Stellar Customer Service Is Possible

I often use this blog to highlight companies that just don't get it when it comes to customer service.  Every once in a while, though, I find a company that, in fact, really does get it - and can be an example for poor mortals. 

Amazon recently provided such an example and the experience was so stunning that I've already told people about it.  It certainly merits some space on this blog. 

Here's what happened.  I ordered a gift from Amazon.com for my daughter early in the season and since were going to be visiting her for the holidays, I had it shipped to her address so I wouldn't have to carry it in my luggage when traveling. 

In the afternoon of December 21, I asked my daughter for the package so that I could wrap it.  The horrifying answer:  What package?  The package hadn't arrived!  Uh oh.  I would have to make the dreaded call to customer service.  What were the odds that we would get this resolved before Christmas?  My guess:  nil.

I went to the Amazon website and found the number for customer service.  I called the number with great trepidation.  As expected, I got a recording.  The recording said: please leave your telephone number and a representative would call back.  "What were the odds of that?" I thought.  After I hung up the phone, it rang again about a minute later ... and a real person from Amazon was on the line.

She listened to my story attentively ... and APOLOGIZED.  She retrieved the record of the purchase WITHOUT NEEDING A TRACKING NUMBER.  She apologized again and said that she would have the gift delivered by Christmas.  What were the odds of that?  Well, Amazon beat the odds.  A FEDEX truck arrived at the door on December 23.  Problem solved.  Amazon proved that companies can be civil and deliver stellar customer service in an age of automated calls and bureaucratic rules.    

When Cause Related Marketing Goes Political ...

I'm a big fan of cause related marketing.  The first example I encountered was a campaign launched by American Express themed "Charge Against Hunger."  The idea was simple.  It begins with the premise that most people have multiple cards in their wallet and can usually make a choice about what card to use when dining out.  The program was also timed to run around the Christmas holidays when people are generally in a charitable mood.  The promotion suggested that consumers use their American Express Card when dining out around the holidays ... and a portion of the charge would go to programs that fight hunger.  Brilliant.  It made the consumer feel good.  It prompted the consumer to use the American Express card instead of Visa, MasterCard or Diners.  And hunger related charities benefited from donations that the American Express consumer funded.  AMEX got some great publicity as well as a bump in card use.

Using AMEX as an example, Hawaii Pizza Hut developed a cause related marketing program called "Carryout for Literacy."  When Little Caesars entered the Hawaii market with cheap (two-for-one) carryout pizza, Pizza Hut's carryout business took a big hit.  The strategic question was ... how to offer a deal on carryout pizza without lowering the price on their dine in and carryout business.  The solution was to require the consumer to qualify for a lower (buy-one-get-one-free) carryout offer by purchasing a $10 card.  The promotion morphed into a cause related marketing program when Hawaii Pizza Hut designated literacy programs as the recipients of the revenues from the card purchase.  The outcome was a competitive price for Pizza Hut's carryout pizza ... a wealth of positive publicity for the company ... and literacy programs which were the beneficiaries of about $300,000 in charitable gifts per year generated by the program.

Both of these promotions were models of the cause related marketing concept.  And both of them based their corporate philanthropy on non-controversial, "motherhood" causes:  hunger and literacy.

Recently, some cause related marketing programs have sprung up which are based on more controversial topics.  Chick Fil A, reported to be the tenth largest fast food operator in the US, made headlines when it was publicized that it provided substantial financial support to organizations opposed to gay marriage.  The company has long been known as an institution that operates in part on religious principles (its stores are closed on Sunday, for example ... and the annual Chick Fil A bowl game begins with an invocation because of a stipulation by the sponsor).  The publicity around the gay marriage issue touched a nerve, however, with results the reflect the polarity of the gay marriage debate.  Supporters of Chick Fil A's anti-gay-marriage stance formed long lines at the restaurant to show their support for the company and its stance.  At the same time, protesters appeared at company stores with protest signs.  Caught in the middle were Chick Fil A franchisees who didn't necessarily embrace the company's views on the subject.

More recently, the CEO of Starbucks entered into the political fray over the impending "fiscal cliff."  He encouraged Starbucks employees in the Washington DC area to write "Come Together" on customers' cups to prompt lawmakers to find a compromise on the Federal budget and taxation issue.  While this is not as controversial as the Chick Fil A stance on gay marriage, it does represent a change in which corporations are taking a public stance on a political issue. 

The first amendment guarantees the right of free speech - even to corporations.  This right was reinforced by the recent "Citizens United" case.

But apart from the issue of free speech and corporate rights, I have to wonder whether this trend is good marketing.

I'm a fan of cause related marketing, but I think it makes marketing sense to keep the causes broad-based and non-controversial to ensure maximum consumer buy-in.  It seems to me that motherhood makes good strategy.   

Responding to Current Events ...

When companies face rapidly changing conditions, it takes a great deal of skill to stay on the right side of public opinion. 

Online Ad for Walmart featuring an "enhanced" rifle which ran on "Black Friday"

Walmart is one of the leading retailers of firearms.  How should they handle their reputation - and their bottom line - in the wake of the Sandy Hook shootings?  Up until now, the company had no qualms about selling the "Bushmaster" ... the gun model that was involved in those horrific shootings. 

As recently as Black Friday (the big shopping day following Thanksgiving) Walmart featured the SIG M400 "enhanced carbine rifle" on its ecommerce site with a featured price of $867.  And what's wrong with that?  The product is perfectly legal.  And profitable.  So, why not? 

Following the Sandy Hook shootings, Walmart pulled the Bushmaster - the gun model that was used in the shootings - from its shelves.  But what about the other guns?  How should it handle its role as a leading gun retailer when public opinion was shifting rapidly about gun sales.  Part of the problem is that public opinion is not universal.  In fact, those who favor permissive gun laws were buying up guns at a rapid pace because they were concerned about possible new rules.  Here's an excerpt from a Huffington Post story from December 19:

Walmart has reportedly sold out of semi-automatic rifles in five states, including Pennsylvania, Kansas and Alabama, according to a Wednesday report from Bloomberg. The nation's largest retailer reintroduced guns to many of its stores in 2011, after a five-year period of limited availability. The company did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Bloomberg, and it said it was not willing to provide comment to HuffPost.

Note a couple of points that illustrate the challenge that faces Walmart.  1) It pulled back from gun sales for five years, but re-introduced them in 2011.  2) It pulled the Bushmaster, but not other guns, from its shelves following Sandy Hook.  3) It didn't respond to a request for comment from the media. 

Walmart is in a tough spot, but it needs to come to a logical point of view ... communicate it ... and be prepared for the fallout.  Waffling is not a good strategy when emotions run high.

Eternal Vigilence is the Price of Customer Service

I visited a Stew Leonard's store today ... with much anticipation.  Stew Leonard's has been consistently cited as a retailer with nearly perfect customer service.

Unfortunately, the reality wasn't quite the customer service heaven I was anticipating.  The store itself wasn't set up for customer service.  There was no customer service counter.  The clerks were busy stocking shelves (during prime shopping time) and couldn't seem to be bothered to look around to see what the customers might need. 

The check out experience wasn't any better.  The clerk was engaged in a conversation with a fellow worker about who was responsible for making coffee in the employee lounge.  So I wasn't greeted or acknowledged.  In fact, he never even looked at me. 

I guess it goes to show that, once on top, companies can't rest when it comes to customer service.  Today's laurels are tomorrow's compost.

Reposting: Why Don't Bad Ideas Ever Die?

I don't usually re-post ... but this is a terrific synopsis of the march of folly when it comes to economics.  Click here.

If Holidays Didn't Exist ... Retailers Would Invent Them

Holidays are wonderful retail opportunities.  Would you ever really think to get Aunt Matilda a gift if there wasn't an occasion that prompted your action?  Would you think to take your assistant out to lunch if there wasn't an "Administrative Assistants Day"?  Marketers have long understood the law of physics that says "a body at rest tends to stay at rest."  The same is true for good intentions.  Good intentions need a stimulus for action ... and that's where holidays often come in.

And that's why retailers have taken over holidays like Christmas and Valentines Day, which have their origins in religion or popular culture, but have become major retail events.  That's also why retailers have invented holidays like Administrative Assistant Day and Bosses Day. 

Of course, some retail events are more plausible than others.  Santa Claus has been associated with gifts for decades if not centuries.  And Valentine's Day is all about romance (and demonstrating romantic love has long been associated with gifts). 

The new genre of holidays and events actually have a proper name:  pseudo-events.  These are events that have been created and, incidentally, have become major retail occasions. 

I'm old enough to remember Super Bowl I.  It was an exciting event, but nothing like the Super Bowl is today.  Imagine what the Frito-Lay or Budweiser bottom line would look like without Super Bowl.  Those Super Bowl sales are really incremental ... and they are directly attributable to an event that has been created by the entertainment and advertising industries. 

So if you're looking to build sales, consider finding the trigger that will tip consumer dormancy into action.  It's best to build on a plausible platform (like Christmas or Valentines Day).  But you can create your own pseudo events as well.  In destination marketing, Festivals serve that purpose.  Aloha Week in Hawaii isn't something that Hawaiian natives developed - it was clearly created as a pseudo event.  However, it builds on an existing idea and makes an event out of it ... which, the destination hopes, will prompt people to travel and spend money.

The Changing Nature of Holidays

I haven't been posting lately because I've been so busy preparing for the holidays.  The college where I work essentially shuts down for the last two weeks of the year, which means all of the year end reports end up getting crammed into early December.  It seems that more and more businesses are closing for extended periods of time around the year end holidays.  And the holiday music is in the elevators earlier and earlier.  And retailers are becoming more and more dependent on holiday sales.  Which brings up an interesting question. 

When did "black Friday" sneak into consumer language?  Retailers have long referred to the day after Thanksgiving as "black Friday" among themselves because it is the day when the ink can turn from red to black.  But lately - in the last few years - "black Friday" has become part of the popular lexicon.  I checked newspaper and television ads around the end of November and many if not most of the ads used the term in communications aimed directly at consumers.  So, it seems the holidays have really turned the corner ... from a religious and family celebration to a massively retail event. 

I also remember in my early advertising career that it was an unspoken rule that Santa Claus was not a pitchman.  He could be seen enjoying a Coke.  Or he could be seen flying off in his sleigh.  But, overt selling was not something Santa did.  Those days are gone.  Santa is a shill and that's a shame.  I don't mind the retail aspects of the holidays at all, but retail shouldn't be the entire message.  There's something to be said for leaving at least a little of the magic in the holidays.