. The trick is to find out which meant "no, not ever" and which meant "no, not this time." The only way to find out -- and to show that you're actually interested in customers' needs -- is to ask.

So go ahead, take Ron's advice: Ask the question.

Posted by Ginger Conlon at 8:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Salespeople have a reputation for bringing in new customers then letting someone else in the company worry about keeping them around for repeat business. That may be true in some cases, but savvy sales professionals are also great relationship builders -- they know firsthand that it's easier to keep and sell to an existing client than to acquire a new one. Their efforts may not be enough.

Companies that pay more than lip service to being customer centric should have as formal a process for retaining customers as they do for acquiring them. And it should be enterprisewide, not just left to sales or marketing alone.

Earlier this week I attended Frost & Sullivan's Sales & Marketing Executive MindXchange, during which Purdue’s Mike Trotter posed this question: If you don't have a retention strategy that's budgeted and documented, are you really customer centric? Trotter, the executive director of the university’s Center for Customer-Driven Quality, emphasized the importance of having set processes and a dedicated budget, as well as metrics to show results.

He also noted that "customer centricity is a convergence of all company resources on the customer" and the customer experience. In other words, your retention strategy must extend beyond the contact center and sales and marketing departments into such areas as HR, finance, and IT. Consequently, there should also be metrics that show customer focus in each of those areas. It sounds difficult to do, but consider this question as one form of measurement: When was the last time you changed a process or policy based on customer input? Or this: Do you ask customers why they leave? (Perhaps it was a billing issue or a problem with your Web site, not a bad experience in the call center or with the product.)

Being customer centric -- and having a documented retention strategy -- Trotter explained, also means having a proactive approach to engaging, listening to, and responding to customers. Do you have a formalized, proactive retention strategy that extends throughout your organization? Why or why not?

Posted by Ginger Conlon at 8:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Excuse me for twisting the Al Franken book title here. But one of the hot topics around the office lately has been the sincerity of bloggers. Business Week's media columnist John Fine has done a great job of documenting some of the more outrageous uses that PR pros have made of the blogosphere. Fine has also reported on the new practice of paying "normal people" to get out and blog away on their "favorite" products. Now, first of all I believe the blogosphere will contract under its own weight in two to three years. We're at eight million blogs and counting. My six year old son wants to start one for goodness sake. But nothing will cause it to buckle faster than the current shill jobs that are happening at legit blogs as well as the rant and rave fringes. If I get on to Paste magazine's blog to rant about the incredible oversight of ranking Neil Young as number two among its top 100 living songwriter list, it's just me expressing myself. I mean, Neil Young has written the same song 200 times, hasn't he? And he checks in seven spots higher than Joni Mitchell? But how do I know that the person who is outraged that Freedy Johnston wasn't listed at all isn't working for Johnston's record company? The unfortunate upshot of all this bloglying is that blogs are an effective customer strategy barometer and customer intelligence machine. It would be a noble quest to keep it honest. Really.

Posted by John Gaffney at 9:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

It's hard to get anyone to talk about it on the record, but it seems to me that a lot of executives whisper a lot lately about Six Sigma and Balanced Scorecard. The whispers say these processes lack flexibility, agility, employee innovation and a true customer focus. I agree. That's why I love the point that our Inside 1to1 story makes today. The point: A business can be all about process, but the people involved need to be humanists. Too much process can take the heart out of a company. If a company is to maintain a spirit and intent of serving customers for short-term profit and long-term value, it needs to have heart. Customers, at one level, are numbers on a spreadhseet. They are unique visitors to the website. But they're also bundles of unique history, biology and experiences. So call it "human sigma" or whatever you want. Just make sure your company has a process that accounts for and honors humanity with all of its angels and demons.

Posted by John Gaffney at 9:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

In my recent entry "Getting to Yes" I discussed selling top management on the idea of treating different customers differently. The gist was to ensure that management understands that low-value customers will not be treated badly, but that higher-value customers would be treated accordingly. At the Gartner CRM Summit, principal research analyst Adam Sarner made another interesting point about the importance of creating a baseline for your customer experience that treats low-value customers well.

According to Sarner, if you treat low-value customers poorly, they will stay low value because they have no motivation to become high-value customers. Sarner makes the point that companies need to create a value proposition between themselves and their customers. In other words, create a balance between company needs and customers needs.

Having a customer strategy means thinking win-win, no matter what the customer value. Because even low-value customers can benefit an organization -- whether through referrals or growth opportunity or by spurring a company to create more efficient, cost-effective service channels. The trick is to find that benefit and use it to both your and your customers' advantange.

Posted by Ginger Conlon at 8:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

It didn't take the World Cup for me to see my global ignorance. But it sure helped. I always knew it was there, mind you. I never really got the obsession with royal families, regardless of what country they were from. Never understood why the French love Jerry Lewis or why the Irish or English drink so much tea, even though my heritage is Irish. So when I saw David Beckham in tears over losing in the World Cup I said to no one in particular: "Dude, you're 31, you're making trillions of dollars, you're great looking and you're set for life. Why are you crying? It's only a soccer game." See? I don't get it. The good thing is, I admit it. Different strokes for different folks, right? Despite all the "flatteners" we have to understand global values, I don't think we really know what customers need and want unless they live in our own culture. Globalization is opening more global access. It does not guarantee global knowledge. It's much more than just sports, I know. I'm just using my personal ignorance for effect. Customer strategy tools have come a long way to enable the understanding of global customers. Don't ignore them, even if it's only a soccer game at stake. .

Posted by John Gaffney at 6:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

If you read 1to1 magazine and INSIDE: 1to1 articles it's likely that you're a proponent of treating different customers differently. However, that may not be the case among other executives in your organization. Even if you're the marketing chief, you likely need buy-in from other top executives to get the support you need from across the organization to make one-to-one strategies a reality.

I attended a Frost & Sullivan Executive MindXchange recently during which one of the speakers provided insight into how to get executive commitment for treating different customers differently. His approach was actually quite simple (not surprising, given his title):

According to Steve Rooks, vice president, simplification and enterprise center, Bell Canada, you have to get executives "past thinking that treating low-value customers differently means treat them [badly]. It's setting a baseline and treating higher value customers more effectively."

I agree. Companies need to treat all their customers well -- even those they prefer would instead buy from competitors -- if for no other reason that the power of positive (and negative) word of mouth. Then create what Harrah's CEO Gary Loveman calls a meritocracy, in which higher-value customers get higher levels of interaction and service.

Now who wouldn't buy in to that...

Posted by Ginger Conlon at 8:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I just read a terrific Business Week article on innovation. There's a lot to it, but the gist is that it's difficult to be innovative if your corporate culture has been process-perfected and short-term oriented to the point of being completely risk averse. One reason this article caught my attention is that we've been discussing this issue a great deal internally (as subject matter for articles), and have written about it as well. In the March issue, for example, the Face to Face column discusses the importance of innovation as part of a customer-centric culture. Executive Editor John Gaffney has spent a great deal of time researching this conundrum recently, so expect to see more coverage. In the meantime, what I wonder is this: Is your corporate culture supportive of innovation? Does it accept failures that you can learn from as a way to move forward? Does it innovate with the customer in mind?

Posted by Ginger Conlon at 10:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)