Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand Suicide, Comment, Communication Strategy, Creativity, Culture, Customer Service, Distinction, Emotion, Empathy, Loyalty, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Relationships, Relevance, Resonance, Respect
Just like HR is often about protecting management from their people rather than the other way around, the same can be said for customer service.
Of course, no one says that, but there’s far too many examples of companies stating the importance of their customers, and then using their customer service department to completely undermine them.
As I’ve written before, real customer service is demonstrated when things are bad, not good.
Let’s be honest, when a company can spot a sale, the full charm-offensive is on display.But when things go bad … oh, that’s when the truth is often revealed.
The irony is that this is the exact moment you can create a level of loyalty that can last a lifetime.
I’ve talked about the time VW came good after my brand new Golf GTI had the gearbox collapse and the turbo blow up … and I’ve found another example of a brand making something bad, a little bit better simply because they looked at things from their customers perspective and acted accordingly.
Isn’t that amazing?
Considerate. Compassionate. Personal. Helpful. Generous.
At the worst of times, a company has found a way to not just solve a problem – but help relieve some of the pain, that wasn’t even of their own making.
If a pet food company can do that – with their relatively low priced product – then any company should be able to. But many don’t. Not because their staff don’t want to, but their bosses won’t let them.
Years ago I worked with a consultant called Geoff Burch.
He was a beautiful maniac.
What made him great was he challenged management to live up to their responsibilities – both to their companies reputation and their employees ability to be successful.
We were working on an Italian car brand together and at the client briefing, the CEO said the call centre staff were offering too many benefits to appease dissatisfied customers.
Geoff asked why they were dissatisfied and the response was their were reliability problems.
Quick as a flash, he replied:
“Maybe you need to realise your responsibility to your employees is more than just a desk, a roof and a paycheck, but making a product that is fit for purpose. I can’t help a company who wants to blame others for the faults they have created and protect”
It was incredible.
And while there was a very awkward atmosphere in the room after that outburst, the CEO – after what seemed like a lifetime – acknowledged he was right.
To be fair, it helped that Geoff had an incredible reputation, but he wasn’t saying anything truly revolutionary, he was simply saying ‘reputation is based on what you do, not what you say’.
And while that should be plainly obvious, it’s amazing how few companies still don’t get that. The companies who think making a few dollars more today is more valuable than a lost customer tomorrow.
Seriously, the way some companies operate, it’s like a bloody ponzi scheme.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not suggesting you should ‘spend your way’ into customers hearts.
This is simply about valuing your customers perspective rather than purely seeing the World through your own.
Which is, unsurprisingly, the true definition of customer service.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Comment, Communication Strategy, Context, Creativity, Culture, Drugs, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail
I know if you’re in the publishing field, times are tough.
I know that you have to resort to attention grabbing tactics to get readers.
But recently Adage – one of our industries most well-known media outlets – did something that was as equally ill-conceived as the time Campaign put Nigel Farage’s shit-eating grin on the cover of their magazine.
What am I talking about? This.
Talk about clickbait.
Blatant, unashamed, clickbait.
And I say that because the actual article was more about what some ‘experts’ were suggesting is happening rather than what the headline was screaming for all its worth.
But that’s not the real issue.
Nor is it the talking about cannabis microdosing … putting aside the fact [1] it’s illegal in some countries and [2] there’s medical evidence to suggest cannabis can have terrible consequences on certain individuals … accepting it is a minority and there are also many benefits, including medical.
Look, I don’t care what people choose of their own freewill – unless, of course, it directly affects the wellbeing of those around them.
I don’t judge, question or degrade those decisions.
My problem is an international industry magazine purposefully chose a headline that communicates if your work environment is causing extreme stress because of the intense pressure being placed on you … then it is on you to deal with it.
YOU.
I literally don’t give a shit if the article was talking about people microdosing, coffee drinking or baked bean eating … they should not be placing the burden of responsibility on the employee, they should be challenging the behaviour, expectations and actions of the company they are working for.
It’s hard enough to attract and retain talent in this industry as it is, without having our industry magazine telling the world, ‘it is a stressful job and it’s on you to deal with it’.
We all make mistakes. I hope they learn from this one.
For their sake. For our sake. For the future of the industries sake.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Comment, Communication Strategy, Crap Campaigns In History, Creativity, Culture, Football, Marketing, Marketing Fail
The celebrity endorsement.
Favoured by brands who have nothing interesting to say.
Or by companies who want to look more important than they are.
Of course they’re exceptions.
NIKE for example … because at least their choices are directly connected to the category they operate in, which is more than can be said for Clooney and Nespresso. Or the new entrant. Another handsome, old, white male actor – who, according to his ex-wife – may have domestic abuse issues to answer for.
Maybe that’s why Brad Pitt agreed to do one of the worst ads I’ve seen in a long time. To pay for any legal trial … whereas at least Clooney does it to raise the money for the films he personally wants to make.
In the old days, celebs went to Japan to top up their pension – safe in the knowledge that no one would see their stuff. Then the internet happened and not only could everyone see the rubbish they’d do for a big pay day, they realised they could do it now in their home country given everyone had seen their willingness to sell their credibility for cash.
Which leads to this …
Neymar.
For a financial investment firm.
If that isn’t weird enough, they’ve weirdly made Neymar look like he’s the financial advisor.
What the fuck?
Are they suggesting he is so rich he can give people expert financial advice?
If they are, is his advice, “become a professional footballer for PSG”.
Or is something else …
Is he paid so badly he’s had to get a second job selling financial advice?
That would at least make some sense as Neymar HAS BEEN FOUND GUILTY OF TAX AVOIDANCE!!!
Yeah, this financial company decided that the best celebratory endorser they could use to promote their company internationally was a convicted tax dodger.
Did no one think about that?
Did no one question what that would say about them?
Did they think that because Qatar – where QNB is based – don’t charge personal tax, it means Neymar’s crime basically doesn’t exist?
Did no one ask why were they photographing the football star as if he was a financial advisor?
Nope.
And was that because they were starstruck?
Or was it because they didn’t think about it?
Or care?
Or think anyone else would care?
Or was it all of the above … because let’s face it, there’s enough examples to show many investment firms don’t give a damn about rules, customers or tax obligations … so maybe using Neymar was the most truthful and inspired choice they could make.
How nice of QNB to make it so much easier for the authorities to find people exploiting the financial rules for personal gain, because now all they have to do is ask one question:
“Do you use QNB?”
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Comment, Communication Strategy, Creativity, Culture, Emotion, Empathy, Experience, Imagination, Innovation, Insight, Loyalty, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Point Of View, Relevance, Resonance, Technology
As funny as the photo above is, the reality is it’s still a better brand experience than much of what passes for good brand experience these days.
Hell, if I was shopping there and saw that sign, it would make me smile, which is more than a lot of brands and their experience strategies achieve.
I’ve said it before but too many companies mistake basic interaction as brand experience. Or worse, think that by simply removing friction from the purchase process, they’re building a good brand experience.
Seriously, how boring and self-centred must their lives be to think that?
If done well, brand experience can be a huge thing.
And by well, I don’t mean making bad, average – or creating a consistent base-line standard across the company – I mean making the things that actually matter to audiences, personal and valuable … or focusing on the key things audiences think you actually do well and pushing that so the experience can become something that is almost seminal so people want to share, repeat and shout about.
I wrote about this a while ago [here and here, for example] … but it still blows my mind how many companies and agencies approach experience in terms of not getting left behind when they should be seeing it as an opportunity to move ahead … a chance to leave their competition looking slow, rather than themselves.
And before people say this approach would cost more money, it doesn’t. Or it doesn’t have to. It’s all about defining the experience you want to create.
Given a badly placed store sign next to some condoms gave me a better brand experience than so many of the systems, processes and strategies brand experience promotes, it’s safe to say the discipline may need to start understanding what people give a shit about rather than what they wish they did.
Filed under: Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Brand, Comment, Communication Strategy, Corporate Evil, Creativity, Culture, Cunning, Environment, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Relevance
The commercial exploitation of the environment crisis by brands makes me ill.
For all their claims of doing things to ‘save the planet’, the reality is:
1. It’s not.
2. It’s focused more on how they can make money from it.
Putting aside the fact many of these conglomerates have actually added to the environmental crisis rather than taken it away, many are now trying to burden the general public with the blame and the responsibility to sort it all out.
Now of course the general public have to shoulder a huge amount of responsibility, but seeing companies try to look innocent when they have resisted – and continue to resist – major change is revolting.
From a personal point of view, one of the companies who I feel have been one of the worst for exploiting situations for profit is Unilever.
While there are some amazing people who work there … while the company talks a great game about being a ‘purpose’ driven company … you don’t have to look too far to see the organisation have profited from promoting racism, sexism and exploitation.
A few weeks ago, I got sent this:
As you can see, the bottom shelf holds a bunch of Persil Automatic washing powder.
Now Persil has long had a role in British society that has transcended the category. Their iconic ‘dirt is good’ campaign helped celebrate the benefits of kids getting dirty in life.
Of course it was self-serving, because the dirtier they get, the more washing powder you need, but it was deftly handled and had a point of view that resonated deeply.
However over the years, they’ve tried to evolve that message to have a more ‘purpose driven stance’ and things like the environment have become a focus. Which explains why they have written USE LESS in massive letters at the top of the box.
However – and hilariously – it seems no one realised, or cared, that at first glance it says USELESS … which is probably a far better description for how Persil are really dealing and committing to the climate crisis.
So to whoever did this – or didn’t realise this – I salute you.
Not just for your mischief/stupidity, but for proving there is still truth in advertising, even when they’re trying to say a lie.