Brand Story

The New PR

I had the opportunity to speak to the local chapter of PRSA this past week about how PR is changing from working with the press, to working with customers. After thinking about it in depth for the past couple of weeks, I am more and more convinced that the customer frontier is where most PR will happen in the future. Admittedly, there are others who are way out ahead of me on this—Ben McConnell and Jackie Huba are two. Still others have called this a "360 degree approach to PR."

One thought before I go on: today we are all in the PR business. So even if your title isn't PR specialist or something like it, if you engage with the public (press, customers, vendors, employees), the new PR applies to you too.

Here's it is in a nutshell: In the salad days, a public relations specialist spent most of their time working with the press—pitching story ideas, following up on requests for information, offering quotes for articles, etc. The really good PR people developed close relationships with reporters, in a true you-scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-yours fashion. When the press did a story and needed a quote from a customer, the PR specialist vetted the best customers and forwarded their names to the reporter for an interview—knowing that they would say only positive things. The reporter also relied on the PR staff to provide information about the company, because resources for finding it on their own were limited.

Things have changed. While good PR people still pitch stories and develop good relationships with the press, they've lost the control they once had over the process. Reporters are less inclined to take what the company says at face value (you can blame Tyco, Enron, and WorldCom for that). And when they want to talk to customers, they don't ask PR for a list of people who will only say nice things about you, they hit the search engines and read what customers are saying online. Good and bad.

So PR is changing to engage customers. Today, the best PR people are getting involved in crafting the customer experience, in beta testing products, and in talking to customers so they understand what customers are thinking and saying about their company and products. They are engaging not just the happy customers, but the detractors as well. And while they may not be able to fix every problem (or make every customer completely happy), they do understand why some interactions go bad and are working to fix those processes to prevent them from ruining other customer's experiences.

Today, the press frames their questions based on what they learn about you online—so you better know what people are saying and be able to talk with the press about what you are doing to fix or improve your product. This is the new PR.

Fortunately there are a lot of resources on the subject. Ben and Jackie's book, Creating Customer Evangelists is a good start. The Ultimate Question by Fred Reicheld is also good. Neither is about PR in the traditional sense, but both are about what PR must become to be successful.

Thanks Noelle for the invitation to speak.

UPDATE: Thanks to Brian who requested I post the presentation at SlideShare. If you want to see the slides, you'll find them here: The New PR.

Other Links:

What happens when a hotel gives away a guaranteed room and treats the customer as if it's their fault? This: Yours is a Very Bad Hotel. It's been floating around the Internet for a few years, but it's worth reading. Favorite slide: the front desk employee's career path. Another classic is Vincent Ferrari's call to cancel his AOL account.
Some very sobering statistics here and here.
The Perfect Customer Experience Blog is here.
Brian Oberkirk offers some great advice for PR people interacting with new media, here.

Have other links or thoughts on this subject? Leave them in the comments.

Making Things Right = Customer Loyalty

Tom Fishburne shares an experience he recently had with an angry customer and what it took to make things right—a little human touch. He also notes a discussion he had with the head of Dyptique who said that "some of his best consumers were those who had a bad product experience, but then were overwhelmed by amazing customer service."

This is not an isolated experience. Angry customers who receive great service to fix their problem often become dedicated consumers. Why?

First, customers don't expect to companies to make things right. Billing problems, long hold times, lost information, forgotten call-backs, attention before the sale and neglect afterward. They all add up to very low expectations. Problems are seldom fixed. And when they are, it often requires so much effort on the part of the customer that the experience is still negative.

So when a company (or an attentive employee) fixes things, it is unexpected. And when the employee provides amazing service, it is so out of the ordinary that it makes a significant impact; in many cases, it makes a brand impression with lasting consequences.

Just as importantly, customers who go through these kinds of experiences now have a (brand) story to tell. (Thanks to the power of Word of Mouth, these micro stories can have a greater effect on the brand than the macro-stories companies tell in the advertising.) And if the brand is lucky, the newly happy customer will tell their story over and over. There are lots of examples of this. One of mine features RayBan sunglasses.

Risky Business and Tom Cruise made RayBan Wayfarers the "must-have" accessory back in the middle 80s. I had a pair that broke. This wasn't a case of losing a screw. I sat on them and they broke—in half—at the nose. The Sunglass Hut wouldn't take them back, so I sent them directly to RayBan with a note that simply said: "These broke. Please fix." I had no expectations of ever hearing from the company and started looking for some new glasses. Two weeks later I received a new pair of RayBans in the mail. I was thrilled. And 22 years later I'm a huge fan of RayBan and still telling the story.

Guess which brand of sunglasses I look for first when a need a new pair?

Have you had a great customer experience that you share over and over? Leave it in the comments.

Sharing A Brand Story—How Stacy's Pita Chips Did It

Over the past few years, Word of Mouth or buzz marketing has had it's share of promoters and detractors. The rise of WOM marketing has prompted the creation of buzz agencies, a professional trade organization, conferences, books (here, here, and here too), and much more.

So if you're looking for advice on how to get people talking about your brand story, there are plenty of resources.

Or you can do what Stacy's Pita Chips (part of Frito Lay) did, and just send a product sample to everyone in the United States. At least, that's what they wanted to do. But mailing chips to nearly 300 million people, well that's a little much for even this spunky little division of the snack company to bite off.

So instead, they mailed a sample pack to everyone in the country named Stacy. 133,000 people, most of whom hadn't heard of the product before. The package included the Stacy brand story and on the back of the enclosed card, said:

"We hope you enjoyed getting your free box of Stacy's Pita Chips as much as we enjoyed sending them to you. If you did, why not share the joy by sending a FREE gift box to a friend? Since we've already sent them to every Stacy, you're free to send them to Bill or Mary or Cheryl or John—or whoever you think would enjoy Stacy's chips the most."

So has it worked? It looks like it. Here are a few Stacys who are now spreading the word: here, here, here, here, and here. Think how many people have mentioned this to friends and coworkers. And how many Stacys have tried, liked, and now regularly buy Stacy's chips.

That's not all that Stacy's does to promote great customer experiences/brand stories that are easy for customers to share with others. Check out what Art Steiber at The Diff has to say about Stacy's when he wrote to complain about a half-empty bag of chips. Not content to leave him with a negative impression, they went well beyond and sent him a case of pita chips.

This is a brand I like, and I've yet to taste the chips.
 

Brands that Leave A Bad Taste in Your Mouth

I've written about Buckley's Cough Syrup before. For the past 15 years, it's a brand that has built itself on its horrible taste. The idea is, if it tastes this bad, it has to work. And it's a great story.

BrandChannel just published an article about Buckley's (and Listerine mouthwash) that is worth passing on. Check it out here.

The strategy is dead on. Not only does it take a negative product trait and give it a positive spin, but it targets a specific audience: people who want to get better at any cost. You either love Buckley's or you hate it. There's not a lot of middle ground. And that's a good place for a brand to live.

From the article: "It's a medical product, and medicine isn't supposed to taste like an orange drink. It's supposed to taste bad to kill the nasty virus in the back of your throat."

Read the whole thing.

Making Promises. Meeting Expectations.

Several weeks ago (May 22, to be exact), BrandWeek published a very interesting article called Broken Promises that discussed the gulf between what customers want and what companies deliver. I thought a few excerpt were worth reprinting here:

"The average level of consumer expectation across 35 major brand categories rose by 4.5% from last year. Over the same period, the survey shows, the average ability of brands to keep up with those hopes decreased 9.2%. Put another way, while brands certainly try to meet the expectations of their loyal customers, those expectations are nonetheless growing two times faster that the brands' ability to keep up with them."

The article goes on to say that part of the problem is caused by brand stewards who have promised to "delight" their customers continually. Well, it worked. Customers now expect to be wowed at every turn. The problem is, most brands aren't up to the task. Also from the article:

"Another dynamic is that consumers themselves are more demanding, perhaps unrealistically. Take the bottled water category, one of the most commodified and yet also one of the fiercest fought. The brands have different names and different bottles, but the product is largely indistinguishable. Most customers would likely agree with this logic were it put to them directly. Yet, their expectations for bottled water rose 8% in 2006, mainly because they felt the brands ought to be increasingly 'refreshing'."

Imagine the Dasani or Aquafina brand steward responsible for meeting these expectations. What do you do? Triple filter? Reverse osmosis? Vitamins? Flavors? It's all been done. Now what? How do you make water 8% more refreshing this year. Then do it again next year. And the year after that. At some point, water will be 100% refreshing (if it isn't already) and then what?

Setting expectations is a critical part of your brand story. It's easy to make promises (100% money back guarantee, 99.9% uptime, deep cleans in cold water, etc.). It's harder to accurately set expectations. Again, from the article:

"If there is one take away from the survey, it's this: expectations need to be as carefully controlled as the promises. It's all very well to assure your consumers they'll feel sexy, cool and rich if they use your brand. But delivering on those feelings might mean toning down the guarantees."

So what happens when your brand story doesn't match expectations? When the genius at the Apple genius bar isn't, what happens to Apple's brand story? When the service at Nordstrom isn't over-the-top, what happens to Nordstrom's brand story? When NetFlix slows down deliver to its heavy users, what happens to their brand story?

The short answer: when the experience doesn't match the story, the experience becomes the story. And the brand story you spent so much time and effort to create? Well, that just goes away.

Destination "Brands". Again.

More news on the destination slogan front.

Last week Utah announced it's new slogan for use in tourism advertising is "Life Elevated." As others have noted, the slogan is not without its critics. Personally, I don't think it's all that bad (we've had worse, like "Utah, Where Ideas Converge"). But I also don't think it will make a bit of difference in attracting new tourists to Utah. Hopefully the media plan will include a few surprises that might engage potential travelers, but none of that is sexy enough to make the news.

Utah's slogan may not be all that great, but it sure beats Washington's new slogan: "SayWA." What does that mean? In fact, how is it pronounced? Is it Say Wah, or Say Double You Ay? Why would anyone choose to visit the state because they hear this phrase? Where's the story?

And what of Palm Spring's new slogan: Give in to the desert, you're surrounded? Will that make you feel welcome or will you walk out with your hands in the air?

I could go on about the pointlessness of every place trying to brand itself in order to compete with every other place. If everywhere has a catchy slogan and a few beauty shots in their ads, how do you stand out? You don't. Chances are travelers will make their next vacation plans based on a recommendation from a friend or travel agent, rather than an ad with a slogan. Maybe some of the money spent on slogan development and advertising would be better spent improving the tourism experience while a visitor is in your place. Give them a story to tell. Just a thought...

Thanks to AdFreak for the links.

Committed to Customers? Not Really.

How committed are senior executives (and the businesses they run) to the customers they say they "serve"? Not very, if these statistics can be believed:

Percentage of senior executives worldwide who say their company does not deserve their customer's loyalty: 54.

Percentage who say their companies are not truly committed to customers but rather treat customers as a means to a goal: 55.

Percent who say they do not know their average customer value: 87. Percent who do not know the cost of a new customer: 90+.

Percent who say they do not meet regularly with their customers: 67. Percent who say their compensation plan emphasizes quality of service, not just productivity: 22.

Percentage who say they have the tools and authority to serve their customers: 33.

Percentage who say their relationship with the customer is not well-defined: 59.2.

Ouch. From the summary: "I find it odd that companies which manage their operation using scientific measurements methods fail to measure and operate by the economics of their customer relationship." said Lior Arussy, author of Passionate and Profitable.  "It is this ignorance of the potential financial impact that leads executives to under invest in customer strategies."

Source: The Global Customer Experience Management 2005 Study released by Strativity Group. Statistics printed recently in the Deseret Morning News.

WOM and Brand Stories

John Moore over at Brand Autopsy has joined an interesting conversation about Jack Trout's recent article in Forbes which discusses the value of Word of Mouth as a marketing tool. Jack takes a decidedly old-school approach and gets taken to task for it by John, George Silverman, Olivier Blanchard, and others. I won't deconstruct the article, others have done that already. But I do think that Jack's column represents a fundamental misunderstanding about the way brand stories are created and shared.

Jack is a big believer in Macro-stories. These are the stories brand managers tell about their brands. They use company controlled marketing tactics like advertising, corporate websites, catalogs, direct mail, and so on to tell the story. Macro-stories are vital to communicating brand positioning and brand values to a huge number of potential and current customers. These are the stories a company can (to some extent) control. They are generally expensive to produce and distribute. And they are often ignored or distrusted by jaded consumers.

Where Jack misses the boat is Micro-stories. These are the stories consumers tell about the brands they love and hate. These are stories that are influenced by Macro-stories, but also include other elements like experience and satisfaction. They are created on an individual basis, one by one. These are stories that companies can only influence, not control.

Take the restaurant chain, Olive Garden, for example. Their brand story (reflected in their television advertising) is one about (large, loving) families gathering for great food, great conversation, and the kind of hospitality you would have received from your Italian grandmother. The company controls the advertising, from where it is placed, to how it is filmed, from the food that is shared, to the attractive people shown eating it. This is the Macro-story.

The Micro-story may or may not reflect this experience played out on TV. If a customer has to wait to be seated, is served cold food, receives poor service, or has mistakes made on his bill, her Micro-story isn't likely to share many characteristics of the Macro-story. On the other hand, if this customer's experience is similar (within reason) to the brand story told on the advertisements, her Micro-story will reflect the brand values the company wants to communicate. When she shares her experience, she won't be talking about the handsome Italian family from the television ads, she'll talk about her experience at the restaurant.

In other words, once a brand is experienced, the experience, not the advertising or positioning, is the biggest part of the brand story for that consumer. If the experience is compelling, she will share her Micro-story with others at work, at church, at the club, on her blog, and so on. It used to be enough to share the Macro-story and hope for the best, but times have changed.

The biggest difference, of course, is that consumers have so many more ways to share their Micro-stories now that they did just a few years ago. And, thanks to brand experiences disconnected from Macro-stories, more and more consumers no longer believe the brand stories companies "sell" them with traditional advertising. Jack (and hundreds others like him) may always favor the tactics they can control. But their clients will suffer as the power of Micro-stories grows.

That's why word of mouth matters.

More On Sprint (or Why I'm a Verizon Customer in the Making)

Yesterday I wrote about my recent experience with Sprint. You can read it here. After reading John's comment on that post, I had a few additional thoughts:

Today Sprint announced its quarterly profits, $195 million. That makes the roughly $30,000 they will not get from me over the next 40+ years seem small in comparison. In reality it's not. If just 6,500 customers switch from Sprint to a competitor, Sprint loses $195 million in potential revenue over the next 40 years. I'll bet my lunch Sprint loses that many customers a week.

So what could Sprint do to keep its customers? Consider the whole cell phone experience. It's lousy. Rather than spending millions on acquisitions, they could spend a bit of the marketing budget in ways that reinforce a customer's decision to use Sprint. Here are a few ideas (Sprint, are you listening?):

Sprint gives a free or significantly discounted phone to every new customer. But their existing (and best) customers get nothing. Why not offer customers in good standing the opportunity to upgrade their phones free every year (without extending a service agreement)? How about free ring-tones, wall paper, or accessories on a customer's birthday? How about a free month of service for every year as a customer? What if they refunded a portion of the monthly bill to customers who habitually use fewer minutes than they pay for? This would tell me they are looking out for my best interests, not theirs. Or what if they provided free sports scores, stock info, or new briefs to customers who continue to use Sprint even after their contracts expire?

I don't know much about Sprint's acquisition costs, but the costs of any of these perks would pale in comparison. And if they added even a few months of service to existing users, wouldn't they be worth it?

Sprint's customer base is like a leaky bucket. In any given month, thousands of old customers leak out and thousands of new customers are poured in. There are two ways to keep the bucket full. You can add more and more customers. Or you can plug the leaks and keep the customers you already have.  Most marketing programs (and virtually all advertising programs) are designed to pour customers in. Which is too bad because you gain more by plugging the leaks and thrilling your customers.

Thanks John for your comment. I'll look forward to hearing about your experience.

"Branding" and Brand Loyalty

Every once in a while I hear criticism of "branding" like this from Bob Bly, suggesting that it doesn't create loyalty. By branding, I believe Bob is mostly referring to "image" advertising.

He's right. Image ads don't make customers loyal. But done properly, they can create desire and establish reasons to buy. This ad by DDBLondon for VolksWagon comes close. Notice the product focus.

Much of the image advertising from Madison Avenue deserves criticism and closer scrutiny. But Bob's anecdote doesn't prove his point. Bob's friend Richard was loyal to a particular shoe (we're not told why, but are led to assume it was because of "branding"). Another friend recommended a new brand. After trying the new shoes, Richard switched brands. Is this a failure of "branding"? No. It's a success for word-of-mouth and a compelling brand experience (both vital components of brand building).

Richard says, "I have brands that I prefer among just about everything I buy… but virtually every single one of them is negotiable. Show me that your product is cheaper and/or better than my current brand, and I’ll switch in a heartbeat." The fact that Richard has brand preferences in the first place shows that branding does indeed work. He believes his brands are better than others and he's loyal to them until he has a reason to switch.

The problem is most advertising doesn't communicate a good reason to switch or demonstrate a compelling reason not to switch when a competitor comes along. But don't blame "branding", blame the marketers and creatives who don't understand how to sell products effectively.

In a previous, related post, Bob Bly wrote: "As a copywriter, I don’t get paid to 'build great brands.' I get paid to generate greater ROI from my clients' marketing. In other words, to make the cash register ring."

Frankly, I don't see the difference.