Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Apathy, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Brand Suicide, Brands, Colleagues, Communication Strategy, Complicity, Confidence, Context, Culture, Customer Service, Egovertising, Fake Attitude, Finance
Customer service is a funny thing.
Companies make such a big deal of saying they care about their customers, but more often than not, the emphasis is adhering to their internal processes and protocols.
Now I get the importance of that, but the problem is that in most organisations, they forget to include one of the most critical elements to achieving customer satisfaction …
Empathy.
Empathy doesn’t mean accepting blame when it’s not your fault. Nor does it mean blindly agreeing with whatever you’re being asked. What empathy means is understanding what the customer is really saying.
Not their words.
Not what they write.
But connecting to what has led them to act.
Now it is important to note I am in no way blaming the people on the front line for any issue here. Frankly, they have an awful job, full of mental, emotional, and physical challenges.
No, my issue is with the policies they are mandated to adhere to by their bosses because more often than not, they care more about protecting the company than helping the customer.
Of course I get there are reasons for this.
Let’s be honest, some people are assholes and some ‘complaints’ are more about issues the person is dealing with than the company.
But maybe that’s the problem behind many organisations approach to customer service … that their starting point is ‘the customer is having a bad day’, rather than ‘why have we caused our customer to have a bad day’.
I remember working with a brilliant – but consistently angry – brand consultant, who was once hired by a car manufacturer to stop their customer service people being so generous to complaining customers.
After doing an audit on the business, he told the board the solution was simple:
“Stop making bad cars”.
He was right. They were notorious for building vehicles that failed. Or rusted. But that’s the issue behind many of the reasons ‘customer service departments’ face such a battle to do their job properly, because ultimately many of the issues they have to deal with are from issues company bosses know, but don’t want to acknowledge.
There may be many reasons for this situation, but – as we saw in the deliberate ignorance of the Sackler family in relation to the effects Codine was having on society – I can’t help but feel Upton Sinclair’s quote sums it up best:
“Man has difficulty understanding something if his salary depends on his not understanding”.
Maybe that’s why so many of the ‘customer satisfaction metrics and surveys’ that so many companies bang on on about are driven by systems, processes and data that is vague, loose and questionable.
Allegedly.
But as I said, often it’s not really about money … but empathy and that’s why I was particularly drawn to this tweet I read recently.
How awesome is that?
How loyal is that woman going to be now?
How many people are going to recognise an organisation who see’s customers as humans not just walking wallets?
Now I get it, her interact was not based on a complaint so you could argue it was a whole lot less difficult to deal with.
But here’s the thing, for me, the opposite is true.
That it wasn’t a complaint and yet they went out of their way to do something amazing shows a company who actually understands the importance of meeting and connecting with their customers mindset.
I wrote about the time I emailed Texas Instruments about a calculator I had that had been broken on the move between the US and the UK.
I said how – despite being almost 40 years old – it was very important to me because not only had my Mum given it to me when I was a young kid … she had helped actually design it.
I talked about how they wrote back saying that unfortunately they couldn’t fix it, but then did something that blew me away …
They found one in their vaults and sent it to me.
In its box.
With a case.
In perfect condition.
They could have easily just said they couldn’t help.
Hell, they could have just ignored me altogether.
But instead, they actively went out of their way to try and find a solution that would make some random guy who wrote to them from a random country, feel seen, understood, valued and cared for.
I cannot tell you what that meant to me.
I cannot tell you what that still means to me.
And I feel gratitude towards them every single day, because what that individual at Texas Instruments customer service did was not just give me a calculator that I use every day, they gave me a way to feel close to my Mum every day.
They didn’t have to do that.
There was nothing in it for them.
But they did.
And let’s remember, we’re talking about a calculator company here.
A FUCKING CALCULATOR COMPANY.
More than that, a calculator company who I last got a product from over 40 years ago.
And yet they showed more care and consideration towards me than pretty much any other brand I’ve interacted with in recent years.
Brands I’ve spent a shitload more cash with.
Like Audi. And Apple. And Air New Zealand. And ANZ Bank. And countless fucking more.
And while you could point at me and say, “why should they when you buy their products regardless?” … there’s a simple reason why they should re-evaluate.
Because – despite spending millions telling everyone how much they value their customers – their actions don’t come anywhere close to what a Calculator Company or a Fish Company have shown. In fact the very opposite.
For them, customer service is focused on ‘what’s easy and cheap’ whereas I’ve learned real customer service is when a company embraces inconvenience as a longer-term investment in their relationship.
Which iswhy I now have the same level of loyalty to all the ‘customer service imposters’ as they have for me.
Because service is not about what I get for free, it’s about serving what I need.
Even if that is just an empathetic ear.
So much customer service is designed around cliched archetypes.
Cliched archetypes that are more about what the brand wants me to like rather than what I actually want.
Because I fly a lot, I am generally in the top tier of many airline frequent flyer programs … and yet, excluding Virgin Atlantic, [which is more to do with my relationship with Lee than the airline having their shit together] none of them show they see me as an individual. Nope, all of them bombard me with ‘deals’ on golf memberships or wine or exclusive restaurants despite the fact I don’t drink, I don’t like fancy food and I fucking hate people who are a member of a golf club.
And this is not a new view, I’ve always had it.
Which is why the next time you meet someone who says their company is ‘customer centric’, ask them 2 questions:
1. What does that mean to them?
2. What are their people empowered and enabled to do?
Because if their definition doesn’t come close to referencing what the people at Texas Instruments – and The North Atlantic Fish Company – do … which, let’s face it, it won’t … then you can inform them they need to rename their customer service department to what it really is, the C-Suite profit protection service.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Brand Suicide, Communication Strategy, Complicity, Confidence, Content, Context, Craft, Crap Marketing Ideas From History!, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Design
A few weeks ago, I went on a trip where the people I was going to meet, had sent a car to pick me up.
If this wasn’t flashy enough, it was a Mercedes. With a driver who wore a fucking cap … and it wasn’t even a German Policeman.
As I sat in the plush leather seats, I couldn’t help but notice one thing.
This.
Brown.
Brown on brown.
Brown on brown. On brown.
It was as if the design team were a bunch of perverts who loved sewer porn. Or something.
And I have to say, I found it pretty off-putting. Well, when I say off-putting, I mean distracting … because I couldn’t take my eyes off it. Wondering why anyone would do this.
Because it wasn’t just 50 shades of brown, it was also made up of multiple materials of brown.
Leather.
Wood.
Plastic … often disguised to look like leather. And wood.
What the actual fuck?
I tell you something, when you’re literally cocooned in a car of poo, the last thing you want to do is drink the bottle of water they kindly put our for me.
At the time, I tweeted out a picture of the car and said:
“Mercedes really like brown. Though no doubt in the brochure it was called, ‘decadent dark chocolate’. 💩”
To which someone tweeted back that the official colour was, ‘Macchiato Beige’
MACCHIATO BEIGE!
BEIGE!!!
Jesus Christ … if associating with brown is alarmingly questionable, then surely associating yourself with beige is even worse?
Who the hell decided that???
I’m as confused by that as I am the people who actively chose to spend multiple tens of thousands of dollars on having it as an option.
But then history is littered with companies being able to embrace terrible decisions as long as someone has given them a reason to ignore reality.
Years ago, Bloomberg Businessweek asked me to write something for them.
One of the things I wrote about was UPS and their choice of ‘corporate brown’.
At the time I said, “if I had millions to spend, I don’t know if I’d be using it to associate with the contents of a dirty nappy.”
[Otis was approaching his 2nd birthday, so that was relevant to me rather than an attempt to be controversial]
While I appreciate the role colour has in branding – even though the way many use it. think about it and talk about it is utter bollocks – I still don’t really understand how any organisation could decide ‘brown’ in their shade.
In fact the only reason I imagine that can happen is when they hire a consultant firm and they tell them, “brown is a white space for your category, so by owning brown, you differentiate yourself from competitors”.
Which highlights five major considerations for brands:
1. When you allow ‘white space’ to define your strategic decisions, you’re ultimately seeding control to your competitors, not your truth.
2. The quest for differentiation only counts if it offers something of value, not just is different.
3. Without creativity and meaning, your ‘brand asset’ is a conformity drain.
4. Job title doesn’t equate to being smart.
5. Honesty trumps harmony … at least with companies who don’t have god complexes.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Apathy, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Brand Suicide, Communication Strategy, Complicity, Content, Context, Corporate Evil, Creative Brief, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Distinction, Effectiveness, Egovertising, Emotion, Film, Loyalty, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Point Of View, Provocative, Queen, Reputation, Success, Succession, Television
This is a long post.
Proper long.
And given I overwrite everything, that is probably a scary thought.
But I hope you hang in there, because it’s something important – at least to me. And who knows, it may trigger some thoughts – or hate – and I’ll consider that a win. Maybe, ahem.
So I don’t know about you, but I miss the TV show, Succession.
I miss the characters … the writing … the inconvenient truth how companies – and some families – work.
And while there are many articles and reports dedicated to explaining what ‘worked’, I recently read something that captured how it worked.
I love that write up.
I love it for a whole host of reasons … of which one is acknowledging that to make something that can capture so many people’s attention for so long, is an act of creative magnificence.
And while we may all nod our heads in agreement, the thing is we forget that.
We forget the challenge of keeping millions engaged and interested over a period of time.
Or maybe more specifically, we have forgotten HOW to do it.
Let’s be honest, the attitude of many brands is ‘keep things the same’ or ‘don’t fuck it up’ … while not realizing the biggest risk to achieving what they want to achieve is literally doing the same thing, in the same way, over-and-over again.
Of course, a big reason for their attitude is their quest for attribution.
Where the brand is synonymous and attributed to what they do/say/communicate.
However, rather than achieve this by doing interesting things that audiences value and can engage in – which is literally, the fastest, most effective way to build active, interested, engaged and committed attribution – we see more of the lazy approach. An approach sold by people with methodologies that mistake repetition as reputation.
Hence, we see countless campaigns featuring ‘consistent fictional characters’ doing variations of the same thing no one really cares about or relates to as if they’re trying to do a homage to the ‘Gold Blend’ coffee ads from the UK. WHICH CAME OUT IN THE 1980’S!!! Or the modern equivalent, where every element of every piece of communication is plastered with cues of whatever colour a brand is associated with. All the while ignoring the fact what it actually does is pull people out of their engagement with the communication because they’re questioning/wondering/laughing what sort of person drives a red car, lives in a red house – with red wallpaper – and only eat red vegetables. But even that isn’t the lowest of the low. No … that belongs to the work that shoves a watermark of the brand logo/name into the top left-or-right-hand-side of all their work … as if acknowledging their communication is so boring that the only way to know who it is from is to literally shove it in front of their faces.
I’m not saying ‘brand assets’ aren’t a thing … but they only become that with creativity.
Over time.
Continually reinforced … expressed … added to.
Without that, you end up with things that are more like weights than rockets.
And that’s the problem I have with so a bunch of the marketing practice being peddled …
Because they fail to appreciate the difference between recognition and value.
Or meaning.
Or resonance.
Or connection.
As I said to a client recently, just because I know what the swastika is, doesn’t mean I want to be a Nazi.
But that’s where we’re at right now … repeat, repeat, repeat.
Which is why that comment on Succession is so important.
Because they understand the importance of constantly adding to the narrative, not repeating it.
Keeping viewers not just interested … but on their toes.
Which leads to them engaging with the show, even when they’re not watching it.
Talking, discussing, sharing, commenting, deducing, arguing.
A program where none of the characters had many redeeming features, kept millions around the world coming back to them.
To learn. To listen. To grow. To hate. To debate.
Is that hard to do?
Of course.
Is it impossible to do?
Nope … especially when you hire proper talent and let them do what they’re great at, rather than value talent on how little they cost and then tell them what to make. Even though you don’t have experience in knowing how to make things people want to engage with.
But as a friend said to me recently, there were no conversations about ‘attribution’ with Succession were there!?
Nope. Not one. Not even from the first episode.
And maybe that was because they didn’t start the show with the intent of creating the lowest common denominator of recognition … then repeating it over and over and over again. No … their intention was to make something interesting … and then keep adding to that so their audiences would keep giving a fuck.
Look, I have no problem with marketing practice.
It is important and has a real role and value in building brands and driving effective marketing.
But that role and value is only released when it is done well and honestly … and right now, it feels there’s a lot of soundbites and not a lot of depth.
Selling systems that promise simplicity but ultimately are outsourcing responsibility.
Outsourcing responsibility to people who can profit from it, despite having no experience in actually creating it.
The irony is we all want the same thing.
Hell, we all need the same thing.
But there’s a major difference between playing not to lose and playing to win so maybe there needs to be more conversations about that, rather than blindly follow people who present themselves as business liberators when really, they’re good insurance salespeople.
Of course, the reality is that, despite what some may say, there’s not one ‘all encompassing’ answer to all this.
I get how expensive everything is so the temptation to stick and stay with what you know and what is working for you, is high. But regardless who you are, it will not last forever and it’s far better to own the change than be left behind by it.
Just ask the Disney execs how they’re feeling as they watch their Marvel universe start to implode.
Building anything is a journey that goes through highs and lows along the way.
But it’s the people who think – or say – they can stop that, who end up creating branded mediocrity.
Or should I way, ‘mediocrity attribution’.
Which is why there is one final example of the commercial value of adding to a story rather than repeating it and that’s Queen.
Specifically their recent sale of their back catalogue for ONE BILLION POUNDS.
Whether you like the band or not, you can’t say that is not an impressive number.
And while even I – a massive Queen fan – accept that in 1986, they stopped being musicians and became entertainers [aka: ‘turned crap’] … it’s the music they made until that point that gave them their legacy, fans and economic value.
Because rather than basically repeat their first hit over and over again … they kept taking people to different and interesting places.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand Suicide, Brands, Business, Comment, Context, Corporate Evil, Creativity, Culture, Differentiation, Distinction, Honesty, Innovation, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail
I saw these 2 brilliant cats starring each other down when I was in Utrecht a few months ago.
Look at them.
Focused. Determined. Pissed off.
Trying desperately to intimidate each other while obviously being scared of each other.
Maybe not in terms of size … or beauty … but in terms of one being able to pull off something better, quicker or smarter than the other.
Trapped in an endless cycle of statue paralysis or trying to micro ‘one up’ the other.
The cat cold-war so to speak.
And what is funny is this is often how many brands behave.
Looking sideways rather than ahead.
So lost in what one other brand is doing – or could be doing – they ignore what’s going on around them.
What others are achieving without them.
Sometimes this is not simply driven by a competition, but greed.
A desire to make sure nothing is left on the table.
Hoovering up every scrap.
Believing they are in control and in power so nothing can challenge or take them.
So lost in their self-belief that they fail to see they’re being left behind.
Blinkered by ego.
We saw it with Nokia when Apple launched the iPhone.
We saw it with Listerine when Wrigley’s positioned chewing gum as dental care.
We saw it with Kodak when they chose to protect their photo processing profits rather than launch their digital camera.
We have seen it over and over again.
And while sometimes, having a focused enemy can push you to greater heights than you would be able to achieve on your own … driving you to make things better, rather than to look for things never done before [because often, those things are stupid or self-indulgent] like most things in life, the key is knowing when this approach starts to be counter productive.
When the focus is pulling you back than pushing you forward.
Blinkering your view rather than opening your perspective.
Losing your edge rather than fuelling your ambition.
But sadly, too many brands act like those two cats in Utrecht.
Unable to look away but without the looks to make others still want to come to them.
Which is why as much as there’s a lot to be said for exploiting and optimising the failings and learnings of your numero uno foe, there’s also a lot to be said for remembering to keep looking up and out from your blinkered bubble.
Or said another way …
When you ensure you’re focused on where culture is heading, you don’t get lost following where your competition is staying.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, America, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand Suicide, Confidence, Creativity, Culture, Law, Marketing, Marketing Fail
Whenever I am in the US, the thing that always shocks me – regardless how many times I’m there – are the pharmaceutical and lawyer ads.
Pharmaceutical on TV.
Legal on billboards.
They’re everywhere … forcing themselves on you like double glazing salesman who senses a moment of weakness in your resolve.
And while you tend to ignore the pharmaceutical ads – because they’re boring as fuck, long as hell and then filled with disclaimers that try to write-off ‘death’ as a casual side-effect – I am transfixed by the lawyer billboards.
Loud. Egotistical. Blustering in confidence.
They’re almost a parody except they’re deadly serious.
My Dad hated the US legal system … because according to him, it made a mockery of the law. Designed either to ambulance chase for quick wins or keep big cases going to maximise fees.
Anyway, recently on a trip to LA, I sat behind a bus with this:
On first glance, I just saw the URL and thought ‘Lemon Daddy’ may be a euphemism for some sort of sugar-daddy dating service. [I know, I know]
Then I saw the line ‘why are you still driving that piece of shit’, and it made me properly interested … especially when my taxi driver told me the guy in the pic was the basketballer, Austin Reaves, who plays for the Lakers.
Soon after that, I saw the name of the law firm ‘Drake’ and it all made sense – or should I say more sense – and by checking out the URL, I saw it was an ad for a law firm who specialise in taking on cases relating to faulty cars.
Frankly, the website reinforced what my Dad thought about a lot of American law … it’s a hard sell masterclass, but I still couldn’t work out why the NBA player was there unless:
1. It was just another way to try and get noticed.
2. Austin had a financial interest in the company.
So I did a bit of digging and – to be honest – the answer was more complicated than the most complicated law case. Have a read of this.
Now for someone who has been in this industry and worked in a lot of countries – including LA, where they’re based – but I’ve never heard of Black Llama creative. But that means fuck all. However – and I appreciate the snobbishness of this comment – I have been in this industry long enough to know what good work is and frankly, I have opinions about the claims they make about themselves:
Black Llama, a renowned creative advertising agency recognized for its innovation and expertise in brand development, played a pivotal role in the inception and execution of Lemon Daddy. Black Llama’s exceptional creativity, coupled with their strategic prowess, ensured that the Lemon Daddy campaign resonates with consumers, captivating their attention and generating engagement.
To be fair, they definitely achieved the latter part of their claim … but not by their innovation, expertise in brand development or exceptional creativity, but because they put a swear word in the headline and – for me – some random dude holding a basketball.
Look, I’m all for people having a go – and I appreciate everyone thinks they have something to offer that no one else has – but confidence means little when it’s so obvious you live in a bubble where you are the only one who judges what is great.
[One look at their website may highlight this is the case with them]
Good on them for making this happen.
Good on them for getting an NBA player involved.
Good on them for working with a client that seems to have a good idea.
But if I was Austin, I’d be online looking for SueMyManagementForBadEndorsementDeals.com