Social media

If customer service is the new marketing (Part One)

December 4, 2007 by Susan Getgood

(warning, long post)

If customer service is the new marketing, why do so many companies have such crappy marketing?

In recent posts, Brian Solis and Kami Huyse both argued, with slightly different but generally similar perspectives, that customer service is the new marketing. In simple terms [and without any of the great nuances they shared, so read their posts 🙂 ] what they are getting at is that the customer’s experience with the company, with the product/brand, is what forms his decision to purchase, or not. And that experience is created by much more than exposure to a few marketing campaigns or the occasional customer service call. Blogs, online forums, word of mouth are all becoming part of this experience, and companies need to understand and respond appropriately.

Companies also have to understand that now more than ever, it is ALL about the customer. No matter how great the product, how wonderful the blog, without a customer, there is no business. Everyone in the company is in customer service. This was of course true before as well, but it is so much more obvious now. Simple things like an ill-placed blog comment or "astroturfing" positive anonymous comments on posts negative about a product create far more complications for a company than a rude customer service rep could in the "old days." We’ve got the proof, you see, in the email and RSS trail.

I agree with them on pretty much all counts. I have always believed in placing the customer at the center of our marketing activity. This is not an equivalent to saying "the customer is always right." She isn’t. We aren’t. But there are positive ways of handling negative situations, whether the company’s fault or the ubiquitous "operator error." It is possible to say "no, you can’t have it for free" or "not under warranty" or whatever it may be in a way that doesn’t leave the customer feeling cheated.

Why is it then, that there seem to be so many instances of bad, awful, terrible, nasty customer service? Here are just some of the more recent stories I’ve heard or read.

Popular mom blogger Mir Kamin’s websites went down in November. Her Internet provider WiredHub was unresponsive (and that’s putting it mildly) even after multiple days of outage. Yes, you read that right: no information, no response. And when the response did come, it wasn’t terribly comforting. Read her post for the details.

On her way back from Europe, marketing blogger Mary Schmidit got tagged with an overweight baggage charge from American Airlines. Even though the bag was an acceptable weight for international travel, because she switched carriers and had to recheck her bags, the domestic carrier AA charged her the overweight tariff. She describes the tremendous sympathy of the airline employees here.

Shel Holtz learned that the motto of bank Washington Mutual didn’t extend all the way to actual practice when he tried to send money to his son, a soldier about to deploy to Iraq. The bank had closed his son’s account for being overdrawn $0.98, without any notification, and refused to reactivate it so Shel could deposit funds. He could open a new account, but that would mean a new ATM card, which would not reach his son before he left for Iraq. In other words, SOL. The good news: another financial insitution came through. [Kami Huyse also posted about this.]

Forrester analyst Jeremiah Owyang wrote about brands that didn’t respect his time. So far the only one mentioned in his post that hasn’t responded to him in some fashion is Delta Airlines. Jeneane Sessum wrote about Google inexplicably losing email messages.

These are just a few examples from the blogs I read from the month of November. Imagine what I might find if I really started to dig. No, in fact, don’t imagine that. It is too depressing.

I also had my own little customer service contre-temps in early November with a small specialty goods catalog company. I didn’t blog about it then, and am not naming the company here because it eventually was resolved satisfactorily, but it illustrates how the intermediation effect of email escalates situations.

The details: I had ordered something more than a year ago. Manufacturer delay upon delay, they could not deliver the products. They had charged my credit card upon the order (not really good policy BTW), and when the product could not be delivered, instead of refunding the money, they issued a store credit with an expiration date.

Now, as we all know, this in itself is not legal, on two counts, but they are a small company, so I was willing to let it go and use the credit. Until I placed an order on the website, and couldn’t use the credit.

So I emailed them, and learned that I had to call with my credit card number in order for the credit to be applied. They could not get the information from the web order. This seemed odd although I am certain the answer to that lies somewhere in the shopping cart they use. So I tried to call. And there was NEVER any answer.

I finally followed up with yet another email asking them to resolve the situation, and was met with amazing email hostility from one of the business owners. Rude and disrespectful doesn’t even begin to cover it. It was apparently up to me to keep calling until I could reach someone, and I could not cancel the new order either. It was sounding more and more like they just didn’t want to give the credit.[ Twitter friends may recall this because one Sunday morning, I asked for opinions on whether to blog about it. ]

In the end, I didn’t over-react, sanity prevailed, and I got the credit. And the new merchandise I had ordered. But, just think about it — the vendor felt perfectly justified being downright rude to a customer. How can that happen? Sure, it is easier to be rude in bits and bytes than face-to-face or even on the phone, and that certainly creates some of the negative customer service that happens these days. But not all. Mary Schmidt was at the airport. So was Jeremiah. Shel Holtz went to the bank.

If we can’t get this most basic thing right, how can we possibly expect to have a mutually beneficial "conversation" with our customer? Why is courtesy so uncommon in so many customer service situations?

I haven’t even touched on the issue of shoddy products. They are even more central to our experience. And just as much of a problem as poor customer service. Here’s just one example. Technology blogger TDavid has had five Xboxes in the past year. All but one returned under warranty. This can’t be helping the bottom line, yet wouldn’t we all say that a bottom line mentality is what causes the shoddy products in the first place?

Now, of course, there are exceptions. Who hasn’t heard the wonderful story of Zappos sending flowers to the woman whose mother had just died? That’s exceptional customer service. In fact it is more than that. It is exceptional humanity.

But most positive customer service stories are much more mundane. Do we call them great because our expectations are so much lower, or is it truly great? For example, on two separate occasions, I had some problems with my Blackberry. Both times, Verizon call reps did a great job solving the problem, and following up with me to make sure the problem really was resolved. Do I call it great simply because cell phone providers usually get bad marks for customer support and my previous company (rhymes with singular) did a horrible job? Or was it really great?

Part Two will try to answer some of these questions, with some input from Mir and TDavid who were kind enough to share their thoughts with me.

Tags: customer service, marketing

The Discipline of Social Media Marketing

November 19, 2007 by Susan Getgood

Over the past few weeks, a number of people have posted about where social marketing "fits" in the organizational structure of a company, what sort of outside service agency is best positioned to help companies with their social media marketing efforts and how do we define expertise in this new field. Among them, and apologies if I leave anyone off: Todd Defren, Dave Fleet, Susan Getgood (that’s me), Josh Hallet, Kami Huyse, Geoff Livingston, and Jeremy Pepper.

Is PR the rightful functional "owner" of social media? Or should it be marketing or advertising that gets the ball? Perhaps social media marketing is just a subset of word-of-mouth marketing? With everybody and his brother now hanging out their shingles as blogging experts and social media gurus, how does a company determine who has the expertise and experience to help it navigate these waters?

My opinion:

The functional lines between our marketing disciplines of PR, direct marketing and advertising are blurring. Social media marketing requires a blending of marketing and PR/communications skills. BTW, this line is blurring everywhere but it is more readily and immediately apparent in the social media world than offline. But it is offline too. Remember that online social networks are reflections of the interests and affiliations we have "in real life." Computer networks simply speed up the effect.

The other line that is blurring beyond recognition is the line between seller and buyer, journalist and audience. Now more than ever, we have multiple roles, sometimes almost simultaneously. A mommy blogger is a customer of a consumer products company, but at the same time, she might be a mompreneur with her own small or medium sized business. Journalists are bloggers; bloggers are journalists. Again, a reflection of similar real-world shifts, amplified by the Internet. We all gets lots of spam.

Whether social media marketing is a new marketing discipline, or simply a tectonic shift in Marketing with a capital M, I do not know. What I do know is that in order for it to thrive, for companies to be able to detect the real experts from the sham, for individuals to develop their skills to meet the new imperatives, we need to understand that it is a discipline. Not a project. Not an extension of PR or advertising or web marketing. Not something you can learn in a week from reading Naked Conversations and Boing-Boing.

You need a solid grounding in marketing and public relations. The social media component isn’t separable from the marketing plan. Everything still needs to track back to the plan, the objectives, the business goals. It isn’t enough to know HOW to do something. You need to know WHY. Real experience in the field helps. Extensive coursework or an undergraduate degree in psychology or sociology is very useful. Some philosophy too. A soupcon of "renaissance person" such as a second language and familiarity with great literature doesn’t hurt.

Most of all, we need credibility for this new discipline. Provided in part surely by our ongoing practice. The good examples. But that alone isn’t enough.

We need the supporting academic research. That is what gives any discipline its "legs." Without it, social media marketing is tactics. Campaigns. Maybe strategies. But not a legitimate discipline or profession in the long term.

Which is why I encourage you to support the Society for New Communications Research, and specifically the upcoming Annual Gala and Research Symposium to be held in Boston December 5th and 6th.

As practitioners, we need the information and insights from the research that will be presented at the Symposium, and that is reason enough to attend. More importantly, we need to support research organizations like SNCR because they provide part of the academic base. Can’t attend, but wish you could? Send someone in your stead — a junior colleague, a friend. No one to send? Make a supplemental donation to SNCR in support of the Symposium.

It can’t happen without you.

Tags: SNCR, Society for New Communications Research, social media marketing, marketing, PR

The week in PR: Blacklists, sex, education and breaking down walls

November 2, 2007 by Susan Getgood

Well, the week started with the shot heard round the world, 21st century style: Chris Anderson, the editor in chief of Wired, blogged more than 300 email addresses that had spammed him in one form or another — mistargeted pitches, unsolicited newsletters and so on — in the past 30 days. And this followed right on the heels of Marshall Kirkpatrick’s 5 bad pitches post the previous week.

I’m sure that a large number of the folks outed in Anderson’s email were just in the wrong place (his email box) at the wrong time (October 07). They made a mistake. Do they deserve to be raked over the coals forever? No, and they won’t be. They may never get off his list but I doubt it will ruin their reputations or their careers.

And some of them don’t have reputations to ruin. Being on the Anderson blacklist won’t affect them in the slightest because they will just get another email address and spam away. They don’t care, and they never will.

Nevertheless, much online conversation ensued. Most commenters sympatized or empathized with Anderson’s plight. Some approved of the tactic. Others understood the motivation but didn’t approve of publishing the email addresses. The rant also spawned endless analysis of the state of PR, manifestos for change and the usual apologies for the bad behavior of the profession. [Too many to count, too many to link. To read the many screeds, here’s the Google search and here is Technorati for the terms "Chris Anderson PR" ]

Some commentary was good, some less so, but, really, it all felt like more of the same to me. Public outcry over bad PR practice, much gnashing wailing and wringing, promises to do it better, to make it better, god damn it. But it doesn’t seem to get better. Not really. This blog is almost three years old, and the more things change…

The responsible practitioners of PR — the good guys — are still faced with unrealistic client expectations, a societal attitude that PR people are guilty until proven innocent and really bad PR practice from some members of the profession. Witness the truly juvenile behavior from two flacks, and I use this term deliberately, who used Anderson’s rant as an excuse to engage in some mutual, public mudslinging and attempted client poaching. Perhaps someone told them that any PR is good PR? Umm, no, and if that’s the sort of advice they give their clients…

And mixed up in the commentary was a theme started the week before by Jeremy Pepper in PR will lose Social Media to Advertising Because of Sex, a manifesto of sorts for PR to change its ways or risk losing the "fight" for social media to the dreaded Marketers.

This is a far more interesting topic. No, not because of the sex. The title of the post was just a tease. Good tactic, that. I’ll have to use it someday 🙂

In my opinion, we have to look at this conversation, this communication with our customers, with a completely different lens. Keep seeing it as a battle for supremacy, nobody wins. Not PR. Not marketing. Not the companies. And definitely not the customers.

In a post after the Anderson rant, Jeremy calls for better education, and that’s a start. But I don’t think it’s enough.

We have to break down the functional walls between PR and marketing. PR isn’t the rightful "master of social media" because of its traditional role as counselor, any more than marketing is because it has been the traditional channel to the customer. You have to be able to do both, and you have to be willing to give up some of the most deeply held, profound assumptions about the "right" way to do things in the parent disciplines.

For example, press releases. Still useful, whether new or old form, when communicating with journalists, including journalistically inclined bloggers. Usefulness to customers. Not so much. The detached, impersonal format just doesn’t tell them everything they need to know. Now, neither does a hyped up direct mail piece. Sure, direct response has its place, but it is generally to encourage action, not to share information.

I firmly believe a blogger wants a meld of both. An honest, open, relevant communication with a clear benefit statement that tells her WIIFM. What’s In It For Me. To do this, you have to know, really know, what is in it for her. [Sidebar: I expect journalists would be happy if they got this much honesty too. More on that another time.]

The best social media marketing people won’t be PR people. Or marketing people. They will have a skill set that blends both disciplines. Whether you are at an agency or in a company, start developing this — in yourself, in your teams.

Stop worrying about whether PR or marketing is going to win. The answer is neither. And both.

The only thing that’s certain? If you keep thinking of it as a fight, with a winner, you will be the loser.

That, and if you spam Chris Anderson, one strike and you’re out.

Time to start breaking down some walls.

Tags: Chris Anderson, Jeremy Pepper, PR, marketing, social media

Snacktime

October 29, 2007 by Susan Getgood

Well, I can’t sing beautifully like my good friend Kami Huyse, who tagged me in the media snackers meme started by Jeremiah Owyang. Geoff Livingston already did the pet exploitation thing so I can’t leverage my dogs and cats, even though my puppy is REALLY cute.

While I’ve been known to invoke my child on this blog occasionally, and on my photo blog Snapshot Chronicles all the time, I can’t quite figure out an angle for him here, other than that he is pretty much a media snacker in the making.

Many others playing this lovely game have already talked about Twitter and Delicious media snacks, and while they are yummy, I won’t serve them again here. One needs variety.

And that’s the first way this blog feeds the media snacker. Variety. I have a wide variety of interests, and I mention them all here. Always with a marketing and communications angle. So, one day you’ll find a post about SciFi Channel, with a heavy dose of Battlestar Galactica. And the next day, a gender rant. Followed by something completely different. Like politics and the presidential election. Stick around, you’ll find all sorts of different snacks.

I regularly do round-up posts of different, usually unrelated things that interest me, most recently a post called Thirteen to One in honor of the Red Sox win in the first World Series game. Some items are almost "mini-posts," other items just one line. Easy to scan, not hard to follow. Snack food.

Sometimes I write long. When I do, I put a long post warning at the top. If the topic greatly interests you, you’ll sit down, set for a while. If it doesn’t, you won’t get sucked in and then pissed because the post goes on and on and on and on…..

Sometimes I’m funny. They say. You be the judge. Not as funny as some of my esteemed colleagues who are about to get tagged, but hey, I still have my pride.

And finally, even though I respect the right of someone to "read and run," I do hope they stick around for a while, once in a while. Pull up a chair at the table and read some of my longer posts. Comment on them. Challenge my arguments. Nothing pleases me more than comments on this blog, and particularly those from students and young professionals who, although they may be the "snacking generation," are clearly taking the time to dig in and learn. And in the process, they become part of our education.

And that is the most delicious snack of all. We are all teachers. We are all learners. YUM!

That’s it. Don’t want you to get too full.

I’m tagging David Wescott, Scott Baradell, Robert French, Sherrilynne Starkie and Sam Whitmore.

Tags: media snack, Jeremiah Owyang, Kami Huyse