Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Apathy, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Brand Suicide, Communication Strategy, Complicity, Conformity, Culture, Customer Service, Effectiveness, Experience, Fake Attitude, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail
NPS – which stands for Net Promoter Score – is a way for companies to evaluate how their customers view them.
The higher the score, the more satisfied they are with the company. Or so they say …
Because while I appreciate there will be a lot of evidence to back up this equation, I find it fascinating that the way they do it is by adding a layer between brand and customer.
More than that, it dimensionalises ‘satisfaction’ into a numerical value … meaning humanity, nuance and individuality is washed over. Now I appreciate when you’re dealing with potentially ‘millions’ of people, it would be almost impossible to achieve this with more texture and intimacy, however I can’t help but feel this methodology also suits the C-Suite in companies because it allows them to be incubated from having to deal with customer issues and simply point to an outsourced number to justify how well they are doing.
Add to the fact that when asked to evaluate a company, most people will just choose a random number – simply because the service they experienced was transactionally efficient rather than something more meaningful or memorable – and the whole NPS score should be taken far more as a guide than a fact.
Of course, we live in a time where everyone sells everything with the confidence of unquestionable authority … which is why I saw two things recently that reminded me what good customer service is, without having t refer to a number between 0 and 10.
First was this:
A young boy was at a baseball game [Philadelphia Phillies] and his father was able to retrieve a ball that had been hit into the stands to give to him. Almost immediately, another fan came up and claimed it was theirs [it wasn’t] and basically intimidated the father into giving it them. Someone in the team saw this and immediately made amends … first sending them a bag of ‘team goodies’ while they were still in the stands, and then following it up by inviting him – and his Dad – to meet the players and receive a signed baseball bat from one of the stars.
It probably cost the team $100 max, but the emotional value was way, way more than that … which was also only increased by the speed of their action.
No processes to go through.
No layers of approval to obtain.
Quick, decisive action from the whole team – rather than just one department.
You can read about it by following these links.
First the incident.
Then the first follow up.
Then the meeting of the team.
Then the positive internet reaction.
The other is much closer to home and involves a courier company I wrote too.
I had got an email saying an item had been delivered to my house. Except it hadn’t.
I wrote to them to tell them that and almost immediately, they responded and told me they’d checked and could confirm delivery. Crucially they were able to tell me what was sent and I realized they were right and had confused their original notification for another product I was waiting for.
I wrote back to apologize and explain they were right and then – again, almost immediately – they sent me this.
Now I appreciate there may be an element of ‘lost in translation’ in this reply … but ‘we wish you a happy life’ is delightful. Even more so given it was my fucking mistake. But the real power of it is that as ridiculously over-the-top as it is … it’s also undeniably human. Not some contrived, often repeated set of words that have been carefully designed to ensure the company does not convey an inch of accountability in any interaction.
That’s customer service.
Everything else feels more like being in-service to the company legal department or C-Suite ego.
So while I appreciate we have to have systems and processes in place to deliver a level of consistency … when they take the precedence over ensuring customers comes out of any situation feeling at least seen or heard, then it’s no wonder we’re seeing more and more companies hiding behind NPS scores rather than listening, interacting and enabling their teams to deal with the needs of their customers, rather than the egos of their C-Suite.
Filed under: Advertising, Apathy, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand Suicide, Community, Consultants, Corporate Evil, Creativity, Culture, Empathy, Experience, Innovation, Leadership, Loyalty, Management, Marketing Fail, Mediocrity, Relevance, Reputation, Stupid, Talent, Technology
AI is one of the most talked-about subjects – not just in adland, but all of business.
As I’ve written many times, I think – when used properly – it’s ability to open-up doors and possibilities is revolutionary.
Not just commercially, but from a human enablement perspective.
However, too few companies like it for that reason … instead they’re excited by its ability to ‘optimise’ profits at the expense of hiring employees.
We’re hearing more and more companies getting rid of junior positions – either ‘outsourcing them’ to lower-cost nations [which sounds bonkers, given they’re already the lowest cost in an org] or simply replacing them with AI bots.
This is not pie-in-the-sky … it’s happening right now.
Hell, recently I met someone who’d recently left university who had applied for over 100 jobs at different companies despite having just spent 4 years studying full-time trying to learn the basics of how to get into it.
I find this reprehensible.
+ How is there going to be a future of any industry or company if we don’t let juniors come into the business?
+ How are companies going to evolve if they don’t let the energy and ideas of the young, shape their ideas and thoughts?
+ Why is it always junior people affected when not only are the C-suite, the best paid, but whose decisions and actions tend to be the easiest to predict. [Even more so when many ‘outsource’ their responsibilities to an external ‘for-profit’ consultants]
+ Why are their clients not kicking up a fuss when they’re literally ensuring the demise of their future customers – even though we all know the real reason why.
+ While I’m at it, why do companies expect their people to be loyal to them when so many are literally trying to delete them?
While I appreciate AI is still in its infancy and that even then, there are some incredible things it can do … in the realms of our day-to-day business, its core adoption appears to be focused far more on speed and volume rather than personalization and possibilities. And there’s nothing wrong with that except for the fact many AI models are aggregators who take source material and then promote the most balanced response. There is value in that … except when you are trying to develop value in your own originality, craft and specialization.
Said another way, the approach many companies and people adopt for AI is ‘short-cutting their way into commodotisation’.
As I said, it doesn’t have to be this way.
AI can be used in a multitude of ways to avoid this very outcome.
But in this fast-paced, instant-gratification, short-term-thinking, ego-promoting world … the emphasis of value is seemingly placed on the creation of noise over melody, which is why this comment about ‘the worst of AI’ [ie: what many companies adopt because the people authorizing its use don’t know/care about how it really works or the implications of it] hit me hard and should hit anyone who reads it in a similar way.
“Everything is a summary of something else. Bits regurgitated, vomited from someone else’s throat, then stirred and mixed together to reach that fluorescent level of flatness, the shiny turd of craft that lies in promptly created art” – is next-level viciousness. [In fact, I’ve not heard something spat out with such venom since Queen’s ‘Death On Two Legs’ lyrics]
And yet they are not wrong.
Maybe they’re pretty one-sided in their view, but given what we’ve already seen and seeing – especially from certain tech-leaders who declare they have the answer to making everything better, regardless of category [which always seems to come down to: ‘use our tech and no one else’s because we’re the best’] – not wrong.
Of course, we all like to think we’re the exception to the rule.
That we’re doing it right and everything else is what ‘other people do’.
But the question we need to stop and ask when using AI is this:
Are we playing for a better future or down to a personal convenience?
Sadly, only AI can probably answer that objectively … and that’s only until the people behind it realise they need to stop any possibility their business plans and ambitions could be undermined by revealing the truth of its blind adoption.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Ambition, Aspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Auckland, Brand Suicide, Brands, Cars, China, Communication Strategy, Context, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Egovertising, Environment, Italy, Leadership, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Money, Positioning, Premium, Shanghai, Wieden+Kennedy
On one of my daily walks, I passed this …
For those who don’t know what the car is, it’s a Lotus.
Now once upon a time, this was a car brand whose name was synonymous with power, status, style and flair.
A marque of British engineering excellence.
However, for a whole host of reasons, it has fallen from the highs of being James Bond car of choice [The Spy Who Loved Me], to now being a small player in the Chinese conglomerate, Geely’s, staple of brands.
That said, if anyone is going to help it rise again – it’s them.
The reality is the Chinese car industry is incredible.
Innovative. Progressive. High standards and high quality.
This is not by accident, but design …
The Chinese Government see the car industry – specifically the electric car industry – as not only the pathway to securing China’s next chapter of China’s economic power, but also a way to reinvent how the World see’s China.
That and a powerful way to help address the environmental concerns of the country … which, despite what many Western nations like to say, has been a priority of China for a long time, which helps explain why they have been the biggest investor in green tech for years.
Anyway, all it takes is a notional look at the vast range of brands and models made by Chinese manufacturers and you’ll see how companies like Tesla are nowhere near as innovative as their Chinese competition – acknowledging, Musk’s mob are still innovative.
For example, because BYD makes the batteries that power their cars, it has enabled them to innovate in ways companies who have to buy batteries from other companies cannot hope to compete with … for example their new 5 minute ‘zero to full battery’ that they’ve just announced. Or you could look at Nio who have created a system where someone can drive their car into a change station – located across China – and have their low battery automatically changed for a full one in a matter of minutes.
Add to this that Chinese brands can offer their cars at prices that are often a fraction of the price of their inferior, Western counterparts – thanks to the scale they serve and the way they organize their operations – and the category is far more innovative than certain people would like to admit. [Or at least they could before Trump introduced his insane tariff ‘policy’]
I say all this because when I saw that Lotus – or should I say, Lamborghini Urus wannabe – I couldn’t help but feel that for all the innovation of Chinese car manufacturing, they are making a major mistake with how they are approaching the marketing of this car.
Sure it looks pretty good inside and out.
And sure, Chinese manufactured electric vehicles represent incredible value-for-money – at least in comparison to their Western equivalent counterparts – but I am not sure if painting ‘0% interest’ on the side is the best move for what they are trying to do.
Sure, they have to let people know about it.
Sure, 0% interest is a great selling point, especially in these financially challenging times.
But not only is the car still the equivalent of US$180,000 – which, by anyone’s standards, is a fuck-load of money … driving around with that message on the side basically is saying, “this is a car for people who want to look rich, but aren’t”.
Yes, I know rich people get rich by not spending money so 0% may be initially attractive, but this car isn’t designed for them.
If you’re truly rich, you’ll likely buy a Lamborghini or Ferrari … a brand synonymous for its craft, heritage and performance.
No, this car is aimed at the people who want to look the part without waiting or doing things to actually be the part.
The Andrew Tate brigade … the people who never want to be seen to be making ‘financially responsible’ decisions.
Not because they want to be broke, but because they don’t want to look like they have to worry about the money.
For them, life is all bravado, attitude and overt acts of power …
But what this smacks of is a brand who either doesn’t know who its audience is or doesn’t want to admit who they really are.
We had a similar situation at Wieden when we were working with Alfa Romeo in China.
We got fired when instead of reaffirming who they said their audience was, we told them who they really were.
They didn’t like that at all.
For them, they wanted to be driven by the young, rich and successful who were bursting with flair, style and a glamourous life. So you can imagine how they felt when we told them no one knew who they were and their biggest opportunity was to appeal to the ‘wannabe’s and fakers’ … individuals without the time, money or patience to do the right thing, especially when the illusion of it was available to them at a much lower price.
Of course we weren’t going to overtly position the brand that way, but it did mean our approach was going to attract those who chose to live that way.
Or it would have if they hadn’t dismissed us.
Similar to how the people of China went on to dismiss Alfa Romeo.
Which is a good reminder that in these days of increased competition, the biggest threat isn’t who you face … but the ego you’re constraining yourself by.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Auckland, Authenticity, Brand, Brand Suicide, Comment, Context, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Design, Distinction, Diversity, England, London, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Mediocrity, Reputation, Resonance
One of the things I have loved about living in so many countries is that I’ve been able to see and experience different ways of living.
I don’t just mean from an economic perspective, but in terms of what a country or city values and how it expresses and encourages that through its architecture, planning, facilities and people.
However, over the decades – as economies have grown – more and more of the individual spirit and character of cities has been replaced with identikit skylines, resulting not just in everything looking familiar, but feeling it as well.
Now I appreciate for some, this is a great thing … the creation and demonstration of social progress and achievement. However when everything increasingly ends up looking, feeling and acting the same – regardless of geography – not only is the magic of discovery being traded for the convenience of familiarity, the soul and history of every individual city is being erased and whitewashed over.
I say this because recently, as I was walking around Auckland, I saw this:
The bit that got me most was that first line …
‘All these upgrades are turning our city grey’.
And they’re right.
Don’t get me wrong, Auckland is a beautiful city and a great place to live … but what is being classified as ‘improvements’ is ironically having the exact opposite effect.
The colour, character and contrasts of Auckland are being wiped out … traded out … and moved out … slowly turning the entire City into a comfortable and convenient prison cell. Except instead of this cell keeping people from getting out, it stops people from wanting to come in. Not because there aren’t things to do, but because they are the exact same things, with the exact same people as everyone else is experiencing.
It’s part of the reason I loved the London Underground on Friday evenings.
Because despite it being packed. Despite it being hot. Despite people not really making eye contact, let alone talking to you … it was like a brilliant zoo. Full of different animals hanging out in each others environments.
People going to the theatre.
People going home from work.
People going out for a big night.
People going to do a night shift.
People going on a first date.
People going for a last meal.
Locals … out-of-towners … tourists.
God I loved it … I loved the variety, the weirdness, the characters and chancers.
Or said another way, the pieces that not only give a place its soul and identity.
But also its individuality.
Brands … specifically those who outsource who they are to a ‘for profit’ marketing practice process, should take careful note. There’s a lot of you. Even though it’s increasingly difficult to tell you from one another given you all look, act and feel the exact same.
Filed under: Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Audacious, Brand, Brand Suicide, China, Comment, Context, Creativity, Culture, Design, Differentiation, Imagination, Innovation, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Relevance, Reputation, Resonance, Retail
One thing I’ve always hated about my discipline was how so many liked to talk about curiosity like we are the only people to embrace it.
Not just in advertising, but across all humanity.
That said, curiosity has seemingly taken a backseat in terms of aspiration …
These days it seems we our desperate to feel/suggest we are the smartest people in the room.
That we can solve any problem given to us – regardless of category, culture or context.
As my old man used to say, ‘people who are desperate to let everyone know how smart they are, aren’t that smart’ … and right now, it feels like we’re drowning in those people.
I’m not saying they’re not clever, but they’re not as smart as they like to think they are.
Believing that because they’re good at one thing, they’re good at everything.
Researchers who think they know how to create great creativity … despite never creating anything. Strategists who think they know what people want … despite never spending any time with people. Creatives who think they can make any business successful … despite never running a business. Sure, I’m exaggerating the point to make the point [especially as there are a few people in each of the examples, who are the exception] but you get the idea …
You see it everywhere, especially on Linkedin.
That doesn’t mean they don’t have valid opinions.
That doesn’t mean their experience doesn’t have value.
But putting aside the people who literally have never achieved anything of note yet speak like they’re God … the moment you think only you have the answer and everyone else is wrong and ‘doesn’t get it’ then that’s when you’re become the beast you were meant to slay.
The reason for this rant is that I saw something recently that is so devilishly brilliant, it serves as a good reminder that just because we are paid to do a specific role in the marketing space, doesn’t mean we have the monopoly on good ideas.
This was it …
Evil? Yep.
Bad parenting? Possibly.
Smart thinking? Absolutely.
Of course, I’ve talked a lot about Chinese ingenuity over the years.
For a culture that often describes itself as practical rather than creative, it’s one of the most creative places I’ve ever lived.
Not just by the typical definitions, but in terms of business, food, innovation and motivation …
Sure, there are many examples where the approach taken is more about exploitation than liberation – which is true all over the world – anyone who has lived there for any period of time will know that far from being ‘behind Western standards’, in many ways they’re far ahead.
And while there are many things that have contributed to its momentum, its belief in ‘cumulative progress rather than the wait for perfect’ is a big part of it.
Back in 2007, I wrote about ‘unplanning‘.
In essence, it was about putting the rigor into ensuring you are removing all the unnecessary bullshit around an issue to identify the heart of the problem that needs solving.
The reason it was called unplanned, is because the solution – while creative as fuck – also felt obvious as hell, even though it only was able to be that because you’d trimmed off all the fluff and fat that often causes distraction and deviation.
Given we are surrounded by models, systems, pundits and egos all proclaiming to have the ultimate answer to every problem known to man – despite the fact many have never done anything of note and brands, creativity and the ad industry are losing their value, relevance and impact at an alarming rate – maybe the best thing we could do for our collective future is to stop looking inwards and start looking out, because there we are reminded creativity starts with how you think and see the world, not which property process you follow.