Marketing Communications

What’s the Future of E-Mail Marketing?

Phillip Nones Advertising, Business, Marketing Communications, Uncategorized , , , , , , , ,

e-mail communicationsOver the past several years, I’ve begun to hear increasing rumblings about how e-mail is a now-mature communications method that’ll eventually go the way of the FAX machine. 

But I’m not at all sure I believe that.  I think it’s more likely that e-mail’s future will look … a lot like it does today. 

No doubt, texting and direct messaging have cut into some of the bread-and-butter aspects of e-mail communications.  But what about e-mail marketing?  Could we see a similar phenomenon happening?

Recently, I read the comments of e-communications specialist Loren McDonald on this very topic.  McDonald, who is vice president of industry relations at digital marketing technology firm Silverpop, makes an important point concerning the “building blocks” that have to be in place before e-mail marketing will be seriously threatened by alternative MarComm means.

McDonald speaks about the challenge of an “addressable audience” when it comes to alternative channels:  “Regardless of a competing channel’s popularity, marketers must be able to deliver a comparable or replacement message to an individual.  This is where many channels fall short,” he contends.

Loren McDonald
Loren McDonald

McDonald notes that most marketers possess vastly more permission-based e-mail addresses than they do mobile phone numbers with permission to text.  It’s the same story when comparing e-mail addresses to the percentage of their database that have liked their company’s Facebook page.

And there’s more:  For mobile apps, what portion of the typical company’s database has downloaded it and authorized notifications?  The inevitable response:  How low can you go?

McDonald’s point is that for these alternative channels to gain true significance, they need to achieve a certain critical mass in terms of adoption rates – thereby allowing marketers to reach their customers and prospects in a comparable manner as they can via e-mail (as well as at a comparable cost).

Looking into his own crystal ball, McDonald feels fairly confident making three predictions concerning the future of e-mail marketing:

  • He predicts that content-focused newsletters will remain relevant and popular, particularly for B-to-B companies and publishers.  That’s because marketers can push multiple newsletter articles within a single marketing touch, while publishers can attract ads and sponsorships for their e-newsletters (i.e. they’re moneymakers for them).
  • For broadcast/promotional messages, most consumers will continue to prefer e-mail delivery.  “Will mobile app users [really] want their smartphones to ping them all day long whenever a message arrives — and then have to click attain to view it?”, he asks rhetorically.
  • Transactional and triggered messages will be e-mail’s primary challengers in McDonald’s view – especially for bulletin-type messages such as breaking news headlines, weather alerts, flight delay announcements, “flash” promotions and sales, and order confirmations linked to in-app landing pages.

And even on this third prediction, McDonald doesn’t see the transition happening all that quickly.

I find myself in general agreement with Loren McDonald’s prognostications.  Do you have some differing views?  If so, please share them with other readers here.

Marketing clichés are all around us.

Phillip Nones Advertising, Branding, Business, Marketing Communications, Uncategorized , , , , , , , , , , ,

no buzzwordsMarketing can be many things.  But marketing without originality isn’t much of anything.

That’s why there’s a desire among marketers to avoid clichés and buzz terminology in sales and marketing content whenever possible.

Still, it’s easy to fall into the cliché trap – and it happens to the best of us.

This is particularly true when the “next new thing” in business comes along every few months and people grasp for shorthand ways to communicate those concepts.

[There:  Perhaps “next new thing” qualifies as a marketing cliché itself!]

Brian Morrissey
Brian Morrissey

Recently, communications specialist and editor-in-chief of vertical media company Digiday, Brian Morrissey, came up with a list of 25 marketing clichés which he feels should be avoided if at all possible.

I’ve gone through Morrissey’s list and have selected ten that I think are particularly baneful – especially in the world of B-to-B marketing.  See if you agree:

Putting the customer at the center.  Isn’t it obvious that companies and brands would be committed to this?  And if not … where was the customer located before?

Having an “authentic” conversation with customers.  Inauthenticity isn’t cool.  Inauthenticity is also what we’ve been trying to avoid for years – or should have been.  There’s really no news in this statement, is there?

We fail fast.  Perhaps it comes from reading too many issues of Fast Company … but what companies do you know that want to slowly jettison a failed strategy?

Blue-sky thinking.  The “sky’s the limit” when it comes to “out-of-the-box thinking.”  Ugh.

Nab the low-hanging fruit.  This cliché has been around so long, there can’t be any low-hanging fruit left!

Dipping our toe in the water.  Trying to put a positive spin on a lack of depth or heft isn’t fooling anyone.

Open the kimono.  Any buzz phrase that conjures mental imageries of a flasher can’t be what we want to communicate.

Curated experiences.  A fancy way of admitting that content isn’t ours.  Besides, the term “curator” hardly sounds contemporary.  Instead, it connotes images of museums, galleries and other places that deal with the dusty past.

Surprising and delighting our customers.  Morrissey contends that this whopper makes brands come off like clowns … and that clowns are silly, scary or creepy – take your pick.

Tentpole idea.  Continuing with the clown analogy, no doubt … but whether it’s a circus or a tent revival, the mental imagery this elicits isn’t particularly apropos.

… And these are just ten terms on Morrissey’s list of 25 marketing clichés.

What about you?  Do you have any buzz phrases that you find particularly annoying – perhaps “thought leadership” or maybe “exceeding our customers’ expectations”?

Please share your nominations with other readers here.

Samsung gets its marketing knuckles wrapped – twice.

Phillip Nones Advertising, Branding, Business, Marketing Communications, Uncategorized , , , , , , , , ,

Samsung logoTech manufacturing giant Samsung’s “questionable” marketing activities have been in the news this past week – again.

This time, it’s reported that the company has been fined a $340,000 penalty for paying people to post trash-talk comments about competitor HTC’s products in customer online forums in Taiwan.

Back in April, the Fair Trade Commission in Taiwan opened an investigation into allegations that Samsung had recruited certain employees along with freelance writers from the outside to flack the shortcomings of its competitors’ products.

In addition to the company being held culpable, two of Samsung’s outside marketing firms were fined for their part in the marketing shenanigans masquerading as natural content.

This is pretty big news in the world of smartphones.  HTC and Samsung are major competitors in this highly competitive marketplace, and both companies offer products that operate on the Android platform.

But Samsung’s fortunes have risen dramatically over the past year as its global smartphone market share jumped from ~19% to ~30%.

By contrast, HTC’s share declined from ~9% to slightly less than ~5% over the same period.

Evidently, Samsung couldn’t resist the temptation to kick a competitor when it was already on the ropes.

Chalk it up to the “take no prisoners” atmosphere in the cutthroat competitive world of mobile technology – the “New York Garment District mentality” writ large.

“Astro-turfing” isn’t new, of course.  But the practice is usually the province of smaller companies with fewer scruples … or marketing people who are simply unaware of proper marketing etiquette (and often backed by legal opinion).

Amateur hour
“Amateur hour” at Samsung’s marketing department makes the company look just … silly.

For a company as large and as sophisticated at Samsung, it does seem a little … odd.  And certainly not in good form.

But as it turns out, this isn’t the first time Samsung’s gotten caught with its marketing pants down.

Just a few months ago, the company was discovered bribing various people to “talk up” its development activities – and “talk down” their competitors – during the Samsung Smart App Challenge competition.

Android developer Delyan Kratunov went public with ongoing correspondence in which a viral marketing company working for Samsung offered him $500 to cite positive mentions on the Stack Overflow online community.

The instructions were specific:  Mr. Kratunov would need to ask a series of “casual and organic” questions about Samsung’s app challenge over a month-long period.

Later, the marketing company attempted to distance itself from the egregious behavior — but not before the incident had been exposed.

My response to Samsung is this:  You’re already winning.  There’s no need to engage in “adolescent business behavior” of this kind.

It’s in very bad form … and sooner or later it’ll come back to bite you.

Stuff like this always does eventually.

Getting Bunky with Retail Marketing

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

digital circularsAre the days of the lowly printed sales circular numbered?

Judging from the flurry of newfangled activity by key retail marketers, it would seem so.

This past week, CVS Pharmacy announced a complete makeover of its weekly circular.  The new digital version, dubbed myWeekly Ad, incorporates customized promotions focused on the products that are deemed of greatest interest to individual consumers.

The personalized sale items are determined from scanning the trove of customer buying behavior information housed in CVS’s ExtraCare Rewards database, which now numbers more than 70 million active users.

The myWeekly Ad circular determines which items to feature based on the products that each targeted consumer buys most frequently, along with showcasing deals on other products in related categories that may also be of interest based on the purchase history of each customer.

CVS’s digital circular provides other user-friendly options as well:

  • Consumers can scan the savings and rewards currently available to them, and print coupons or digitally send special offers to their card before visiting a CVS store. 
  • Shopping lists can be created, shared and sent to mobile devices. 
  • Shoppers can view their own purchase history showing all products bought at CVS previously going back 18 months.

And CVS is hardly alone in digitizing its MarComm materials.  Thanks to the continuing evolution of rewards cards and the voluminous customer data they can collect, new personalized circular announcements are coming with regularity now.

Here are some of the latest new developments:

  • Shoplocal is a Gannett-owned print and digital circular publisher.  It has gotten together with personalized video firm Eyeview to create a new digital ad promo piece known as V-circular.  This vehicle allows retailers and major brands to target customers on a local level based on geographic, demographic and behavioral data – along with factoring in “real-time” conditions like the weather.
  • National coupon clearinghouse Valpak has introduced a novel “augmented reality” feature for its digital circulars.  Simply pointing a smartphone toward the horizon will enable shoppers to see which nearby businesses are offering coupons.
  • Direct mail media and marketing services firm Valassis has unveiled Geo-Commerce Retail Zone, a new ad-targeting capability that applies transaction and behavior data from consumers to local store trading areas, enabling targeted advertising to be delivered cross-platform.

No one questions the fact that more and more information on individual consumers is being collected, archived and applied on an individualized basis.  Anonymity is fast becoming a quaint notion of the past.

Of course, this couldn’t happen without the cooperation and willing engagement of consumers. 

Considering the benefits – special discounts and even freebies on goods and services – is it any wonder that these programs have been able to grow in size and comprehensiveness over time?

What are your thoughts about the tradeoffs?  Feel free to add your thoughts to the discussion.

Is AdTrap the answer to our prayers when it comes to blocking online advertising?

Phillip Nones Advertising, Business, Marketing Communications, Social Commentary, Uncategorized , , , , , , , , , , ,

ad blocking deviceYou may have heard of AdTrap … or maybe you haven’t.

AdTrap is a newly developed device that intercepts online ads before they reach any devices that access a person’s Internet connection.

That basic action means that people are able to surf the web – including viewing videos – without the onslaught of online advertisements that seem to become more and more pervasive with every passing month.

The fundamental promise that the developers of AdTrap are making is a return to the “good ol’ days” of web surfing.

You know, back when most web pages you downloaded contained text and pictures – and virtually no advertising.

AdTrap’s motto is a simple and powerful one:  “The Internet is yours again.”

Not surprisingly, there’s a good deal of excitement surrounding this new product.  In fact, interest has been so great that the invention attracted more than $200,000 in funding — raised in a 30-day Kickstarter campaign in early 2013.

Those funds are now being used to manufacture the first AdTrap units for shipment to “early adopter” consumers across the country.

How New an Idea Is This?

advertisingIn actuality, there have been a plethora of (often-free) software and browser plug-ins offered to consumers that can block online advertisements. 

But most of them have significant limitations because they’ve been designed to work only with specific browsers or on specific devices.

Free is good, of course.  But the developers of AdTrap are banking on the willingness of consumers to shell out $139 for their product – a rectangular box that looks a lot like a wireless router and that intercepts advertisements before they reach a laptop, tablet or mobile device.

The beauty of AdTrap is that it will work on every device connected to a person’s network.  Situated between the modem and router, it takes just a few minutes to set up.  

CNN technology correspondent Dan Simon reports that AdTrap does an effective job blocking advertising content.  But not perfectly; ads still appear on Hulu content, for example. 

But the developers of AdTrap report that they’re working on ways to block even more content going forward, including ads on Hulu.

Is this Bigger than Merely Blocking Ads?

Beyond the collective sigh of relief you’re likely hearing from those reading this blog post … what are the larger implications if AdTrap and similar devices are adopted by consumers on a large scale?

One not-so-positive implication may be that websites will no longer offer be able to offer content without charge, since so many publishers’ business models rely on advertising content to help pay most of the bills.

If advertising isn’t appearing thanks to AdTrap, people aren’t getting paid.

So let’s think about this for a minute:  It’s true that the Internet was blissfully free of wall-to-wall advertising 15 years ago compared to today. 

But cyberspace was also far less robust in terms of the quantity and quality of the informational and entertainment content available to us.

So yes … having a device to block 80% or more of the ads served to us is a very attractive proposition.  But if it means that some of our favorite sites move to pay-walls as a result, it might be that making a $139 investment in an AdTrap device isn’t such a “no-brainer” choice in the final analysis.

What do you think of this development — pro or con?  Please share your thoughts with other readers here.

“Public pronouncements” versus “private predilections”: What we say isn’t always what we actually believe.

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

Public versus private thinkingThere’s an intriguing new research report out from Young & Rubicam that lays bare the contradictions of what people say they like and want … and what they secretly think.

The findings are outlined in a new research study Y&R has dubbed Secrets & Lies … and it’s based on research conducted in September 2013 among adults over age 18 in the United States, Brazil and China.

The bottom line?  The Y&R research finds that many people hold views that are diametrically opposed to what they reveal to others publicly.

That kind of a result would be difficult to measure using traditional survey research.  So Y&R chose to meld the conventional survey approach with a second methodology known as “Implicit Association Testing.”

IAT helps reveal sub-conscious or unconscious motivations that lie outside of our standard awareness.

So, what contradictions and correlations did the research uncover? 

Let’s start with the study’s global findings.  When asked to rank-order a group of 16 “values,” here’s a listing of the top five values as cited by the survey respondents in all three countries:

  • #1.  Finding meaning in life
  • #2.  Choosing my own path
  • #3.  Helpfulness
  • #4.  Environmentalism
  • #5.  Success

Now … compare that to the “Top 5” list that was revealed with these same respondents were evaluated using implicit association:

  • #1.  Sexual fulfillment
  • #2.  Respect for tradition
  • #3.  Maintaining security
  • #4.  Environmentalism
  • #5.  Building wealth

Wow.

We  see just one value appearing on both lists … and there are some pretty big differences in the values that reside on each of them.

Did American respondents differ from their counterparts in China and Brazil?  Like the global results, the values were quite different between conscious responses and implicit association. 

U.S. respondents named helpfulness as their highest-ranked value, followed by choosing my own path and finding meaning in life.

But what did the implicit association testing reveal among these same American respondents?

Far from being at the top of the list, “helpfulness” came in dead last:  16th place out of 16 values rated.  Instead, the top three “subconscious” values are actually these:

  • #1.  Maintaining security
  • #2.  Sexual fulfillment
  • #3.  Honoring tradition

As the Y&R study pointedly opines, America’s top conscious values sound like political correctness reminiscent of the Oprah Show … whereas our unconscious values sound more like a return to the Eisenhower era.

These seeming disconnects between “public pronouncements” and “private predilections” manifest themselves in brand image as well.

As it turns out, consumers say they like the “popular kids” on the branding block a lot more than they actually do subconsciously.

Here’s a list of top brands researched and how they come out in conscious rating versus IAT evaluation:

  • Alignment between public and secret likes:  Amazon, Target, Whole Foods
  • Alignment between public and secret dislikes:  AT&T, K-Mart, Playboy
  • Liked less in secret:  Google, Microsoft, Starbucks
  • Liked more in secret:  Exxon, Facebook, National Inquirer

When I scan this list, it’s pretty evident what’s going on.  Certain brands are popular whipping boys in the “popular media” and on certain cable news channels, where one rarely hears positive word uttered about them. 

Not surprisingly, it’s precisely those brands that get a “public thumbs-down” from the respondents.

But in secret — away from the klieg lights and the admonitions of the culture’s PC denizens — it’s quite a different ballgame.

Of course, no one would want their brand to be in AT&T’s or K-Mart’s unenviable position – because that’s where people dislike those companies publicly as well as in their private thoughts!

Here’s a Big Book on Big Data

Phillip Nones Advertising, Business, Government, Marketing Communications, Social Commentary, Uncategorized , , , , , , , , , ,

Big Data: A Revolution that will Transform how we Live, Work and Think by Mayer-Schonberger and Cukier“Big data” is definitely one of the more commonly heard business buzz terms these days.

But beyond the general impression that “big data” represents the ability to collect and analyze lots and lots of information in some efficient manner, most people have a difficult time explaining with any specificity what the term really means.

Moreover, for some people “big data” isn’t very far removed from “big brother” – and for that reason, there’s some real ambivalence about the concept.  Consider these recent “man on the street” comments about big data found online:

  • “Big data:  Now they can crawl all the way up your *ss.”
  • “The scary thing about big data is knowing [that] Big Brother can know every single thing you do – and realizing your life is too unimportant for Big Brother to even bother.”
  • “Big data is what you get after you take a big laxative.”

But now we have a recently-published book that attempts to demystify the concept.  It’s titled Big Data:  A Revolution that will Transform How We Live, Work and Think, and it’s authored by two leading business specialists – Viktor Mayer-Schönberger, a professor of internet governance and regulation at Oxford University and Kenneth Cukier, a data editor at The Economist magazine.

The book explores the potential for creating, mining and analyzing massive information sets while also pointing out the potential pitfalls and dangers, which the authors characterize as the “dark side of big data.”

The book also exposes the limitations of “sampling” as we’ve come understand it and work with it over the past decades.

Authors Viktor Mayer-Schonberger (l) and Kenneth Cukier (r).
Authors Viktor Mayer-Schonberger (l) and Kenneth Cukier (r).

Cukier and Mayer note that sampling works is fine for basic questions, but is far less reliable or useful for more “granular” evaluation of behavioral intent.  That’s where “big data” comes into play big-time.

The authors are quick to note that advancements in data collection tend to come along, shake things up, and then quickly become routine.

Mayer calls this “datafication,” and describes how it works in practice:

“At first, we think it is impossible to render something in data form.  Then somebody comes up with a nifty and cost-efficient idea to do so, and we are amazed by the applications that this will enable – and then we come to accept it as the ‘new normal.’  A few years ago, this happened with geo-location, and before it was with web browsing data gleaned through ‘cookies.’  It is a sign of the continuing progress of datafication.”

Causality is another aspect that may be changing how we go about treating the data we collect.

According to Cukier and Mayer, making the most of big data means “shedding some of the obsession for causality in exchange for simple correlations: not knowing why but only what.”

So then, we may have less instances when we come up with a hypothesis and then test it … but rather just use the data to determine what is important and act on whatever information is revealed in the process.

Retail DisplayOne example of this practice that’s cited in the book is how Wal-Mart determined that Kellogg’s® Pop-Tarts® should be positioned at the front of the store in selected regions of the country during hurricane season to stimulate product sales.

It wasn’t something anyone had thought about in advance and then decided to verify; it was something the retailer discovered by mining product purchase data and simply “connecting the dots.”

Author Mayer explains further:

“There is a value in having conveniently placed Pop-Tarts, and it isn’t just that Wal-Mart is making more money.  It is also that shoppers find faster what they are likely looking for.  Sometimes ‘big data’ gets badly mischaracterized as just a tool to create more targeted advertising … but UPS uses ‘big data’ to save millions of gallons of fuel – and thus improve both its bottom line and the environment.”

One area of concern covered by the authors is the potential for using “big data predictions” to single out people based on their propensity to commit certain behaviors, rather than after-the-fact.  In other words, to treat all sorts of conditions or possibilities in the same manner we treat sex offender lists today.

Author Kenneth Cukier believes that the implications of a practice like this – focusing on the use of data as much as the collection of the data – is “sadly missing from the debate.”

This book fills a yawning gap in the business literature.  And for that, we should give Dr. Mayer-Schönberger and Mr. Cukier fair dues.  If any readers have become acquainted with the book and would care to weigh in with observations, please share your thoughts here.

Smartphones and Tablets have Doubled Our Time Spent Online

Phillip Nones Business, Marketing Communications, Social Commentary, Uncategorized , , , , , , ,

screenjumpersWhat a difference a few years makes.

Back in February 2010, Americans over the age of 18 spent a total of ~451 billion minutes’ time on the Internet, according to comScore’s Media Metrix research.

By comparison, in February 2013, the total time spent online had nearly doubled to ~890 minutes.

The vast majority of the increase is attributable to tablet computers and smartphones rather than PCs:

  • PC minutes rose from ~388 billion to ~467 billion (+24%).
  • Smartphone minutes grew from ~63 billion to a whopping ~208 billion (+230%).
  • Tablet minutes grew from zero to 115 billion (tablets didn’t exist in 2010).

In fact, taken together, smartphones and tablets now account for nearly 60% of the time online spent by people age 18 to 24.  On the other hand, smartphones account for a relatively small 25% of time spent online by Americans age 50 or older.

This age divide is also clearly evident in comScore’s estimated breakdown of platform adoption:

All American Adults

  • PC only:  ~30%
  • “Screen jumpers” (PC + mobile):  ~63%
  • Mobile platforms only:  ~7%

Young Adults (age 18-24)

  • PC only:  ~22%
  • Screen jumpers:  ~65%
  • Mobile only:  ~13%

Older Adults (age 50+)

  • PC only:  ~48%
  • Screen jumpers:  ~51%
  • Mobile only:  ~1%

The comScore analysis also provides some interesting stats pertaining to online share of minutes by the type of content being accessed.

Most online time spent on PCs:

  • Business/Finance (~68%)
  • TV (~68%)
  • News/Information (~62%)
  • Sports (~62%)
  • Retail (~49%)
  • Health (~54%)

Most online time spent on smartphones:

  • Radio (~77%)
  • Social Media (~58%)
  • Weather (~55%)
  • Games (~48%)

Tablets don’t lead in any single category, but score particularly well in these two:

  • Games (~34% of time online is spent on tablets)
  • TV (~20% of time online is spent on tablets)

More details and insights from the comScore report can be found here.

Evil eye? Google’s vision for the future.

Phillip Nones Advertising, Business, Marketing Communications, Social Commentary, Uncategorized , , , , , , , , , ,

pay-per-gaze creepy disturbingTo understand where Google is heading next in the world of advertising, consider this:  The company has just been granted a patent on its “pay-per-gaze” eye-tracking system.

You might wonder what that might be.

Pay-per-gaze is an ad system that utilizes Google Glass for tracking the ads that consumers see online and elsewhere.  The gaze-tracking capability comes from another Google innovation:  a head-mounted tracking device that communicates with a server.

According to the patent documentation, the tracking devices includes eyeglasses with side-arms that engage the ears of the user … a nose bridge that engages the nose of the user … and lenses through which the user views the external scenes wherein the scene images are captured in real-time.

And it need not be limited to tracking online advertising, either; pay-per-gaze functionality could potentially extend to billboards, magazines, newspapers and other printed media, Google notes.

But the idea is even more revolutionary than that:  Not only does it aim to measure how long an individual looks at an ad, but also how “emotionally invested” the consumer is by virtue of measuring pupil dilation.

So the tracking system not only will show how long someone looks at an ad, but also will measure the emotional response.  The patent also covers a provision for “latent pre-searching” which would display search results over a user’s field of vision using Google Glass or another wearable computer.

If all of this seems like “Big Brotherism” at its worst … you may well be correct.  But Google is doing its best to downplay such sinister connotations.  It’s emphasizing that users can opt out of “pay-per-gaze” tracking, and that all data will be anonymized.

But let’s get this straight:  The world’s biggest search engine was just granted a patent for the most “sticky” form of advertising possible – ads that literally flash in front of someone’s eyes.

And when we add in aspects like measuring pupil dilation, it won’t be long before Google will be able to determine how good eats, or good looks, are affecting our emotional response.

One wonders how much farther we can go with measuring advertising engagement and buying intent. 

Then again, we already have an answer, of sorts.  As early as 2000, experiments with electromagnetic brainwaves have shown that people can literally “think” instructions and thereby cause an action.

Imagine combining Google’s pay-per-gaze and pay-per-emotion with electromagnetic brainwave tracking.  Add in a credit card number, and there’s no telling what could happen just with a fleeting thought or two!

If all of this sounds creepy and disturbing … get used to it.  With the likes of Google and the NSA at the helm, “creepy and disturbing” may well become the “new normal” for society.

Consumers Still Finding Weaknesses in Brands’ Web Presence

Phillip Nones Advertising, Branding, Business, Marketing Communications, Uncategorized , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Temkin Group logoThe most recently published Temkin Web Experience Ratings of more than 200 companies across 19 industries reveals continuing widespread disappointment with the quality of the “web experience.”

The Temkin Web Experience Ratings are compiled annually by Temkin Group, a Newton, MA-based customer experience research and consulting firm.  The ratings are based on consumer feedback when asked to rate their satisfaction when interacting with each company’s website.

Temkin ratings are established for companies garnering responses from 100 or more of the ~10,000 randomly selected participants in an online survey conducted by the research firm in January 2013.

Rankings are calculated via a “net satisfaction” score based on a 7-point rating scale from “completely satisfied” to “completely dissatisfied” by taking the percentage of consumers selecting the two highest ratings and subtracting the percentage who selected the bottom three ratings.

Just 6% of the brands earned strong or very strong “net” trust ratings, while ten times as many (~63%) were given weak or very weak scores.

And there’s this, too:  Not much improvement is happening.  More than half of the ~150 companies that were included in both the 2012 and 2013 Temkin evaluations earned lower scores this year than last.

Managing partner Bruce Temkin summarized it succinctly:  “The web is a key channel, but online experiences aren’t very good – and are heading in the wrong direction.”

The latest Temkin ratings give Amazon the top-rank position with a 77% overall rating score.  Other companies ranked near the top include Advantage Rent A Car, U.S. Bank and QVC.

At the other end of the scale, MSN, EarthLink and Cablevision earned the lowest ratings – MSN worst of all.

Indeed, the following industries had composite company ratings that ended up in the “very weak” column:

  • Airlines
  • Health plans
  • Internet service providers
  • TV service providers
  • Wireless carriers

Do any of these industries seem like ones that shouldn’t be on this list?

I didn’t think so, either.

Which ones are the industries that score best in the Temkin analysis?  By order of rank, they are as follows:

  • Banks
  • Investment firms
  • Retailers
  • Credit card issuers
  • Hotel chains

Come to think of it, I haven’t encountered problems online with companies or bands in any of these five industries.

It’s also interesting to consider which companies have improved the most over time.  When comparing year-over-year results for the ~150 companies that were included in both the 2012 and 2013 studies, eight of them showed double-digit improvements in their scores:

  • Blue Shield of California
  • Citibank
  • Humana
  • Old Navy
  • Safeway
  • Toyota
  • TriCare
  • U.S. Bank

On the other hand, a much bigger contingent of 21 companies saw their ratings decline by at least 10 points; the six firms that dropped by 15 points of more were these:

  • Bright House Networks
  • Cablevision
  • MSN
  • ShopRite
  • Southwest Airlines
  • United Airlines

You can view the scores (and trends) for all 200+ companies by clicking here to download the full report.

If you notice any rankings that seem surprising – or that don’t comport with your own online experiences – please share your thoughts and perspectives below.