I have reached a point where I am (gasp!) considering making the Montreal Canadians, and not the Leafs, my favourite hockey team. I was born and raised a Leafs fan….so this move is serious business for me, and comes after prolonged deliberation. It is not just the performance of the Leafs– any team can have a bad season or two (and somebody has to be at the bottom of the league), but rather, it is my perception of value associated with the team, which is driving me away. I should also say that I am a ‘casual’ fan, so I welcome any errors in my logic below from those more knowledgeable than I.

In the economics of sport, it is generally in the best interest for any league to have a ‘balanced’ level of competition; that is, the outcome of any game is in question, and any team can be considered a contender for the ultimate goal of championship. This allows each team to promote itself as providing a high level of quality of play, and therefore, a high level of entertainment for consumers. In the case of the Leafs, they have not won the Stanley Cup in my lifetime (not since 1967!) and generally fail to come close. This essentially means that critical elements of the brand promise are simply not being met, nor have been met for a long time. We fans would like to think that our team is a contender- that our community of fans may have the opportunity to watch our team in the playoffs (or, even better, participate in a great street party once the championship has been won!). Sadly, it is been a long time since ‘consumers’ of the Leafs have been able to enjoy this pleasant daydream.

This performance is strangely coupled with a serious imbalance of supply and demand (the Leafs sell out every game), means that it is very difficult for non-seasons ticket holders to get seats. Certainly, one can engage in the ‘valuable’ services of a scalper, but this means taking a family of four to a game should run somewhere in the $500 range for rather poor seats…..and as such, the value of the experience is very much in question. When I think about the vast array of entertainment choices for a night out and the value associated for each, the Leafs are no longer an attractive option, especially if you are part of a large family.

Thinking about all of the factors in my relationship with the Leafs, and the performance of the team in the league, this has an impact on the satisfaction I have with the team in general. For most businesses, we would expect that solid product or service performance leads to satisfaction, and highly satisfied customers tend to be more loyal. Over time, this loyalty translates to more money spent on the organization as customers return for more of the same product or service again and again over a length of time, meaning that an investment in improving the customer experience can ultimately be very profitable. Therefore, it is very much within the interests of the Leafs to perform well, and keep me a happy purchaser of tickets and merchandise.

However, it is a question of both customer satisfaction, and more importantly, loyalty, which forces me to reassess my relationship with my favourite hockey brand. Normally, we would use a number of measures in our research to understand how a customer feels about a product or service experience; overall, I would consider my ‘satisfaction’ with the team is fairly high: I have a lot of history with the organization, and from what I can tell as a casual fan, it looks like the right kind of effort is being made by the individual players. However, the perception of value is quite low….as is my ‘likelihood to continue use’ (the idea of loyalty is very complex, and cannot be captured with just one measure).

To further complicate the matter, multiple studies in a number of industries have shown that customers in the middle range of satisfaction are just as likely to defect as those at the ‘highly dissatisfied’ extreme of the scale. This essentially means that the Leafs (and other service organizations) cannot rely on customers who are merely ‘satisfied’, but rather, needs to push consumers into the realm of ‘delight’ in order to shut the back door of defection. In the case of my relationship with the Leafs, I am pretty far from delighted.

Not sure if you heard, but there was a recent move by RIM (blackberry) founder Jim Balsillie to buy the Phoenix Coyotes and move them to Ontario- possibly Hamilton.  Ultimately, this move was stopped by the NHL, with the league taking the position that ‘the right channels were not followed’.

The issue which was not talked about is that the Leafs are the proverbial golden goose for the NHL – the most valuable team in the entire league. Team value, revenue, operating revenue are all significantly higher than a decade ago…while player costs remain flat. Plus, an average (pre-scalper) ticket price of $97 dollars in Toronto…..versus $55 and $67 for the second and third most valuable teams (New York Rangers and the Montreal Canadians respectively). The Leafs have raised ticket prices by 3.5% this year, and have the highest ticket price in the entire league. To me, this is the equivalent of a Honda Civic having the same price a Rolls Royce.

Hence, I wonder if the move of the Coyotes was really stopped to prevent the legions of dissatisfied/merely satisfied consumers in the GTA a choice of where to spend their hockey dollars, and preserve the artificially high revenue for this team, (revenue that appears to have no relationship with the actual performance of the organization). There are reasons why the league would do this; certainly to appease the voice of such a powerful stakeholder as the owners of the Leafs (primarily the Ontario Teacher’s Pension), but also, the league revenue-sharing program in place means that some of the substantial revenue of the Leafs is shared with teams that are operating in the red. I however, feel that the pain caused by the organization is now greater than the barriers to defection…..so away I go. Vive les Habitants!

We have seen social media take a new and increasing role in the word-of-mouth (WOM) consumer influence paradigm; word of mouth traditionally meant consumers speaking directly to one another and sharing experiences with products or services which have had an impact on their lives (good or bad).  Of course, communication between people (most of which may be potential consumers) is what social media is all about. This is one of the reasons why social media is so interesting for marketers; a consumer hearing a recommendation (or negative comment) from a friend or acquaintance can be so much more powerful and authentic than a company communication.

Not only does social media offer a medium where consumers can share potent product and service experiences, but the range is impressive as well….the definition of ‘friend’ or ‘acquaintance’ has perhaps shifted from years past, meaning we may now be open to receiving advice from a wider range of people.

The challenge is that market research, as an industry, seems to be struggling to keep up with the measurement of the new WOM paradigm. While usage and attitude toward social media can be tracked (such as hours per day, channels used, etc) can be tracked, specific interactions are less easily measured. It can be very difficult for respondents to recall on a survey instrument, when and where they have noticed brand mentions and/or brand communications online, even though these touchpoints may have had an impact on perceptions of the brand.

This means that currently, measurement of the online and social media WOM impact is often left to web analytic firms. It must be said that the approach may also be flawed, in that measurement of web ‘page views’ and social media ‘product mentions’ a) do not take into account touchpoints that are unseen and unsold (such as a poorly placed web ad that is simply not seen), and b) must guess as to what these metrics mean for the brand.

We at Idea Couture have a few ideas as to how to tackle these issues, but feel it would be interesting to hear ideas from the community on how this can be handled.    If there are creative ways to both a) track consumer interaction on social media, and b) measure the impact of this on perceptions of the brand (or, perhaps more importantly, sales of same!),  please let us know your thoughts!

I find myself noticing what seems to be an increase in the amount of successful attack advertising in the past few years – where one firm or another in a highly competitive market calls out a rival directly. It’s a risky move – the idea is to polarize middle-of-the-fence consumers to your side, but can damage your brand if not done well.  I have included my three favourites for your consideration below:

1. Mac vs. PC

No-one, and I mean no-one, has taken the p*** with a competitor as much as the iconic PC vs. Mac ads, first aired in 2006, with a succession of follow-up spots. Can you remember such a devastating competitive attack- either before after this campaign?

Going much deeper than a technical comparison of products, Apple attacked the very brand identity of its rival – and managed to imply that any user of a PC was frumpy and out-of-touch. Windows , representing the PC market, has struck back with multiple efforts trying to shift this image, but has met with varying success. The strength of the initial attack was so strong that it will take both time and investment to overcome.

2. Audi vs. BMW

Audi: “Your move, BMW”
BMW: “Checkmate”
Pretty much anyone who saw these signs: “Oh, Snap!”

These duelling billboards appeared in Southern California- with the BMW ad appearing not long after the AUDI version went up. Note that the BMW response is that of a local dealership toward the national Audi Campaign. The social media space  is where the damage was being done, so that was the arena where Audi planned a comeback, where they recruited participants to the AUDI facebook site- and asked them to photoshop an appropriate response.

The success of this comeback campaign was not clear…..while the internet certainly picked up on the BMW Checkmate damage that was done to the AUDI brand, it was an interesting way for AUDI to use social media in an interesting way to try and  mitigate the impact of the negative word of mouth.

In terms of the consumer decision making process for automobiles, automobiles have both an important technical element, as well as a strong brand identity element, which means comparative/attack ads aimed at these components are fairly commonplace.

3. Rogers vs. Bell:

In some cases, the attacker actually subverts the advertising images and messages of a rival – as recently seen in the recent Rogers (top image), and Bell (bottom image) tv and print ads:

In this case, both have launched integrated marketing campaigns battling for share of the ‘couch’. Part of this bitter rivalry is founded in the nature of the two businesses…..Rogers started as a cable company, and moved into mobile/home phone. Bell started as a home phone company – and moved into cable. As such, both have expanded into each other’s home territory….meaning that hostilities are high.

Sadly reader, I think most of my posts will involve Japan in some way (reflective of the substantial percentage of my life that was spent there). I can say that this kind of comparative advertising in Japan is VERY rare….extolling the virtues of your own product is one thing, but directly bashing your competitors is another story. Trying to promote shame and embarrassment in others is a social taboo.

Also, speaking as a guy who has some experience in personally selling both products and services, I can say that this full-contact approach can be risky- and seems to work best only when there are very cut-and-dried technical or price-point differences which are directly related to the customer’s purchase decision criteria. Saying “Ours is better/best” seems to be ok, but “Company B has terrible XXXXXX” can backfire – it implies that you recognize them as a real threat that needs addressing. .

In terms of an integrated marketing campaign, the comparative approach provides free advertising to your rival, as you are essentially paying to increase the brand awareness and recall of every brand you mention.

Having said all of that that, it is difficult to argue with the relative success of the campaigns outlined above, as all have been at least mildly successful in our North American markets (at very least, it has prompted plenty of people to blog about it). So, I would ask the reader:

• What are the risks of taking this approach?
• Why are they successful/Why do they fail?
• Can you find any examples where this approach did not work?

As an “ex-expat” who has recently returned to Canada from Japan, I find myself suffering from the occasional bout of reverse-culture shock.

From Wikipedia: Reverse Culture Shock (a.k.a. Re-entry Shock) – “Returning to one’s home culture after growing accustomed to a new one can produce (feelings of anxiety, surprise, confusion, etc) . The affected person often finds this more surprising and difficult to deal with than the original culture shock”.

I find this “shock” seems to manifest itself in a rather heightened sensitivity to the customer service experience – including any interaction at the retail level, with call-centre staff, and everything in between. The customer is revered in Japan, and the service provider/customer relationship is one of deep respect, attentiveness, and efficiency. If you think about it, this kind of attitude makes good sense….the customer is the one paying the bills, and therefore, should be receiving a certain amount of deference from the service provider, similar to that which would be given to your boss (who similarly, is the provider and means of your livelihood). To be clear, however, a service interaction is not an invitation for the customer to be rude to the staff – certainly respect needs to run both ways.

This kind of attitude manifested itself in every service interaction I can remember in Japan…upon my walking into any given convenience store, store staff would pop up behind counters, aisles, wherever, and yell “Welcome!”. I could then proceed to stand and read a magazine off the rack for an hour, and head to the door with or without having bought anything….at which point the staff pop out again and yell “Thanks very much for coming”!!!. This level of service contrasts sharply with the hand-written sign that I can see in my local 7-11 in Toronto: “This is NOT a LIBRARY!!! Buy or get out!!!”

Many organizations here in North America claim to provide a superior level of customer service:

“Walmart is committed to giving Canadians the best shopping experience in the marketplace by delivering everyday low prices, exceptional customer service, top-quality merchandise, and extensive community involvement, philanthropy and corporate social responsibility”.
“(Rogers) will:

• Deliver world class customer service to our existing clients and new subscribers by listening, understanding and responding to their inquiries in a positive manner regarding their accounts, services, options and promotions

• Offer solutions that are adapted to the customer’s needs”

Other firms, such as Ramada Hotels, steer clear of making ANY kind of customer service promise on its website (at least, none that I could find). This is perhaps consistent with Ramada’s positioning as a low-cost, value provider, and it is clear that they would like to avoid making any promises that the actual experience cannot match.

I would ask the reader: have you had any recent service experiences with the firms above (Wal-mart, Rogers, Ramada)? Would you describe the experience as “exceptional”, or “world class”, or would you have a different choice of words? What impact did these experience have on your desire to go back?

I know I am not the only one picking up on this….my opinion on service standards here in North America is that a positive experience is either not delivered at all (ie, a company has no clear expectatoins for staff as to the interaction with customers), or service is delivered half-heartedly. In this case, the employee has a clear idea of what needs to be done, but fatiuge or a lack of motivation prevents the experience from being delivered well. Mike Judge’s Idiocracy, (a stellar movie about an average man stuck in a hyper-branded future populated by morons) lampoons this well:

My feeling is that we in North America put up with this kind of experience because we generally have low expectations as to what should happen between a customer and the service staff…we don’t know how good it can be. While an improvement in service design needs to be tailored to the specific industry/interaction, I would further argue that most service interactions should be initiated by a prompt and earnest greeting by the staff, and an inquiry on how to be of service…not the sullen “you-are-disturbing-me” or “I am going through the motions but would rather be somewhere else” attitudes that seems to be prevalent across multiple industries. My evidence of this kind of experience is anecdotal, but I would wager that the reader has had such an experience and knows exactly what I am talking about?

The defence left to the customer is a powerful one: choice. The next time you are experiencing a service interaction where you are not treated both as a person and a valued source of income; consider taking your business elsewhere. I would imagine that you can remember some rather exceptional customer experiences that you have encountered in the past few months. Thinking about that experience, what impact does it have on your perception of the service provider? I recall an exceptional experience at an IHOP of all places, which has made my wife and I plan to visit the chain on every future trip to the ‘States. Perhaps this illustrates the power that great customer service can have on loyalty; there is a lot of empirical customer research that shows that customers who defect often have rated their experience with the company as ‘satisfactory’ – and almost as likely to leave as those who rate the experience as ‘poor’. It is only a truly exceptional experience that can drive the customer into the realm of delight – and thus to loyalty to a brand, product, or service.

The challenge is upon the service provider to continually raise the bar and provide an experience that delights; the old methods of providing a unique customer experience (such as a few mumbled words from a disengaged greeter) no longer provide the delight they once did. The creation of an exceptional customer experience seems to hinge around the service provider first understanding the needs and expectations of customers at a transaction/interaction level, and then finding new and creative ways to engage and motivate frontline staff, (including empowerment techniques) and the linking of compensation to customer satisfaction tracking results.

In an ever-shrinking world, where many CPG companies are looking globally for inspiration, perhaps it is time for service companies to do the same?