I think there is a need for a distinction here between customer-centricity on the vendors' side and customer-driven on the customers' side.
At issue in the advertising world, which has never been customer-driven (in the conscious sense in which the customer actually and consciously drives), is what happens when the customer actually does drive, and sends new (and potentially very valuable) signals and directions to vendors in the marketplace.
At issue in the corporate management world is changing systems. This is very very hard, though it is often quite necessary — and almost always done after old systems fail, or are proven obsolete. As Hugh MacLeod put it...
Lots of companies are very customer-centric and successful at it, as things stand today. You aren't going to get a Tesco, a Target, an Apple, or pretty much any large B2C company to say "we aren't customer-centric." They believe they are, and see proof in the puddings of their success.
Other companies know they need to be customer-centric but will require what in Silicon Valley we call a "sex change" before that happens. Phone company operators are a good example of those. I worked for a number of years with BT on this, and got approximately nowhere. It wasn't until one employee created @BTCares that the company began to get social, with guidance from JP Rangaswami, before he left to join Salesforce. Today nearly all the major landline and mobile phone operators operate "confusopolies": marketing systems meant to confuse the customer into settling for whatever, because the offerings are too complex to compare — and then screwing the customer with billing too complex to understand or challenge, and for making errors such as using their mobile phones for data communications in other countries. I unpack this a bit in < http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/leaving-land-giants>.
The discussion below, however, is mostly around the futilities of marketing to busy people with limited available attention, by people who won't be in their jobs very long.
The more important issue, for us, is making tools and services with which customers can drive. Improving customer-centricity on the vendors' side will be an effect of that. But we can't start on the vendors' side. It just won't work. Not by itself.
This may take another 1, 2, 5 or 10 years. I doubt it will take 20.
Doc
On Feb 18, 2013, at 11:33 AM, Graham Hill <
">
> wrote: Hi Iain
The notion of customer-centricity has been around for more than 20 years. It goes all the way back to the infamous TARP studies in thea early 80s.
But what exactly so you mean by customer-centricity? It means many things to many people; from always putting customers needs first, all the way through to managing customers for maximum profitability for the business.
And why do you think your definition of customer-centricity should appeal to businesses that have done pretty well whilst not being particularly customer centric?
Best regards from Cologne, Graham Am 18.02.2013 um 15:59 schrieb Iain Henderson: And a couple more metrics.
Average tenure of a marketing person in the same role - 2 years
That is to say, long term customer satisfaction/ value is someone else's problem.
Average tenure of a CEO in a large B2C organisation - 3 years.
I've had several consulting projects about customer-centricity that hit road-blocks at CEO level; the simple and openly stated issue being that whilst they recognise the logic, they know that to make radical changes (from typically a product-centric strategy to a genuine customer-centric) will cost them money and competitive positioning in the short term. There are ways to get a good blend of customer and product-centricity, but most organisations don't have the data, the top-level buy-in or the patience to pull that off.
Iain
On 18 Feb 2013, at 14:04, Doc Searls <
">
> wrote:
One additional point: most of the time we aren't buying anything, or even considering it. That also narrows the windows of "now."
But there are times we are shopping or buying — or dealing with issues of ownership. Then what? Well, VRM should be there to help with that.
Doc
On Feb 17, 2013, at 11:01 PM, Chris Savage <
">
> wrote:
Well, a couple of things that build on this.
1. I read of a psychological study that found that the subjective experience of "now" lasts about 3 seconds. That is, if you ask people about whether some stimulus or whatever the researchers were looking at was happening "now," the general response was "yes" as long as the thing occurred plus or minus 1.5 seconds or so of the time of the asking.
2. This actually can be converted to a measure of how much attention people have in a day. If at each quantum of "now"-ness a person can only effectively be attending to one thing, then in a 24-hour day, if we assume 16 are conscious and available, that's roughly 19,200 "moments" of "now" a person has each day.
3. Advertisers well know how to command (literally, as in, what we are hard-wired for) our attention: loud noises, quick movements, flashes of light, attractive women (to get male attention) etc. So, on the "tragedy of the attention commons" I was postulating earlier, what we have is a large but non-infinite number of opportunities for folks who want our attention, to grab it. By going from traditional print to the Internet, we have created a lot more opportunities for that. There are 19,200 "nows" per day per person, that can input either signal or noise. Increasing ads (including directed ads) means more noise and less signal, net. Key point: The pool of available attention is very limited. (Note: if it's really 3.2 hours per week, that's only about 3,840 moments-of-attention available.) That very limited pool is what more and more advertisers are trying to colonize. So it's no wonder, it seems to me, that people are both building taller defenses and getting more exhausted in maintaining them.
4. There are some behavioral economic studies being done by a guy at MIT that analogies the lives of people in poverty that indicates that their choices are harder to make than non-poor folks, in an analogy to what is called the "suitcase problem." Suppose you are packing for a weekend trip, and you have a very large suitcase. Packing is easy: you put in stuff you know you'll need and stuff you might need. Very little mental effort. Now imagine going on a one-week trip and all you are allowed is one carry-on-size bag. Now you have a hard problem: you have to decide what is essential and what isn't, what has to go in first in order to make sure everything will fit, etc. It's a harder mental task (which various studies have shown truly use up biological energy). The MIT guy points out that the entire task of facing the economy is, for a poor person, like trying to pack for a week-long trip with too small a suitcase: the suitcase is their money, and the clothes, etc., to go in, are their needs. Every day is mentally exhausting for poor people, because poor people actually have to do a lot more mental work to get through a day than does a middle-class or rich person.
5. A similar phenomenon occurs with the issue of allocating our attention. Figuring out what is signal and what is noise takes work, and it takes more and more work the more noise there is -- like listening to your favorite radio station as you drive further and further away on the long-distance highway. It gets scratchier and fuller with static, but if you keep listening harder (interesting idiom there...) you can still hear what they are saying. With more and more informational static being thrown at us for our 19,200 "nows" per day, it takes lots of mental work just to try to keep focused on what actually matters in a life (kids ... job ... spouse ... spiritual practice ... hobbies/interests). Fitting all of that into the mental time suitcase can be really hard. Adding all the noise makes it harder.
Do advertisers ever think in terms of their effects on a limited, shared resource, aka, my brain cycles?
Chris S.
2/17/2013 5:07 PM, Iain Henderson wrote:
Thanks Katherine, your point re number of hours in the day reminded me of a key quote sent to the list a few months back (by Richard Bates, Consumer Focus, UK).
“Consumers are however pressed for time and spend on average only 3.2 hours a week on all consumer tasks. To ensure that consumers remain empowered in the face of the growing information overload and increasing lack of time for shopping, new shortcuts and comparison tools need to be found.”
That quote came from a research study across more than 55,000 individuals, so pretty robust. European Commission Staff Working Paper (2011): Consumer Empowerment in the EU (SEC [2011] 469 final), Brussels: European Commission – http://bit.ly/J45aRl
Add to that, one of the main effects of The Internet on the individual being that they typically have an awful lot more supplier/ service provider relationships to manage than they did before, and you therefore have a huge volume of 'permissioned' advertising being squeezed into what amounts to a very small amount of time.
In that respect, our job is to build tools that help get a better return out of those 28 minutes, and maybe even one day increasing the time spent because the return on it is much improved.
Iain
3.2 hours a week is 192 minutes, or almost 28 mins per day.
On 17 Feb 2013, at 15:28, Katherine Warman Kern <
">
> wrote:
Sylvan and Chris,
As a practicing planner who takes pride in being a trusted advisor, I'd like to share some insights from the perspective of my clients.
The reality the consumer has an overabundance of choices and a marketer has an overabundance of tools to choose from.
But the number of hours in a day to make those choices has remained exactly the same.
As the number of choices have increased, the odds that bad choices are made increases.
Share of Voice, as many measuring sticks, is flawed from the start because there is no truly accurate way to measure or project it. One marketer can spend the same amount of dollars much more effectively than another. And since few marketers publish their mistakes, no one really knows what really happened. In fact most published accounts of marketing case studies have very little resemblance to what really happened.
I continue to be shocked that no new entry capitalizes on digital technology and social media to offer an improvement over Nielsen to monitor integrated marketing in real time.
K-
Katherine Warman Kern
www.comradity.com
@comradity
203-918-2617
On Feb 17, 2013, at 9:37 AM, sylvain willart <
">
> wrote:
This "tragedy of the commons" made me think when you first posted about it.
The sheep example you mention is well-studied in economic game theory,
and there are some writings as well in Public Economics sudies dealing
with scarce resources,
But I very rarely read this kind of thinking in advertising/marketing.
Only perhaps in "Store Wars" (Corstjens & Corstjens , 90's). Actually,
the hypothesis of the consumer brain being a scarce resource is
sometimes discussed, but never measured. And media planning relying
heavily on measures and metrics, this hypothesis does not well fit in
traditional approaches.
Moreover, you can expect people to protect scarce natural resources
(even if they loose direct advantage) for the sake of a "bigger cause"
involving altruism (a long studied effect in game theory); but who
really cares about the exhaustion of conusmer brain? there is nothing
here a good night of sleep can't fix... (the consumer himself may be
the only one to care, hence the importance of VRM tools IMHO).
Media planning is also competitive by nature, and while planning you
have to care more about your competitors' expenses than your
consumers' ability to process all those ads. An important metric in
media planning is for example the "share of voice" (your expenses
divided by the market expenses), perhaps the dumbest metric ever
invented, as it is known from long it is not robust at all (meaning it
can lead you to make stupid planning choices)
The entropy hypothesis however may be quite appealing, and this metric
is often used in other field of marketing (for measuring variety of
assortments for example). I'll try to dig into it to see wether it has
been used in advertising/intrusiveness research.
Sylvain
2013/2/17 Chris Savage <
">
>:
Sylvain,
Thank you, this is very helpful. I will ponder a bit more.
I have mentioned, perhaps on this list, my sense that there is a "tragedy of
the commons" effect going on among those who would sell me stuff. Just like
in the Garrett Hardin story where each shepherd looks at the common field
and thinks, "Oh, letting one or two extra sheep from my flock graze won't
e-mail:
">
blog: www.iainhenderson.info
twitter: @iainh1
This email and any attachment contains information which is private and confidential and is intended for the addressee only. If you are not an addressee, you are not authorised to read, copy or use the e-mail or any attachment. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and then destroy it.
<a href="http://miicard.me/b0F1Jsy5">Identity assured by miiCard : Click to Verify</a>
e-mail:
">
blog: www.iainhenderson.info
twitter: @iainh1
This email and any attachment contains information which is private and confidential and is intended for the addressee only. If you are not an addressee, you are not authorised to read, copy or use the e-mail or any attachment. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and then destroy it.
<a href="http://miicard.me/b0F1Jsy5">Identity assured by miiCard : Click to Verify</a>
-- Dr. Graham Hill
">
UK +44 7564 122 633 DE +49 170 487 6192 http://twitter.com/GrahamHillhttp://www.linkedin.com/in/grahamhill Partner Optima Partners http://www.optimapartners.co.uk Senior Associate Nyras Capital http://www.nyras.co.uk
|