Catch me if you can – Researching the Mobile Consumer

As Chris Horton recently reported for Social Media Today ‘The world is going mobile at an exponential rate. In 2011, Apple sold more iOS devices (156M) than the total number of Macs sold in all 28 years of its existence (122M).

Google recently announced that 850,000 new Android devices are activated daily and the total number of Android devices around the globe has surpassed 300 million

It has been estimated that there will be one billion smart mobile devices in-use globally sometime between December 2012 and June 2013.

This rapid proliferation of smartphones and tablets is changing how consumers make purchase decisions and interact with brands’.

Increasingly, purchase decisions are being made with the aid of user-generated content such as online reviews and peer opinions found on social media and this is being accessed at or close to the point of purchase. Indeed 48% of consumers say their mobile is a significant influencing factor when making a purchase decision.

This means that it is now vital for businesses to approach marketing and research through a mobile lens. The future of online is mobile!

Understanding the consumer in the moment

The opportunity this presents to harness the smartphone's ability for instant media consumption and real time customer insights is key.

Mobile devices integrate and change touch points. Mobile is so immersed in our lives we barely notice it. Behaviours will change further, more and more devices will be connected our children won’t know anything other than smart devices. 

This means that mobile research offers a real benefit in generating real time insights. Traditional ‘recall’ surveys can be inaccurate with their reliance on human ‘memory’, but by using mobile to turn recall surveys to immediate point of interest surveys the data can be more reliable.

So, mobile research is actually contextualised research allowing researchers to get a better overall view of respondents’ natural behaviours.

IKEA customers have a higher than usual smart phone penetration. They created the ability to capture customer unique experiences at the time they are interacting with the brand, which was ground breaking for IKEA. It even allowed customer issues and concerns to be addressed before the customer even left the store!

The way consumers feel has a direct impact on how they behave, and mobile also presents an ideal tool to harness this, capturing the contrasts between what consumers say they do and what they actually do!

What are the advantages of mobile research?

It’s not just early adopters that have online access via a phone, the new wave of mobile users means it’s increasingly becoming mainstream.

And mobile research has numerous advantages over traditional methods

• Immediacy - consumers record their interaction with brands as they happen
• Timeliness – research projects can be sent out when it is appropriate to do so with instant access to power reporting and analysis
• Less recall issues – real time feedback
• Shorter surveys – less onerous for the consumer
• Contextual richness – feedback ‘in situ'
• Better engagement with younger target groups
• Convenience - it’s easy for consumers to use and always there
• Better response rates  -  as high as 40-45%

·    The opportunity to get more creative about rewards. e.g. free gaming apps that will encourage them to participate in more research.

Where next?

We are moving into a new era for marketing and research – the era of the ‘Connected Customer ‘ Customers are now connected to their own social networks, have ‘direct access’ to companies and brands on an on-going basis and are living an ‘always online’ lifestyle.

Marketers and researchers must realise that current methods and guidelines may not work to engage the Connected Customer or to understand and report on such engagements.

This connectivity means that the next step from mobile research surveys is mobile research communities that could involve customers, stakeholders, even shareholders!

In the UK mobile is used to alleviate boredom (39% in downtime), which presents an opportunity for researchers to experiment with new ways of incentivising.

InSites Consulting use a gamification system to allocate points to participants that share content to “level-up” and unlock incentives. They also run challenges, asking members why their city is the coolest, sparking a flood of images, video and other content.

The more content they share, the more engaged consumers become with the platform and the more they want to share in response.

So how can research respond to the challenge? The cloud is everywhere and big data is an opportunity not a challenge. The future is bleak for those with blinders on, but extremely bright for those that can help design it!

Why Marketers don’t get Social Media

Seems that we are nowhere as marketers nowadays unless we are ‘getting down and digital ‘and throwing around words like social map, edgerank and hashtag.

But keeping up a social media presence is hard work – right? Creating the company policy, finding the right people to implement it, generating the content, engaging in conversations, checking the stats....phew!  No time for real work!

So how come it’s such a breeze for the millions of individuals on social media to market themselves? No marketing budget, no training, no slick digital agency and yet they still build a good network of people that they influence and who influence them - every day.

Well IMHO, there is one very good reason why marketers don’t ‘get’ social media, we are approaching it with the wrong mindset!

In the old days of media advertising, we were all very clear that as marketers our job was to promote our brands and products to as many customers we could possibly get to by buying time and space and then hoping a small proportion would actually buy

But, in the social space our role is very different because the people in network are the ‘product’, promoting themselves to the many expecting a response from a few.

Let me explain my thinking here. In traditional media, entertainment and advertising is provided for the public - often at great expense - and exists whether the audience is engaged with it or not. Social media, on the other hand, wouldn’t actually exist without the engagement of the public. So when we attempt to reach people on social networks we need to remember that we are connecting with the product itself and not just an existing or prospective customer.

OK so what if we are? I hear you say!

Well this actually makes use of Social Media much more of a strategic alliance than a marketing campaign. For sure some networkers that ‘like’ or ‘follow’ our products and services will buy them,but many are also our partners because they are promoting them through their networks. 

So what does this mean for social media marketing? Well if we are to behave like true strategic partners we need to:

• Change our mindset from ‘promoting’ to ‘partnering’
• Adopt the ground rules of the network
• Focus on the relationship as much as the outcomes
• Align our values with those of our promoters
• Make sure we are ‘at one’ in the eyes of their networks
• Relinquish control and work organically with the members
• Share the risks and the rewards

This is a very different modus operandi for marketers but if we don’t adapt our thinking quickly our new partners will soon jilt us for a more attractive playmate!

REPORT: The 100 Most Engaging Brands On Facebook

REPORT: The 100 Most Engaging Brands On Facebook

"Don't bother wowing your Customers"

The recent HBR Management Tip (“Don’t Bother Wowing Your Customers,” October 20, 2011) and the larger article on which it is based (“Stop trying to Delight Your Customers,” HBR, July/Aug 2010, Dixon, Freeman and Toman) is both eye catching and thought provoking – and totally misleading.

The authors present data illustrating that their Customer Effort Score (CES) outperforms satisfaction and NPS as a predictor of customer loyalty. Responsible researchers and marketers, however, have long recognized that satisfaction is a necessary but not sufficient hurdle for loyalty, and the weaknesses (and strengths) of NPS are well documented. Outperforming these measures is a straw man performance and not much of an accomplishment.

I see two fundamental problems with their line of thinking. First, they fail to differentiate between the customer service experience and customer loyalty and actually seem to flip-flop between the two for their own convenience. Loyalty is a relationship concept (and measure) that is greater than the sum of the experience or contacts. Each and every customer interaction is an opportunity to strengthen the relationship, as well as a risk of undermining or weakening the relationship. But the interaction or experience is not the same as the overall relationship.

Satisfying or “wowing” customers on any one experience is important only insofar as the experience contributes to the larger equation of the customer relationship. Experiences are discreet events, although the customer’s memory is more cumulative. The value and importance of experiences are in their aggregated impact on the relationship.

 

More importantly, their argument is flawed because it sees the world in a linear manner in which it is assumed that improved performance on each and every performance measure (inputs or independent variables) drives ever higher levels of delight or loyalty ( the outcome or dependent variables). Dissatisfaction – the failure to deliver on basic expectations or table stakes – is the flip side of satisfaction and not the inverse of customer loyalty or delight. They present a feeble argument: simply fixing service problems that might disappoint and alienate customers never has been the equivalent of delighting customers any more than removing the proverbial fly from the bowl of soup makes for a delicious meal.
 

We do not live in a linear world. Performance criteria that are dissatisfiers or negative drivers of satisfaction need to be analyzed and managed separately from the enhancers or positive drivers of customer loyalty and delight. (See http://www.gfkinsights4u.com/insights4u.cfm?articleID=425) The dissatisfiers need to be remedied, as these are the basic performance expectations of customers. Dixon et al are right in that “wowing” customers on dissatisfiers is a non-starter without a positive ROI. But this is because these are not criteria that lead to differentiated customer experiences or delight, not because it isn’t worth delighting customers. Companies, in other words, have to wow customers on things that matter to the customer. Dissatisfiers, by their nature, have clear points of diminishing returns, and over-performing against customer expectations on these fundamental must-dos is an investment with little or even negative return (negative because this might pull resources away from more important service dimensions).

 

Dixon and company touch on the distinction between dissatisfiers and enhancers with their “two pies” analogy of drivers of loyalty and disloyalty. They introduce this concept – and then promptly totally ignore the positive drivers or enhancers that REALLY WOW customers and deliver meaningfully differentiated service experiences and drive customer loyalty. Companies DO NEED TO DELIGHT and WOW their customers on the enhancers that build loyal, enduring relationships that maximize customer lifetime value. The fact that every interaction with the contact centers (on which Dixon et al focus) does not necessarily contribute to loyalty is not proof to the contrary. So while companies may not need to “wow” their customers on each and every interaction, they need to deliver operational excellence to plug the leaks on those issues that might dissatisfy or disappoint customers, while truly WOWING their customers on those enhancers or differentiators that drive loyalty. The trick is to differentiate between the two type of drivers and ensure organizations apply the appropriate performance-improvement efforts and align their training/reward systems accordingly.

Young People Think The Internet Is As Important As Breathing

A new study by Cisco Systems reveals that one in three college students and young professionals under 30 believe the Internet is as important as air, water, food, and shelter (via CNNMoney).

The study, which polled 8,000 people in 14 countries, found that more than half of the participants said they could not live without the Internet, citing it as "more important than owning a car, dating, and going to parties."

Here are some more study highlights:

• Many respondents cite a mobile device as “the most important technology” in their lives
• Seven of 10 employees have “friended” their managers and coworkers on Facebook
• Two of five students have not bought a physical book (except textbooks) in two years
• Most respondents have a Facebook account and check it at least once a day
  • Half would rather lose their wallet or purse than their smartphone or mobile device.
  • More than two of five would accept a lower-paying job that had more flexibility with regard to device choice, social media access, and mobility than a higher-paying job with less flexibility.
• At least one in four said the absence of remote access would influence their job decisions, such as leaving companies sooner rather than later, slacking off, or declining job offers outright.
  • Three out of 10 feel that once they begin working, it will be their right — more than a privilege — to be able to work remotely with a flexible schedule.

Why brands want agencies that collaborate well - Rebecca Lieb

Ten or so years ago, the big whinge in digital marketing was silos. Digital vets know the lament all too well -- digital was siloed off from print and from broadcast. Interactive never got to sit at the grownups' table. Campaigns never pointed anyone to the web page (hard to believe now, but it was certainly true then).

• Rebecca Lieb
• Contact
• More by author

If all this were changed (the lament continued), digital would get its due. It would get more branding ad dollars and evolve far beyond email offers for nutritional supplements (which, of course it did).

Less than a decade later, digital advertising and media comprise a multi-billion-dollar industry. You don't hear a lot about silos any more. Yet I've begun to worry about them. Namely, that silos are springing up right and left within digital itself.

More on that later because there's another opposing view on this, from none other than Jonathan Mildenhall, Coca-Cola's VP of global advertising strategy and creative excellence.

In a discussion last week about what he looked for when selecting an agency, among other criteria he named the ability to collaborate.

"Digital brilliance has always come from understanding how to collaborate with very different types of thinkers -- storytellers, producers, and developers," said Mildenhall. "The digital industry has grown up out of collaboration. Traditional agencies have taught collaboration for the last decade, but they're only just now understanding how to practice collaboration. The rhetoric of collaboration is finally coming home as a reality."

Interesting thinking. Are we really good at collaborating in digital? The disparity of talents and personality types necessary to realize even the smallest campaign or digital initiative prompted the editors of this publication to ask me last week to write a piece on how to speak geek. It's not easy to bring right brain and left-brain talent together and make anything happen.

Meanwhile, digital's not getting any easier. Discrete disciplines are more complex by the week. Email, SEO, SEM, media planning and buying, creative, and analytics are just a few of the digital verticals that often require their own slew of specialists. New platforms are cropping up all the time, and have to be accounted for and made to work flawlessly, user-experience wise. (Tablets! Android! iOS!)

Bottom line: Increasingly, we understand less and less what our colleagues across the table actuallydo.

Another hindrance to collaboration? An increasing lack of clear boundaries and responsibilities as the lines separating advertising, media, content, and social blur smudge.

A digital marketing executive at a major healthcare company laments managing multiple agencies: one for social, one for display, one for media, and so on. Two years ago, she said, everything worked fine. Now, "They're all posting to our YouTube channel. It's a nightmare -- yet doing this is critical to each individual agency's performance goals."

So, who manages the collaboration? The rules that worked smoothly a scant two years ago are suddenly no longer applicable.

Another obstacle to collaboration is data. It's hard to get different teams on the same page if they aren't looking at the same data in the same way to work toward common goals, even if each team's point of departure is a different one.

All the above, as well as all future roadblocks to collaboration, will very soon have to be carefully considered and strategically overcome by the agencies that expect to remain competitive in digital.

Why? Clients have your number. Collaboration is explicitly what major brands say is the "No. 1 criterion for agency selection." A brand doesn't want its advertising agency telling it that the company can do social media, too. The brand wants the ad shop to work in harmony with the social team, and it wants the two to inform and enhance the other's efforts.

Easier said than done, and also easier when the shops expected to work in tandem are agencies of record (AORs), "part of the family," as one client-side executive recently put it.

Yet collaboration, and a deliberate attempt to avoid even the appearance of silos, seems a critical ingredient to becoming AOR nowadays.

Marketers struggle to harness social media - survey

 By Georgina Prodhan

LONDON | Tue Oct 11, 2011 12:01am EDT

Oct 11 (Reuters) - Marketing chiefs feel overwhelmed by the growing volume of customer data on websites like Facebook and Twitter, and while they realise its potential value they consider themselves ill-equipped to harness it, an IBM study found.

Only 26 percent of chief marketing officers track blogs and just 40 percent track any online communications, while 82 percent still rely on traditional market research to shape marketing strategies, according to the study.

A few top consumer brands, such as Coca-Cola , Nike and Starbucks -- are using high-profile social media campaigns to great effect to find out what their customers want and to communicate with them.

But most CMOs are struggling to prove that investments in social media marketing would yield returns, according to the survey of more than 1,700 CMOs published on Tuesday and carried out in face-to-face interviews from February to June.

"The perfect solution is to serve each consumer individually. The problem? There are 7 billion of them," said one CMO at a consumer-products firm in the survey.

Some 82 percent said they planned to increase their use of social media over the next 3-5 years.

IBM, along with other technology firms and big advertising agencies, is seeking to capitalise on the need of marketers to analyse data being created and shared on sites like Twitter and YouTube or by email.

Facebook has more than 800 million active users, while Twitter users send about 200 million tweets per day.

Such unstructured data, which are not collected in databases or documents, are difficult to understand using traditional computer programmes.

IBM estimated that more than 90 percent of all real-time information being created today are unstructured -- and has spent $14 billion in the past five years on acquisitions of analytics companies to fulfil that new demand.

"We have entered the age of the smarter consumer," IBM marketing executive Marcel Holsheimer told journalists at a briefing in London.

"Marketing is going to become much more an automated and software play than it was in the past. This is why IBM is now making the investment in this space."

Hewlett-Packard this month bought Britisih software firm Autonomy, a market leader in unstructured data search, for $12 billion.