I was talking to one of my customers about her experience trying to introduce the use of metrics into the business processes she is managing. Janet is in the gourmet food marketing business and was hoping to use analytics for discovering the patterns of shoppers’ consumption of her products by the time of day, as well as an impact of promotional events on the sales results. The food business, in her words, is a very fragmented environment and even the simplest business process tends to involve a number of companies to perform.

Clear understanding and measurement of the metrics, which Janet is interested in, would bring substantial financial benefits to all of the participants in this process, and yet they passively resist any attempt of implementation. Her frustration level was rising as Janet was describing the excuses she was getting from her customers and partners. They were not saying no to her proposal and even promised to make some information available, but ultimately no progress was ever made. Let’s make it clear that a cost is not a factor, as Janet’s company offered to underwrite the implementation.

“So why do ‘go-get-them’ people usually become so passive-aggressive when the analytics are involved?” Janet asked me. This question made me look back on my experiences, and it occurred to me that they invariably are similar to Janet’s. For over decades of my business career, I was charged with development and implementation of KPI’s many times in large and small companies engaged in different industries, but the outcome is always the same – passive resistance.

There are a few business processes that universally accept and practice metrics. The most common example are Sales and Call Center processes, but anyone who has managed sales forecasting will tell you that the efforts required to drive it are very substantial.

Recent explosion in web analytics technology brought to us a myriad of products that capture, measure and present dashboards of transactional data that may correlate to specific business process performance, but are very far removed from actionable KPI metrics that most of us need to manage business. Even marginal improvement in measuring performance of advertising investment disrupted the entire industry and created new multi-billion dollar players like Google. Imagine what could be done if we could measure actual impact of a given decision on the bottom line results. However, that would not be likely to happen anytime soon because of fundamental characteristics of human behavior – we will go to extraordinary lengths to avoid personal accountability.

The numbers can shine a light on our performance and quality of our decisions that can be too bright and harsh. Our organizational structures and compensation systems are too binary, with a few exceptions, to compensate for actual performance. Too commonly we get and keep our jobs not for delivering exceptional results, but for “fitting in” and showing up on time, for being efficient and working long hours, but not necessarily effective in producing the “right” results.

The key to successful, productive adoption of analytics into organizational fabric is careful selection of only those metrics that measure elements of a process that can be proactively managed by the parties involved to their performance benefit. The fewer relevant, actionable KPI metrics that help to take meaningful actions is much better than dashboards full of charts and numbers you have no control over. Relevancy beats ease of generation and drives user adoption.

“You cannot manage what you cannot measure.” Those are well known and accepted words of wisdom that have been taught to thousands of MBA students for decades. There is a lesser popular truth though—that measuring wrong things can really hurt your business. Definition, selection and design of appropriate, balanced and concise metrics, as well as the processes for continuous delivery of these metrics, are the key management challenges for every organization.

1.      Focusing on the “wrong” metrics will create unintended results.

One of the more graphic examples of “wrong” metrics is a ratio of successful convictions, widely used to measure success or reputation of public prosecutors. This one causes US taxpayers to waste hundreds of millions of dollars in court costs, compensation for wrongful imprisonment and lost productivity every year. Essentially this metric is measuring a percentage of tried cases that result in conviction against the total number of cases tried by the prosecutor. The higher the percentage of convictions, the more “successful” the prosecutor is considered to be regardless of how well justice is served, how many lives are destroyed and how much financial damage is inflicted.

Another example is the evaluation of a Product Manager performance based on the attainment of product forecast goals. While I am familiar with a popular definition of a Product Manager’s role as a “Product CEO,” the organizational reality does not often support this definition, as product managers rarely have administrative authority to enforce their decisions and act mostly as influencers. It is intellectually dishonest to keep them accountable for a result of a sum of aggregated decisions made by a multitude of people, but most importantly it does not help to bring desired improvements in products performance.

2.      Focusing on unbalanced metrics will promote bad behavior.

Performance is often measured by a singular metric, yet people are rarely expected to behave one-dimensionally. Everyone knows that a lot of digressions will be forgiven to a salesman who consistently makes his quota, even though his lack of desire and/or skill to forecast costs your company serious hits to profit margin. Imagine it is the end of a quarter and you are deeply discounting your product in a desperate attempt to make your company revenue numbers, just to see your “best” performer bringing in a “bluebird” deal you had no visibility of. He just caused you to give away profits, and you did not need to sacrifice for “please sign today” deals. A secondary measurement attached to accuracy of forecast and associated with commission structure can dramatically improve a company’s profitability.

3.      Concise metrics promote action.

Conversely, the convoluted metrics are a waste of time, expense and opportunity. Many Customer Satisfaction measurements are falling into this category because they are often too general, and the best cause of action you may take is to do more studies. Most companies do not even consider competitive influences on their customer’s assessment of their satisfaction with their products or services. Unless feedback from customer analysis of every key component of customer experience is continuously conducted, and in relation to competitive options available to the customers, it is very difficult to figure out why overall Customer Satisfaction is moving higher or lower, who should take any action and what kind of action should be taken.

In conclusion, I would like to suggest that any performance metric has to be evaluated in a holistic model as it is very easy to come up with a clever way to improve one aspect of a specific performance at a detriment of the long-term well-being of the company as a whole.

Many marketers are wrestling with practical implications of Social Media Marketing concept. One of the challenges is a lack of a clear and practical concept definition. Everyone seem to know what it means and doing “something” about it, but only very few can boast a provable and measurable success. I chose to focus on a specific subset of the SMM that in my opinion provides the most effective method on increasing sales without monumental budget requirements.

If you agree that consumers, and that include businesses in context of this conversation, fundamentally shop for “desirable outcome” and a shopping process is focused on risk reduction of achieving that outcome, you would probably see why the customer reviews are so important. Many marketers are often uncomfortable with an idea of funding a messaging effort without retaining control of the content, but that is precisely why this Media is called Social.  A customer review is usually a personal “story” describing how a person, who had expectations (possibly similar to yours) experienced reality of of their decision to purchase that product or service. A “negative” review can often sell your product or service more effectively by alleviating prospective customer’s fears because the review writer expectations were different from the the reader’s, the writer’s experience was closer to the reader’s desirable outcome, and negative tone gives the story a lot more credibility.

Let’s assume that I masterfully convinced you that customer reviews, under curtain conditions, provide sizable uplift in sales. If you don’t buy this line of reasoning there is some research on that subjects which supports the premise. You can find here and here. If you knew it all along, you are more interested in what are the “certain conditions”, and how exactly do you get your customers to write these reviews.

Humans communicate by telling the stories – stars (Liekert scales and such), attribute ratings and any other attempts to filter and organize customer reviews, are helpful, but they often fail to produce sales uplift if used excessively. They distract consumers from reading the “stories” and prevent them from personal engagement. The idea of engaging customers in writing more reviews by offering them “fill in the blank” forms often leads to waste and distrust as consumers, who look for this product reviews, feel cheated when they land on the product page with  pre-fabricated, check box reviews.

Number of reviews is critically important for production of sales uplift. There is no exact, magic number that would guarantee the desired effect as it is highly contextual to the complexity of the product or service and its price (i.e. risk involved). Too few reviews for a product may make it look not credible to many consumers, and too many reviews may intimidate some from even making the decision. The latter case could possibly be mitigated by thoughtful “filtering” mechanisms and it is not a problem for most marketers. Only a very small number of customers are engaged enough to write a review. I “mashed” TV units shipped data from iSuppli Market Research with a number of reviews for these TV brands available online to come with an average that is well below 1%.

Engaging your customers to write more reviews is probably the most challenging task. There is no shortcuts here. Any marketers who succumbed to a “brilliant” idea of planting reviews written by not-customers should know that it is illegal ( it was successfully prosecuted in NY),  it produce adverse effects, and did I mention that it is not ethical? Misleading social media seeding techniques have become so widespread that the European Union enacted Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations to protect the public from the most deceitful activities.

To do it right you need to understand why customers write the reviews on the first place. What are the motivations? There are a few studies conducted by Cone Research and others that delved into this subject. When you understand what motivates very few of your customers to write the reviews you need to select appropriate existing interaction points between your company and a customer, such as warranty registration process or scheduled maintenance, to ask them for it. The way you communicate the request is very important and has to loop back to the motivations. If you ask for endorsement or referral – you miss the mark and fail in this Social Media Marketing class.

As consumers we all can recall the experiences that have left us feeling abused and mistreated by companies we have selected to give our money to. In some instances I promised to myself never to come back for more and kept my promise – I would rather go back to dial-up ISP than deal with Comcast.

According to the research of Bruce Temkin, former Forrester analyst and an authority on Customer Experience management,

In Forrester’s 2010 Customer Experience Ranking of 133 companies, Comcast came in 126th for it’s Internet business and 125th for its TV service. It also came in 105th/109th out of 114 companies in the 2008 rankings and 95th/101st out of 112 firms in the 2007 rankings.

The point of this writing is not to bash Comcast, even though it definitely deserves bashing, but to ask an important question: Does the Customer Experience (or Customer Satisfaction) really matter if in spite of its miserable scores a company like Comcast can produce healthy profits?

These financial statements show steady growth in revenues and profits over the same periods, and the numbers do not provide any evidence to support the belief that mistreatment of the customers is a good business practice.

I have posed this question to Bruce and his response

“@piplzchoice Good question. Cust exp is a long-term asset. Comcast (and others in the industry) are squandering it. It will catch up to them.”

This response is encouraging, but not entirely satisfying because it appeals to emotional belief (faith). I would prefer some empiric evidence of correlation between profitability and customer experience ratings or reputation.

I have heard about Claes Fornell of CFI Group who has done very interesting work in that field, but yet to learn more about that methodology.

To be fair, one example, particularly of a company that operates in rapidly growing market with very few competitors, does not offer any meaningful insight and I would love to find some other, more representative examples.

Woody Allen once said – “I would gladly accept existence of God if he would give me some evidence of his existence, like transferring $5M to my Swiss bank account”. Please let me know if you are aware of any definitive studies and/or methodologies that quantify and/or predict financial performance based on the Customer Experience – I am still faithful, but yearn for evidence.

As any business seeks to better understand customer needs and behaviors, it’s no secret that Social Media has opened more doors to CRM opportunities than ever before.  Last week while reading a recent marketing blog, I was amazed to observe that the writer failed to suggest the current trend of social networking as a frontline method for creating a relationship with customers.

Like never before, Social Media is providing a colossal platform allowing us to hear what our customers are saying.   It is quickly becoming one of the best ways to engage a customer and gain valuable insight into their experience with our products as well as those of our competition.  Are you listening?

This explosive technology could permit any business to identify competitive threats or opportunities through information that might not otherwise be detected without listening to thousands of customers.  Historically, formal focus groups were utilized as the most common means of collecting this data in-person from the end user.  Perhaps one could imply that today social media is quickly becoming the new “focus group”.

Consider for a moment that while traditional focus groups draw in customers to discuss their experiences, so are Social Networks providing the same information.  Is there really a significant difference?  The value of a focus group depends largely on quality of questions posed to the participants with all the biases that are incorporated into a question. The main disparity is that social media presents a very public review of a product or company’s benefits and even shortcomings.  However, we must not ignore the exponential numbers of consumers who are vocalizing this valuable data.  It is often more candid than any focus group could provide.

Getting connected with them is just part of the solution.  Connecting & engaging within these social mediums is relatively easy part.  Nevertheless, just like any other ‘marketing” effort, its success is not realized without measurement.  Therefore, the opportunity exists in figuring out what to do with the unstructured data.

Fortunately there is technology available to “interpret” this valuable data. Utilizing a multi-dimensional analysis, we convert various forms of feedback into an actionable plan then we take it one step further.  We are examining customer ratings across the market of nearly 20,000 products.  Many of the companies who have attempted their own translations had to invest very significant amounts of money into text mining implementation projects that allow handling feedback about only their own products.  With more than 2 million reviews, our database can deliver satisfaction scores from real world consumers about your products as well as that of your competition.

Self help author and motivational speaker, Robert Kiyosaki,  was quoted last year as saying ‘I am a bit old to focus on social media now but I spend an average of two hundred thousand dollars monthly through hired employees or consultants on social media, online reputation etc’.  While the use of social media as a marketing tool is still in its early stages, let’s not ignore this novel opportunity to act on customer feedback.

Clay Shirky once said in on of his presentations – “There is no information overload – it is filters failure”

Some people complain that the Internet has created overwhelming volumes of information.  Is there really too much information about objects of interest or is the perception of overwhelming volume actually misstated? Perhaps the issue is not quantity but level of quality. It is a matter of perception and focus; the ability to discriminate signal from background noise.  Both producers and consumers care about what is said about a product or service equates to dollars or pounds or yen because positive statements will usually translate into higher demand.  It is ironic how growing numbers of sophisticated product producers and consumers are tapping into the same information stream that has only recently come out of emerging social networks; a kind of digital crowdwisdom.

Whether consumers are overwhelmed by the amount of product information or just lazy, many consumers apparently prefer the conversation threads shared by digital “friends” in their social network over search engine result pages generated by a product’s keywords and metadata tags. There is a very human tendency to seek out the opinion or advice of a “social herd” of like-minded people with similar values, interests, and needs.  It is more than just a contemporary cynicism of Madison Avenue hype and infomercial verbiage. Following the “virtual herd” may at first sound like a derogatory statement but it is in fact fair and descriptive.  Herding is an adaptive trait that fosters very important social behaviors. Though it can, if carried to an extreme like lemmings jumping off a cliff appear pointless, following a “digital” herd saves time and minimizes personal risk. Whether inexperienced or as mentioned above, overwhelmed by too much information, “attending” to what the other member’s of one’s social circle say, do, or prefer is like a filtering device. Some people feel that the wider their circle and the greater the consensus toward a selection, the less risky their final choice. This filtering is especially cost-efficient. A consumer, after finding a common and comfortable social niche, has to neither spend additional time nor effort to select objects of value or need; they just follow the Word-of-Mouth recommendations of their trusted circle and their satisfaction is guaranteed.

Sophisticated product producers recognize that tapping into these social niches, if they can find them, provide free and truthful evaluations of what is right and wrong with their product line.  Crowdwisdom would appear to reflect unsolicited, and therefore one hopes, unbiased evaluations of many different facets of a product. If postings in some niche social network discuss a product, its reputation, and its brand over some reasonable time frame, a producer could conclude the data is accurate rather than misrepresented, for example, by a competitor’s planted remarks or their own staff trying to “market” company goods. They could conclude it is balanced rather than atypical and biased when, for example, a single irate customer monopolizes bandwidth with redundant rants.  Producers who cast their virtual nets over social networks to catch real-time comments must follow the best practices in statistical sampling and testing of experienced psychologists and trained sociologist. Crowdwisdom is not necessarily wise but it is, when collected carefully, extremely relevant. Especially in this digital age where many people struggle to find the signal in all the noise, it is cost-effective and an adaptive trait that minimizes personal risk. It doesn’t matter whether or not you trust or even like everyone in your social circle, if the group hangs out at a particular water hole, it must be safe to go there to drink.

The last night session on Social CRM left me very disappointed. The debate on whether SCRM is shiny, new dawn of new, social Enterprise or a infamous lipstick on the pig have been raging for a while. Until I’ve heard the comments and answers of the last night panel members (with honorable exclusion of Mint.com), I was very hopeful for the first. Not anymore.

CRM was certainly a very profitable business for a couple of decades now, and yet most people talk about it as a failure. I have written about the fact that CRM has never failed as a technology, but as a strategy, implementation, adoption, and as the result in delivering promised ROI.  At the heart of it CRM promised Customer Relationship Management, but delivered customer relationship Management – efficiencies and cost cutting without effective execution of better Customer Experience. We tried to manage Customers, not to manage our relationships with the Customers.

So, what have we learned here? Judging by the communications and attitudes of the last night panelists (again excluding the Mint) – not much. New and improved SCRM would help Enterprise to manage PR risks, to corral Customers into company controlled forums, capture more personal information and otherwise continue on the same path of exploitive relationship management.

The fine metaphor of the bridge between the Social and The Enterprise morphed into the image of the gated community without a lot of transparency or accountability.

@jowyang asked me afterwards if a company can make money engaging in more balanced, fair, respectful relations with their customers. In my opinion it is the only way to build a truly great, profitable company with a focus on long term ROI growth, look at Zappos.

Social CRM – Putting Customers First – what does it even mean?  Healthy relationship has to be equitable and “social” means that even in relatively free market society customers have a choice to have relationship with less abusive partners. The first law of Social is Authenticity and when a company starts to invest into quality of Customer Experience, with or without technology to support it, and then I’ll start buying into Social CRM. Please stop putting Customer first and concentrate instead on Customer Experience.

I understand brand as a collection of products, marketed under common name/trademark by a specified company.  While the brand is “owned” by a company, perhaps a symbolic image of a brand resides within the minds of consumers.  Formerly, when tenative threats were made to a brand, it could take months for it to be publicly identified.  Social media has altered the timeframe to mere minutes.

Recent blogs discussing the topic of real-time brand management were based on the March 13 Virgin America flight detained for more than 4 hours due to inclement weather.  I find the debate quite interesting.   The story suggests passengers and crew on this flight became quite restless and nerves were waning.  During this time, David Martin, the CEO of Kontain.com, utilized a social media app on his IPhone to “share” the unbelievable experience.

This effort initiated a phone call to Martin from a Virgin marketing officer with a $100 voucher proposal for his inconvenience.  His response was that all the passengers deserved more.  Subsequently, he was called by Virgin’s CEO, David Cush where Martin maintains he negotiated a full refund and a $100-per-person voucher for all passengers.

While you cannot amend the acts of Mother Nature, I am concerned that spontaneous reflexes such as this will begin to emerge when they are more likely very expensive patches for inadequate customer service processes or poor brand management.    A deeper analysis of root causes for poor customer experiences with a goal of the these causes systematic elimination constitutes a real “function” of brand management.

In response to the Virgin account John Sviokla suggested, “Every company must have “a brand radar system” to constantly monitor social media.”  He also states in a recent blog for the Harvard Business Review that businesses need to adjust to the new reality of being “on stage” at all times.   However, Real-time brand management is more than responding at the speed of a tweet.  Conceivably, we should strive for real-time identification, monitoring and analysis of customer feedback in an effort to develop a consistent set of rules that makes our brand stand out. 

These days a huge gap has formed between listening to our customers and actually understanding what they are saying.  It’s now evident to most companies that Social Media has opened new doors for listening to customers.  Although it seems they are drowning in volumes of voices, without good tools and/or methods to extract clear and actionable signals.  In a sense they can’t see the forest for the all the trees.

While CRM has become the hottest way to connect with customers, it is often mistaken as a form of technology used to disclose customer feedback throughout a company.  CRM is much more than technology; it’s an ongoing process to improve relationships with your customers resulting in better customer service, improved customer satisfaction, retention and loyalty.

So what is Social CRM?  Simply defined, this new advancement is a way to manage social relationships.  Its function is collecting data found in social networks and disseminating among the areas within the company that can respond to it. In the words of Paul Greenberg:

“Social CRM is a philosophy & a business strategy, supported by a technology platform, business rules, workflow, processes & social characteristics, designed to engage the customer in a collaborative conversation in order to provide mutually beneficial value in a trusted & transparent business environment. It’s the company’s response to the customer’s ownership of the conversation.”

Typically, it has taken a drastic measure such as decreased revenues, customer churn or product issues to compel us to reach out to our patrons. On average, this knee-jerk reaction is short-lived and dropped once the next crisis appears.

Customer satisfaction surveys are also utilized by many companies as a way to ‘connect’ with consumers. Although well intentioned, satisfaction surveys are often self serving and primarily give management the impression they are accomplishing something.

A good place to start connecting with your customers is by way of:
- Buyer behavior – adopt a ‘buyer orientation’ vs. the typical ‘seller orientation’
- Voice of the Customer (VOC) programs – go beyond satisfaction.  Bruce Temkin, a principal analyst at Forrester, defines VOC as “a systematic approach for incorporating the needs of customers into the design of customer experiences.”
Empowerment – make sure your organization is focused and able to make changes based on customer feedback.  Lack of this key element is often why customer satisfaction surveys are typically a flop.

Another interesting fact is the correlation of customer satisfaction with a company’s market performance.  A study published in the Journal of Marketing found that companies at the top 20% of the American Customer Satisfaction Index greatly outperformed in the stock market, generating a 40% return.

There is also a strong correlation between customer satisfaction and financial performance.  A study by JD Power and Associates discovered that organizations with the highest levels of customer satisfaction experienced profit margins at three times the growth rate than those with medium levels of customer satisfaction and more than 21 times that for low customer satisfaction ratings.

Often an organization may possess various methods of obtaining customer feedback but they are not able to comprehend it, creating action plans while many do not have the resources to try.  As a veritable strategy, perhaps we should be focusing more than ever on CRM (& Social CRM) development to bridge the enormous gap between listening and understanding our customers.