Marketers spend quite a bit of time thinking about how to encourage impulse buying. In a sense, trying to encourage impulse buying is a form of gravity fighting. You're trying to get people to do something that they didn't really want to do.
[See my earlier posts on the folly of gravity fighting.
http://adam-1001words.blogspot.com/2008/06/gravity-usually-wins.html
http://adam-1001words.blogspot.com/2008/12/innovation-rule-5-dont-fight-gravity.html]
But although I do believe that trying to fight gravity is generally a foolish strategy, it does not fail entirely. There are ways to get people to do what they don't really want to do. There's quite a bit of art and science behind this. Good retailers study this carefully. They know which products to put near the cash registers. They know what kind of signage will "interrupt" people. And so on.
I'm seeing a lot more of this sort of behavior on the part of businesses. The poor state of our economy puts pressure on businesses to sell sell sell. So I'm getting lots more emails with all sorts of sales incentives.
But let's play around a bit with the notion of impulse buying. I think it's safe to say that, in general, the impulse purchase is one that the consumer didn't need. If it was a need, it would have been on the shopping list. One way or another, people manage to buy their needs (assuming they can afford to do so). You don't have to encourage the need based purchase. You may need to make sure that it's your brand or product that is selected to fill the need, but you do not have to convince people to buy what they need.
Impulse purchases, on the other hand, are not needs. They are wants. And they aren't even really significant wants or they would have ended up on the shopping list. Rather, they tickle some small non-rational fancy buried somewhere in our minds that we probably cannot explain or justify.
Since people don't need these, I would argue that they are harmful. Why? Because they consume resources for no good reason. People are spending money that they could have used for a need or a truly significant want, on something that will do almost no good for them. In more flush times, this may not be so bad. But now that consumers are genuinely strapped and many are out of work, can we morally defend business practices that encourage impulse buying?
I wonder whether devising marketing strategies to get people to impulsively buy more gum, DVDs, options for their new car, etc. is on firmer moral ground than prostitutes trying to drum up business by finding married men they know are sexually unsatisfied. (Assume for the moment that prostitution was legal.) Or the alcohol industry trying to sell to recovering alcoholics. Or the mortgage industry trying to sell homes to people who couldn't afford them. Oh wait, they actually did that. My point is that all of these situations involve impulses. The sexually unsatisfied man has impulses. The recovering alcoholic has impulses. And shoppers have impulses.
When you spend time developing strategies and tactics to get people to add a few more items - that they don't really need or want - to their shopping cart, how are you better than the prostitute, booze pusher or predatory lender? Because you just sold a pack of gum and it doesn't cost that much or really hurt anyone? OK, you have a point. But not a very strong point. I'll agree that there is a quantitative difference between "taking" someone for $1 and conning someone out of thousands or wrecking their marriage... But it's just a quantitative difference. The fundamental behavior is the same. You have used guile to get people to do something that is bad for them and good for you.
On one hand, I say "shame on you!" On the other hand, our economy is entirely dependent on this. Maybe it's shame on us all.
Seem my earlier post regarding excessive consumption and Tim Jackson's poignant comments on the issue.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Sales without selling at Nordstrom
Below is a card I received from a shoe salesman that sold me one or more pairs of shoes at Nordstrom several months ago.
For me, it is a perfect example of how I like to be sold to. Fred knows he's trying to sell. I know Fred's trying to sell. Fred knows that I know he's trying to sell. I know that Fred knows he's trying to sell. And now you know that Fred knows that I know that he knows he's trying to sell. What I'm trying to say is that we all know Fred is trying to sell.
But here's the magic. It doesn't feel that way to me. And you know what? Feelings matter. [Can someone pass me a hankie please?] I feel that Fred is just treating me like a human being. He's thanking me for "letting" him help me in the past. He makes no mention whatsoever of his desire to help me in the future. He doesn't say anything about hoping to see me again soon. None of that. He just thanks me for being a customer in the past.
Super classy and it makes me feel great.
Just another reason why I buy all my shoes at Nordstrom.
For me, it is a perfect example of how I like to be sold to. Fred knows he's trying to sell. I know Fred's trying to sell. Fred knows that I know he's trying to sell. I know that Fred knows he's trying to sell. And now you know that Fred knows that I know that he knows he's trying to sell. What I'm trying to say is that we all know Fred is trying to sell.
But here's the magic. It doesn't feel that way to me. And you know what? Feelings matter. [Can someone pass me a hankie please?] I feel that Fred is just treating me like a human being. He's thanking me for "letting" him help me in the past. He makes no mention whatsoever of his desire to help me in the future. He doesn't say anything about hoping to see me again soon. None of that. He just thanks me for being a customer in the past.
Super classy and it makes me feel great.
Just another reason why I buy all my shoes at Nordstrom.
A "consume to live" economy
Imagine a continuum. There. Isn't that fun? No, wait, there's more. Imagine a continuum that has on its left a "live to consume" economy and on its right a "consume to live" economy.
What do I mean by those phrases? Well, a "live to consume" economy is one where people's thoughts and activities are organized around consumption. They are all about getting more stuff. They even get stuff for their stuff (e.g., useless ornaments for their cellphones). Companies are founded and people are hired to produce all this stuff. They grow by finding new types of stuff that people can be convinced they need. Other companies produce the equipment that stuff manufacturers need to produce stuff. Other companies produce the packaging that the stuff manufacturers put their stuff in. Other companies make accessories for the stuff. And yet other companies advise stuff manufacturers on what new types of stuff they can make. Then there are the companies that "help" people who don't have enough cash on hand convince stuff-sellers to let them take some stuff now under the promise (structured in some way) that they will pay later. And so on. The desire for stuff is never satisfied and in fact, it is engineered to never be satisfied. The desire or obsession with stuff creates a constant pressure for ever more and better stuff, without which the entire edifice collapses (sound familiar?).
A "consume to live" economy is not organized this way. It may be organized around many different things but imagine just one. Imagine an economy organized around people living valuable, grounded, wholesome lives in the pursuit of nobility, excellence and wisdom. In this economy, people would consume that which they needed to live their lives in the pursuit of the above goals. They would have basic shelter and adequate nourishment. They would have whatever psychic pleasure and diversionary activities such as would be needed to maintain a state of wellness.
So if we put the "live to consume" economy on the left of our continuum and the "consume to live" economy on the right, where do you think we are today? (Let's focus on the U.S.) It seems to me that we are very far to the left. Nearly all the way. We have our needs well taken care of and have been in this position for quite a long time. So we have the luxury to focus our resources elsewhere. [Note: I am well aware that we have many homeless and poverty stricken people in the U.S. My comments relate to the society in general.]
Now you might be thinking about Maslow's hierarchy now. But we are not behaving as Maslow predicted. We are not spending our resources (time, money, attention, etc.) on self-actualization. We are spending our resources on ever more elaborate means of masturbating. Yeah, I said masturbating. We spend an ungodly amount of effort thinking about stuff, planning to produce stuff, planning to buy stuff, saving up for stuff, talking about stuff... that we have no time to think about what might be important in life. We have no time to pursue wisdom. We have no time to ennoble ourselves and those around us. And we do this because, well, it feels good. OK, maybe masturbating wasn't fair. After all, we do buy stuff for others.
Is this the right way to live? The wizards that run our economy have been intent - for a goodly number of years now - on making sure we have access to capital to buy more stuff. Problem with the economy? Make sure consumers can get credit so they can buy stuff because when they buy more stuff, companies have to produce the stuff and they need workers for that production and the workers will then have jobs which means they'll get paid so they'll have money to buy stuff...
I don't think you need a doctorate in Logic to see the problem with a "live to consume" economy.
I don't know folks. It all seems like such a waste to me.
What do I mean by those phrases? Well, a "live to consume" economy is one where people's thoughts and activities are organized around consumption. They are all about getting more stuff. They even get stuff for their stuff (e.g., useless ornaments for their cellphones). Companies are founded and people are hired to produce all this stuff. They grow by finding new types of stuff that people can be convinced they need. Other companies produce the equipment that stuff manufacturers need to produce stuff. Other companies produce the packaging that the stuff manufacturers put their stuff in. Other companies make accessories for the stuff. And yet other companies advise stuff manufacturers on what new types of stuff they can make. Then there are the companies that "help" people who don't have enough cash on hand convince stuff-sellers to let them take some stuff now under the promise (structured in some way) that they will pay later. And so on. The desire for stuff is never satisfied and in fact, it is engineered to never be satisfied. The desire or obsession with stuff creates a constant pressure for ever more and better stuff, without which the entire edifice collapses (sound familiar?).
A "consume to live" economy is not organized this way. It may be organized around many different things but imagine just one. Imagine an economy organized around people living valuable, grounded, wholesome lives in the pursuit of nobility, excellence and wisdom. In this economy, people would consume that which they needed to live their lives in the pursuit of the above goals. They would have basic shelter and adequate nourishment. They would have whatever psychic pleasure and diversionary activities such as would be needed to maintain a state of wellness.
So if we put the "live to consume" economy on the left of our continuum and the "consume to live" economy on the right, where do you think we are today? (Let's focus on the U.S.) It seems to me that we are very far to the left. Nearly all the way. We have our needs well taken care of and have been in this position for quite a long time. So we have the luxury to focus our resources elsewhere. [Note: I am well aware that we have many homeless and poverty stricken people in the U.S. My comments relate to the society in general.]
Now you might be thinking about Maslow's hierarchy now. But we are not behaving as Maslow predicted. We are not spending our resources (time, money, attention, etc.) on self-actualization. We are spending our resources on ever more elaborate means of masturbating. Yeah, I said masturbating. We spend an ungodly amount of effort thinking about stuff, planning to produce stuff, planning to buy stuff, saving up for stuff, talking about stuff... that we have no time to think about what might be important in life. We have no time to pursue wisdom. We have no time to ennoble ourselves and those around us. And we do this because, well, it feels good. OK, maybe masturbating wasn't fair. After all, we do buy stuff for others.
Is this the right way to live? The wizards that run our economy have been intent - for a goodly number of years now - on making sure we have access to capital to buy more stuff. Problem with the economy? Make sure consumers can get credit so they can buy stuff because when they buy more stuff, companies have to produce the stuff and they need workers for that production and the workers will then have jobs which means they'll get paid so they'll have money to buy stuff...
I don't think you need a doctorate in Logic to see the problem with a "live to consume" economy.
I don't know folks. It all seems like such a waste to me.
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Calcified relationships are useless
I recently wrote about leaving T-Mobile for AT&T. I did it largely because I want to get an iPhone, although my employer's significant discount with AT&T definitely helped.
But I've been thinking about why I left T-Mobile and what they could have done to keep me. As I wrote in my last post on this issue, the customer service rep was really nice when I called to tell them I was switching. The language he used made me feel special. He talked about what a great customer I had been for 7 years and how if I chose to come back, they would really take care of me.
It got me thinking: where were they for all of those years when I wasn't calling to tell them I was leaving? I will admit that I have noticed - over the past year or so - that when I call them, the experience is quite pleasing. But that isn't really enough. The problem is that my relationship with them never changed. I put in more years. I remained loyal, but they never acknowledged that in any way. Only when I called to dump them, did they express their love and show appreciation for my loyalty. Too late.
Think about it. Relationships either change or they end. The change doesn't have to be dramatic. But long lasting relationships often get the feel of a very comfortable old piece of clothing that gets softer with age. Where you know its every wrinkle and it seems to know just how to fit itself onto your body. Or an old bottle of wine or an aged whiskey that doesn't radically change flavor but seems to settle into its existing flavor with more grace and dignity over time.
The value of a long-lasting relationship is huge (when the relationship doesn't suck). But only if it acquires some greater breadth or depth. Otherwise it is calcified and its uselessness screams out until you fix or end it.
My relationship with T-Mobile never changed. They never acknowledged my loyalty in any way. They never behaved differently towards or with me when I was a 7 year customer than when I was a new customer. What that says is that they don't care. It's not a real relationship.
How could they have created a real changing relationship? Here are just some ideas:
* An "anniversary" present on the anniversary of my joining T-Mobile with a gift that increased in value every year
* Every now and then just sending an email, a text or calling me and letting me know - for no apparent reason - that they really appreciated my x years of business
* Giving me a special customer service line, good for long-standing customers only
* Having special in-store events for long-standing customers
And so on. See, this is not hard. And some of these ideas are really cheap. But they would have made me feel really good. I don't know if they would have been effective at stopping me from getting an iPhone. But if they had really cared about me and really showed it, I probably would have gotten an iPhone and unlocked it for use with T-Mobile.
Relationships where one or more of the parties is human, change. Period. If you are a business and you want to have a relationship with a human customer, you should have a plan for this. How will you evolve the relationship over time? I think, perhaps, that many businesses either don't think about this issue at all, or, worse, think of customers as equipment that depreciates over time. But the opposite is true. Customers get more valuable over time. So make sure to have a customer lifecycle plan for managing this incredibly valuable asset.
But I've been thinking about why I left T-Mobile and what they could have done to keep me. As I wrote in my last post on this issue, the customer service rep was really nice when I called to tell them I was switching. The language he used made me feel special. He talked about what a great customer I had been for 7 years and how if I chose to come back, they would really take care of me.
It got me thinking: where were they for all of those years when I wasn't calling to tell them I was leaving? I will admit that I have noticed - over the past year or so - that when I call them, the experience is quite pleasing. But that isn't really enough. The problem is that my relationship with them never changed. I put in more years. I remained loyal, but they never acknowledged that in any way. Only when I called to dump them, did they express their love and show appreciation for my loyalty. Too late.
Think about it. Relationships either change or they end. The change doesn't have to be dramatic. But long lasting relationships often get the feel of a very comfortable old piece of clothing that gets softer with age. Where you know its every wrinkle and it seems to know just how to fit itself onto your body. Or an old bottle of wine or an aged whiskey that doesn't radically change flavor but seems to settle into its existing flavor with more grace and dignity over time.
The value of a long-lasting relationship is huge (when the relationship doesn't suck). But only if it acquires some greater breadth or depth. Otherwise it is calcified and its uselessness screams out until you fix or end it.
My relationship with T-Mobile never changed. They never acknowledged my loyalty in any way. They never behaved differently towards or with me when I was a 7 year customer than when I was a new customer. What that says is that they don't care. It's not a real relationship.
How could they have created a real changing relationship? Here are just some ideas:
* An "anniversary" present on the anniversary of my joining T-Mobile with a gift that increased in value every year
* Every now and then just sending an email, a text or calling me and letting me know - for no apparent reason - that they really appreciated my x years of business
* Giving me a special customer service line, good for long-standing customers only
* Having special in-store events for long-standing customers
And so on. See, this is not hard. And some of these ideas are really cheap. But they would have made me feel really good. I don't know if they would have been effective at stopping me from getting an iPhone. But if they had really cared about me and really showed it, I probably would have gotten an iPhone and unlocked it for use with T-Mobile.
Relationships where one or more of the parties is human, change. Period. If you are a business and you want to have a relationship with a human customer, you should have a plan for this. How will you evolve the relationship over time? I think, perhaps, that many businesses either don't think about this issue at all, or, worse, think of customers as equipment that depreciates over time. But the opposite is true. Customers get more valuable over time. So make sure to have a customer lifecycle plan for managing this incredibly valuable asset.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Restaurant 2.0?
I've been getting a good education over the past year from people, like the indomitable Jer979, who are considerably more internet savvy than I. I understand that the pace of life on the internet is fast. Very fast.
I don't want to be the one to sit astride the internet shouting stop. [And not just because of the serious proctological damage that would ensue.]
However, I wonder if attempts by the internet savvy to bring the speed of life online to their offline jaunts and pastimes is somehow damaging. To wit:
Soup of the day is pretty current. Do we really need soup of the moment?
I don't want to be the one to sit astride the internet shouting stop. [And not just because of the serious proctological damage that would ensue.]
However, I wonder if attempts by the internet savvy to bring the speed of life online to their offline jaunts and pastimes is somehow damaging. To wit:
Soup of the day is pretty current. Do we really need soup of the moment?
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Innovation and mediocre sex
I'm seeing a lot of misguided application of innovation techniques. The biggest problem I'm seeing is that people are following process and using techniques but without the right attitude and behaviors. Without the soul. And the soul, I'm afraid, is the secret sauce. That's what really gets you to new and different ideas.
One way this plays out, is for would-be innovators to find a few hours where people are available in between budget reviews and other budget reviews, in some boring corporate meeting room and to try and jam in a whole lotta innovation by walking through lots of innovation steps.
You're wondering how I'm going to work the sex metaphor into this aren't you? Wait for it, wait for it, now take it:
I think the scenario I laid out above is the "quickie" of innovation. In the quickie, one or both people want or need sex but they don't have the time for it and sometimes don't even have the right space for it. There are no sweet words. No candles. No KY Yours and Mine. And very little soul. The quickie has its place. It does serve a purpose. But it isn't going to get you that soulful emotional passion and love. The soulful experience requires the right mood, the right amount of time and the right space. You cannot shortcut it.
Innovation is quite similar. You cannot shortcut it. If you need a few quick ideas, some low-hanging fruit, go for it. In that scenario, you don't really need innovation, you just need some ideation. [See my last post for an explanation of this.] But when you are looking for something really novel or unique, that big-idea, you need the right mood, the right amount of time and the right space.
When you set it up that way, the magic can happen.
One way this plays out, is for would-be innovators to find a few hours where people are available in between budget reviews and other budget reviews, in some boring corporate meeting room and to try and jam in a whole lotta innovation by walking through lots of innovation steps.
You're wondering how I'm going to work the sex metaphor into this aren't you? Wait for it, wait for it, now take it:
I think the scenario I laid out above is the "quickie" of innovation. In the quickie, one or both people want or need sex but they don't have the time for it and sometimes don't even have the right space for it. There are no sweet words. No candles. No KY Yours and Mine. And very little soul. The quickie has its place. It does serve a purpose. But it isn't going to get you that soulful emotional passion and love. The soulful experience requires the right mood, the right amount of time and the right space. You cannot shortcut it.
Innovation is quite similar. You cannot shortcut it. If you need a few quick ideas, some low-hanging fruit, go for it. In that scenario, you don't really need innovation, you just need some ideation. [See my last post for an explanation of this.] But when you are looking for something really novel or unique, that big-idea, you need the right mood, the right amount of time and the right space.
When you set it up that way, the magic can happen.
Innovation or ideation?
One of the problems with encouraging innovation is that people learn to love the hammer so much that in addition to using it on nails, they start using it on screws, kitchen appliances, the air... Heck, sometimes they use it on each other. It's crazy!
Now I love me a bit of wild fun as much as the next guy. And in this day and age, who is hurt by a little reckless hammer swinging amongst friends?
Well I am my friends. I am. You see, innovation is serious business. It's not for the faint of heart, the long of tooth or... that other guy.
Innovation is appropriate for every area within business or life, and every person can and should innovate, but not all at the same time. Not every problem needs innovation. So I'd like to propose an easy way of thinking about when you really need innovation and when you need... that other thing.
Ask yourself: is the answer to your problem or challenge already to be found somewhere in the minds of your team members? Is your problem one that can be handled through the application of domain expertise? In other words, do your people already have the answer but simply lack an opportunity to come together, talk about the issue, get their thoughts out and discuss them? If so, you need ideation, not innovation. You need to bring your team together for some sort of ideation session so they can unload what they've got and you can sort it out and plan your path forward.
But, if the nature of your problem or challenge is such that it requires a genuinely novel answer and cannot be solved by getting experts to do their expert thing, then you need innovation. This requires more artfully crafted exercises to stimulate your team members to think differently. It requires time. And it requires the right space.
Now I love me a bit of wild fun as much as the next guy. And in this day and age, who is hurt by a little reckless hammer swinging amongst friends?
Well I am my friends. I am. You see, innovation is serious business. It's not for the faint of heart, the long of tooth or... that other guy.
Innovation is appropriate for every area within business or life, and every person can and should innovate, but not all at the same time. Not every problem needs innovation. So I'd like to propose an easy way of thinking about when you really need innovation and when you need... that other thing.
Ask yourself: is the answer to your problem or challenge already to be found somewhere in the minds of your team members? Is your problem one that can be handled through the application of domain expertise? In other words, do your people already have the answer but simply lack an opportunity to come together, talk about the issue, get their thoughts out and discuss them? If so, you need ideation, not innovation. You need to bring your team together for some sort of ideation session so they can unload what they've got and you can sort it out and plan your path forward.
But, if the nature of your problem or challenge is such that it requires a genuinely novel answer and cannot be solved by getting experts to do their expert thing, then you need innovation. This requires more artfully crafted exercises to stimulate your team members to think differently. It requires time. And it requires the right space.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)