Branding

Yahoo’s Terrible, Horrible, No-Good Month

Phillip Nones Branding, Business, Marketing, Marketing Communications, Media, Media Consumption , , , , , , , , ,

ybb

Aren’t you glad you don’t work at Yahoo?

Where to begin … For starters, the Associated Press is reporting that Yahoo disabled its e-mail forwarding service effective the beginning of October.

Yahoo has a rather benign statement in its Help Center “explaining” why the service has been disabled:

“Automatic forwarding sends a copy of incoming messages from one account to another. The feature is under development.  While we work to improve it, we’ve temporarily disabled the ability to turn on Mail Forwarding for new forwarding addresses.  If you’ve already enabled Mail Forwarding for new forwarding addresses in the past, your e-mail will continue to forward to the address you previously configured.”

This hardly passes the snicker test, of course.

Disabling the auto-forwarding feature for new forwarding addresses came at the same time it was revealed that a 2014 hack of Yahoo’s platform resulted in the theft of ~500 million e-mail accounts including information on addresses, phone numbers, passwords, security questions and answers, plus birthdays.

It doesn’t take a genius to conclude that the reason Yahoo disabled its automatic forwarding function for new forwarding addresses was to deter concerned or frightened Yahoo Mail users from making a mass exodus to rival services.

But this is only the latest in a string of stumbles by the company in just the past few weeks.

For one, Yahoo is now defending a class-action lawsuit accusing the company of security negligence in the wake of 2014’s half-billion e-mail accounts theft.

There’s also a report from Reuters that for the past 18 months, Yahoo has been scanning all incoming Yahoo Mail messages for a wide range of keyword phrases — all on behalf of our friends in the federal government.

And if those weren’t enough, the much-ballyhooed announcement this past summer that Verizon was planning to acquire Yahoo for $4.8 billion has devolved to this: Verizon is now asking Yahoo for a $1 billion discount on the purchase.

It’s little wonder some people are calling the company “Whowee” instead of “Yahoo” these days …

The “Millennial Effect” – and how it’s affecting the Boomer Generation.

Phillip Nones Advertising, Branding, Demographics, Marketing Communications, Marketing Research, Social Commentary , , , , , , ,

bm

In the world of marketing communications, it seems that confluence is in the air. This point was underscored recently by Eric Trow, a MediaPost columnist who is also vice present of strategic services at Pittsburgh, PA-based marketing communications firm Gatesman+Dave.

Trow’s main point is this:  Despite the big differences that marketers have traditionally noted between members of the Boomer Generation and their younger Millennial counterparts, today the two groups are becoming more similar than they are different.

In particular, Boomers are beginning to act more like Millennials.

Trow identifies a set of fundamental trending characteristics that underscore his belief:

  • Boomers increasingly want instant gratification – and related to that, they want convenience as well.
  • Boomers are embracing technology more every day, including being nearly as dependent on mobile devices as their younger counterparts.
  • Boomers connect online – with adults over the age of 65 now driving social media growth more than any other generation at the moment.
  • Boomers want control – and to that end, they do their research as well.
  • Boomers want to live healthier – with levels of interest in natural, healthy and environmentally responsible products rivaling those of younger age groups.
  • Boomers are more questioning of traditional authority – and not just because of the 2016 U.S. presidential election race, either.

Putting it all together, Trow concludes that he and many other Boomers could, in practice, be classified more accurately as “middle-aged Millennials.”

Speaking as someone who falls inside the Boomer generation age range, I concede many of Trow’s points.

But how about you?  Do they ring true to you as well?

Are wearable devices wearing out their welcome?

Phillip Nones Branding, Business, Manufacturing, Marketing, Marketing Communications, Marketing Research, Sales , , , , , , , , , ,

fb

So-called “wearable” interactive devices – products like Fitbit and Apple Watch – aren’t exactly new. In some cases, they’ve been in the market in a pretty big way for several years now.  Plenty of them are being produced and are readily available from popular retailers.

And plenty of consumers have tried them, too. Forrester Research has found that about one in five U.S. consumers (~21%) used some form of wearable product in 2015.

That sounds pretty decent … until you discover that in similar consumer research conducted this year, the percentage of consumers who use wearables has actually declined to ~14%.

The findings are part of Forrester’s annual State of Consumers & Technology Benchmark research. The research involves online surveys of a large group of ~60,000 U.S. adults age 18 and over, as well as an additional 6,000 Canadian respondents.

Not surprisingly, the demographic group most likely to be users of wearables are Gen Y’ers – people ages 28 to 36 years old. Within this group, about three-fourths report that they have ever used a wearable device … but only ~28% report that they are using one or more this year.

Forrester’s research found the same trend in Gen Z (respondents between 18 and 27 years old), where ~26% have used wearable devices in the past, but only ~15% are doing so currently.

The question is … does this mean that wearables are merely a passing fad? Or is it more a situation where the wearable technology isn’t delivering on consumer expectations?

The Forrester research points to the latter explanation. Gina Fleming, leader of Forrester’s marketing data science work team, put it this way:

“Younger consumers tend to have the highest expectations for technology and for companies. They tried these devices, and oftentimes it didn’t meet their expectations in their current use case.  Young consumers tend to be early adopters, but are also fast to move on if they’re not satisfied.”

One interesting finding of the survey is that among the older cohorts – respondents over the age of 36 – their usage has increased in the past year rather than decreased as was found with younger respondents.

Among the respondents who currently use at least one wearable device, there are no real surprises in which ones are the most popular, with Fitbit and Apple Watch heading the list:

  • Fitbit: Used by ~40% of all current wearable device users
  • Apple Watch: ~32%
  • Samsung Galaxy Gear: ~27%
  • Microsoft Band: ~21%
  • Sony SmartBand: ~19%
  • Pebble Smart Watch: ~17%

Looking to the future, although marketers of wearable devices might be happy to see positive trends among older consumers, the usage levels in broad terms tend to be significantly lower than with younger consumers.

It’s within that younger group where the high degree of “churn” appears to offer the biggest opportunities – as well as risks – for wearable device purveyors.

What about your own personal experiences with wearables? Have you found yourself using wearable devices less today than a year ago?  And if so, why?

Whole Foods may now have to settle for half-a-loaf.

Phillip Nones Branding, Business, Economics, Marketing, Marketing Communications , , , , , , , , , ,

wfThe Whole Foods chain of upscale “healthy grocery” outlets just released its 2016 3rd Quarter results … and things continue to look a little less fresh and a little more droopy for company.

Sales for stores open one year or longer have now declined for the fourth consecutive quarter, and the latest ~2.6% drop is steeper than analysts had been predicting.

Company profits have slid more than 20% since the same time last year.

One bit of good news is that Whole Foods’ total sales have increased by around 2%. It isn’t exactly the double-digit growth experienced up until a couple years ago — but at least it remains a gain.

In a nutshell, the problems faced by Whole Foods, which describes itself as the “World’s Healthiest Grocery Store,” is a maturation of the market for high-end groceries and other foods. In the words of Stephen Tanal, a vice president at Goldman Sachs, as reported by Forbes last week:

“Wellness has gone mass, and it’s not coming back – never again to be relegated to niche specialty retailers serving price-insensitive early adopters.”

Underscoring Tanal’s contention is the fact that ~75% of Whole Foods store locations now have one or more Trader Joe’s located within five miles.  More than half of them have a Kroger store within five miles, and nearly 85% have a Costco outlet located within ten miles.

In response to the heightened competition, Whole Foods is speeding up implementation of its plans to open a line of smaller outlets called 365 by Whole Foods Market. According to the company, these are “value-driven” locations that feature a streamlined operating model while benefiting from centralized buying and auto-replenishment of inventory.

Reportedly, pilot locations in California and Oregon have been positively received, and a third location will be opening soon in the Seattle suburbs.

Other initiatives being undertaken by the company fall under an umbrella described by co-founder and co-CEO John Mackey as a “back to basics” program including refocusing on the customer experience as well as improved store layouts and wayfinding, signage and the like.

… And lower prices, too, one would presume – if the company is serious about reclaiming the mantle of “good for you” food market leader from Kroger, Wegmans, Redners and other “mainstream” chains that have been encroaching on Whole Foods’ turf.

Will Whole Foods regain the momentum … or continue to be on the defensive?  We’ll see how it plays out in the coming quarters.

Brands and “cause marketing”: How much is too much?

Phillip Nones Advertising, Branding, Business, Marketing, Marketing Communications, Marketing Research, Social Commentary , , , , , ,

cmWhen brands conduct attitudinal studies of their customer base, the research often finds that people respond favorably to so-called “positive” or “progressive” causes.

The ALS “Ice-Bucket Challenge” is probably Exhibit A for the potency of such an initiative — including its fantastically successful viral component.

So it’s only natural that brand managers would think in terms of tying their brands to high-profile events such as Earth Day or popular health causes such as efforts to cure cancer or heart disease.

Perhaps the activity is doing a highly publicized community initiative … hosting a well-publicized 5K run or similar event … or donating funds for the cause in a new and attention-grabbing way.

But here’s the rub: With so many national brands doing precisely these sorts of things, it’s become something of an echo chamber.  What once was fresh and novel now seems decidedly ho-hum.

Besides, with so much breathless “cause activity” happening, it’s little wonder that many consumers are seeing through all the hype and attaching near-zero attribution to the brands involved.

The situation is even more problematic when there’s little or no connection between the brand’s products or services and the cause being supported.  The problem is, when brands start vying for attention — especially allying with causes that have nothing at all to do with their core business — “authenticity” goes out the window.

In the process, the brands may telegraph something even worse than irrelevancy; they look desperate for attention.

Of course, all of this evidence doesn’t mean that major brands aren’t continuing to try to attach themselves to the positive vibes of social action. Some recent examples are these:

More problematic than these campaigns was the Starbucks initiative last year in which its baristas were encouraged to start conversations about race relations, interacting with customers waiting in line for their espressos and muffins.

Let’s just say that the idea looked better on paper compared to how it panned out in real life — with more than a few Starbucks customers finding the initiative awkward, intrusive and off-putting (and taking to Twitter to vent their feelings).

Thinking about the good and the not-so-good of “cause marketing,” it appears that the more successful of these initiatives are ones which hew more closely to a brand’s own essence.

Patagonia is a good example of this. Its mission has always been to design and manufacture quality products in an environmentally responsible way, and it promotes proper stewardship of the land and of material possessions through many initiatives that just “feel right” for this particular brand.

And in the realm of apparel and cosmetics, a whole bevy of brands have jumped into conversations about “positive self-image.” While to some people it may seem self-serving for brands like Dove® soap, American Eagle lingerie and Lane Bryant plus-size apparel to become active in such causes, one can also see the logical connection between the products these brands sell and the themes they are spotlighting in these campaigns.

Authenticity and genuineness: Not only are they the hallmark of successful brands, they’re the acid test for successfully grabbing a share of the “social good” pie.  Who’s doing it right … and who’s missing the mark?  Let us know your nominations.

Saints and Sinners: The Ten Most Sinful Cities in the United States … and the most Saintly

Phillip Nones Advertising, Branding, Government, Marketing, Marketing Communications, Marketing Research, Social Commentary , , , , , , , ,

deWhich cities in America are the “most sinful” of the bunch? Perhaps they’re the ones whose monikers or mottos seem to suggest as much:

  • Always turned on.
  • Big beach. Big fun.
  • The city that never sleeps.
  • Glitter Gulch
  • Live large. Think big.
  • More than you ever dreamed.
  • Sin City
  • Sleaze City
  • Tinseltown
  • Town on the make.
  • What happens here, stays here.
  • What we dream, we do.
  • The wickedest little city in America.

While some of the descriptions above hardly represent what city boosters would want to convey about their burgs, a surprising number of them are actually the end-result of formal marketing and branding efforts – focus-group tested and all.

[How many cities do you think you can name for these slogans?]

tr logoBut put all of that aside now … because the online residential real estate website Trulia has been busy doing its own analysis of which cities qualify as being among the nation’s most “sinful.” Earlier this month, it published its listing of the ten most “sinful cities” in the United States.

How did Trulia compile the list? For starters, it limited its research to the 150 largest metropolitan areas.

Next, it used a variety of data such as drinking habits, the number of adult entertainment venues and the number of gambling establishments to determine the cities where it’s easiest to succumb to the eight deadly sins – among them gluttony, greed, lust, sloth and vanity.

For each “offense,” Trulia examined statistical measures that serve as key clues – stats like how many adult entertainment venues there are (for lust), and exercise statistics (for sloth).

Obviously, a mega-city like New York or Los Angeles is going to offer many more outlets catering to the sinful nature of mankind compared to smaller urban centers. So Tulia has “common-sized” the data based on per capita population, making it possible to determine the destination in which it’s easiest to satisfy one’s whims (or vices).

So – drumroll please – here’s the resulting Trulia Top Ten, listed below beginning with #10 and moving up to the ignominious honor of being the most sinful city of the bunch:

  • #10 Columbus, OH
  • #9   San Antonio, TX
  • #8   Las Vegas, NV
  • #7   Shreveport, LA
  • #6   Louisville, KY
  • #5   Toledo, OH
  • #4   Tampa, FL
  • #3   Philadelphia, PA
  • #2   Atlantic City, NJ
  • #1   New Orleans, LA  

I suppose few people would quarrel with New Orleans coming in at #1 on the list; anyone who has spent any time in that city knows must know how much of an “anything goes” atmosphere exists there. (Few tourists seem to avert their eyes to what they see, either.)

Atlantic City? Las Vegas?  Pretty much the same thing.

But what about Louisville, or Toledo, or … Shreveport?? OMG!

Of course, the same statistics Trulia crunched to determine who sits atop the “Sin City” list also reveal which cities are their polar opposites – the places Trulia calls America’s “saintly sanctuaries.”

Which cities are those?  Here’s that list:

  • #10 Cambridge, MA
  • #9   Greeley, CO
  • #8   Asheville, NC
  • #7   Boise, ID
  • #6   Claremont-Lebanon, NH
  • #5   Raleigh, NC
  • #4   Tuscaloosa, AL
  • #3   Ft. Collins, CO
  • #2   Ogden, UT
  • #1   Provo, UT

I think fewer surprises are on this list.

Tr

For details on the Trulia analysis and to read more about the methodology employed, click here.

What’s your take? Based on your own personal observations or even first-hand experience, which cities would you characterize as the most “sinful” … and the most “saintly”?  We’re all interested to know!

Who are the World’s Most Reputable Companies in 2016?

Phillip Nones Branding, Business, Marketing Research , , , , , , , ,

I’ve blogged before about the international reputation of leading companies and brands as calculated by various survey firms such as Harris Interactive.

RI logoOne of these ratings studies is conducted by market research firm Reputation Institute, which collected nearly 250,000 ratings during the first quarter of 2016 from members of the public in 15 major countries throughout the world.

The nations included in the company reputation evaluation were the United States, Canada, Mexico and Brazil in the Americas … France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom and Russia in Europe … India, China, South Korea and Japan in Asia … as well as Australia.

Approximately 200 leading companies were rated by respondents on a total of seven key dimensions of reputation, including:

  • Products and services
  • Innovation
  • Workplace
  • Governance
  • Citizenship
  • Leadership
  • Performance

In the 2016 evaluation, the top-rated companies scored “excellent” (a rating of 80 or higher on a 100-poinst scale) or “strong” (a rating of 70-79) in all seven reputation categories. 2016’s “Top 10” most reputable firms turned out to be these (ranked in order of their score):

#1 Rolex

#2 The Walt Disney Company

#3 Google

#4 BMW Group

#5 Daimler

#6 LEGO Group

#7 Microsoft

#8 Canon

#9 Sony

#10 Apple

Different companies scored highest on specific attributes, however:

  • Apple: #1 in Innovation and in Leadership
  • Google: #1 in Performance and in Workplace
  • Rolex: #1 in Products & Services
  • The Walt Disney Company: #1 in Citizenship and in Governance

VAt the other end of the scale, which company do you suppose was the one that suffered the worst year-over-year performance?

That dubious honor goes to Volkswagen.  In the wake of an emissions scandal affecting the brand internationally, VW’s reputation score plummeted nearly 14 points, which was enough to drop it out of the Top 100 brand listing altogether.

It’s quite a decline from the VW’s #14 position last year.

The complete list of this year’s Top 100 Reputable Companies can be accessed via this link. You may see some surprises …

The Federal Trade Commission vs. Native Advertising: Score One for the FTC

Phillip Nones Advertising, Branding, Business, Content Creation and Content Management, Marketing, Marketing Communications, Media, Media Consumption, Publishing, Social Commentary, Social Media , , , , , , , , ,

ptpbIt’s pretty much a given these days that “native advertising” has it all over traditional advertising when it comes to prompting prospects to try a new product or service. Study after study shows that positive recommendations and ratings from family members, friends, key influencers and even simply fellow users are what prompt people to try it for themselves.

These dynamics mean that suppliers are looking for as many opportunities to publicize their offerings through these native channels as they can.

There’s a bit of a problem, however. Bloggers and other influencers have become wise to this reality — and many are taking it all the way to the bank.  The market is replete with conventions and other events such as the annual Haven Conference, at which these key influencers congregate and “hold court” with suppliers.

While there is no prescribed agenda regarding what’s discussed between suppliers and influencers, generally speaking there’s a whole lot of quid pro quo going on:  Things like receiving copious free samples in exchange for publishing product reviews, receiving monetary payments for mentioning products and brands in blog articles and on social media posts, and more.

One can’t really blame the influencers for peddling their influence to the highest bidder. After all, many successful bloggers and other influential people derive most or all of their livelihood from their online activities.  It’s only natural for someone whose influences ranges widely and deep to expect to be compensated for publicizing a product, a service or a brand — whether or not they themselves think it’s the best thing since sliced bread.

But there’s a growing problem regarding the “pay to play” aspects of native advertising. This past December, the Federal Trade Commission reiterated its opinion that such sweetheart deals are tantamount to advertising, and therefore must be prominently identified as such in online and other informational content.

Of course, including a prominent announcement that payment has been exchanged for an influencer’s commentary significantly lowers the positive impact of native advertising, in that the commentary being valued by consumers precisely because of its inherent objectivity and credibility is no longer much of a hook.

Until recently, it wasn’t clear how strict the FTC was going to be about enforcing its stated policy about disclosing financial remuneration for brand coverage by influencers.

L+TLWell, now we know.  It’s in the form of a settlement reach this month by the FTC with retailer Lord & Taylor over a particular online ad campaign that contained native advertising and social media components.  It’s the first time the FTC has brought an enforcement action since its native ad guidelines were published.

The settlement pertains to a promotional campaign for Lord & Taylor’s Design Lab private-label line of spring dresses. The initiative reached more than 11 million Instagram users, and the particular sundress at the center of the publicity campaign sold out quickly as a result.

The native advertising portion of the promo effort stemmed from an article about DesignLab that appeared in the online magazine Nylon.  That article was paid for by Lord & Taylor, which also reviewed and approved the article’s content prior to publication.

As could be expected, no notification that the piece was a paid ad placement was included when the article was published.

Skating close to the edge even more, the social portion of the promo campaign involved the retailer giving the sundress to approximately 50 top fashion bloggers, along with paying each blogger between $1,000 and $4,000 to model the dress in photos that were then posted to Instagram.

The bloggers were allowed to style the dress in their own way, but they were asked to reference the dress in their posts by using the campaign hashtag #DesignLab as well as @lordandtaylor.

Furthermore, the retailer reviewed and approved these social media posts before they went live, which enabled them to make stylistic edits before-the-fact as well.

Here’s an excerpt from the FTC’s statement about the Lord & Taylor action:

“None of the Instagram posts presented to respondents for pre-approval included a disclosure that the influencer had received the dress for free, that she had been compensated for the post, or that the post was a part of a Lord & Taylor advertising campaign.”

Clearly, the FTC is now putting muscle behind its 2009 opinion (and reiterated last year) that failing to disclose that an endorsement has been paid for is a deceptive practice.

In this particular “test case,” Lord & Taylor is getting off somewhat easy in that there have been no monetary penalties levied against the retailer. However, the company has signed a consent decree that is in place for the next two decades, which would mean “swift and stiff” penalties if the retailer were to transgress in the future.

Other terms of the settlement mandate that Lord & Taylor require its endorsers to sign and submit written statements outlining their obligation to “clearly and conspicuously” disclose any monetary or other material connections they have to the retailer.

Clearly, the Lord & Taylor settlement is a shot across the bow by the FTC, signifying that it means business when it comes to alerting consumers of the financial or other material connections that exist between influencers who are making value judgments on products and services.  In effect, the FTC is saying to the marketing world, “Be very careful …”

It’ll be interesting to see how marketers finesse the challenge of figuring out how to corral the obvious benefits of native advertising while mitigating the dampening effects of “full disclosure.”

Perhaps bloggers and other influencers will need to re-think their own business models as well, seeing as how the “golden goose” of supplier perks seems to have lost some of its luster now.

Stay tuned — this new “lay of the land” is still unfolding.

For authenticity in advertising … perhaps it’s time to stop making it “advertising.”

Phillip Nones Advertising, Branding, Business, Demographics, Marketing, Marketing Communications, Media, Media Consumption , , , , , ,

AT

Take a look at the interesting data in the chart above, courtesy of Nielsen.

Among the things it tells us is this: If there’s one thing that’s universally consistent across all age ranges – from Gen Z and Millennials to the Silent Generation – it’s that nothing has a more positive impact on buying decisions than the recommendation of a family member, a friend or a colleague.

Not only is it true across all age ranges, it’s equally true in business and consumer segments.

The chart also shows us that, broadly speaking, younger people tend to be more receptive to various advertising formats than older age segments.

this isn’t too surprising because with age comes experience – and that also means a higher degree of cynicism about advertising.

Techniques like the “testimonials” from so-called “real people” (who are nonetheless still actors) can’t get past the jaundiced eye of veteran consumers who’ve been around the track many more times than their younger counterparts.

Someone from the Boomer or Silent Generation can smell these things out for the fakery they are like nobody else.

But if friends and colleagues are what move the buy needle the best, how does advertising fit into that scenario? What’s the best way for it to be in the mix?

One way may be “influencer” advertising. This is when industry experts and other respected people are willing to go on record speaking positively about a particular product or service.

Of course, influencers have the best “influence” in the fields where they’re already active, as opposed to endorsements from famous people who don’t have a natural connection to the products they are touting. Such celebrity “testimonials” rarely pass the snicker test.

But if you think about other people like this:

  • An industry thought leader
  • A prominent blogger or social networker in a particular field or on a particular topic
  • A person with a genuine passion for interacting with a particular product or service

… Then you have a person who advocates for your brand in a proactive way.

That’s the most genuine form of persuasion aside from hearing recommendations from those trusted relatives, friends and colleagues.

Of course, none of that will happen without the products and services inspiring passion and advocacy at the outset. If those fundamental factors aren’t part of the mix, we’re back to square one with ineffective faux-testimonials that feel about as genuine as AstroTurf® … and the (lack of) results to match.

Antisocial behavior: Major retailers do much better broadcasting on social media than they do responding.

Phillip Nones Branding, Business, Content Creation and Content Management, Direct Marketing, Human Resources, Marketing Communications, Media, Media Consumption, Social Media , , , ,

untitledWhen it comes to social media, it turns out that the major U.S. retail brands are a lot better at dishing it out than consuming it.

On the “dishing out” side of the ledger, these retailers have been posting an ever-increasing number of social messages aimed at their target audiences.

A recent report from Sprout Social Index titled Snubbed on Social shows just how much:  In the 3rd Quarter of 2014, the average number of messages deployed by the typical major retailer was around 150, but in the 3rd Quarter of 2015, the number had grown to in excess of 350.

But what happens when these retailers are on the receiving end of social messages? Sprout Social has determined that the typical retailer receives around 1,500 inbound social messages over a busy quarter (such as during the holiday season).

Of these, approximately 40% of the messages are ones that warrant a response.

But only about 1 in 6 – fewer than 20% of them — actually get one.

And those consumers who are fortunate enough to receive a response are waiting approximately 12 hours to get it. That’s up from ~11 hours a year earlier.

One interesting factoid from the Sprout Social reporting is that customer messages on Twitter tend to get a better response from brands.

But it’s the difference between merely poor (~14% on Twitter) and downright embarrassing (~9% on Facebook).

untitledScott Brandt, chief marketing officer at Sprout Social, states it succinctly: “More often than not, brands are silent when their customers reach out.”

What are the implications of this (non-)behavior?

For one thing, interacting with customers helps drive more interesting and more purchases.  Sprout reports that consumers are seven times more likely to respond to social promotions and other social news if they have had meaningful interaction with the brand.

Obviously, ignoring the social messages that come through isn’t the way to build that engagement.

One dynamic that appears to be at work is that brands continue to use social media as a vehicle for broadcast messaging, whereas many consumers view social platforms as the place for a more conversational, two-way level of engagement.

You know – just like social media is supposed to work.

But there are some seemingly intractable reasons why it’s difficult to put the “theory” of social interaction into “practice.”

For starters, there are so many ways for people to communicate with companies and brands today (versus only by letter, phone or in person not that many years ago), that too many businesses are either stretched to thin or simply don’t feel the need to respond urgently if at all.

Another issue is similarly personnel-related. For brands to respond better would mean hiring and training people who possess the authorization to actually do something about a question or concern.  Low-level staff with low wages and benefits and with no authority to resolve issues is a clear ticket to nowhere.

At the very least, putting a process in place that provides a quick response to all inquiries – even if the initial response is auto-generated – is just plain common sense. The value to the consumer of a response that comes within just a few minutes – even if the message was posted in the dead of night – is what makes consumers bond with a brand.  (Just having their existence validated is huge for some people.)

Contrast that to the other, more common experience of brands ignoring their consumers to death … and where people never forget which companies aren’t good at responding to their questions or concerns. Does anyone think that reputation doesn’t have a dampening effect on sales?

More information about the Spout Social Index can be found here.