This is a great blog on how some aspects of Marketing are changing. Worth a read!
POEM Defined
Monday, December 5, 2011
Friday, November 25, 2011
Marketing vs Branding vs Sales
I always smile when I see someone with the title Director of Sales & Marketing. It shows to me that they have their priorities mixed up.
Marketing, to me, is satisfying the wants and needs of the customer.
Marketing plants the seeds.... Sales harvests the crops! You can't sell what doesn't appeal to the customer and it is only thru a concerted Marketing effort that you can find out what they want or need and how your product can fulfill those needs.
Branding ensures that when your customer is looking to satisfy his wants.... he thinks of your product first!
The following link is a great overview for you:
http://strengtheningbrandamerica.com/blog/2011/08/branding-versus-marketing/
I always smile when I see someone with the title Director of Sales & Marketing. It shows to me that they have their priorities mixed up.
Marketing, to me, is satisfying the wants and needs of the customer.
Marketing plants the seeds.... Sales harvests the crops! You can't sell what doesn't appeal to the customer and it is only thru a concerted Marketing effort that you can find out what they want or need and how your product can fulfill those needs.
Branding ensures that when your customer is looking to satisfy his wants.... he thinks of your product first!
The following link is a great overview for you:
http://strengtheningbrandamerica.com/blog/2011/08/branding-versus-marketing/
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Social Media.. has to be acknowledged!
Take a look at these amazing statistics..... if you're on LinkedIn.....join the Social Media in Travel discussion group. Some awesome information there, almost daily!
http://www.linkedin.com/news?viewArticle=&articleID=756645816&gid=1690387&type=member&item=70601686&articleURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eprdaily%2Ecom%2FMain%2FArticles%2F9441%2Easpx&urlhash=ccyj&goback=%2Egde_1690387_member_70601686
http://www.linkedin.com/news?viewArticle=&articleID=756645816&gid=1690387&type=member&item=70601686&articleURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eprdaily%2Ecom%2FMain%2FArticles%2F9441%2Easpx&urlhash=ccyj&goback=%2Egde_1690387_member_70601686
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
You must pay attention to MOBILE
A fascinating report on how Travel Marketers must pay attention to MOBILE apps in their sales mix! http://events.eyefortravel.com/social-media-mobile-report/research.asp
Monday, August 29, 2011
Dr. Philip E. Humbert
What an amazing website! www.philiphumbert.com Look at the entire list of TOP 10 Lists! This is a favourite but I haven't looked at many, so far. http://www.philiphumbert.com/Articles/10HighlySuccessful.html
I'd recommend everyone to spend an hour or more (I know I'm going to) to read more about this man's ideas.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Saturday, July 30, 2011
10 tips for retaining loyal guests
10 tips for retaining loyal guests
By Caroline Cooper
HotelNewsNow.com columnistGaining a new customer costs anywhere from five to eight times more than retaining your existing ones, according to estimates. When you consider the cost of advertising, marketing, sales people, etc. to attract new customers, this becomes obvious.
It's also said that 68% of customers will fail to return if they feel unappreciated. This is the No. 1 reason businesses lose customers.
Based on these two statistics, it is obvious your business—be it a hotel, B&B or restaurant—needs to place as strong an emphasis on keeping existing customers as it does on gaining new ones. Here are 10 ways to do this:
1. Last impressions. Make sure your guests leave with great lasting impression of their stay with you. Ensure they realise that you appreciate their business. A sincere “thank you” in person goes a long way. Give them a little memento to take home with them as a lasting reminder: a box of homemade truffles, jam or pickles or gift bag of your exclusive toiletries for your leisure guests, or quality logoed accessories for your corporate market. Following this up with a simple personalised thank you note a few days later will not only show your appreciation, but it will give them something to remember you by, especially if it is handwritten and tailored to them.
2. Keep in touch. Out of sight is out of mind. Even if your guests are only likely to visit you once every 12 months, keep in touch with them for the whole year so that when they come to book again you are firmly fixed in their minds. As part of your outreach, let them know what other activities you have going on. You never just know—it could just tip the balance in favour of them coming to see you for an extra visit. You also can remain on their radar with your presence on social media. Do your homework first and find out the best options to suit your guests.
3. Reward their loyalty with exclusive deals. Make your loyal guests feel special by putting together exclusive packages or deals. This again demonstrates your appreciation of their business, as well as potentially prompting additional bookings. As a loyal guest, the last thing you want to hear about is an offer that’s only available to ‘new’ customers.
4. Understand your guests’ needs. Keep up-to-date with what your guests want by listening to them. Get to know your guests and be visible in your hotel, making personal contact with your guests to build rapport and trust. They are then far more likely to tell you what they want and what would encourage them to return. The more you get to know your guests the easier it is to anticipate their needs, and deliver what they want on a consistent basis to keep them satisfied. Avoid being so bound by your own rules that you can’t be flexible. If a guest wants a lie in and would like breakfast at 11.30, is this really that big a problem if it means they enjoy their stay and tell their friends?
5. Ask for feedback. Never take your regular guests for granted; ask for their feedback and resolve shortfalls quickly. Problems or challenges are often your opportunity to shine and leave a positive lasting impression if dealt with positively. Now’s a chance to exceed expectations. Face-to-face feedback will always win over a comments form or questionnaire. Ask guests what they like and what disappoints them, if anything, so you can learn from this and continually improve. Guests will be flattered if you ask for their opinions. Also ask for their feedback on new ideas or for their recommendations on how things can be improved.
6. Remember them. Address your guests by name. It's really positive when someone remembers your name, especially when you aren't expecting it. And although you may know this regular guest, make sure your staff know them, too. Record their personal details and any special requirements. Do they have any particular likes and dislikes? What is their favourite room? Do they have any particular requirements, such as a late check in? Do we know their birthday or any special anniversaries? Remembering such details will always be appreciated.
7. Get the basics right. Ensure your guests’ second, third or 50th visit is as good as their first. Have systems in place to ensure you're able to deliver the same level of service on a consistent basis. Take the customer journey regularly, and see everything from a guest's perspective. Be sure to under promise and over deliver. With regular guests, this means continuous improvement as they will have set expectations, which we need to strive to exceed on every visit. Simple things delivered well will always be better than trying to be over-sophisticated and delivering it badly.
8. Train your staff. Your staff need to know the level of service that your guests expect. Have the appropriate training, tools and systems in place in order for them to deliver this. Brief your team so that they too can recognise and remember your loyal guests and empower them to deliver what your guests want and expect. In the unfortunate event that your guests have cause to complain, give your staff the training, confidence and authority to deal with complaints promptly. Your recovery of the situation can in itself earn you brownie points.
9. Know your competition. Keep an eye on your competitors, what they are charging, new services they offer, improvements, marketing promotions, etc. Make sure your services are the best value for the money. You do not necessarily have to lower your prices when your competitors do, but make sure your guests know that you are worth the extra money. Stay competitive. But I'm not just talking about other hotels; your guests will compare you with anyone else who delivers a service. So as long as you deliver a 5-star service, you’re going to compare favourably with all of your ‘competition’.
10. Wow your guest. Think of the things that are of high value to your guests but low cost to you so you can give added value. Give people a reason to talk about you. Always look for an opportunity to go that extra mile to wow your guest to make it really difficult for them to ever contemplate not coming back to you. It’s all about giving guests a reason to return.
Caroline Cooper is a business coach with over 25 years’ experience in business and leadership development, and founder of Zeal Coaching, specializing in working with hospitality businesses, and is author of the 'Hotel Success Handbook'. You can download her free report on How to Get more boost sales and get more repeat bookings for your hotel.
The opinions expressed in this column do not necessarily reflect the opinions of HotelNewsNow.com or its parent company, Smith Travel Research and its affiliated companies. Columnists published on this site are given the freedom to express views that may be controversial, but our goal is to provoke thought and constructive discussion within our reader community. Please feel free to comment or contact an editor with any questions or concerns.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Ten website marketing tips for hotels
| Top 10 Social Media Marketing Tips for Hotels |
| Tuesday, 12 July 2011 00:00 |
 Here are our Top 10 tips for hotel social media marketing. We have put these together from daily hands on experience performing internet marketing for our hotels. It is the best list of practical ideas that can be implemented right away.1 - Have a Blog to post information on activities, attractions, dining, shopping, nightlife. It allows you to provide your guests with suggestion on what to do. Moreover it is a constant source of content that you can use to spread on other social networks like FaceBook and Twitter. 2 - Manage your online reputation, by inviting guests to post reviews on TripAdvisor, Yelp and other review websites. Make sure you also respond to all reviews and that you manage your profile on these sites (description, pictures, contact info). 3 - Invite guests to join your FaceBook page (upload their emails), and ask them to post pictures of the hotel and their trip. Panoramia is also a great site to have guest post pics as it is linked to Google Earth & Maps.  4 - Link local companies and attractions in your Twitter and FaceBook posts by using ‘@’ and their profile name. It will jump start your interaction online and grow your sphere of influence. To make it easy, think like your guests. Get connected to cities, tourist attractions and tourist information centers by liking their page. Just start reading and very often the accommodation requests are right there for you to grab. For example on the city page of Amsterdam a young lady is asking for tips on what to do during her trip. Give her a compliment on choosing Amsterdam because it is simply awesome and include a shortened link (goo.gl) to the blog on your hotel website that just happens to be about the top 10 of things to do during a short break in Amsterdam. (but don’t overdo it). This way you can get the interaction started and after a few messages back and forward she might book your hotel. If not no worries you just generated a bunch of clicks to your hotel website.5 - Prizes to get the job done. An incentive gets people moving. Give a free weekend in return for the best guest pic of the month … 6 - Local check-in site like FourSquare or Gowalla can help you gain exposure and promote your F& outlets. Give a welcome cocktail when checking in online if staying at the hotel. Or a free upgrade based on availability (1 per day of course ;) ). 7 - Find interesting and funny videos of your destination and add them to your YouTube Channel to create a sort of video tour guide. Compliment the ‘producer’ and let them know you put it on your official channel.  8 - Recycle content across social networks. Your positive reviews should be posted on Twitter and FaceBook, as well as your blog articles. Gather all your guest pics from Picasa, Flickr and Panoramia into one album on FaceBook.9 - Get a (young) internet savvy person on your team to work on social media. They are fast in picking this stuff and copying best practices from others. He will be more personal in speaking to your guests. And this is very important. 10 - Be funny and original. A sense of humor works better then a formal and conventional approach. What is the last thing you really click-ed on or read on FaceBook? I am sure it was funny or original… it’s what works… These simple steps will help you grow your fan base and create interaction with your guests. Engagement is not easy online, but these tips and best practices should help your hotel’s social media marketing strategy. For more information, click here: hotel social media marketing Thank you to Patrick Landman - Xotels (posted originally in Linkedin) |
Friday, June 24, 2011
Canadian Tourism 2010
A recap of the Canadian Tourism Industry for the year 2010
(sorry I could not make the link active... so just copy and paste into your browser)
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Canada, Where's That?
Unfortunately that is a comment from potential travellers from the United States.
This is an article in TravelMole US:
Canada? What's that?
A new study shows why tourism by Americans to Canada has gone down: Americans are ignorant about their northern neighbour.
Fewer than half of all Americans said they know the capital of Canada. Among 18 to 20 year olds, that number was just 29 percent, according to the study by survey commissioned by the Association for Canadian Studies in Montreal.
“Naturally, we do know about Molson and Labatt. And we know about hockey (if we live in or near certain American cities). Some of us might also know there’s a red maple leaf on the Canadian flag. But that’s about it,” writes Gary Burns in Buffalo Business First.
The survey, done by U.S. opinion researchers ORC International, asked 1,048 Americans questions about their knowledge of Canada. It was commissioned to determine attitudes along the border ahead of next year’s bicentennial of the War of 1812.
PS: the capital of Canada is Ottawa.
By David Wilkening
WHAT DOES THE CANADIAN TOURISM COMMISSION DO? They've CLOSED their Conusmer Marketing Departments around the United States so they can concentrate on China, India and Mexico. Makes sense to me.... NOT!!!
This is an article in TravelMole US:
Canada? What's that?
A new study shows why tourism by Americans to Canada has gone down: Americans are ignorant about their northern neighbour.
Fewer than half of all Americans said they know the capital of Canada. Among 18 to 20 year olds, that number was just 29 percent, according to the study by survey commissioned by the Association for Canadian Studies in Montreal.
“Naturally, we do know about Molson and Labatt. And we know about hockey (if we live in or near certain American cities). Some of us might also know there’s a red maple leaf on the Canadian flag. But that’s about it,” writes Gary Burns in Buffalo Business First.
The survey, done by U.S. opinion researchers ORC International, asked 1,048 Americans questions about their knowledge of Canada. It was commissioned to determine attitudes along the border ahead of next year’s bicentennial of the War of 1812.
PS: the capital of Canada is Ottawa.
By David Wilkening
WHAT DOES THE CANADIAN TOURISM COMMISSION DO? They've CLOSED their Conusmer Marketing Departments around the United States so they can concentrate on China, India and Mexico. Makes sense to me.... NOT!!!
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Monday, April 11, 2011
Another entry from Mary Mahon Jones
Tourism One-Minute Report Mahon Jones & Associates
A global market scan in one minute or less…
April 9, 2011
CANADIANS OVER 55 ARE DRIVING GLOBAL GROWTH OF ONLINE USE
Canadians are one of the world’s most engaged online audiences. Social media site usage by Canucks saw strong growth in 2010 (up another 13% over 2009). Although overall usage is still highest among the younger set, the greatest growth in usage is from persons over 55. More firms are using this fact to advertise online: 15.6 billion online ad impressions were delivered in Q4 of 2010 alone on social networking sites - Facebook continues to be the most popular.
NORTH AMERICAN MARKET WATCH
PATA is predicting that North America will add close to 18 million arrivals by 2013 over 2009. Most of this growth will be intra-regional – 83% heading to destinations within the Americas. In North America, one-third of all travellers are grandparents, leading the trend towards more multi-generational travel.
US Travel: ↑ Increases in US travel demand will be led by households of $125K or more. Business travel is making a comeback – led by meetings travel rather than individual business travel.
The number of US mobile users who research travel on their mobile devices will climb from 19.7 million in 2010 to 29.7 million in 2012. Those booking via mobile will nearly double in the same timeframe, from 8.7 million to 15.1 million.
US Economy: Poor weather played a major role in dampening retail sales growth in December and January. In February and March, consumer confidence continued its roller coaster ride – up to its highest level in almost two years in February and then dropping again in March. But here’s some good news – the unemployment rate dipped to below 9%.
Canadian Travel:→ The number of overnight car trips by Canadians to the US declined (1.4%) in January (over December) but air travel increased slightly (0.8%). Trips to overseas destinations were down 2.2% over December.
Canada’s Economy: After slowing mid-2010, Canada’s GDP rose 0.8% in Q4, leading growth in the G7 nations, led by the energy sector. The news doesn’t seem to be getting through to Canadians though – consumer confidence plummeted nearly 6 points in March 2011 (from 89.3 to 83.7) Employment rose in both January and February of 2011 (0.4% and 0.1%), led by part-time positions. The labour force is expanding again, after many had taken time off during the recession to do other things (like going to school) which kept the unemployment rate steady at 7.8% in February. Alberta is leading in job growth. In November of 2010, demand for accommodation and food picked up, notably for restaurants.
Mexico: The country’s GDP grew at its fastest rate in 2010 – up 5.5% over 2009.
EUROPEAN MARKET WATCH
Europe overall: ↑ GDP rose in the euro-zone in the last 2 quarters of 2010 and retail sales volumes increased in January for the first time since last summer. The unemployment rate eased to 9.9% but inflation increased by 2.3%, led by costs of fuel, housing, alcohol and tobacco.
United Kingdom:↓ Britain’s economy suffered in 2010 – there was a little uptick in consumer spending in January, but probably due to pent up demand resulting from December’s weather issues. The last 3 years have seen reduced outbound travel and this is not changing anytime soon, due to fears of rising interest rates and no improvement in the economy. In the 12-month period to January 2011, visits by UK citizens abroad fell by 6%. (European visits fell by 6%, North American by 4% and other parts of the world fell by 3%.)
Germany:→ Exports, which drive growth in Germany, were up 18.5% for 2010, although recovery slowed in the third and fourth quarters. Unemployment eased to 6.5%, but inflation rose to 2%.
France:↑ Real GDP in France was steady at 0.3% in the last quarter of 2010. Inflation and unemployment both eased slightly in the New Year. France is expecting accelerating improvement in 2011, with growth of .6% in Q1 and .4% in Q2.
ASIA PACIFIC MARKET WATCH
Within Asia, the fastest growing sub-regions (2009-2013) will be South/Central Asia and Northeast Asia, which are predicted to gain 17% and 14% per annum respectively. Like the Americas, much of this will be intra-regional (i.e., Northeast Asia to Northeast Asia). Although many traditional tourism destinations continue to predict growth, market share will be dwarfed by the rise in dominance by Asian markets.
Japan:↓ Prior to the quake and tsunami, the Japanese economy was seeing its first annual growth increase in 3 years. Next month’s Golden Week is a key travel period for the Japanese and could be a telling indicator of Japan’s travel resilience.
China:↑ Chinese travel is undergoing a structural change, from packaged tours to FIT tours – with more affluent Chinese looking for a chance to broaden horizons and experience foreign cultures. Although many still rely on travel agents to arrange flights, more than 80% research and educate themselves about destinations and brands online. With over 450 million internet users, 92% engage in social media (not including blocked sites such as Facebook, Twitter, Youtube and Foursquare).
China is now the world’s largest auto and energy consumer. Inflation rose to 4.9% in January, driven by the growth of food prices (+10%). The government has announced measures to stabilize prices. Total retail sales growth was 15.8% more than in Jan-Feb 2011, compared to the same period last year.
Australia:↑ In 2010, Australians took 6.2 million trips abroad (mostly leisure), averaging 20 nights for each trip. The most popular destinations were New Zealand (15%), USA/Canada (11%), Indonesia (10%) and the UK (7%). The strength of the Australian dollar, the solid economy and strong international air capacity combine to predict that Aussie’s will continue to be strong international travellers.
WORD OF MOUTH
“I think inside every one of us is a Sinbad who lives for travel and tourism.” Turki Al-Dakheel bemoaning the fact that Saudi’s spend more than SR50 (US$13.1) billion travelling abroad – instead of travelling at home.
Mahon Jones & Associates is a tourism consulting firm, based in Canada, with special focus on cultural tourism and attracting the cultural tourist. The information above has been compiled via desk research of the internet for clients and key contacts, primarily located in Canada. It is intended to provide contacts with a quick snapshot of currently available market information.
For more information about our services or to discuss how we can assist your organization, government agency or business contact us at mmj@mahonjones.com. Unfortunately, as our website host suddenly ceased operations (without prior warning!), the www.mahonjones.com website is not in order at the moment. We will have a new one launched soon. Note to the wise for the future – back up those websites.
Source references are provided in the attached PDF.
This report is the intellectual property of Mahon Jones & Associates. Feel free to circulate with attribution to MJA.
Mahon Jones & Associates
Tourism and cultural tourism consulting
Mary Mahon Jones, President
1588 Look Out Point
North Vancouver, BC
Canada
V7G 1X9
604-833-3290
mmj@mahonjones.com
www.mahonjones.com
Linkedin
President, Women in Tourism International
Authorized EQ Trainer, Canadian Tourism Commission
Authorized Consultant, Sustainable Tourism International
A global market scan in one minute or less…
April 9, 2011
CANADIANS OVER 55 ARE DRIVING GLOBAL GROWTH OF ONLINE USE
Canadians are one of the world’s most engaged online audiences. Social media site usage by Canucks saw strong growth in 2010 (up another 13% over 2009). Although overall usage is still highest among the younger set, the greatest growth in usage is from persons over 55. More firms are using this fact to advertise online: 15.6 billion online ad impressions were delivered in Q4 of 2010 alone on social networking sites - Facebook continues to be the most popular.
NORTH AMERICAN MARKET WATCH
PATA is predicting that North America will add close to 18 million arrivals by 2013 over 2009. Most of this growth will be intra-regional – 83% heading to destinations within the Americas. In North America, one-third of all travellers are grandparents, leading the trend towards more multi-generational travel.
US Travel: ↑ Increases in US travel demand will be led by households of $125K or more. Business travel is making a comeback – led by meetings travel rather than individual business travel.
The number of US mobile users who research travel on their mobile devices will climb from 19.7 million in 2010 to 29.7 million in 2012. Those booking via mobile will nearly double in the same timeframe, from 8.7 million to 15.1 million.
US Economy: Poor weather played a major role in dampening retail sales growth in December and January. In February and March, consumer confidence continued its roller coaster ride – up to its highest level in almost two years in February and then dropping again in March. But here’s some good news – the unemployment rate dipped to below 9%.
Canadian Travel:→ The number of overnight car trips by Canadians to the US declined (1.4%) in January (over December) but air travel increased slightly (0.8%). Trips to overseas destinations were down 2.2% over December.
Canada’s Economy: After slowing mid-2010, Canada’s GDP rose 0.8% in Q4, leading growth in the G7 nations, led by the energy sector. The news doesn’t seem to be getting through to Canadians though – consumer confidence plummeted nearly 6 points in March 2011 (from 89.3 to 83.7) Employment rose in both January and February of 2011 (0.4% and 0.1%), led by part-time positions. The labour force is expanding again, after many had taken time off during the recession to do other things (like going to school) which kept the unemployment rate steady at 7.8% in February. Alberta is leading in job growth. In November of 2010, demand for accommodation and food picked up, notably for restaurants.
Mexico: The country’s GDP grew at its fastest rate in 2010 – up 5.5% over 2009.
EUROPEAN MARKET WATCH
Europe overall: ↑ GDP rose in the euro-zone in the last 2 quarters of 2010 and retail sales volumes increased in January for the first time since last summer. The unemployment rate eased to 9.9% but inflation increased by 2.3%, led by costs of fuel, housing, alcohol and tobacco.
United Kingdom:↓ Britain’s economy suffered in 2010 – there was a little uptick in consumer spending in January, but probably due to pent up demand resulting from December’s weather issues. The last 3 years have seen reduced outbound travel and this is not changing anytime soon, due to fears of rising interest rates and no improvement in the economy. In the 12-month period to January 2011, visits by UK citizens abroad fell by 6%. (European visits fell by 6%, North American by 4% and other parts of the world fell by 3%.)
Germany:→ Exports, which drive growth in Germany, were up 18.5% for 2010, although recovery slowed in the third and fourth quarters. Unemployment eased to 6.5%, but inflation rose to 2%.
France:↑ Real GDP in France was steady at 0.3% in the last quarter of 2010. Inflation and unemployment both eased slightly in the New Year. France is expecting accelerating improvement in 2011, with growth of .6% in Q1 and .4% in Q2.
ASIA PACIFIC MARKET WATCH
Within Asia, the fastest growing sub-regions (2009-2013) will be South/Central Asia and Northeast Asia, which are predicted to gain 17% and 14% per annum respectively. Like the Americas, much of this will be intra-regional (i.e., Northeast Asia to Northeast Asia). Although many traditional tourism destinations continue to predict growth, market share will be dwarfed by the rise in dominance by Asian markets.
Japan:↓ Prior to the quake and tsunami, the Japanese economy was seeing its first annual growth increase in 3 years. Next month’s Golden Week is a key travel period for the Japanese and could be a telling indicator of Japan’s travel resilience.
China:↑ Chinese travel is undergoing a structural change, from packaged tours to FIT tours – with more affluent Chinese looking for a chance to broaden horizons and experience foreign cultures. Although many still rely on travel agents to arrange flights, more than 80% research and educate themselves about destinations and brands online. With over 450 million internet users, 92% engage in social media (not including blocked sites such as Facebook, Twitter, Youtube and Foursquare).
China is now the world’s largest auto and energy consumer. Inflation rose to 4.9% in January, driven by the growth of food prices (+10%). The government has announced measures to stabilize prices. Total retail sales growth was 15.8% more than in Jan-Feb 2011, compared to the same period last year.
Australia:↑ In 2010, Australians took 6.2 million trips abroad (mostly leisure), averaging 20 nights for each trip. The most popular destinations were New Zealand (15%), USA/Canada (11%), Indonesia (10%) and the UK (7%). The strength of the Australian dollar, the solid economy and strong international air capacity combine to predict that Aussie’s will continue to be strong international travellers.
WORD OF MOUTH
“I think inside every one of us is a Sinbad who lives for travel and tourism.” Turki Al-Dakheel bemoaning the fact that Saudi’s spend more than SR50 (US$13.1) billion travelling abroad – instead of travelling at home.
Mahon Jones & Associates is a tourism consulting firm, based in Canada, with special focus on cultural tourism and attracting the cultural tourist. The information above has been compiled via desk research of the internet for clients and key contacts, primarily located in Canada. It is intended to provide contacts with a quick snapshot of currently available market information.
For more information about our services or to discuss how we can assist your organization, government agency or business contact us at mmj@mahonjones.com. Unfortunately, as our website host suddenly ceased operations (without prior warning!), the www.mahonjones.com website is not in order at the moment. We will have a new one launched soon. Note to the wise for the future – back up those websites.
Source references are provided in the attached PDF.
This report is the intellectual property of Mahon Jones & Associates. Feel free to circulate with attribution to MJA.
Mahon Jones & Associates
Tourism and cultural tourism consulting
Mary Mahon Jones, President
1588 Look Out Point
North Vancouver, BC
Canada
V7G 1X9
604-833-3290
mmj@mahonjones.com
www.mahonjones.com
President, Women in Tourism International
Authorized EQ Trainer, Canadian Tourism Commission
Authorized Consultant, Sustainable Tourism International
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Another One Minute Tourism Update
Tourism One-Minute Report Mahon Jones & Associates
A global market scan in one minute or less…March 5, 2011
Cut and paste (I tried 3 times to insert the URL here) this link ( http://www.mahonjones.com/news_and_views/index.php?action=fullarticle&news_id=57 ) to access Mary Mahon Jones' latest global outlook. I'm using the link so you can use HER link to get the "full story"
A global market scan in one minute or less…March 5, 2011
Cut and paste (I tried 3 times to insert the URL here) this link ( http://www.mahonjones.com/news_and_views/index.php?action=fullarticle&news_id=57 ) to access Mary Mahon Jones' latest global outlook. I'm using the link so you can use HER link to get the "full story"
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Social CRM for the Travel Industry
This is an article to pass to your Management, Marketing and Sales teams.
http://www.chessmediagroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/AnIntroductiontoSocialCRMforTravel_022011.pdf
http://www.chessmediagroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/AnIntroductiontoSocialCRMforTravel_022011.pdf
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
When Unhappy Customers Strike Back on the Internet
This article was posted on Linkedin's Social Media in Travel An awesome read.
When Unhappy Customers Strike Back on the Internet
By Thomas M. Tripp and Yany Grégoire
January 26, 2011
Companies need to understand and manage the rising threat of online public complaining. There is ample incentive, because the best ways to respond, and to prevent complaints from recurring, apply not just to the Internet.
PDF BUY ARTICLE & PERMISSIONS
WHEN CUSTOMERS BELIEVE that a company has treated them badly, they may take public action aimed at hurting it. Consider Dave Carroll, a musician who discovered that his $3,500 Taylor guitar was damaged — its neck had been broken — during baggage handling on a United Air Lines flight. At first he alerted several of the airline’s employees at the arrival airport, but none of them had authority to handle his complaint; moreover, they gave Carroll no guidance on how to proceed. Thus began nine months of running the company’s customer service gauntlet. Repeatedly passed from one person to the next, Carroll was finally informed that he was ineligible for any compensation.
Frustrated, angered and feeling that he’d exhausted all customer service options, Carroll wrote a song about his experience and also created a music video, which he posted on YouTube in mid-2009.1 The lyrics included the verse “I should have flown with someone else, or gone by car, because United breaks guitars.” The video amassed 150,000 views within one day, five million by a month later and at this writing more than nine million. The story of the song’s success and the public relations humiliation for United Air Lines was reported in media all over the world. Finally, United offered to compensate Carroll for the damage and promised to reexamine its policies.
THE LEADING QUESTION
How should companies respond to, or prevent, irate customers’ online public complaints?
FINDINGS
“A double deviation” — the initial failure followed by failed resolution attempts — is usually critical.
Perceived betrayal (as opposed to dissatisfaction) drives potential online complainers to act.
The company’s attempt at recovery should be swift and its apology perceived as sincere.
Another video recently making the e-mail forwarding rounds of the Internet featured an unhappy consumer who happened to be a U.S. marine based in Iraq. Dressed in combat fatigues out in the desert and holding his machine gun, he tells the viewer how Hewlett-Packard demanded to be paid to tell him how to fix his inoperable HP printer. He then aims his weapon and shoots the printer to pieces.2
Admittedly, not every unhappy customer has the wish or the wherewithal to make such graphic statements for a mass audience, but online public complaining does happen every day in diverse forms and varying intensities. The demand is great enough, in fact, that an array of third-party organizations offers preformatted online platforms for customers’ convenience. For example, complaint websites (such as complaints.com and ripoffreport.com), as well as the sites of consumer organizations (bbb.com and consumeraffairs.com), provide online environments in which customers can post their misadventures as well as compare notes with other people. More general user-generated-content websites such as YouTube, Twitter and Facebook also offer venues for complaining, and there are also specifically targeted anti-corporation websites such as starbucked.com.3 Given these and other Internet options, companies whose unhappy customers decide to take revenge can suffer serious consequences. Whereas until a few years ago the damage of negative word of mouth was limited to a fairly small audience, now online reports can go viral, reach millions of people within a short period of time and tarnish a company’s brand.
What can companies do, whether in reacting to such negative publicity or in preventing its occurrence? Based on our research (See “About the Research”), we have developed an “organizing matrix” for these purposes. The two rows of this matrix (See “Organizing Matrix: Understanding and Managing Online Public Complaining”) reflect our understanding of the behaviors of online complainers (Row 1), which serves as the foundation of our recommendations for managing that behavior (Row 2). The two columns of the matrix reflect the temporal dimension — that is, before and after the online complaint. In other words, the matrix is designed to help companies formulate appropriate tactics both in prevention and resolution modes, as further developed below.
ORGANIZING MATRIX
Understanding and Managing Online Public Complaining
View Exhibit
The matrix (read in a clockwise manner) answers the following questions:
Quadrant 1: Why do customers complain online in the first place?
Quadrant 2: How long will online complainers hold a grudge against the company?
Quadrant 3: How should a company respond after the online complaint?
Quadrant 4: How can a company prevent online complaining?
ABOUT THE RESEARCH >>
Quadrant 1: Why Do Customers Complain Online in the First Place?
In order to respond to or prevent online public complaining, one first needs to understand why customers pursue that course. That is, what are the triggers? We find that customers go online because (1) they are victims of a “double deviation” and (2) they feel betrayed.
Online Public Complaining Almost Always Follows a “Double Deviation.” Most online complainers have been victims not only of a product or service failure (referred to simply as a “service failure” for the rest of this article) but also of a series of failed resolution attempts. In the first case, a product might not have performed as expected, an employee may have been rude or an unanticipated cost, such as a hidden fee, may have been levied. After this initial failure, customers’ attempts to resolve the issue — by complaining in-house to the company’s customer service representatives, managers or owners — may also have come to naught from the customer’s point of view. When such a sequence occurs, customers feel twice violated: First, the company deviated from acceptable practice, and then it deviated again by not satisfactorily addressing the problem. Such “double deviations” can provoke, in effect, a moment of truth for the customer, when the individual concludes that the company does not care about his or her patronage.4
Our research shows that online public complaining is almost always preceded by double deviations. Specifically, after codifying and analyzing 431 online complaints posted to ripoffreport.com and consumeraffairs.com, we found that approximately 96% of the online complaints followed a double deviation.5 Only 4% of the online complaints posted publicly followed a simple service failure.
That is good news for companies because online complainers are not necessarily terrorism-minded individuals who go online at the slightest provocation to impede commercial operations. Instead, they are simply exhausted customers who kept complaining about a serious issue that the company kept failing to address. That is exactly what happened in Dave Carroll’s case.
In general, we are not talking about mild failures involving modestly unpleasant encounters at, say, a restaurant or hotel, which have been the most frequent contexts studied. Rather, we consider severe service failures that the customers simply cannot ignore and for which they need to achieve resolution … or, if all else fails, to go online in some dramatic fashion, as the U.S. marine did. Based on our codification of the online complaints we studied, the most common contexts for such complaints appear to be automotive (11%); large retail purchases (10.5%); credit, debt and mortgage services (10.3%); cell phone providers (9.5%); websites and online services (6.3%); appliances (5.3%); and computers (5%).
Betrayal (as Opposed to Mere Dissatisfaction) Drives Online Complainers. Not all customers who are victims of a double deviation make online complaints. What distinguishes those who do invest the requisite time and energy, knowing that their chances of material gain are limited? We find that they do so because they feel betrayed by the company — they believe that the product or service provider has violated the norms of a customer-company relationship.6 In a double-deviation context, customers can see betrayal because they believe the company is morally obligated to help them resolve a difficulty that the company itself caused (e.g., Dave Carroll’s broken guitar), and this belief is violated when the company keeps failing them (his nine months of fruitless attempts at resolution). This sense of betrayal motivates customers to take all possible means to “get even.” Indeed, when they feel betrayed, customers see online public action as justified — even noble, as it may, for example, provide warning to other customers.
It is important to note that betrayal is not simply a case of extreme dissatisfaction. Unlike dissatisfaction, betrayal is associated with anger, which is a strong negative emotion that motivates customers to respond strongly. In contrast, dissatisfaction is related to frustration and annoyance, two relatively mild negative emotions that tend to be short-lived and result in more passive actions, if any at all, such as exiting the relationship. But feelings of betrayal can lead customers to persist in their demands for reparation and, if that fails to satisfy, to engage in vengeful behaviors, such as online public complaining, against a company.
Quadrant 2: How Long Will Online Complainers Hold a Grudge Against the Company?
We examined two forms of grudge-holding: seeking revenge and avoiding the company by not returning with one’s business. We found that after customers had complained online, their desire for revenge dropped in the succeeding four weeks and then stabilized, though never disappearing entirely (at least, not up to eight weeks after the complaint — the point at which we last surveyed them). Moreover, customers’ desire for avoidance rose after their online complaint and then remained essentially constant. (See “The Two Forms of Customer Grudge-Holding.”) Thus, we found that customers do continue to hold a grudge: Although their desire for revenge diminishes, they are not coming back.
THE TWO FORMS OF CUSTOMER GRUDGE-HOLDING
View Exhibit
Is a Post-Complaint Recovery Possible in an Online Context? But what if a company were to offer some kind of resolution, after the complaint had been posted online, to try to recover its relationship with the customer? In our survey, we found that 27% of the companies made just such a gesture. But it didn’t always help. Customers who received a satisfactory resolution within four weeks after their online complaint reported reductions in their desire for revenge; but resolution offered after that time frame had no impact. It was too late! In any case, such a post-complaint recovery attempt did not seem to bring back the business of the online complainer; it had no significant effect, during any time frame, on the ex-customer’s desire for avoidance. (See the yellow and green curves of “The Two Forms of Customer Grudge-Holding.”) Thus, while a post-complaint recovery attempt may stop the vengeful actions of some complainers, as long as it’s done expeditiously, they are no more likely to return as customers.
Do Certain Customers Hold Grudges for a Longer Time? Every company has its “best” customers — those who bring repeat business, show brand loyalty and in the extreme have strong emotional ties to the company. Other customers we call “casual” – those who may make purchases only once or sporadically, have lesser loyalty and have limited bonding with the company.
Does type of customer matter in the context of online public complaining? That is, do a company’s best customers become its worst enemies, or are they more forgiving than casual customers? On the one hand, after a service failure the best customers may give the company the benefit of the doubt, perhaps feel grateful for prior service, or even expect to continue receiving good service in the future. If so, they should be more motivated to forgive the company and might not hold a grudge over time. On the other hand, because the best customers may expect special treatment, when they receive bad service instead they are more surprised and shocked. Having felt entitled to more, when they don’t get it they may feel betrayed all the more acutely.
So, which is it: Are the best customers more forgiving or more vindictive? The data from our study are clear: A company’s best customers are the most likely to become its worst enemies in an online context — at least, in the absence of a proper recovery attempt, about which we will have more to say below. Compared with casual customers, the best customers feel more betrayed, which makes them much more persistent and vengeful in their complaining efforts. And not only do the best customers maintain a greater desire for revenge over time, they also seek to exit their relationship with the company much sooner than do casual customers.
Quadrant 3: How Should a Company Respond After the Online Complaint?
Now we turn to the “managing” part of our matrix. As in their other commercial activities, companies should be methodical when trying to recover their relationship with a customer after his or her online complaint. That is, they should craft their recovery attempts by: (1) accounting for the type of customer (based on the prior relationship); (2) timing the response; and (3) carefully selecting the content of the apology.
Tailoring the Response to the Customer The post-complaint recovery depends on the type of customer involved. Our research shows that the best (relationship-focused) customers are more amenable to recovery efforts, regardless of the recovery’s size or monetary value, than are casual customers. For the best customers, the company’s admission of wrongdoing and the perceived sincerity of its apology could be more important than restitution. As the old saying goes, “It is the thought that counts.” In other words, for those steady customers who value a relationship with the company, recovery may take only a statement of contrition and a symbolic financial act, which communicate that the company values the relationship as well.7
Regardless of the content of the recovery, companies should pay special attention to their best customers because they not only are the most amenable to sincere recovery attempts but also are generally the biggest spenders and feel most betrayed after a double deviation. At the same time, companies don’t want customers to feel that they are so big that they are indispensable. One determinant of whether people will act on their desires for revenge is the power they believe they wield to exact such revenge and get away with it.8 Therefore, it is important for managers to achieve balance — to make their best customers feel special without making them feel too special.
For casual customers, the situation is different. Not necessarily interested in affirming their relationship with the company, they may be less won over by evidence that the company values the relationship with them. Instead, such customers typically care only about financial repayment, with the size of the monetary compensation being most important to them.
These results suggest that companies’ responses should depend on what kind of customer experienced poor treatment. However, two points remain. First, companies should not expect that all of these customers are coming back; many are likely to be irretrievably going away. Keep in mind, though, that getting avenging customers to go away can be good riddance, if not good short-term business. Second, giving restitution to all customers who complain on the Internet could in the long run be counterproductive. That is, if companies rewarded customers for complaining online, then eventually even more, not fewer, customers might do so.
Whatever You Do, Do It Quickly Many companies now instruct employees to search the Internet for complaints so as to react swiftly and judiciously, thereby reducing the likelihood of a toxic aftermath. For example, a feature article in the Wall Street Journal detailed how hotels search online for complaints. A major aim is to identify complainers who still are staying at the hotel and to have employees resolve the matter immediately, if possible, but at least before the guest checks out. For example, one guest posted on Twitter that he had “the crappiest room in the hotel,” only to receive within a few hours a note of apology slipped under his door that also offered him a better room.9
In any case, as discussed earlier, there is little point in responding beyond four weeks after the online complaint, as apologies and restitutions will then have very little impact on complainers’ passion for revenge and avoidance.
What to Include in an Apology After the Online Complaint Common experience suggests, as do psychological and marketing research, that for most customers to feel betrayed following a service failure, and to become sufficiently angry to seek revenge, they have to blame the company for what has happened. How much blame customers assign depends on their inferences regarding the nature of the company’s service failure: Was the failure intentional and motivated by greed? Was the failure intentional but motivated by kindness? Or was the failure unintentional? Obviously, inferences of greed lead to more anger than do inferences of lack of motive, and inferences of kindness lead to even less anger. But how critical are such inferences?
We ran an experiment to find out.10 As expected, participants who were presented with the negative motive had a significantly greater desire for revenge than for reconciliation, participants who were presented with no motive had nearly equal desires for revenge and reconciliation, and participants who were presented with the positive motive had a much lower desire for revenge than for reconciliation. Further analysis of the experiment’s and a survey’s results showed that inference of motive was the key belief that drove anger and any consequent desires for revenge or reconciliation.
It thus makes sense that the apology should include a statement aimed at making customers’ worst-case inferences (of greed) unlikely. For instance, airlines’ apologies for delayed or canceled flights should include statements that explain the underlying motives. It’s not, say, that the airline wanted to combine two flights to the same destination because each one was less than half full (a negative inference of greed); it was concerned enough about a plane’s mechanical problem that it canceled the flight to keep passengers safe (a positive inference of looking out for customers’ safety).
Note that simply providing no information about the reasons behind the failure does not help customers rule out worst-case inferences. Faced with ambiguity, people tend to err on the sinister side when inventing explanations. That is, in the absence of information, customers don’t necessarily come to a neutral “I don’t know”; they often connect dots that perhaps should not be connected and become convinced that the company is just plain greedy. Don’t allow customers to go down this road; give them an explanation instead.
Other research on apologies suggests additional elements that need to be included.11 First, apologies should be sincere and truthful. An insincere apology can be worse than no apology at all. Second, effective apologies are not about the company assigning blame elsewhere. Doing so can actually backfire, at least when it’s clear to the customer that the service failure was caused by the company’s own negligence or incompetence.
Not assigning blame at all in an apology may not be any safer either. Consider the research on doctors’ apologies to patients.12 Many doctors will not apologize when they make medical mistakes out of fear that such admissions of guilt could result in malpractice lawsuits. The research, however, suggests that these doctors have it backward; in reality, patients are more likely to sue for malpractice when they receive no apology or an insincere apology. That is why some states have recently passed “I’m sorry” laws that allow physicians to admit to a mistake without it being used against them in court.
Basically, we advise companies to own up to honest mistakes when they make them and not to let the customer believe that they are motivated by greed.
Quadrant 4: How Can a Company Prevent Online Public Complaining?
Even better is to respond so quickly after the initial service failure that the second element of the double deviation does not occur, with the result that most customers do not complain publicly and online. Good prevention, after all, is usually preferable to a good cure. In that spirit, we recommend that companies design their recovery efforts (1) based on a triage system and (2) by focusing on the process and not just the outcomes.
Develop a Triage System. Clearly, different customers often need to be handled differently. For that reason we suggest that companies, in pursuing recovery processes, emulate the triage that doctors perform during medical emergencies involving multiple casualties.13 For example, in a natural disaster where injuries are many but medical resources are few, physicians must decide who to treat immediately, who can wait for treatment and who will receive no treatment at all. The main principle that guides triage is to first treat the most life-threatening injuries of people who can be saved, second the non-life-threatening injuries and last the life-threatening injuries of people who cannot be saved.
Service failures are analogous to such medical situations in three ways. First, companies have limited financial and human resources to deal with service failures, much as aid stations in natural disasters have limited medical supplies and physicians to treat multiple patients. Second, not all customers can be “saved” — that is, recovered — just as not all patients can be saved. And third, some service failures, being more threatening to the customer and to the customer-company relationship, are more likely to motivate the customer to seek revenge against the company, just as some injuries are more severe than others and carry greater risks of suffering and death.
This analogy suggests some recommendations. Companies should identify those —customers who have suffered the most severe service failures and who can also be recovered. Fortunately, such identification should be relatively easy, given that the most recoverable customers are typically a company’s best customers. Moreover, like severely injured patients who can be healed, these customers should be attended to very quickly. Wait too long — some four weeks or more — and the chances of recovering them drop steeply.
The Process Matters More than the Outcomes. We describe this commercial version of triage as preventive, not just curative, because it should be performed before the second element (recovery failure) of the double deviation occurs. More preventive still, perhaps, is a system in which customers may not mind service failures so much because they perceive a fair process for complaining about them. In fact, the “fair process effect” — a well-known psychological phenomenon, particularly in labor-management settings — demonstrates that employees will tolerate disappointing outcomes as long as they perceive the decision-making processes surrounding these outcomes to be fair. In other words, for employees to become very angry and challenging, they have to believe that both the outcome and process are unfair.
In our research, we have found that the fair-process effect may apply in the consumer setting as well. Specifically, we have measured how the perception of fairness of the systems that companies put into place to address complaints — systems characterized by parameters such as voice, control, speed, waiting time and flexibility — can substantially reduce customers’ sense of betrayal. Thus, as long as the company uses such fair processes, and as long as it makes customers aware of them, customers will tolerate the occasional service failure.
(Reprint # 52303)
Thomas M. Tripp is a professor of management at Washington State University. Yany Grégoire is an associate professor of marketing at HEC-Montréal.
REFERENCES
1. www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YGc4zOqozo.
2. www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PnlWHdJGLM&feature=related.
3. J.C. Ward and A.L. Ostrom, "Complaining to the Masses: The Role of Protest Framing in Customer-Created Complaint Web Sites," Journal of Consumer Research 33, no. 2 (September 2006): 220-230.
4. Y. Grégoire and R.J. Fisher, "Customer Betrayal and Retaliation: When Your Best Customers Become Your Worst Enemies," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 36, no. 2 (June 2008): 247-261; and N. Bechwati and M. Morrin, "Outraged Consumers: Getting Even at the Expense of Getting a Good Deal," Journal of Consumer Psychology 13, no. 4 (November 2003): 440-453.
5. Y. Grégoire, T.M. Tripp and R. Legoux, "When Customer Love Turns into Lasting Hate: The Effects of Relationship Strength and Time on Customer Revenge and Avoidance," Journal of Marketing 73, no. 6 (November 2009): 18-32.
6. Grégoire, "Customer Betrayal and Retaliation."
7. Grégoire, "When Customer Love Turns into Lasting Hate."
8. K. Aquino, T.M. Tripp and R.J. Bies, "Getting Even or Moving On? Power, Procedural Justice, and Types of Offense as Predictors of Revenge, Forgiveness, Reconciliation, and Avoidance in Organizations," Journal of Applied Psychology 91, no. 3 (May 2006): 653-668; Y. Grégoire, D. Laufer and T.M. Tripp, "A Comprehensive Model of Customer Direct and Indirect Revenge: Understanding the Effects of Perceived Greed and Customer Power," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 38, no. 6 (December 2010): 738-758.
9. S. Nassauer, "‘I Hate My Room,’ The Traveler Tweeted. Ka-Boom! An Upgrade! The New Ways Hotels Track You and Your Complaints," Wall Street Journal, June 24, 2010.
10. B. Devezer, Y. Grégoire, J. Joireman and T.M. Tripp, "Can a Firm Get Away with Double Deviation? The Role of Inferred Motive in Revenge and Reconciliation," working paper, Washington State University, September 2010.
11. P.H. Kim, K.T. Dirks, C.D. Cooper and D.L. Ferrin, "When More Blame Is Better than Less: The Implications of Internal vs. External Attributions for the Repair of Trust After a Competence- vs. Integrity-Based Trust Violation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 99, no. 1 (January 2006): 49-65; P.H. Kim, D.L. Ferrin, C.D. Cooper and K.T. Dirks, "Removing the Shadow of Suspicion: The Effects of Apology Versus Denial for Repairing Competence- vs. Integrity-Based Trust Violations," Journal of Applied Psychology 89, no. 1 (February 2004): 104-118.
12. A.W. Wu, "Handling Hospital Errors: Is Disclosure the Best Defense?" Annals of Internal Medicine 131, no. 12 (December 1999): 970-972.
13. Grégoire, "A Comprehensive Model of Customer Direct and Indirect Revenge."
i. T. Tripp and R.J. Bies, "Getting Even: The Truth About Workplace Revenge — and How to Stop It" (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2009).
When Unhappy Customers Strike Back on the Internet
By Thomas M. Tripp and Yany Grégoire
January 26, 2011
Companies need to understand and manage the rising threat of online public complaining. There is ample incentive, because the best ways to respond, and to prevent complaints from recurring, apply not just to the Internet.
PDF BUY ARTICLE & PERMISSIONS
WHEN CUSTOMERS BELIEVE that a company has treated them badly, they may take public action aimed at hurting it. Consider Dave Carroll, a musician who discovered that his $3,500 Taylor guitar was damaged — its neck had been broken — during baggage handling on a United Air Lines flight. At first he alerted several of the airline’s employees at the arrival airport, but none of them had authority to handle his complaint; moreover, they gave Carroll no guidance on how to proceed. Thus began nine months of running the company’s customer service gauntlet. Repeatedly passed from one person to the next, Carroll was finally informed that he was ineligible for any compensation.
Frustrated, angered and feeling that he’d exhausted all customer service options, Carroll wrote a song about his experience and also created a music video, which he posted on YouTube in mid-2009.1 The lyrics included the verse “I should have flown with someone else, or gone by car, because United breaks guitars.” The video amassed 150,000 views within one day, five million by a month later and at this writing more than nine million. The story of the song’s success and the public relations humiliation for United Air Lines was reported in media all over the world. Finally, United offered to compensate Carroll for the damage and promised to reexamine its policies.
THE LEADING QUESTION
How should companies respond to, or prevent, irate customers’ online public complaints?
FINDINGS
“A double deviation” — the initial failure followed by failed resolution attempts — is usually critical.
Perceived betrayal (as opposed to dissatisfaction) drives potential online complainers to act.
The company’s attempt at recovery should be swift and its apology perceived as sincere.
Another video recently making the e-mail forwarding rounds of the Internet featured an unhappy consumer who happened to be a U.S. marine based in Iraq. Dressed in combat fatigues out in the desert and holding his machine gun, he tells the viewer how Hewlett-Packard demanded to be paid to tell him how to fix his inoperable HP printer. He then aims his weapon and shoots the printer to pieces.2
Admittedly, not every unhappy customer has the wish or the wherewithal to make such graphic statements for a mass audience, but online public complaining does happen every day in diverse forms and varying intensities. The demand is great enough, in fact, that an array of third-party organizations offers preformatted online platforms for customers’ convenience. For example, complaint websites (such as complaints.com and ripoffreport.com), as well as the sites of consumer organizations (bbb.com and consumeraffairs.com), provide online environments in which customers can post their misadventures as well as compare notes with other people. More general user-generated-content websites such as YouTube, Twitter and Facebook also offer venues for complaining, and there are also specifically targeted anti-corporation websites such as starbucked.com.3 Given these and other Internet options, companies whose unhappy customers decide to take revenge can suffer serious consequences. Whereas until a few years ago the damage of negative word of mouth was limited to a fairly small audience, now online reports can go viral, reach millions of people within a short period of time and tarnish a company’s brand.
What can companies do, whether in reacting to such negative publicity or in preventing its occurrence? Based on our research (See “About the Research”), we have developed an “organizing matrix” for these purposes. The two rows of this matrix (See “Organizing Matrix: Understanding and Managing Online Public Complaining”) reflect our understanding of the behaviors of online complainers (Row 1), which serves as the foundation of our recommendations for managing that behavior (Row 2). The two columns of the matrix reflect the temporal dimension — that is, before and after the online complaint. In other words, the matrix is designed to help companies formulate appropriate tactics both in prevention and resolution modes, as further developed below.
ORGANIZING MATRIX
Understanding and Managing Online Public Complaining
View Exhibit
The matrix (read in a clockwise manner) answers the following questions:
Quadrant 1: Why do customers complain online in the first place?
Quadrant 2: How long will online complainers hold a grudge against the company?
Quadrant 3: How should a company respond after the online complaint?
Quadrant 4: How can a company prevent online complaining?
ABOUT THE RESEARCH >>
Quadrant 1: Why Do Customers Complain Online in the First Place?
In order to respond to or prevent online public complaining, one first needs to understand why customers pursue that course. That is, what are the triggers? We find that customers go online because (1) they are victims of a “double deviation” and (2) they feel betrayed.
Online Public Complaining Almost Always Follows a “Double Deviation.” Most online complainers have been victims not only of a product or service failure (referred to simply as a “service failure” for the rest of this article) but also of a series of failed resolution attempts. In the first case, a product might not have performed as expected, an employee may have been rude or an unanticipated cost, such as a hidden fee, may have been levied. After this initial failure, customers’ attempts to resolve the issue — by complaining in-house to the company’s customer service representatives, managers or owners — may also have come to naught from the customer’s point of view. When such a sequence occurs, customers feel twice violated: First, the company deviated from acceptable practice, and then it deviated again by not satisfactorily addressing the problem. Such “double deviations” can provoke, in effect, a moment of truth for the customer, when the individual concludes that the company does not care about his or her patronage.4
Our research shows that online public complaining is almost always preceded by double deviations. Specifically, after codifying and analyzing 431 online complaints posted to ripoffreport.com and consumeraffairs.com, we found that approximately 96% of the online complaints followed a double deviation.5 Only 4% of the online complaints posted publicly followed a simple service failure.
That is good news for companies because online complainers are not necessarily terrorism-minded individuals who go online at the slightest provocation to impede commercial operations. Instead, they are simply exhausted customers who kept complaining about a serious issue that the company kept failing to address. That is exactly what happened in Dave Carroll’s case.
In general, we are not talking about mild failures involving modestly unpleasant encounters at, say, a restaurant or hotel, which have been the most frequent contexts studied. Rather, we consider severe service failures that the customers simply cannot ignore and for which they need to achieve resolution … or, if all else fails, to go online in some dramatic fashion, as the U.S. marine did. Based on our codification of the online complaints we studied, the most common contexts for such complaints appear to be automotive (11%); large retail purchases (10.5%); credit, debt and mortgage services (10.3%); cell phone providers (9.5%); websites and online services (6.3%); appliances (5.3%); and computers (5%).
Betrayal (as Opposed to Mere Dissatisfaction) Drives Online Complainers. Not all customers who are victims of a double deviation make online complaints. What distinguishes those who do invest the requisite time and energy, knowing that their chances of material gain are limited? We find that they do so because they feel betrayed by the company — they believe that the product or service provider has violated the norms of a customer-company relationship.6 In a double-deviation context, customers can see betrayal because they believe the company is morally obligated to help them resolve a difficulty that the company itself caused (e.g., Dave Carroll’s broken guitar), and this belief is violated when the company keeps failing them (his nine months of fruitless attempts at resolution). This sense of betrayal motivates customers to take all possible means to “get even.” Indeed, when they feel betrayed, customers see online public action as justified — even noble, as it may, for example, provide warning to other customers.
It is important to note that betrayal is not simply a case of extreme dissatisfaction. Unlike dissatisfaction, betrayal is associated with anger, which is a strong negative emotion that motivates customers to respond strongly. In contrast, dissatisfaction is related to frustration and annoyance, two relatively mild negative emotions that tend to be short-lived and result in more passive actions, if any at all, such as exiting the relationship. But feelings of betrayal can lead customers to persist in their demands for reparation and, if that fails to satisfy, to engage in vengeful behaviors, such as online public complaining, against a company.
Quadrant 2: How Long Will Online Complainers Hold a Grudge Against the Company?
We examined two forms of grudge-holding: seeking revenge and avoiding the company by not returning with one’s business. We found that after customers had complained online, their desire for revenge dropped in the succeeding four weeks and then stabilized, though never disappearing entirely (at least, not up to eight weeks after the complaint — the point at which we last surveyed them). Moreover, customers’ desire for avoidance rose after their online complaint and then remained essentially constant. (See “The Two Forms of Customer Grudge-Holding.”) Thus, we found that customers do continue to hold a grudge: Although their desire for revenge diminishes, they are not coming back.
THE TWO FORMS OF CUSTOMER GRUDGE-HOLDING
View Exhibit
Is a Post-Complaint Recovery Possible in an Online Context? But what if a company were to offer some kind of resolution, after the complaint had been posted online, to try to recover its relationship with the customer? In our survey, we found that 27% of the companies made just such a gesture. But it didn’t always help. Customers who received a satisfactory resolution within four weeks after their online complaint reported reductions in their desire for revenge; but resolution offered after that time frame had no impact. It was too late! In any case, such a post-complaint recovery attempt did not seem to bring back the business of the online complainer; it had no significant effect, during any time frame, on the ex-customer’s desire for avoidance. (See the yellow and green curves of “The Two Forms of Customer Grudge-Holding.”) Thus, while a post-complaint recovery attempt may stop the vengeful actions of some complainers, as long as it’s done expeditiously, they are no more likely to return as customers.
Do Certain Customers Hold Grudges for a Longer Time? Every company has its “best” customers — those who bring repeat business, show brand loyalty and in the extreme have strong emotional ties to the company. Other customers we call “casual” – those who may make purchases only once or sporadically, have lesser loyalty and have limited bonding with the company.
Does type of customer matter in the context of online public complaining? That is, do a company’s best customers become its worst enemies, or are they more forgiving than casual customers? On the one hand, after a service failure the best customers may give the company the benefit of the doubt, perhaps feel grateful for prior service, or even expect to continue receiving good service in the future. If so, they should be more motivated to forgive the company and might not hold a grudge over time. On the other hand, because the best customers may expect special treatment, when they receive bad service instead they are more surprised and shocked. Having felt entitled to more, when they don’t get it they may feel betrayed all the more acutely.
So, which is it: Are the best customers more forgiving or more vindictive? The data from our study are clear: A company’s best customers are the most likely to become its worst enemies in an online context — at least, in the absence of a proper recovery attempt, about which we will have more to say below. Compared with casual customers, the best customers feel more betrayed, which makes them much more persistent and vengeful in their complaining efforts. And not only do the best customers maintain a greater desire for revenge over time, they also seek to exit their relationship with the company much sooner than do casual customers.
Quadrant 3: How Should a Company Respond After the Online Complaint?
Now we turn to the “managing” part of our matrix. As in their other commercial activities, companies should be methodical when trying to recover their relationship with a customer after his or her online complaint. That is, they should craft their recovery attempts by: (1) accounting for the type of customer (based on the prior relationship); (2) timing the response; and (3) carefully selecting the content of the apology.
Tailoring the Response to the Customer The post-complaint recovery depends on the type of customer involved. Our research shows that the best (relationship-focused) customers are more amenable to recovery efforts, regardless of the recovery’s size or monetary value, than are casual customers. For the best customers, the company’s admission of wrongdoing and the perceived sincerity of its apology could be more important than restitution. As the old saying goes, “It is the thought that counts.” In other words, for those steady customers who value a relationship with the company, recovery may take only a statement of contrition and a symbolic financial act, which communicate that the company values the relationship as well.7
Regardless of the content of the recovery, companies should pay special attention to their best customers because they not only are the most amenable to sincere recovery attempts but also are generally the biggest spenders and feel most betrayed after a double deviation. At the same time, companies don’t want customers to feel that they are so big that they are indispensable. One determinant of whether people will act on their desires for revenge is the power they believe they wield to exact such revenge and get away with it.8 Therefore, it is important for managers to achieve balance — to make their best customers feel special without making them feel too special.
For casual customers, the situation is different. Not necessarily interested in affirming their relationship with the company, they may be less won over by evidence that the company values the relationship with them. Instead, such customers typically care only about financial repayment, with the size of the monetary compensation being most important to them.
These results suggest that companies’ responses should depend on what kind of customer experienced poor treatment. However, two points remain. First, companies should not expect that all of these customers are coming back; many are likely to be irretrievably going away. Keep in mind, though, that getting avenging customers to go away can be good riddance, if not good short-term business. Second, giving restitution to all customers who complain on the Internet could in the long run be counterproductive. That is, if companies rewarded customers for complaining online, then eventually even more, not fewer, customers might do so.
Whatever You Do, Do It Quickly Many companies now instruct employees to search the Internet for complaints so as to react swiftly and judiciously, thereby reducing the likelihood of a toxic aftermath. For example, a feature article in the Wall Street Journal detailed how hotels search online for complaints. A major aim is to identify complainers who still are staying at the hotel and to have employees resolve the matter immediately, if possible, but at least before the guest checks out. For example, one guest posted on Twitter that he had “the crappiest room in the hotel,” only to receive within a few hours a note of apology slipped under his door that also offered him a better room.9
In any case, as discussed earlier, there is little point in responding beyond four weeks after the online complaint, as apologies and restitutions will then have very little impact on complainers’ passion for revenge and avoidance.
What to Include in an Apology After the Online Complaint Common experience suggests, as do psychological and marketing research, that for most customers to feel betrayed following a service failure, and to become sufficiently angry to seek revenge, they have to blame the company for what has happened. How much blame customers assign depends on their inferences regarding the nature of the company’s service failure: Was the failure intentional and motivated by greed? Was the failure intentional but motivated by kindness? Or was the failure unintentional? Obviously, inferences of greed lead to more anger than do inferences of lack of motive, and inferences of kindness lead to even less anger. But how critical are such inferences?
We ran an experiment to find out.10 As expected, participants who were presented with the negative motive had a significantly greater desire for revenge than for reconciliation, participants who were presented with no motive had nearly equal desires for revenge and reconciliation, and participants who were presented with the positive motive had a much lower desire for revenge than for reconciliation. Further analysis of the experiment’s and a survey’s results showed that inference of motive was the key belief that drove anger and any consequent desires for revenge or reconciliation.
It thus makes sense that the apology should include a statement aimed at making customers’ worst-case inferences (of greed) unlikely. For instance, airlines’ apologies for delayed or canceled flights should include statements that explain the underlying motives. It’s not, say, that the airline wanted to combine two flights to the same destination because each one was less than half full (a negative inference of greed); it was concerned enough about a plane’s mechanical problem that it canceled the flight to keep passengers safe (a positive inference of looking out for customers’ safety).
Note that simply providing no information about the reasons behind the failure does not help customers rule out worst-case inferences. Faced with ambiguity, people tend to err on the sinister side when inventing explanations. That is, in the absence of information, customers don’t necessarily come to a neutral “I don’t know”; they often connect dots that perhaps should not be connected and become convinced that the company is just plain greedy. Don’t allow customers to go down this road; give them an explanation instead.
Other research on apologies suggests additional elements that need to be included.11 First, apologies should be sincere and truthful. An insincere apology can be worse than no apology at all. Second, effective apologies are not about the company assigning blame elsewhere. Doing so can actually backfire, at least when it’s clear to the customer that the service failure was caused by the company’s own negligence or incompetence.
Not assigning blame at all in an apology may not be any safer either. Consider the research on doctors’ apologies to patients.12 Many doctors will not apologize when they make medical mistakes out of fear that such admissions of guilt could result in malpractice lawsuits. The research, however, suggests that these doctors have it backward; in reality, patients are more likely to sue for malpractice when they receive no apology or an insincere apology. That is why some states have recently passed “I’m sorry” laws that allow physicians to admit to a mistake without it being used against them in court.
Basically, we advise companies to own up to honest mistakes when they make them and not to let the customer believe that they are motivated by greed.
Quadrant 4: How Can a Company Prevent Online Public Complaining?
Even better is to respond so quickly after the initial service failure that the second element of the double deviation does not occur, with the result that most customers do not complain publicly and online. Good prevention, after all, is usually preferable to a good cure. In that spirit, we recommend that companies design their recovery efforts (1) based on a triage system and (2) by focusing on the process and not just the outcomes.
Develop a Triage System. Clearly, different customers often need to be handled differently. For that reason we suggest that companies, in pursuing recovery processes, emulate the triage that doctors perform during medical emergencies involving multiple casualties.13 For example, in a natural disaster where injuries are many but medical resources are few, physicians must decide who to treat immediately, who can wait for treatment and who will receive no treatment at all. The main principle that guides triage is to first treat the most life-threatening injuries of people who can be saved, second the non-life-threatening injuries and last the life-threatening injuries of people who cannot be saved.
Service failures are analogous to such medical situations in three ways. First, companies have limited financial and human resources to deal with service failures, much as aid stations in natural disasters have limited medical supplies and physicians to treat multiple patients. Second, not all customers can be “saved” — that is, recovered — just as not all patients can be saved. And third, some service failures, being more threatening to the customer and to the customer-company relationship, are more likely to motivate the customer to seek revenge against the company, just as some injuries are more severe than others and carry greater risks of suffering and death.
This analogy suggests some recommendations. Companies should identify those —customers who have suffered the most severe service failures and who can also be recovered. Fortunately, such identification should be relatively easy, given that the most recoverable customers are typically a company’s best customers. Moreover, like severely injured patients who can be healed, these customers should be attended to very quickly. Wait too long — some four weeks or more — and the chances of recovering them drop steeply.
The Process Matters More than the Outcomes. We describe this commercial version of triage as preventive, not just curative, because it should be performed before the second element (recovery failure) of the double deviation occurs. More preventive still, perhaps, is a system in which customers may not mind service failures so much because they perceive a fair process for complaining about them. In fact, the “fair process effect” — a well-known psychological phenomenon, particularly in labor-management settings — demonstrates that employees will tolerate disappointing outcomes as long as they perceive the decision-making processes surrounding these outcomes to be fair. In other words, for employees to become very angry and challenging, they have to believe that both the outcome and process are unfair.
In our research, we have found that the fair-process effect may apply in the consumer setting as well. Specifically, we have measured how the perception of fairness of the systems that companies put into place to address complaints — systems characterized by parameters such as voice, control, speed, waiting time and flexibility — can substantially reduce customers’ sense of betrayal. Thus, as long as the company uses such fair processes, and as long as it makes customers aware of them, customers will tolerate the occasional service failure.
(Reprint # 52303)
Thomas M. Tripp is a professor of management at Washington State University. Yany Grégoire is an associate professor of marketing at HEC-Montréal.
REFERENCES
1. www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YGc4zOqozo.
2. www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PnlWHdJGLM&feature=related.
3. J.C. Ward and A.L. Ostrom, "Complaining to the Masses: The Role of Protest Framing in Customer-Created Complaint Web Sites," Journal of Consumer Research 33, no. 2 (September 2006): 220-230.
4. Y. Grégoire and R.J. Fisher, "Customer Betrayal and Retaliation: When Your Best Customers Become Your Worst Enemies," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 36, no. 2 (June 2008): 247-261; and N. Bechwati and M. Morrin, "Outraged Consumers: Getting Even at the Expense of Getting a Good Deal," Journal of Consumer Psychology 13, no. 4 (November 2003): 440-453.
5. Y. Grégoire, T.M. Tripp and R. Legoux, "When Customer Love Turns into Lasting Hate: The Effects of Relationship Strength and Time on Customer Revenge and Avoidance," Journal of Marketing 73, no. 6 (November 2009): 18-32.
6. Grégoire, "Customer Betrayal and Retaliation."
7. Grégoire, "When Customer Love Turns into Lasting Hate."
8. K. Aquino, T.M. Tripp and R.J. Bies, "Getting Even or Moving On? Power, Procedural Justice, and Types of Offense as Predictors of Revenge, Forgiveness, Reconciliation, and Avoidance in Organizations," Journal of Applied Psychology 91, no. 3 (May 2006): 653-668; Y. Grégoire, D. Laufer and T.M. Tripp, "A Comprehensive Model of Customer Direct and Indirect Revenge: Understanding the Effects of Perceived Greed and Customer Power," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 38, no. 6 (December 2010): 738-758.
9. S. Nassauer, "‘I Hate My Room,’ The Traveler Tweeted. Ka-Boom! An Upgrade! The New Ways Hotels Track You and Your Complaints," Wall Street Journal, June 24, 2010.
10. B. Devezer, Y. Grégoire, J. Joireman and T.M. Tripp, "Can a Firm Get Away with Double Deviation? The Role of Inferred Motive in Revenge and Reconciliation," working paper, Washington State University, September 2010.
11. P.H. Kim, K.T. Dirks, C.D. Cooper and D.L. Ferrin, "When More Blame Is Better than Less: The Implications of Internal vs. External Attributions for the Repair of Trust After a Competence- vs. Integrity-Based Trust Violation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 99, no. 1 (January 2006): 49-65; P.H. Kim, D.L. Ferrin, C.D. Cooper and K.T. Dirks, "Removing the Shadow of Suspicion: The Effects of Apology Versus Denial for Repairing Competence- vs. Integrity-Based Trust Violations," Journal of Applied Psychology 89, no. 1 (February 2004): 104-118.
12. A.W. Wu, "Handling Hospital Errors: Is Disclosure the Best Defense?" Annals of Internal Medicine 131, no. 12 (December 1999): 970-972.
13. Grégoire, "A Comprehensive Model of Customer Direct and Indirect Revenge."
i. T. Tripp and R.J. Bies, "Getting Even: The Truth About Workplace Revenge — and How to Stop It" (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2009).
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Facebook goes Potty
Over 25% of Americans Use Facebook in the Can
Marketing Opportunity for Purell?
You may scoff at that coworker who brings a newspaper into the bathroom at work, but we know the truth about you now. According to Atlanta-based AIS Media, a survey of 500 people found that 27% of Americans report using mobile devices to check Facebook while in the bathroom.
"While it may seem humorous to survey people about their Facebook usage while in the bathroom, the results underscore the proliferation of consumer social media usage and their strong need to stay connected," said Thomas Harpointner, CEO of AIS Media. "For businesses and brands, social media offers an opportunity to engage potential customers like never before."
He's right. It is humorous to survey people about Facebook bathroom usage!
But seriously, this is the kind of study I absolutely love as it proves something you sort of suspected in the first place. Quoted in the press materials announcing the study, Edward E. Rigdon, a marketing professor at the J. Mack Robinson College of Business at Georgia State University, points out, "I imagine most people carry their phone with them, in pocket or purse. People receive emails on their phone alerting them to Facebook messages or postings, and many people respond by reflex." (And others just go hide in there with their phone to get out of work.)
And for marketers, the lesson is simple. Says Rigdon: "This study illustrates one of the ... ways in which marketing is changing -- it is becoming more ubiquitous. Marketing is everywhere, and anything can be marketing."
Wouldn't this be the perfect opportunity for makers of hand-sanitizers to reach audiences -- and guilt them. Tagline: "We know what you're doing, you filthy thing you." Perhaps those Charmin bears could set up a Facebook profile. (They don't exactly have a favorable presence on Facebook as it is.)
What's more, AIS found that potty-poking was higher among women. Some 54% of female respondents admitted to doing it compared to 46% of male respondents. Of course, it doesn't take a biologist or anthropologist or psychologist to point out that it's much harder -- and weirder -- to "Like" something while standing at a urinal. (Though that's not to say it isn't done.)
The study raises a host of other interesting questions. Would these numbers have been higher if so many people weren't playing Angry Birds in the bathroom stall? Which phone platform (iPhone, BlackBerry, Droid) is preferred among toilet-texters? How many people have used Foursquare to check in to a bathroom? And, most important, will you ever touch someone else's phone again?
From Advertising Age online
An article from the Tourism Exchange newsletter on Travel Marketing
Smart Phones, Social Media and Local Search As Key Tools in Travel Marketing | |
A flood of innovation involving smart phones, social media and local search will soon have a massive impact on what travelers do and how they spend their money while on vacation, according to a new study from a leading travel market research firm. The report found that U.S. travelers last year spent a total of $26.8 billion on tours, skiing, sports events, amusement parks, spas, museums, zoos, concerts and other cultural and recreational activities. That's more than twice the amount spent on cruises and package tours, and nearly twice the amount spent on car rentals. The study, entitled "When They Get There, and Why They Go," is soon to be released by PhoCusWright Inc. The firm surveyed 1,283 consumers, 340 suppliers of events and activities and 45 industry executives about the U.S. travel activities marketplace. "Mobile technologies, social networks and location-based search are already having a huge effect on consumers' trip planning. But the impact is going to be even more profound going forward as we reach a tipping point in the adoption of smart phones and tablet PCs," said Jon Schepke, President of SIM Partners. SIM Partners, a Chicago-based interactive marketing agency, is a sponsor of the PhoCusWright study. In 2012, shipments of smart phones are expected to exceed PC shipments for the first time. Additionally, iSuppli forecasts iPad sales at 43.7 million units in 2011 and 63.3 million in 2012, reinforcing the importance of being focused on mobile computing and application development (iPhone/iPad, Android etc.). "These trends offer travel marketers new and cost-efficient ways of connecting with consumers before, during and after their trips," Schepke said. "Consumers will be able to access targeted information, promotions and offers when they need them most and are making decisions, so they are more likely to buy." He cautioned that destinations, hotels and travel attractions should have a mobile marketing strategy in place now to adapt to the fast-changing digital landscape and ensure that they are well-positioned to take advantage of these opportunities. "Those who move quickly to develop engaging and consumer-friendly mobile applications will gain a significant advantage in a very competitive marketplace," Schepke said. The report cited mobile convergence - the explosion of GPS-empowered applications, mapping, search, digital camera, MP3 player and other capabilities available on smart phones -- as a key trend that will significantly influence consumers' future choices of activities in their travel destinations. Social media will continue to expand in importance as travelers increasingly depend on reviews, videos and personal recommendations from friends in making vacation plans and selecting activities. Among the other findings in the report: Three in four active travelers use a mobile device while traveling. Two-thirds say they are likely to research, shop and book travel activities via their mobile devices. More than three in four active travelers cite traveler reviews and photos as very or moderately influential in choosing what to do. Nearly six in 10 cite user-generated video as influential and more than one in three cite content and promotions from companies. Consumers who spend the most on travel activities are the most influenced by web content such as interactive maps, blogs and social networks. One in two active travelers say they are likely to post comments to their social network. Four in 10 say they are likely to solicit advice from their social network. "This study reveals that consumers are ready to embrace the mobile-social-local digital revolution," Schepke said. "The travel industry has just scratched the surface of the powerful marketing mojo being created by itinerary tools, location-based networking, interactive mapping and other technologies. The potential is massive for reaching the right travelers with personalized offers and incentives at just the right time and place." Source: eHotelier.com | |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
