Living in an A/B world

It’s a common practice for e-commerce sites to engage in so-called “A/B testing.” A typical A/B test randomly presents a brand’s current website design against an alternative which might improve results (most often conversion rates).

A variant of this approach has been employed by direct mail practitioners for years. To improve campaign response rates a “challenger” mailing is pitted against the current best performing offer (“the champion”). Database analysis is then used to help evolve the marketing strategy.

For years, structured test and control experiments have been narrowly employed and, for the most part, the province of relatively sophisticated marketing organizations.

Yet in a world where the battle for share of attention is fierce, where relevance is increasingly hard to come by and where whoever gets closest to the customer wins, every organization, big and small, needs to embrace a test and learn mentality.

Sure, it’s desirable to have beautifully designed experiments and statistically relevant sample sizes. But don’t estimate the power of continually presenting your customers with a stream of alternatives and seeing how they react.  “Here’s A, here’s B, what do you think?” is sometimes all the protocol you need.

You don’t need Ph.D statisticians. You don’t need complex campaign management software. You don’t need expensive consultants.

What you do need is a willingness to try. And to fail. And to try again.

Omni-channel’s migration dilemma

The shift in retail to a more omni-channel world is dramatic and profound. And since the term “omni-channel” gets thrown around a lot–often vaguely or carelessly–let me be clear about what I mean: more and more customers are becoming engaged in utilizing multiple channels–stores, mobile, online, social networks and the like–to explore, research and transact.

One important implication of this phenomenon is that many consumers are becoming what I call “blended channel” customers; sometimes choosing to transact in physical stores, sometimes buying online. And they commonly use multiple sources to aid in the decision journey, regardless of where their ultimate transaction may be recorded.

Their loyalty is to the brand, not a channel.The pressure, therefore, is on retailers to become more channel-agnostic, break down their operational silos and create a frictionless experience across channels if they hope to win over this growing cohort.

So, at one level, it’s easy to understand the retail industry’s frantic quest for so-called omni-channel excellence. But the success from omni-channel will not be evenly distributed–and for reasons that go beyond a given company’s willingness to invest or their capability to execute well.

What many leaders and analysts fail to appreciate is that as customers migrate even a small portion of their purchasing from physical stores to digital channels, a number of important dynamics come into play, and a huge dilemma may emerge.

It’s important to understand that the transaction economics of physical stores and direct-to-consumer (D2C) are quite different. Brick and mortar is mostly a fixed cost business characterized by lots of capital tied up in real estate and the supply chain, married with some relatively high costs just to stay open and staff the store during typical open hours. By contrast, above a basic scale, D2C is highly variable. In most cases, it costs more or less the same to take an order, process it, pick it out of central inventory, pack it up and ship it, regardless of whether the item is priced at $15 or $150. Generally speaking, the higher the average order size, the greater the profitability. If you sell cheap stuff on-line–particularly if you can’t recover your shipping costs from the consumer–good luck making any money.

So if the variable economics of the digital channel are superior to brick and mortar–everything else being equal–the more customers become omni-channel in their behavior, the better a brand’s economics become. This is one of the reasons you’ve seen brands with higher average order sizes (e.g. Nordstrom, Neiman Marcus) investing aggressively in building out their e-commerce capabilities for over a decade.

If the marginal economics of the digital channel are worse than bricks & mortar AND the brand is growing slowly or not all, a real dilemma emerges. On the one hand, changing consumer preferences essentially demand investments in omni-channel capabilities. And this is no cheap date. Yet as customers migrate from stores to online, the overall economics deteriorate in the aggregate. Worse still, a dramatic shift away from physical stores to e-commerce will make many stores questionable economic propositions. Yet, closing those stores may cause the loss of some or all of a blended channel customer’s business. It’s easy to see this as the start of a downward spiral (I’m looking at you RadioShack).

From a consumer’s point of view, the deployment and improvement of omni-channel capabilities is a bonanza. From a retailer’s point of view, the rush to all things omni-channel–without a clear understanding of the underlying economics, the different behaviors by different customer segments and how physical channels interact with digital channels to deliver a remarkable total customer experience –can lead to some very serious mistakes.

 

Note: For an insightful and data rich discussion of many of these issues, I wholeheartedly recommend Kevin Hillstrom’s blog: http://blog.minethatdata.com/

“Chief Silo-busting Officer”

We’ve all heard the term “customer-centric” ad nauseam. And “omni-channel” is quickly reaching similar status.

My inbox and RSS reader are chock-a-block with articles, white-papers and sales pitches, all promising the keys to omni-channel success. Some extol “a single view of the customer.” Others opine on cross-channel inventory visibility or similar elements of a supposed seamless customer experience.

By now, the building blocks of what I like to call “frictionless commerce” are well-known. By now, if you’ve been paying attention, you know what to do. Yet it’s not getting done. We all know it and the customer data proves it.

The simple fact–the blindingly harsh reality–is that a bottoms-up strategy takes too long. The business world is not short on well-intentioned VP’s and Directors each pushing their particular agendas to act on behalf of the customer. Yet despite their passion and clever PowerPoint presentations, they all hit the wall at similar points.

Time and time again, over and over, the barrier to customer-centricity, omni-channel success–or whatever the heck you want to call it–starts and ends with organizational silos: silo-ed systems, silo-ed customer data, silo-ed inventory, silo-ed metrics, silo-ed incentives and on and on. When customers don’t care about channels, yet brands remained anchored in channel-centric thinking and structures, the gap between expectations and reality remains stubbornly large.

Some more forward-thinking companies have put senior executives in charge of “omni-channel.” Others have named Chief Customer Officers.  Good for them. Necessary perhaps, but not sufficient.

The hard, essential work of moving towards remarkable customer-centricity and true frictionless commerce requires an all-in, top-down strategy. And that, my friends, means it must be owned and driven by the CEO, supported by the Board of Directors.

Until the Chief Executive Officer becomes the Chief Silo-busting Officer all the talk about omni-channel this and omni-channel that is really just that. Talk.

 

HT to Suzanne Smith at Social Impact Architects. She addresses this issue for the social sector in a recent post.

Customer service: Are you a ninja or a nincompoop?

Having divorced and moved earlier this year, I’ve had quite a few occasions to interact with companies’ customer service functions. In most cases, I’ve merely been updating my personal information. In others, my request was a bit more complicated. I’ve also bought a fair amount of new stuff, so I’ve had to deal with delivery issues and the like.

Most requests have gone smoothly. A handful were remarkable. Others were noteworthy for their sheer incompetence.

Addressing customers’ problems can be the proverbial moment of truth for a brand. The commitment to owning the customer’s issue can truly illuminate the difference between those that view customer service as a necessary evil and those that understand it as a key competitive advantage. Reflecting on my recent experiences, I’ve come up with a few simple guidelines to separate the ninjas from the nincompoops.

Seek first to understand. Before you shoot off the canned response or solve a problem I’m not having, make sure you actually know what my desired outcome is. I’m still trying to get an account issue resolved with a major upscale home furnishings retailer–I won’t say their name, but it rhymes with Festoration Lardware–because their CSR’s keep suggesting fixes to a problem that’s different then the one I’m experiencing.

Start where we left off. If I’m already into my third conversation or umpteenth email, don’t make me start all over again with my story. Pay attention to the chain of interactions.

Respect my communication requests. If I say I prefer to be contacted by email, don’t call me. Seems simple, but two companies specifically asked for my preference and then promptly ignored it.

Do what you said you we’re going to do. The folks at Regus told me they’d get back to me in 1 or 2 business days. 3 weeks later I’m still waiting. And they haven’t responded to my follow-up requests.

Anticipate. You can merely do what the customer requested, or you can act as an advocate or trusted agent and look at the bigger picture. I asked Hilton to update my account information and reset my password. They handled that request very efficiently but also noticed that I had not gotten credit for a recent stay. So they went ahead and took care of that without my asking. Nice.

Add a dose of wow. Offer to waive a delivery charge because I’ve made multiple purchases? Upgrade my shipment to next day delivery? Expedite my order because I’ve had a problem? Yes, please.

Avoid ironic messages. “Your call is really important to us.” Really?  Then why am I in a 10 minute queue?

Treat different customers differently. Yes, every customer deserves good and respectful service, but some needs must be prioritized above others. If you know–or can reasonably surmise–that some customers have greater lifetime value and/or significant brand influence potential–you might want to show a bit more care and attention.

It’s worth remembering that every customer interaction with your organization is an opportunity to enhance or detract from your brand’s value. Every interaction has the potential to increase the odds of positive word-of-mouth or turn someone into a detractor–and, worst case, a vocal and influential one.

You don’t have to call your customer service staff ninjas to get this right, though maybe that helps. Mostly, you just have to care.

Rewarding stupid

The brand that incentivizes lowering the cost of its customer service function, when faster response time–and assuring the customer’s problem gets resolved the first time–is what drives customer value.

The retailer that slavishly measures–and provides bonuses for silo leaders based upon–individual channel performance, when the majority of its consumers research and shop across channels.

The credit card company that relentlessly increases late fees and other nuisance charges to maximize “other” income, while card-holder retention and usage rates are dropping.

The marketer that continually increases the frequency of promotional e-mails because they are cheap and reach a lot of people, when opt-out and conversion rates of its very best customers continue to decline.

It shouldn’t surprise anyone that when we reward stupid, we get stupid.

But apparently, sometimes, it still does.

Retail’s zero-sum game

I’ve got some bad news for you if you are in retail in North America or Western Europe.

In just about every sector–if you strip out inflation–the size of the pie is not growing. Moreover, you would be hard pressed to argue that this will change any time soon. With few exceptions, the brutal reality is that the capacity and willingness of most of your customers’ to increase their category spending is stuck in neutral. Get used to it.

Sure, the high-end is doing a little bit better (for now), but that’s largely driven by relatively price inelastic demand and an influx of foreign shoppers. Chances are that’s not your situation.

And, yes, there is continued strong growth in e-commerce, but most of that is either channel shift or leakage to unprofitable pure-plays. Of course if you are Amazon it’s a totally different story. But you are not Amazon.

Perhaps you work at a handful of brands that offer something truly differentiated and highly relevant to a sizable part of the market. If so, you are grabbing a greater share of that pie. For the rest of us, that just means our share of the pie is shrinking. Unaddressed, that is almost certain to end badly.

More and more, the vast majority of retailers are playing in a zero-sum game. More and more, the opportunity to drive top-line through store openings has evaporated. In fact, most retailers will be closing stores and shrinking the square footage of the one’s that they keep. Shrinking to prosperity is rarely a sustainable strategy.

Simply stated, driving real growth only happens by stealing market share, by growing share of wallet. And that means being more relevant and more remarkable than the competition.

It demands developing actionable customer insight as a basis for competitive advantage. It requires abandoning much of what you got you to where you are and embracing strategies and tactics that will get you to where you need to be. It means taking on more risk than you are used to.

Sure it can be scary. But quite frankly you have no alternative.

Oh, and I’d hurry if I were you.

 

 

This is not for you

Maybe it’s somehow coded in our genes.

Or maybe society conditions us to mindlessly think that bigger is definitely better; that more is always more.

Perhaps our fear of failure drives us to cover every imaginable base?

Yet the brutal reality is that the list of organizations that require scale to succeed AND can actually pull it off is undeniably short. And friends, I’m here to tell you, chances are neither you nor your organization is on that list.

Alas the pull of mass is undeniable. Let’s reach more people. Let’s gain more subscribers. Let’s try to sell more stuff, regardless of customer relevance or potential for profit.

As media choices explode, and the world becomes ever noisier, our default tendencies seem rooted in casting a wider net and shouting louder. That’s just stupid. It’s also expensive.

The best marketing plans are crystal clear about who the product or service is for and what it takes to become highly relevant and remarkable for that precise audience. By extension, the other thing a great marketing plan does is to declare who the brand is NOT for. As most brands are at the end of the life cycle of mass-driven strategies–or never should have been there in the first place–this is a critical distinction.

Confident brands don’t chase their tail or get sucked into a race to the bottom by reflexively pursuing volume for volume’s sake. They spend their time in search of depth and meaningfulness with their core, not trying to rope some generic somebody into engagement with gimmicks or endless discounts.

More and more, there is great power in knowing who your brand is for and who it most clearly is not.

More and more, there is great freedom in declaring simply and confidently: this is not for you.