WE RECENTLY READ a book called Rules to Break & Laws to Follow
by Don Peppers and Martha Rogers. They vaulted to fame with a book
titled, The One to One Future, giving fresh insights into customer
relationship management.
Their new book includes a simple anecdote that is so profound that
we have been passing this little gem along to many of our clients and
business associates. In the interest of space, we'll paraphrase,
except for direct quotes.
A top executive was attending an internal sales meeting at Siemens.
On the way to the conference room he met the sales manager carrying a
folding chair. When asked about it, the manager explained that whenever
he brought this a meeting, the whole character of the discussion was
different.
"Just watch," he said.
When the manager brought the chair into the meeting room and opened
it, the question arose about the need for more chairs and who else might
be coming. Should they get more chairs?
"No," the manager replied, "this is my
customer's chair. I brought it to the meeting so my customer can
sit right here and listen to the discussion."
Think about that! The customer is right there, listening.
Who Speaks for the Customer?
As a result of this enlightened concept, we now focus on some
recent events and wonder if the customer was in the room when the
decisions were being made. Take the airlines' requirement to refund
the fare difference if the price has dropped between the time you bought
the ticket and when you took the flight. This might have been the
scenario at American Airlines. As management was being informed of this
"rule of refund," someone (must have) said, "Well, why
not just consider that in the category of re-ticketing? We now charge
$100 for re-ticketing! And isn't it only rarely that the price
would drop more than $100? So why worry? One cancels the other."
Would that discussion have been the same if the customer was in the
room? Note: United does not have a charge for re-ticketing for a refund!
(Tell your friends!)
And we hardly have to conjure up the meeting that proposed
eliminating telephone receptionists with:
"Our menu has recently changed. Press 1 for English."
After that, it's 3 for accounts receivable, 6 for bookkeeping, etc.
When you finally get to the right person, you hear:
"I'm either on the phone or away from my desk, please
leave a message and I'll get back to you as soon as I can."
Or worse, you are disconnected. Was the customer in the room when
that decision was made? En passant, two notable exceptions are P&G
and Estee Lauder. A real person answers the incoming call! Did you
notice how that execution fits both brands' attitude about the
customer?
Finally, when The New York Times had the budget meetings that
ultimately did away with the stock market tables, and another that did
away with the week's television section in the Sunday edition, do
you think there was a customer in the room?
Here's a key quote from the book:
"Several times during the meeting (at Siemens), participants
found themselves asking whether a particular point would be made in this
particular way if the customer were actually sitting there and
listening. Would we say this in front of our customer? What would our
customer think of our plan for dealing with this issue? How do we think
our customer would interpret our new policy? Would our customer agree
with us that this is a good idea, or not?"
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
Most companies have meetings to cut costs, increase profits, and/or
maintain retail prices (or at least to minimize, any price increases).
In lieu of the extra chair, does your company have someone who is
"customer-centric" and in charge of maintaining the image?
Probably yes, in entrepreneurial companies, but in the larger ones, the
further away one is from the customer, the less likely it is that those
in the meeting will even consider the real and psychological impact on
the consumer.
A motto which might be on everyone's desk is: "Have I
done anything to increase brand loyalty today?" Or, "have I
done anything to create some good buzz today?"
Perhaps an extra chair in your office would be a good idea.
Too Much of a Good Thing?
Back in the primitive marketing days (circa 1966), when product
managers pounded out numbers on a huge Frieden calculator that rattled
the desk, a book by Al Ries and Jack Trout (long out of print and now
best forgotten) extolled the virtues of NOT diluting the basic brand
with line extensions. It was the start of long and successful careers
for both of them--together and then separately--but the basic concept to
keep the basic brand image pure and targeted, has long since been eroded
by the need to (chose one or more):
* Trade on the equity of the brand image to develop one-offs to
gain shelf space,
* Grow the brand,
* Reduce the risk of introducing new brands,
* Provide a larger pool of potential advertising dollars or
* Increase the power of a global brand.
Remember this: in 1966 there was one Tide, likely in three sizes
and one Oil of Olay (lost the "Oil" circa 1999). Now, without
peeking ahead, how many iterations of Tide are there? How many Olays?
There are 89 Tides! And 117 Olays! Between Tide Liquid and Tide 2X
Ultra liquid there are 46 iterations alone. Virtuous single product
branding has come a long way, baby. The single product drawbacks are
obvious (OK, a few sizes are allowed), but what are the
extensions-galore advantages? Think about Olay. It has literally
surrounded every conceivable feminine need for face and body. No crease
or wrinkle has gone untouched. The brand has divided every skin
type--combo, dry, extra dry, normal (whoever that person might be),
oily, and sensitive and then conjugated these against different product
types such as antiaging, body cleansing, body moisturizing, face
cleansing, face moisturizing, and then threw in special treatments and a
sunless tanner. Olay has become the category! Once the woman decides to
trust Olay, she can have every need satisfied without ever getting
undressed for Dove.
What about distribution? Surely the retailer, even the big box
stores, can't possibly carry the full assortment especially when
several facings for specific products are necessary for impact. So, the
retailer picks over the chicken entrails trying to discern what are/will
be the best sellers.
Enter the age of websites! On the Olay site you can get in touch
with a consultant, view every product, get product information and then
order what you need. The computer has made it possible to make some
sense of 117 Olay products. And, there are Olay's specific ads,
single pages and spreads, to send you to the dedicated website for a
personalized analysis of your specific skin care needs--not just a web
address in barely readable type, as in most ads.
This website, OlayForYou.com, is promoted in all Olay ads--you know
what kind of coverage that will achieve! This is a
"dominate-the-category" strategy, with retail as the
springboard. (Note: Even a department store beauty advisor would have
difficulty in differentiating all the products for the consumer.)
Now, we know. This is how a mass company can answer the vast array
of specific needs of consumers, without the need to be on the shelf
(after the introduction). Up until now, only Avon has had this advantage
in mass--the catalog providing this advantage before the advent of the
Internet. And, once you have the customer online, you can personalize to
the nth degree. The ultimate in consumer-centric marketing. Neat.
Soaring Demand for Natural
The growth of the natural personal care has been dramatic. Two
years ago, we wrote, "the future is here." What an
understatement! Today, it is better said, "if you're not
already in natural/organic, it has passed you by!"
Until now, natural personal care product manufacturers had to go to
the West Coast to get some exposure at Natural Products Expo West. Maybe
it's time for an "all natural" conference/exhibition
closer to home. Save the date: Oct. 21-22, 2008.
SUZANNE AND BOB GRAYSON
GRAYSON ASSOCIATES
SUZANNE AND BOB GRAYSON ARE RESPECTED, PROFESSIONAL MARKETERS.
RAVING SPENT THEIR CAREERS WITH THE LEADING COMPANIES IN THE BEAUTY
INDUSTRY BEFORE STARING THEIR SUCCESSFUL CONSULTING BUSINESS IN THE
EARLY 1970s.
THEIR CONSULTING CLIENTS HAVE INCLUDED AVON, BRISTOL-MYERS, ESTEE
LANGEG, PROCTER GAMBLE, REVLON AND COVER GIRL, AMONG OTHERS. THEY RESIDE
IN SAN JUAN CAPISTRANG, CA AND MAINTAIN AN OFFICE IN NEW YORK CITY. FOR
MORE INFORMATION, THEY CAN BE REACHED AT BOB@GRAYSONASSOCIATES.COM OR
COPYRIGHT 2008 Rodman Publications,
Inc. Reproduced with permission of the copyright holder. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.
Copyright 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights
reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.
NOTE: All illustrations and photos have been removed from this article.