Hi Chris,
I don't see it as an accounting problem; at least not until number/ 'quality'
of customer's becomes a balance sheet / analyst tracked metric. There have
been attempts at that over the years, but none have made it.
The scenarios i've referred to involved revenue reduction, although there
would obviously be costs alongside any new initiative as well. The point
being made by the CEO's I refer to is that they make lots of money by having
their product teams sell products/ services irrespective of whether that is
the best option for the customer. Revenue reduction through full migration to
genuine customer-centricity would be down to reduced sales of product.
Make sense?
Cheers
Iain
On 18 Feb 2013, at 15:48, Chris Savage
< >
wrote:
Iain,
Is this an accounting problem? Seriously: when you buy a new machine or new
factory, your available cash goes down, but it gets recorded on your books as
an asset, so everybody understands what's going on.
If the short-term accounting effect of doing customer-centric things is to
increase costs without increasing revenue, that is an accounting problem.
On the other hand, if the short-term effect of doing customer-centric things
is to reduce revenues, that's scary to CEOs and CFOs everywhere.
So, did you mean "cost them money" in the sense of "increase recorded expenses and hence
decrease reported profits"? Or in the sense of "lower revenues"?
Thanks,
Chris S.
On 2/18/2013 9:59 AM, Iain Henderson wrote:
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 consideringe-mail:
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,e-mail:
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
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>
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>
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.