Experience Manifesto

Chief Listening Officer???

As reported in Marketing: How 'Chief Listeners' Track Brand Mentions - Advertising Age, Kodak & Dell have both hired Chief Listening Officers to help them listen to what people are saying about them.

Chief Listening Officer? Are you kidding me? You mean a company like Kodak, a company that almost completely lost its relevancy because it lost its value in the marketplace, has hired someone to listen? Because apparently no one else in the company could listen? What, is the marketing department too busy?

As I wrote here & here, the fact that we think listening is a new skill to be applied just shows us how far off the mark business is today.

Everyone should be listening. Companies shouldn't need a dedicated listener and certainly not a C level person. They should already have a customer service department who theoretically listen to customers each & every day.

And if the CMO is wondering why their average tenure is 18 months, maybe its because the companies have to hire someone to listen to their customers, something they're clearly not doing.

Brands That Push Messages Out, Now Starting To Listen - Advertising and Marketing Blog - AdPulp.com.

Chief Listening Officer - 5 Blogs Before Lunch.

Meet the Chief Listening Officer | NevilleHobson.com.

Really, You Do Control The Message

Earlier today, Giuseppe Pacheco Tweeted "You No Longer Control Your Company’s Brand" with a link to You No Longer Control Your Company's Brand | Spin Sucks. BTW, I responded to Guiseppe right away with a link to one of my earlier posts about this topic and I follow him, so I usually like his links.

Now, you know how I feel about this "you're not in control anymore" blah, blah, blah conversation. I don't buy it. I think we're still behaving like consumers and companies are still behaving like companies. Sure, there's always exceptions to the rules, but outside of SM superstars, I'm not sure that the average person is really seeing a big change in how companies are operating.

While reading around the blogs this AM, I also came across this very fun post from The Ad Contrarian: It's A Wonderful World with this:

It's obvious. They have to advertise. Advertising is what you have to do when you're failing.

This is because the internet has created a new species of human being. And these new human beings live in a wonderful world in which they have relationships with all the companies that make the products they use.

And the only time companies need to advertise to these people is when that relationship is broken and failing.

And you know what I really love? The irony that most people writing about this new world order, do so using an Apple computer. A brand that not only advertises a lot, but does very little in the way of social media they all talk about. They very much control their message. Do you remember what happened when the new iPhone was leaked? The iPhone Leak Gets Ugly: Police Raid Gizmodo Editor’s House, Confiscate Computers. That's a company that wants to control its message.

Sure, we all like to complain about companies. We like to use Twitter and our blogs and whatever to complain. But none of that is new. In fact, most of what's happening right now isn't new. We just like to think it is because who wants to talk about old things, right? As I say, those that don't know history are destined to think everything they do is new.

As I wrote in Everything Old is New Again, this is just another part of the cycle that we go through. Advertising joined the industrial revolution in the mid-50's (maybe earlier, but I'm starting with TV) and now, maybe we're heading back to the pre-industrial days. The days when it was really all about the brand experience that a company delivered.

One thing that hasn't changed is that you still control your message. People amplify the message you start. Start with a great message and that's what people will amplify. Have a bad message and that's what they'll pass along.

But pretending that you don't have any control over the message is just being lazy. It means that you're not going to try to craft a better message or experience. It means that you're going to let someone else do your job. That's not a really good way to keep your job, is it?

Be Human & Listen, This is the Best Advice We Have? - Polinchock's Ponderings.

Stop Listening to the BS - You Do Control the Message! - Polinchock's Ponderings.

You can read all of my posts about the future of customer experiences at Polinchock's Ponderings: Customer Experience.

Everything Old is New Again

For years, people built brands (really their businesses, we didn't know about brands then) by learning how to deliver a consistent experience across everything they did. The product, their service, everything was teed into their business and they're profitability. They got instant feedback from the people who were their customers and word spread, both good & bad, based on the experience that was delivered. If you think about it, it was really all viral and social marketing back then, we just didn't have the technology at we talk about today.

At the start of the 20th century, we saw the industrial revolution change how business was done. It was no longer about a handmade product made in your local town, products could now be mass produced in factories that could be very far away. The product no longer had any connection with the local community. The consumer didn't know where the product came from and, thanks to the lower costs mass-produced allowed, they probably didn't care that much about what they lost in the mass produced world.

In the middle part of the last century, branding was introduced. We created characters that became the icons of a brand. We pretended for the most part that brands had a personality and that there was something foe a real difference between product A and product B. The titans of the advertising industry created emotional reasons for us to buy a product. We heard slogans and saw characters come to life in radio and then TV. It was a new world for brands.

For 40-50 years, we build brands as a specially crafted and scripted experience. It was like being on the Jungle Cruise ride at Disney. We liked to pretend that our skipper was coming up with these lines off the top of his head, but really, it was a well scripted experience. Every touch point was carefully controlled. We didn't mind, it was still a good ride.

At the turn of this century, as the Internet boomed, we saw the rise of social media. Facebook, Twitter, Foursquare, Amazon, Zappos. We suddenly new technologies and new brands being launched every day. We talked about building a relationship with our consumers. We talked about the transparency that the new social media world demanded. We talked about moving beyond the scripts to having a dialogue with the consumer. We talked about authenticity and engagement.

Then came the movement that said you don't control your message. Your audience controls it. You need to give up control. Be free. Allow your audience to co-create your brand. Let them be your partners in this branch new world for brands. And companies started acting like they were listening. Some companies even did listen. In my experience, most just continued doing business as usual.

Maybe we're heading back to the brand that existed before the industrial revolution. One where everything was local. One where good WOM built a company. And bad WOM buried it faster then anything else could. A world where the consumer expected and demanded to speak to the "man in charge." A world where complaints were taken seriously and dealt with as swiftly as possible. A world where your word had meaning and both buyer and seller took your word seriously.

But the honesty, transparency and need to create a great experience from beginning to end are here, possibly stronger then ever. And despite what you've heard, you do control the message.

Online Privacy, are we asking the wrong questions?.

You can read all of my posts about the future of customer experiences at Polinchock's Ponderings: Customer Experience.

Online Privacy, are we asking the wrong questions?

(NOTE: I originally wrote this post in 2001. Although the technology and companies discussed may have changed, the key points still have value.)

Online privacy. It's in our headlines every day. We talk about it at trade shows; over lunch and even the government is getting involved. How can it controlled? Who can use your information? Whose information can you use? The Child Privacy Act has gone into effect and it will have a major impact on how we collect information online. The recent outcry over Doubleclick's collection and use of user information is a testament to how we feel about our information and what people do with it on the net. All of this activity being built around the information that we can gather about what people do; like; click and buy. We know all about them and they seem to be sending us a message that they don't like that.

But is that the message? Are we are looking for answers to a question that might not be being asked. Is privacy the real issue? Are consumers really upset that we gather information about them?

A few years back, well maybe more then a few years, one of the most popular shows on TV was set in a bar "where everyone knows your name." Each time Norm walked through the door, the whole bar yelled "Norm!" and Sam or Woody poured a beer and got it ready at his stool. In fact, Sam knew everything about the people in that bar. He knew their likes and dislikes and used it to serve his customers well.

Another TV icon from even further back, and one that represents at least the myth of how we viewed America in an earlier time, was Sam Drucker. He always knew what the residents of Hooterville liked and ordered. His hello was usually something to the effect of "Got those lemon drops you like so much." Everyone in Hooterville appreciated that Sam knew what they liked and had it ready for them.

TV shows might not be the best examples of this phenomenon, but how many places to you know like this? My wife & I used to visit a small Italian restaurant in the Village where the food was great and the service and attention was even better. The first time we ate there, after I asked for butter for the bread, the chef/owner gave me a long lecture about how bad butter was for me and then brought me out some olive oil. Not only did we not get upset about his invasion of my privacy, his interest in us was the central reason that we went back time after time. And each time we ate there, he always prepared something for us that wasn't on the menu, but was based on what he knew we liked.

Who doesn't like to go to a store or restaurant where "everyone knows your name." In fact, how many times have you paid more for something or driven further to get it, just because a particular place gives you better service because that store "invaded your privacy." Don't you consider this a positive experience in the offline world? In fact, we get such a warm feeling from the invasion of privacy, that we usually make sure that we take our friends there, just so they can be impressed when the bartender or store clerk knows our name!

See, I think we're dealing with the wrong question. While we certainly need to protect privacy online, I think that we should be focusing our efforts on how can we bring a value to the consumer that translates into a better online experience? What will make the consumer feel as though everyone just called their name when they walked in? How can we create an experience where the owner comes out to greet each visitor and thanks them for being there, while pointing out that they know what the consumer likes?

Right now, we all know that the focus of gathering information from the consumer online is for our value, not theirs'. Sure, we pretend it's for them, but everyone knows better. Is it really a consumer value proposition that we can give them targeted ads? Is getting unsolicited e-mails about products that are similar to something they've purchased a value proposition for the consumer? No, of course not. It's a value proposition for us. If you look at how we generate revenue online, how much of it comes from the gathering, use and sale of consumer information?

The consumer knows that they're not getting anything of value for the information we ask of them. They know that right now, we're the only ones who really benefit from the knowledge we gather. Don't you think my wife and I would have stopped going to that little Italian restaurant if the information that he gathered from us was for his sole benefit? If we had walked into a restaurant around the corner and found that he had sold our information to other restaurants, how would we have felt? The reason we didn't mind telling him what we liked and disliked was because it always gave us a better meal and a better experience. And that, in turn, created value for him as an owner.

I think that's what the consumer wants from their online experiences as well. They want to see value from the information they give up. They want to know that if they give us something, they'll get something back. They want a place "where everyone knows your name." We need to create that place and do it pretty quickly.

There are two ways for us to create a value for the consumer. I guess the simplest way would be to cut the consumer in on the value of the information they give to us. Giving them great strike prices on stock would certainly entice the consumers to share themselves with us.

Of course, the better way would be to figure out how to put Sam Malone or Sam Drucker into every web site. To make sure that the consumer is the one who benefits from the giving of information, not us. Our benefit should come from the experiences that we create for the consumer, not from a quick sale of their information.

Consumers all want their experiences to be authentic and that's why my wife & I liked our Italian restaurant. And that's why we wouldn't want to walk into another restaurant that had received information from ours and acted like we were old friends. It would not be an authentic experience! And neither is getting e-mails and ad-specific banners. We're all consumers ourselves, we should know better.

Now, we are the creative industry, so perhaps we could at least come up with some better terms! I mean, can't we make 'data mining' at least sound warm and fuzzy? At least that would buy us some time while we wait to see whether or not either of the Sam's is available for our sites!

You can see the original at Everything Old is New Again.

More Thoughts on Privacy

Some Updated Thoughts About Privacy - Polinchock's Ponderings.

The Real Privacy Issue- Pool Summer 2001 - Polinchock's Ponderings.

Are We Out of Touch? Are Companies Really Changing?

I was on the Twitter chat for customer service last night and the topic was "How do companies with bad customer service keep going." During the hour-long chat, there was a lot of discussion about how SM is transforming companies and how it will force companies to rethink customer and employee engagement.

But as I wrote in Be Human & Listen, This is the Best Advice We Have?:

And that's the really key question. Despite the boom of SM and this discussions that companies need to open a dialogue with and listen to their customers, how many companies are making changes to their core business processes to reflect a true believe that we've entered the age of relationships.

As I listened to person after person say that SM is changing how companies are doing business, I tried to look at the retailers and companies I do business with to see if they've made any core business changes and honestly, I can't say that I've seen a lot of changes. Have you? Think of the companies you visit or shop. What core changes have they made thanks to social media? Sure, everyone likes to talk about a company like Zappos, but Zappos is an excellent company that uses SM, they're not an excellent because they use SM.

Remember the stat from The Experience Disconnect? 80% of CEO's believe their companies give superior customer service. 8% of their customers agree.

I then asked a question that I think will be part of a customer service chat in the future: Are people who participate in a Twitter chat about customer service different then the average consumer? Do we see things differently then the average consumer? Is the fact the some folks in SM have such a reputation that when they make a complaint say on Twitter, the company responds faster then they would for an average consumer? I've had some very fast responses on Twitter, but I've also had companies never reply to a question or request.

And I'm wondering if there's too much of an echo chamber in the Twitterverse. Are we really in touch with what the average consumer is doing? Are people who are not participating in Twitter chats about customer service really seeing a change in how companies respond to them? And what companies are really changing the way that they do business because of social media.

So, I'm asking that question. Can you identify companies that are fundamentally changing how they do business because of SM? And I would separate large, multinational companies from smaller, regional companies, although I'd love to have both on the list. What companies have started really treating their employees differently because of SM? How much of what we're seeing is short term vs. long terms changes?

If you have companies to add, put them in the comments below. Please add the companies and the changes they've made to their business. I will gladly share the list as it gets built.

If you believe that SM is really changing how companies do business, let's start seeing the examples. My personal experience is that most companies might be talking about the changes, but I'm not seeing the changes on the frontlines.

You can read all of my posts about the future of customer experiences at Polinchock's Ponderings: Customer Experience.

Great Question -- Why Don't Brands Create Better Experiences? - Polinchock's Ponderings.

Is This the Ad Future? Customer Service Wins Titanium in Cannes - Polinchock's Ponderings.

Another Reason to Think Oneline™ - Polinchock's Ponderings.

Download "Are You Telling a Great Story"

Download "The Great Marketing Hunt"

Google Buys Visual Shopping Engine Like.com - Yahoo! News

I've had Like.com in my presentation for years as a great example of how future search technologies will impact retail. News today that Google just bought them and that certainly makes a great deal of sense. I wonder if they'll make it part of Google Goggles?

Visual search is going to be a critical part of search in the future. And being able to search based on an image is also going to be huge for retail. Think of walking down the street, seeing someone wearing something you like, snapping a pic and then searching for it with your phone. Sounds far fetched, but it could be possible in the future.

I'm starting to use Google Goggles myself and I spent over $300 at a Wal-Mart thanks to price checking on my barcode scanner. There's a great deal of information available to people now thanks to smart phones & tablet PC's and people are starting to expect it available. Don't think I'm right? Watch a couple of tweens go shopping these days.

Visual search will change the way we engage the world around us, just you wait & see.

Google Buys Visual Shopping Engine Like.com - Yahoo! News.

How iPads are Going to Change the Face of Retail | RetailCustomerExperience.com.

No Pictures Please

I was reminded of this issue by C.B. Whittemore's post on our recent retail walkabout at Levi's Customer Retail Experience. During our visit to the Levi's store, C.B. asked about taking a picture of their new Curves display and we were told that we couldn't take photos in the store.

More recently, on a retail walkabout with a group of students from Austria, we went into the new AllSaints Spitalfields store in Soho, where several of the students wanted to send pictures of the merchandise back to friends at home and we were also told that pictures were not permitted. They wanted to introduce their friends to a brand that isn't in Austria yet because they thought their friends might want to shop them, and they were told no.

I get that years ago, when brand managers might shop their competitors and try to sneak in a few photos of a display or something, that retailers might've asked people not to take pictures. Of course, that was also long before cell phones with cameras were everywhere. And long before the internet and Google. Just look at the number of images of the Allsaints Soho store at all saints soho - Google Search.

But today, I don't get it. We in the ad industry talk about things like WOM and that the consumers in control and the brand isn't, yet go into your favorite store and try to take a picture. You'll find that 9 times out of 10, you're not in control.

So, we want the consumer to co-create, to help spread the word. Yet in many instances, we only want them to share things that we give them, on our terms. Why is it that when they walk into one of the key buying locations, we ask them not to share. We talk about the future of social shopping, yet stop it from practically happening today.

As C.B. said in her piece, Why not let me take photos? The Curves Contraption is talk-worthy and I would have loved to share with you a photo of myself being 'measured'. It's not as if it's a state secret; it's readily available online.

If the consumer really is in control, let them share their experience with your brand. Of course, as I've said in Stop Listening to the BS - You Do Control the Message!, in this new world, you need to create an experience worthy of positive WOM. If you're afraid you can't deliver that, well, you're clearly in the wrong business.

Revisiting Some Thoughts on Listening

I originally wrote this post in March of 2008 on my previous blog and here, 2.5+ years later, I'm still reading posts about how revolutionary it is that we can listen to our customers and that we're not in control any more. I don't buy it, certainly not on a broad basis. Hell, the company that most SM folks love to love, Apple, certainly hasn't given up control.

• We should've always been listening to our customers and our employees
• We control the message through the experience we deliver. People will amplify the message we deliver.
• Most people don't want to co-create. They want to bitch & complain, but only a few want to put the effort in needed to co-create.

So please already, enough with the "it's cool that we can listen to our customers" proclamations. It just shows how out of touch business has been for years.

Why Advertising Will Destroy Social Media

OK, can I say I don't get it? I was reading Social Media Biggest Shift In Marketing Strategy Since Television? at ExperienceCurve and I read something that makes my head want to explode. Now, I read Karl's blog a lot and usually completely agree with him. In fact, he has two great pieces (here and here) just from the last few days that are well worth the read. But this one. Not so sure I agree with Karl on this one.

The article talks about a TNS media intelligence/Cymfony report on the difference between social media revolutionaries and those companies that are taking a more wait & see attitude about social media. There was a quote in the article that says "Revolutionaries focus more on listening to consumer and bloggers’ points-of-view." And that's where I thought to myself How the heck can listening to the consumer be considered revolutionary??? I mean, seriously, isn't this the cornerstone of customer service, something that's been around for, what like a 1,000 years? The tools of social media may be new, but if listening to your customer is the cornerstone of defining social media, then social media isn't new.

What is amazing to me is that our industry has so lost touch with the consumer that we think listening to the consumer is a revolutionary idea! Engaging the consumer isn't new, companies have been doing that for centuries! Listening to the consumer certainly shouldn't be new. And it sure as hell shouldn't be considered something that's only done by revolutionary companies!

One of my slides talks about those that don't know history are destined to think everything they do is new and social media should be right at the top of that list! Yes, there's cool stuff being done with technology out there and lots of it is fun. I told the National Association of Newspaper audience that every paper is the US should have Twitter set up for their readers. I believe in the power of connecting to your audience through these new tools to help create more authentic, compelling and relevant brand experiences. Look at how Adrenalina is using the Flowrider to create a cool surfing community right in the store. And I helped start a Lab here in Soho because I like cool new toys more then just anyone I know. I can't wait to see to start playing with things like augmented reality to see how we can create damn cool brand experiences with them.

But the discussion by most in the ad industry about social media is just the latest tactic du jour. We had branded content, Second Life, viral, WOM, and on and on. Read the trades and look at how many times over the past couple of years, a slew of companies were built around chasing the tactic du jour. How many social media companies have been started in the past 6 months? But we do this instead of helping clients understand the true value of connecting with their audience by any means possible and appropriate. For many agencies and clients, they're just tactics that we jump on and jump off like they were a trampoline.

And this is why I believe that, as a whole, the advertising industry will completely screw up the entire social media thing until it becomes just as useless as what we now call traditional advertising is today. Because too many of them think that listening to clients counts as doing something revolutionary.

SOME ADDITIONAL READING

What We Have Here is a Failure to Communicate - Polinchock's Ponderings.

Stop Listening to the BS - You Do Control the Message! - Polinchock's Ponderings.

You can read all of my posts about the future of customer experiences at Polinchock's Ponderings: Customer Experience.

People Make The Experience, Technology Enhances It

I've been involved in a number of customer service conversations lately, as I believe that in our social media world, companies are going to have to deal a lot more with customers who complain publicly when things don't go well.

Back in 2007, one of my predictions was Everyone's a Critic: People like to critique you and today have no problem sharing their critiques with the whole world. I'm not a big fan of co-creation. I think that there are a relatively small number of consumers who really want to help companies by co-creating with them. However, I think lots of consumers are ready and willing to broadcast their complaints to the world.

Looking through my old articles, I came across this piece from about 2000 or 2001. Examples might be old, but message is still loud & clear. If you want to look into a crystal ball for your company’s future, take a look at where you fall. If you’re closer to lip service than real service, get your resume out today. Your future doesn’t look very good!

Tripping Over Technology

Like many people, I have a Palm Pilot that keeps track of all of my important information: phone numbers, addresses, upcoming events, family/friend birthdays, anniversaries and the like. What it can’t do is actually mail out the card or make the calls. This illustrates the difference between CRM—Customer Relationship Manager—and what I call CRE—Customer Relationship Experience. Having the information in my Palm is CRM. Using the information to make sure that Mom gets her Mother’s Day card is creating the right CRE.

Right now, CRM is all the rage. Companies spend millions to create CRM software, data mining and voice recognition tools. They build immense databases to combine a person’s multiple experience (online/offline buying, surfing habits, etc.) into a single record. New wireless technologies will allow companies to track where you go and deliver location-based advertising to you in real time, while you’re there.

I traveled last year and sadly, my luggage didn’t make the same trip that I did. Since I had taken two different airlines, I spent the first several hours of conversations with the customer service reps of both not to solve the problem, but to correctly assess blame. Finally, I was directed to the United Lost Baggage number, which uses the latest in voice recognition technology. The sweet voice would ask “What airport did you depart from?” and I would say “San Francisco, CA.” In a very sweet voice, she would say, “I think that you said London, is that correct?” I spent HOURS doing this. I started using words that I’m sure were not programmed into its database. It would ask “What airport did you depart from?” and I would respond ###***@@@@!!!! “I think you said Honolulu, Hawaii,” she would calmly reply.

I tried calling the United reservations line, but each time I was told that I had to call the lost baggage number. I finally reached one of the best customer service people I have ever dealt with. Linda spent at least 15 minutes on the phone with me, dealing with a problem that was not hers, that she had no control over—and she had to use the same lost baggage system they were forcing me to use! Not once was she anything put polite, apologetic, extremely helpful—and focused on repairing the damage United’s CRM had done to my relationship with the company.

Later during that trip I arrived at a beautiful Hilton Hotel at 11:30 PM. While I checked in, I asked about food options. I was told that they didn’t have any food service available. When I asked why, I was told it was inconvenient for them to provide those services after 11. Hmm, I asked, isn’t their job to provide hospitality for me, not for me to travel on a more convenient schedule for them?

CRM is often used as a tool to help the company touch the customer. Unfortunately, customer service is all about the customer touching the company! Many companies implement CRM to add bottom-line savings or to provide better sales opportunities. If that’s the case, it should really be called PRM -- Profit Relationship Management. CRM has little to do with the customer, and even less to do with the relationship. In fact, it often stands in the way of customer relations.

At the end of the day, it’s the people, not the technology, that will make or break the relationship. For example, being told by Jim Keating, a Customer Service Supervisor at AT&T Wireless that “it’s not our responsibility to meet your customer service expectations!” With all the dollars AT&T has spent on CRM, how long do you think it took before I found another company who would meet my expectations?

Increased business value used to be a byproduct of good customer service. Today customer service is a byproduct of trying to increase the business value. Consumers are smart. If you want to look into a crystal ball for your company’s future, take a look at where you fall. If you’re closer to lip service than real service, get your resume out today. Your future doesn’t look very good!

Download Tripping Over Technology

Joe Cocker "With a Little Help from my Friends"

Pete Fornatale showed this very funny video of a "captioned for the clear-headed" version of Joe Cocker performing at Woodstock. If you've ever seen this version of "A Little Help from my Friends," you know that some of the lyrics are, well, questionable. But, with the captions, they're finally easy to understand.