Posts Tagged ‘Consumer Behavior’

The Customer is (Almost) Always Right

We’ve all been there. The frantic phone call to try to get your cable fixed. The standing in a post-holiday line to return that not-so-perfect sweater your aunt bought for you. While there are undoubtedly a number of times when these interactions go off without a hitch, the ones that come to mind first are often the ones that leave us most jarred, jilted or just plain angry. As consumers we have been taught that we deserve to get what we want, when we want it. (See my colleague Sarah’s post from last week…)

We’ve all been there.  The frantic phone call to try to get your cable fixed.  The standing in a post-holiday line to return that not-so-perfect sweater your aunt bought for you.  While there are undoubtedly a number of times when these interactions go off without a hitch, the ones that come to mind first are often the ones that leave us most jarred, jilted or just plain angry.  As consumers we have been taught that we deserve to get what we want, when we want it. (See my colleague Sarah’s post from last week…)

However, a recent article from “US Airways” magazine (yes, my iPod battery died on a recent flight and I started exploring the in-flight reading material) got me thinking about the other side of the equation: the customer service representative. How do we really interact with these people?  While many of us likely dread the call to question an electricity bill or cancel a gym membership, I wonder what can be done to make these relationships more effective.  How can we make these interactions more about collaboration and problem-solving than venting and blame-placing?

The above article emphasized how important this relationship really is: “Customer service and customer relations management is going to be so critical to all corporate futures. […] It’s going to be all about cultivating, exploiting and collaborating with consumers.”

So, where do we go from here?

Leave a Reply

Read more

Reflections on Shopper Insights

From: Bill Alberti
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 1:59 PM
To: Julie Wittes Schlack
Subject: Reflections on Shopper Insights…

Whadidja think?

From: Bill Alberti
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 1:59 PM
To: Julie Wittes Schlack
Subject: Reflections on Shopper Insights…

Whadidja think?

From: Julie Wittes Schlack
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 2:02 PM
To: Bill Alberti
Subject: RE: Reflections on Shopper Insights…

Well, my conscious and rational mind says that the Shopper Insights conference was all about dichotomies – conscious vs. unconscious, planned vs. unplanned, habit vs. change, what people think vs. what they feel, etc.  But since according to one speaker, 84 percent of what I do is unconscious, what the hell do I know?

From: Bill Alberti
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 3:42 PM
To: Julie Wittes Schlack
Subject: RE: Reflections on Shopper Insights…

What YOU know is just point … what you know, how you act, how you feel … My big takeaway was about treating shoppers as unique from one another and getting intimate with them. From understanding how their brains work, to exploring the richness of the emotional territory of their lives, you quickly realize that data alone just doesn’t cut it anymore. You need to get intimate with customers to earn permission into their lives to see their experiences from their points of view.

From: Julie Wittes Schlack
To: Bill Alberti
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 4:01 PM
Subject: RE: Reflections on Shopper Insights…

Amen, brother! Understandably, a lot of shopper insights work focuses on measurement, because this is one domain in which measurement is not only strategically important, but relatively easy. So there’s reams of data on what SKUs are moving and how quickly, length of time in aisle, where shoppers eyes are roaming – on WHAT people are doing … but not on WHY they’re doing it. The neuroscience work aims to get at the latter in an objective way, and it is fascinating and powerful research.

But what struck me as I listened to several presentations is that while a variety of sensory cues may inform the unconscious and stimulate the desire to touch or acquire, ultimately the act of purchasing is a pretty conscious, intellectually mediated act. That’s why shopping is one behavioral domain where self-reporting and reflection – affording people the time in space in which to wonder aloud, “Hmm … why DID I not only have the impulse, but follow through on it?” – is really important. Reflection is a powerful insight-generation tool.

And so is Dan Arielly. My other big take-away, in fact, was a deeper appreciation for just how daunting, even paralyzing, choice can be. I’m heading out for vacation in an hour, but as I weigh the question of beach vs. pond vs. hammock next week, I’ll reflect a little more on that… :)

From: Bill Alberti
To: Julie Wittes Schlack
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 4:44 PM
Subject: RE: Reflections on Shopper Insights…

And that’s why I asked … always very insightful to hear your perspective.

Enjoy your vacation. When making your decision, you may want to throw in the “decoy” option of beach minus a beach blanket. The asymmetrical dominance might make the decision for beach (my preference) unconsciously easier ;)  See you next week.

Leave a Reply

Read more

FIFA Fever: Athletic brands take front stage

The World Cup has always been surrounded with ad campaigns from various brands trying to get a piece of the action, and this year is no exception. Some of the world’s top brands that have partnered with FIFA include Coca Cola, McDonald’s, VISA and SONY, to name just a few. In an event of such magnitude, athletic companies compete for center stage. Adidas is FIFA’s official partner but other companies have done their part to make themselves visible to the worldwide audience the World Cup draws. PUMA is one of these athletic brands that created an elaborate campaign to attract global audiences.

The World Cup has always been surrounded with ad campaigns from various brands trying to get a piece of the action, and this year is no exception. Some of the world’s top brands that have partnered with FIFA include Coca Cola, McDonald’s, VISA and SONY, to name just a few. In an event of such magnitude, athletic companies compete for center stage. Adidas is FIFA’s official partner but other companies have done their part to make themselves visible to the worldwide audience the World Cup draws. PUMA is one of these athletic brands that created an elaborate campaign to attract global audiences.

PUMA enlisted the collaboration of much sought-after artist Kehinde Wiley to create four original pieces of artwork featuring three of the best football players in Africa –Samuel Eto’o of Cameroon, John Mensah of Ghana, and Emmanuel Eboué of the Ivory Coast. The theme of this campaign was “African togetherness.” The company also created a unity uniform for African national teams.

PUMA has differentiated itself from the other athletic brands by relying on their long-established relationship with African football. Unlike the other brands, PUMA has had a presence in Africa for over a decade, sponsoring football teams in many African nations. Because the 2010 World Cup was held in Africa, creating this campaign was a clear fit for PUMA.

Additionally, the company introduced The PUMA Africa Collection, an apparel line inspired by the Kehinde Wiley portraits. And as part of their social responsibility efforts, PUMA is donating a portion of the Africa Unity Kit sales to programs in Africa that support diversity.

 With such efforts and immense amounts of cash that go into campaigns aimed at huge sporting events drawing even bigger audiences, as we are seeing in the World Cup, I can’t help but wonder how effective this particular sponsorship is in terms of revenue. It is clear that supporting a social cause, like the one PUMA is doing with diversity programs in Africa, is viewed positively by the consumer; but does this actually translate into dollars for the company? Will consumers buy the Kehinde Wiley-inspired items because of the “African togetherness” theme this campaign communicates or simply because the styles are appealing to the consumer? Or is it really just FIFA fever that is driving consumers out to their favorite sporting goods stores to buy World Cup apparel? 

I encourage everyone to chime in. From a marketing perspective, do you think these types of sponsorships really bring in big money for a brand or are other factors playing a role? Have you purchased World Cup apparel? Why? Do you support one brand over the other? Are social responsibility efforts important in your purchasing decisions? Or did you just like the style, regardless of the brand or the company’s support for socially responsible causes? 

If you’d like to see the portraits, merchandise, and making-of videos of PUMA’s campaign visit: http://africa.puma.com.

2 Responses to “FIFA Fever: Athletic brands take front stage”

  1. Janet Bednarz says:

    Lorena – This is a true confession of a born-in-America Baby Boomer: the World Cup is barely on my radar screen. My brother-in-law is from Spain, and every four years he rattles the chains of his provincial in-laws to get with the World Cup program! But we barely do. I keep an eye on the headlines to see how Spain is doing – but that’s about it. So…I have not purchased World Cup apparel.

    I do pay some attention, however, to the socially responsible actions of sports apparel brands. For example, I avoid Nike products because a number of years ago they were exposed for engaging in exploitive sweatshop practices in oversees manufacturing facilities. Their continued endorsement of Tiger Woods as a Nike spokesperson has alienated me even further.

    Patagonia, on the other hand, is an excellent example of being an environmentally and socially responsible business, so I try to buy their sports gear when I can.

    I like what PUMA is doing in Africa. Will it give them a good return on investment? Probably not with American-born Baby Boomers like me. But perhaps yes given the rich diversity of World Cup enthusiasts around the globe.

  2. Lorena Leonard says:

    Janet, thanks for your message… your point of view is quite interesting! I wasn’t aware of Nike’s involvement in sweatshops and I’m glad you brought that up. I don’t necessarily lend all of my support to a particular brand because of their social responsibility efforts but it does help. However, I am appalled by companies that are involved in immoral manufacturing practices and I try to boycott these -such as Guess, whom I’ve been boycotting since the 90’s for having children in sweatshops in Central America.

Leave a Reply

Read more

Expired Insight: Gwyneth’s Goop

There’s a reason we advocate for longitudinal studies, going back into communities to test and retest hypotheses. Insights have variable shelf lives and we need to keep checking the expiration date to see if they’ve grown stale. Sadly, I recently discovered the insight in a previous blog post is now the strategic equivalent of a liquefied carrot in the back of my fridge.

There’s a reason we advocate for longitudinal studies, going back into communities to test and retest hypotheses.  Insights have variable shelf lives and we need to keep checking the expiration date to see if they’ve grown stale.  Sadly, I recently discovered the insight in a previous blog post is now the strategic equivalent of a liquefied carrot in the back of my fridge.

In March 2009, I wrote my first blog post on Gwyneth Paltrow’s newsletter, “Goop”.  At that time, I praised Gwyneth for “simply being Gwyneth.”  I loved that the newsletter seemed aspirational, without actually trying to sell a luxury lifestyle.  It was Gwyneth letting us into her world, without apology.  I found this brave, and snickered at critics who faulted her for being out of touch. 

Silly critics, that’s exactly why reading “Goop” was so enjoyable.  It was Gwyneth sharing news from the world of Gwyneth.  That was it.  Readers were voyeurs and it was fun.  But something changed.  Gwyneth decided to share and … (gulp) … advise. 

“Goop” started advising me on how to be healthy ($350/week vegetable cleanse you can only get in Manhattan!), where to vacation (luxury hotel in Morocco!), how to be green (buy from the Stella McCartney Eco Collection $435-$1535!).  I had joked in my original post that Gwyn thinks, “I might want to be her, and she’s right.”  But what I’ve realized is Gwyn assumes I am her.  It’s made “Goop” painful to read and Gwyneth look like a fool. 

A good insight is like the mythical phoenix.  You can kill it with the fires of new evidence, but a new one emerges stronger and more actionable.  In my first blog post, I encouraged luxury brands to take a page from “Goop” and sell aspiration without shame.  The new insight provided by “Goop” is much more useful and powerful:  Don’t overstep.  Don’t confuse author with audience.  It’s a short trip from out-of-touch to completely delusional.

4 Responses to “Expired Insight: Gwyneth’s Goop”

  1. Renee Piazza says:

    Karen – this is a brilliant post, and so true! I find myself saying “yea right” lately when I read her newsletter. Nice post.

  2. Charlotte says:

    AND, did you notice that her last “newsletter” (about sprituality) was basically a repeat of one she’d done before? Same sources and everything. Come on Gwen!

  3. Sho says:

    Agreed! I love her, but bring back the OG Gweneth… please!

    And good point – “Don’t confuse author with audience” is key to what makes good journalism- well, good!

  4. marla aaron says:

    I too, started out luvin’ Goop–and all that Gwyneth stuff…Karen you absolutely pinpointed the moment she lost me….the CLEANSE! I loved her recipes, the tone…it all felt right and then came the cleanse and the seemingly constant doses of spirituality from a string of expert “lifestyle gurus” interspersed with hotel recommendations that seemed so utterly out of touch.
    You pegged it perfectly!
    Great post.

Leave a Reply

Read more

En Route(r) To Insight

My wireless router got routed this week prompting me to read through reams of replacement options online, a search which began at Best Buy with its 76 selections and turned to Amazon, adding another 1,895 alternatives. Each of the various versions sport a suffix of letters, numbers, and a sprinkling of specialty benefits; combined they create a cornucopia of confusion with titles like: Wireless-N 150 Router with 4-Port Ethernet Switch.

My wireless router got routed this week prompting me to read through reams of replacement options online, a search which began at Best Buy with its 76 selections and turned to Amazon, adding another 1,895 alternatives. Each of the various versions sport a suffix of letters, numbers, and a sprinkling of specialty benefits; combined they create a cornucopia of confusion with titles like: Wireless-N 150 Router with 4-Port Ethernet Switch.  

In danger of a mental hard drive meltdown, I sought safety in a standard novice solution – research by way of user reviews. Some extolled the ease of installation while others incited indignation over how insanely difficult it was to get the same wireless unit working; there were reports of ridiculous ranges, both long and short, righteous and ragged reliability. Feedback fanned the full spectrum for every device, but sans consensus it was impossible to sense which suggestions were sound.

What could (or should) have served as the ultimate IT Help Desk, turned out to be as useful as a floppy-disk. Was it a system or user error? 

My community of commentators was well-intentioned, but navigating the notes, positive and negative alike, revealed a reason to place the remarks in context of the critic. From a lack of know-how, to the modems and Internet providers pushing the signal through, there are too many factors to fashion a real review of one piece of the larger technology puzzle.

An online community can provide powerful pointers to brands and individuals alike, but it takes intimacy to truly understand who you’re interacting with. The familiarity formed once trust is earned allows an added level of learning; a participant’s comfort opens the opportunity for them to confide the circumstance behind their answer. Without the added context, the “insight” is as useful as a ruined router.

As you get ready to boot-up your weekend, make sure to power-down any lingering effects from the five days of work.

Leave a Reply

Read more

From “Sellout” to “Sold Out,” or How I Learned to Hate Success

“Ah man, I saw that band years ago at a small club. I’m not paying $150 to see them at [insert name of big sports/music venue]! They’re a bunch of sellouts”

It’s a pretty typical story: small (often independent) band cultivates loyal following only to lose their most passionate fans when the band earns real notoriety and money. I’m one of these “bad weather fans,” as we’re often called. I’m fine with it; I’ve got an entire CD and cassette tape graveyard of bands I used to love, but who outgrew my affinity and loyalty.

“Ah man, I saw that band years ago at a small club.  I’m not paying $150 to see them at [insert name of big sports/music venue]!  They’re a bunch of sellouts” 

It’s a pretty typical story:  small (often independent) band cultivates loyal following only to lose their most passionate fans when the band earns real notoriety and money.  I’m one of these “bad weather fans,” as we’re often called.  I’m fine with it; I’ve got an entire CD and cassette tape graveyard of bands I used to love, but who outgrew my affinity and loyalty.

The truth is this:  I like to have secrets.  Whether it’s legitimate or not, I like to feel like I have insider knowledge, like I’m an early adopter.  I don’t like it when my favorite things “become mass.”  Which is why I was so angry when I recently logged on to my go-to shopping site, Diapers.com, and was informed that the site was out of commission due to…gulp…too much activity.

I stared at the screen in disbelief.  I kept clicking “refresh” in the hope that this mirage of popularity would disappear.  It remained.  Then it hit me, “This is my fault.  It’s entirely my fault.”

I’ve been telling any parent who would listen to use Diapers.com—great prices and free, super-fast shipping.  I can’t live without it.  (Shoot!  I just did it again. )  That’s the problem with word-of-mouth campaigns.   Once you endorse the thing you love, you run the risk of losing it. 

The irony of the whole thing is that early adopters often want their beloved musician or product to succeed, but they don’t want them to change.  There’s an emotional payoff in the “I knew them when” story. But it can quickly turn to disdain when fans/customers don’t feel like the memory is reciprocated.

It’s a real challenge for marketers.  How do you expand your market and keep your core customers satisfied?  I know it’s a particularly vexing question in the world of public television, and it’s certainly a pain point being felt by Facebook

I won’t pretend to give the answer here, but I’ll share this tidbit:  Elvis Costello often asks his crowd how many attendees were at smaller venues/shows in the past.  It’s a nice acknowledgement and a creative way to single out the loyalists.  As for Diapers.com, PBS and others dealing with these issues, they’d be well-suited to find their industry’s equivalent of the “backstage pass.”  What better way to find out then to ask those who have been loyal since the beginning.  As for me, I’ll take a free box of Sprout baby food from Diapers.com. 

Oh, have I told you about Sprout?!

One Response to “From “Sellout” to “Sold Out,” or How I Learned to Hate Success”

  1. Carrie says:

    I think it’s also your fault that Bare Naked Ladies got so big. You should have just kept them to yourself before all of that Kraft Macaroni and Cheese starting flying their way on stage

Leave a Reply

Read more

Awesome.

Think Chocolate is better than Sunlight or Ninjas? You better vote, because it’s well behind in the rankings on The Most Awesomest Thing Ever, a website which pits unrelated objects, celebrities and activities against each other and then ranks them based on how many people think they are awesome.

Think Chocolate is better than Sunlight or Ninjas? You better vote, because it’s well behind in the rankings on The Most Awesomest Thing Ever, a website which pits unrelated objects, celebrities and activities against each other and then ranks them based on how many people think they are awesome.

“We had no idea it would take off like this,” says Michael Lebowitz, founder and CEO of Big Spaceship, the digital creative agency behind the website which launched April 15. “People spend hours on it. Someone on Twitter even likened it to ‘heroin-dusted Oreos,’ it’s just that addicting.” After just five days, the site stole a collective 18,000 hours from visitors debating between Nachos and Jazz Hands. 

There’s something uniquely awesome about the site, beyond pitting cheeseburgers against cleavage. Rather than limiting would-be reviewers to a predetermined list, The Most Awesomest Thing Ever allows anyone a chance to add their own awesome ideas to the ever-building bank of battling items. 

As market researchers we often set the context in which consumers can view a given product or brand by forcing our consideration set – what we see as the obvious or correct choices – into the equation, but that leaves little room for the answers we didn’t anticipate. It’s a confined conversation, which makes it more command than collaboration.  

Having the courage to place control in the palms of the people pondering your problem opens up the opportunity to see what consumers actually see – not what we want them to. Do so, and you may just discover something unexpected. Now that would be awesome.  

A special shout out to the person I find most awesome, my mom; happy Mother’s Day to my only guaranteed reader and the rest of the moms out there!

Leave a Reply

Read more

Failing Faster

Depending on what data you believe, somewhere between 50-90% of new products fail. Questioning the percentages isn’t nearly as interesting as questioning the whys. And most answers point to a lack of understanding about consumers – e.g., the product’s positioning didn’t resonate (McDonald’s attempt at premium with the Arch Deluxe); the product didn’t serve a clear and compelling consumer need (did consumers need a New Coke, the XFL or a Segway?); the product wasn’t perceived as valuable or differentiated enough (IBM’s PCJr); etc. Ultimately, consumers – businesses or individuals – didn’t buy enough of the product to make the product successful.

Depending on what data you believe, somewhere between 50-90% of new products fail.  Questioning the percentages isn’t nearly as interesting as questioning the whys.  And most answers point to a lack of understanding about consumers – e.g., the product’s positioning didn’t resonate (McDonald’s attempt at premium with the Arch Deluxe); the product didn’t serve a clear and compelling consumer need (did consumers need a New Coke, the XFL or a Segway?); the product wasn’t perceived as valuable or differentiated enough (IBM’s PCJr); etc. Ultimately, consumers – businesses or individuals – didn’t buy enough of the product to make the product successful.

Central to most product or idea failures is the practice of involving consumers too late in the product development cycle.  Consumers typically are brought in downstream of an idea’s development i.e., after the idea has been fleshed out, storyboarded or otherwise already invested in.  To test.  To evaluate.  To validate.  Consumers are put in the awkward position of killing or giving further life to ideas with very little background on, understanding of or context for them. 

In this setting, the possibility of failure comes at the end of a long cycle of time, investment and energy spent.  Perhaps this long cycle is why so many products miss the mark when they come to market instead of failing internally – i.e., so much investment is put against an idea’s prospects for success, making a pre-launch failure harder to accept.

But what if failure didn’t happen at the end of the cycle, but throughout it?  What if failure happened faster? 

In a “fail faster” scenario, consumers would be brought in upstream of an idea’s development to create and refine an idea with a company.  Designers, engineers, creatives, etc., would be working alongside consumers – benefiting from different and diverse perspectives to inform the creative process.  More ideas could be explored because less time would be wasted building out bad ideas. 

Of course, failing faster doesn’t mean just the speed of failure would improve. So too would the rate of success – after all, the ideas would be created with consumers for consumers, thereby increasing the likelihood of their adoption by consumers.

Behind the intuitive value of “failing faster” is a fairly compelling ROI. By failing faster, companies can cut expenses with shortened cycle times and realize the possibilities for increased revenue (i.e., products in market faster + greater likelihood of consumer adoption). 

The changes needed to realize the positive impact of “failing fast” are fairly simple: Involving consumers earlier in the process and keeping them involved throughout.  But until the changes are made, the percentage of new product failures will remain too high…mainly because these failures could be avoided.

One Response to “Failing Faster”

  1. I love the hook, but I am not sure that I would define customer-involved product development as “failing faster”–even if ideas are being rejected along the way. Still, the concept of rapid iterations with a customer-collaborative approach makes a lot of sense. I often work with clients who come to me, as a market researcher, after the product is developed. Clearly, not ideal. Do they still learn a lot from testing their product concepts? Sure. They uncover likely sales objections, sales drivers, ideas for messages that will (or won’t) resonate. But still, earlier customer feedback is always preferred.

    These days, many markets also have the benefit of rapid prototyping, which helps get meaningful early customer feedback. Many more companies could be taking advantage of that approach as well.

    Frankly, I am thrilled when companies make the effort to get customer feedback anywhere in the process, but I totally I agree that earlier is better.

Leave a Reply

Read more

Next Level Listening: Reactive to proactive

I took a Listening class in college (yes for credit!) and I learned there are two kinds of listening: passive and active. The class covered the psychology and behavior of listening to in-person conversations. However, as with most of this social stuff, the underlying principles of how listening works ends up being roughly the same online – after all, we are human in both venues. What I’ve realized, after many years in this “new” listening space that includes socially-empowered customers, is that it’s actually where in the conversation you start listening that distinguishes the value it can bring to your organization.

I took a Listening class in college (yes for credit!) and I learned there are two kinds of listening: passive and active. The class covered the psychology and behavior of listening to in-person conversations. However, as with most of this social stuff, the underlying principles of how listening works ends up being roughly the same online – after all, we are human in both venues. What I’ve realized, after many years in this “new” listening space that includes socially-empowered customers, is that it’s actually where in the conversation you start listening that distinguishes the value it can bring to your organization.

So, here’s an easy way to think about it – reactive and proactive. If you are just doing one, you are missing out on some seriously good stuff. Let me explain a bit …

  • Reactive listening delivers incremental feedback (today)
  • Proactive listening delivers game-changing discovery (tomorrow)

With reactive listening, you’re not really involved in a conversation; you are having ideas come at you with very little in the way of context and underlying needs.  Online, reactive listening (most of the time) takes the form of web monitoring – either for key words, your brand, your competitor’s brand – on Twitter, Facebook, blogs  or using suggestion-box-type online communities, such as  MyStarbucksIdea.com  or Ford’s “your ideas” site. So, you can see when someone’s really mad at you and respond, or get ideas for where things are wrong with your products or services and how you might do it better.  You’re getting feedback and suggestions about things you could improve, or possibly some reaction to new product features. Good stuff and useful, yes, but it’s incremental. It’s about what’s already happened. It’s about what customers already know today.

Proactive listening is totally different. You are out there engaging directly in conversation, even starting the conversation.  You are posing questions, answering questions, creating ideas together, exploring unexplored spaces. You might even be searching for something you haven’t even thought of yet.  What you get is something totally different – we call it ‘discovery’ – and it’s focused on tomorrow –the possibilities of what could be.

But before you can get to discovery, you have to do a lot of work building relationships and earning trust.  We do this for every community we build for our clients – we work on creating ‘social glue’ for each member, a reason for them to be a part of it.  And that reason needs to connect to their lives somehow; they need to get intrinsic value for showing up. So, you don’t create a tampon community to talk about tampons; you create a community of teen girls to talk about their lives, habits and needs with each other; ask them to help you know them – and along the way you are guaranteed to learn something about how to do better with tampons.

Over time, by continuously listening, asking and doing for these customers, you get real relationships.  This conversation becomes the foundation for the relationship. Each time they do something, you need to tell them how it helped you or made you better (even if you didn’t implement it, you should explain why) or build on their thoughts and ideas to demonstrate that what they are sharing is of value to you.

You would not believe the stuff customers will share with you if they truly think you are listening.  Their hopes, fears and dreams can become the inspiration for your next big move.

What’s different here? When you have this relationship with your customers, when they’ll go beyond what you’d imagine any sane person might do to show you their lives, you get insight and understanding about what’s relevant and important to them.  When you are proactively listening, you hear things that you wouldn’t just stumble upon while searching your brand alerts.  You learn what’s next, what’s new with your customers and how they’re changing. 

By purposefully finding ways to walk in their shoes, you get beyond what customers simply tell you they need.  Instead, you’re uncovering latent needs, insights or white space, and then, knowing that, your company can go solve for it.  Right out of the gate, you are relevant, rather than simply reacting once they’ve voiced an opinion.  This doesn’t mean that testing and immediate feedback are unnecessary, but it does mean that equal emphasis needs to be placed on more open-ended discovery to think about the future.

Proactive listening is about getting into the hearts and minds of real people. And weaving this process into the fabric of how you do business. The result of doing this right can be game-changing.  But you’ve got to get out there and ask, wonder and explore…then shut up and listen.

2 Responses to “Next Level Listening: Reactive to proactive”

  1. Alan says:

    Great post Debi — your distinction about listening is an important one. A client recently asked if she could do more proactive listening and if we could focus more on discovery. Luckily, we’ve been building relationships with community members and working on social glue so her customers have already provided plenty of direction for thought starters or conversations we can encourage.

  2. Debi Kleiman says:

    Thanks Alan! Sometimes it can be hard to focus on discovery when there are a million of short term priorities facing you. But as you well know, the investment in truly understanding customers takes time but can have a much bigger ROI! Let me know how it goes.

Leave a Reply

Read more

Wallet Half Shut

Understanding the post-recession consumer is a hot topic in the press. Recently, we released a study done in partnership with Ogilvy on this very topic. The study, Eyes Wide Open, Wallet Half Shut, provides a holistic look at consumers in the aftermath of one of the worst economic crises of our time. Next week, Manila Austin and Graceann Bennett will be presenting our detailed findings at an ANA conference for financial services professionals in Boca Raton. In advance of the conference, I asked them about the research and its implications for companies and brands in the financial sector.

Understanding the post-recession consumer is a hot topic in the press. Recently, we released a study done in partnership with Ogilvy on this very topic. The study, Eyes Wide Open, Wallet Half Shut, provides a holistic look at consumers in the aftermath of one of the worst economic crises of our time. Next week, Manila Austin and Graceann Bennett will be presenting our detailed findings at an ANA conference for financial services professionals in Boca Raton.  In advance of the conference, I asked them about the research and its implications for companies and brands in the financial sector.

What did you find most surprising when you were digging through all the data and research?
As stressed out as people are about money—homes being devalued, losing jobs, no raises—that consumers seemed much less interested in the pursuit of money.  They are drawing clear lines and have fallen out of love with the rat race.  They’d trade upward mobility for a secure job, they’d rather work less and have less junk (but more time with their family).  People have realized that striving for money is exhausting, doesn’t always pay out and is not necessarily worth it.

Have people changed the way they relate to money?
Yes; most definitely. They’re thinking much more on a macro and holistic level when it comes to money and how they spend it.  It’s macro in terms of the purchase decisions that go way beyond traditional category decisions—so we see people doing things like putting off buying a new car to support their Starbucks habit in the short term (as opposed to looking more narrowly at how to “trade down” by brewing coffee at home or switching to Dunkin’ Donuts).

What are the new values we see emerging from the “Great Recession,” if any?
The big one is the notion of sustainability on a personal level—people are figuring out how to live more sustainable lives.  The shift we are seeing is people seeking relative peace of mind in making choices that don’t bankrupt the ecosystem, their finances, their health and what matters most.

What advice would you give the financial institutions who survived this ordeal?
One of the things we found is that Americans are even more distrustful of banks than before the recession (which is no surprise), but they also see the media and other Americans as contributing to the mess we’re in and not trustworthy either. The circle of trust has really shrunk.  What is going to matter to people the most is what companies are doing at local and tangible levels.  If banks, investment firms, insurance agencies and other financial institutions can show people they are making a positive impact within local communities then they can rebuild that lost trust (so spending money on local programs that people can see and touch vs. a more abstract communication like a national brand advertising campaign).

Looking down the road five years…do you think the lessons learned from 2009 will still be relevant?
Yes, in the way that we learn to appreciate all those experiences that end up making us who we are.  People are people and will, inevitably, slip back into some bad habits.  However, the new awareness they have won will still be there. And the money-management smarts and strategies people have learned will also continue to serve them (being much less inclined to take on large debt or buying things that don’t add value beyond simple novelty or entertainment, for example).  After all, it isn’t really possible to “un-know” something; and so we don’t see people returning 100 percent to the folly of their old ways.

To learn more about this report don’t miss the Eyes Wide Open, Wallet Half Shut Webinar on Thursday, May 6th 2010.

3 Responses to “Wallet Half Shut”

  1. Paul Dredge says:

    Diane,

    The line “it isn’t really possible to “un-know” something” is wonderfully engaging. I’m not sure it’s true, given the state of my memory sometimes, but your point makes a lot of sense.

    Paul

  2. Richard B says:

    The idea of sustainability on a personal level is very cool. I had never thought of it that way. I wonder if some folks will find greater quality of life and think twice before reverting back as much to their pre-rescission habits.

  3. Chris Campbell says:

    08 and 09 were certainly great wake up calls to all consumers. Brands will need to prove their salt as well over the next 2-3 years with “wiser” consumers and sku rationalization at retailers a current reality

Leave a Reply

Read more