Category Archives: Lifetime Value

Capitalism – What the Future Holds

Wall Street

Image by Mirka23 via Flickr

The world is in a state of flux.

With the economic downturn lingering far longer than most people expected, governments are under growing pressure to kick-start economies. However, a growing number of countries with looming debt crises and a consequent unwillingness or inability of governments to spend more money hampers this.  And, as the northern hemisphere weather warms up, we can expect to see growing numbers of demonstrations by people wanting jobs or, at least, a reduction in job cuts.

All of which leads to the question – is the capitalist system doomed?

I don’t believe for a moment that this is the case – history shows that capitalism is the most effective way for countries and people to grow their wealth – but I do think we’re going to see some far-reaching changes.

Back in September 2009, I suggested in my post, “The Perils of Quarteritis” that the short-term thinking so prevalent in recent years had contributed significantly to the crash, and that businesses would move to a longer-term, more strategic model.

The March 2011 edition of Harvard Business Review has a wonderful paper, “Capitalism for the Long Term,” by Dominic Barton, Global Managing Director of McKinsey & Company where documents his findings from 18 months of research and hundreds of meetings with business and government leaders. In this paper, Barton makes 3 points to support his conclusion that capitalism must survive, but that it needs to change, too:

  1. A return to longer-term thinking by companies, investors and politicians alike – he refers to this as “The Tyranny of Short-Termism” (my version was Quarteritis).
  2. That there is no difference between serving the interests of shareholders and of stakeholders – in spite of a more recent belief that serving stakeholders made shareholders poorer, managing for long-term value growth benefits not only stakeholders and society but shareholders, too.
  3. Company executives and boards need to act more like owners, not temporary care-takers – as by doing so they will naturally look to the long-term and so benefit the company, its shareholders, its stakeholders and society as a whole.

Basically, it all comes down to taking a longer-term view of business (as well as the economy, in the case of government) and a consequent change in leadership style, too – see my post of November 2009, “Leadership for the New Business World.”

This longer-term thinking and more inclusive leadership approach will ultimately be to the benefit of all – investors, executives, employees and society as a whole.

What do you think?

Update (31Mar11): Read the Leadership Interview with James Quigley of Deloittes, just out at N2growth.com – leadership is about trust and looking to long-term sustainability.

Advertisements

“The Lifetime Value of Customer” Concept

AA vintage sidecar (date unknown) at the Great...
Is the AA’s approach to customers old-fashioned?
Image via Wikipedia

Well, we survived October unscathed (although it remains to be seen if Ireland will drag the whole of Europe down) and am now pretty well settled in England so will be able to write more frequently again.

An issue that has really been highlighted during my move is that so many companies here seem to have little or no understanding of “The Lifetime Value of Customer” concept. And I’m not just talking about SMEs here – in fact, many of them understand it far better than the big ones.

Let me illustrate this – apart from Newsweek, that troubled publication that continues to make it far more attractive to take out a new subscription each year than renew (see “Is There Value in a Repeat Customer”), an excellent example of this is the AA (Automobile Association) here – an organisation that is clearly confused by policies and customers.

Having been a member of its sister organisation in South Africa for some 20 years I joined the AA in England as soon as I was no longer using hire cars, and had bought my own. It’s just a piece of mind thing for me as I’ve only had a very few occasions to need their help in all the years. Well, as luck would have it, a few weeks after joining I did need them, so put in a call.

I won’t go into the details here – suffice it to say that I needed to upgrade my membership for the call to be answered (hadn’t read the small print carefully enough) so did so. Imagine my shock to find that I was not only charged for a new, higher-level membership plus a penalty for not having had the right level when making the call, but was given no credit for my previous membership fees. In other words, I was considerably worse off than somebody who was not a member at all when calling.

Assuming that somebody had pushed the wrong button, I wrote to the AA and – after having to request a response for a second time – got a rather offhand letter referring to “company policy”: that wonderful phrase used by so many people to hide behind. The fact that the policy is stupid seems to have escaped them.

The fact is that the AA, for the sake of around £40 will lose my future membership fees of probably some £3000: an extremely poor decision. They just do not understand the concept of “Lifetime Value.”

Mind you, they’re not alone – I’ve seen numerous examples of some of the world’s biggest companies throwing away, potentially, millions of dollars/pounds in future sales through mistreating their customers in the technology channel.

And yet the concept is so simple: attend to your customers, have sensible policies, take the opportunity of turning an unhappy customer into an advocate for your business and you will thrive. Take a short-sighted view at single transaction level and risk all those future earnings you might otherwise have had – not exactly a guarantee of long-term success, is it?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Service – the Quick Way to Kill a Brand

I took my car for a service this morning – an experience that once again underscored just how easy it is to chase customers away and kill your brand.

Some background – I currently live in Dubai in the UAE, where the climate and conditions are not particularly vehicle-friendly, so that 4 wheel-drive vehicles such as mine need to be serviced every 5000 kilometres (3000 miles). Because the car is still under warranty this necessitates taking it to the dealership from where I bought it.

This particular vehicle, a Mitsubishi Pajero (also known as a Shogun in some markets) is extremely popular in the UAE – providing a well laid-out, spacious interior, good quality and reliability which is what one needs, especially when the temperature outside is somewhere over 45C. We greatly enjoy the vehicle. What I don’t enjoy is the regular service experience – and come the end of the lease period, I’d switch brands for this reason alone.

And this in a market where new car sales were some 82.5% down last year against 2008 according to ArabianBusiness.com. So you think the dealerships would be delivering exceptional service to maximise what few sales there are. Yet the Mitsubishi agents here seem to be oblivious to this simple approach, as today showed.

Yet, a pre-booked service that should take 30 minutes and be done while you wait, means being without a car for 11 hours – I take that car in at 7:30am and can only pick it up again around 6:30pm in spite of asking for it earlier (bigger services take 2-3 days with these people)!

What amazes me is that they seem to live in perpetual chaos. You book vehicles in advance, turn up at the specified time/day and they still seem to be unable to do the job quickly and painlessly because they’ve always got an unexpectedly full workshop. This sort of approach is, incidentally, quite commonplace here – service lets so many brands down (I have another still-unresolved issue with Bose).

What companies really have to recognise is that the after-sales service experience is one of the quickest ways to kill a brand. Customers are not – or should not – be a one-transaction experience. Lifetime value is what  companies need to focus on, as that’s where the real profits lie – repeat customers that become brand advocates. When are they going to understand this simple concept?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Living Your Brand – do companies really care about their Brand?

Goldman Sachs Tower in Jersey City
Image via Wikipedia

2010 certainly seems to be going down as the year when the proverbial corporate skeletons are coming out of the cupboard:

  • Toyota – which had built its brand on reliable, safe vehicles – recalls many millions of cars all around the world in an apparently ongoing saga, with new recalls being announced almost monthly;
  • Goldman Sachs – viewed by many as the pre-eminent merchant bank – being sued for fraud by the SEC and now under investigation by the UK regulators, too;
  • Many airlines – especially those using words like “Favourite” and “5 Star” in their advertising – simply refusing to abide by their legal obligations, in terms of Regulation 261/2004, to provide accommodation and refreshments for their stranded passengers during the volcanic eruption in Iceland.

And this is just a sample of the more recent headline-grabbing issues.

Are they really “Too big to fail” – or just too big to care?

I suspect they believe the latter, not recognising the truth in the old adage that “Pride comes before a fall.” Remember, almost none of the largest and then most successful companies in, say, 1900, are still in any position of strength today – in fact most have disappeared altogether.

These corporates need to get back to basics, to remember that it is their customers that pay their salaries and to start treating their customers as the company’s most precious resource, rather than as a necessary irritant. Simply repeating a marketing mantra branding themselves as the pre-eminent company in their field doesn’t make it true…

The fact is that branding is a lot more than just a logo with a catchy by-line – a company’s brand is everything to do with that company, and the logo is just something to recognise it by as we’re visual creatures. Branding is about customer service, branding is about the way customers interact with the company in all ways, branding’s about staff training, branding includes corporate governance and social responsibility, branding is about all the materials that company produces – from marketing through packaging to the products themselves – in fact, branding is about everything to do with a company.

And this is where so many companies are falling down: they’ve lost sight of everything but the short-term pursuit of the bottom line. And I use “short-term” advisedly – as without attention to all aspects of their corporate brand, those companies will lose customers and start to fail.

Just look at the consumer backlash against many banks that they perceive to have been complicit in the economic downturn. Imagine how consumers who have been poorly treated will feel about giving more of their hard-earned money to those airlines that left them high and dry. Will former Toyota buyers be as happy to buy another Toyota?

Companies need to start refocusing on their entire brand, they need to recognise the power of instant communication for their customers and embrace it to make a positive difference, and they need to once again really put their customers first instead of just saying they do.

What do you think – do companies no longer care about their brand in pursuit of profits? Have you joined the growing ranks of disgruntled consumers and, if so, which are the brands you love to hate?

Related articles by Zemanta

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

The obligations of Airlines to their Passengers

Europe
Image via Wikipedia

The current chaos following the six-day shutdown of almost all European airspace has thrown the issue of passengers’ rights firmly into the spotlight – particularly with the fact that so many airlines are refusing to take any responsibility for assisting stranded passengers.

With my son being among those stranded (he was stuck in England, trying to get home to Dubai) I have been active in understanding this in order to help him, and so post this in the hope that it will help others in a similar predicament due to the massive problems caused following the eruption of Eyjafjallajokull.

The governing regulation behind all this is one entitled Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council. The Regulation is available in full from various sources on the web, while this Wikipedia entry has a good summary, and this BBC post has one too.

The summary bottom line is:

  • All passengers stranded in Europe are entitled to their choice of: rerouting to another airport for onward flight to their destination (difficult for this in Europe at present); accommodation, refreshments/meals and communication services (basically 2 calls) while they are stranded (the most applicable option); or a refund of their ticket (not sure why they would want this as they generally want to get home).
    • This is regardless of the nationality of the airline on which the passenger is flying, as the European rules apply to the airlines while they are operating in Europe.
  • All passengers stranded outside Europe with tickets to a European destination on a European airline are entitled to the same choices detailed above.
    • The key points here are firstly that the carrier must be a European airline (if on a code-share flight, the ticket must have been issued by one of the European airlines on that code-share), and secondly that the destination must be a European one.
    • Unfortunately, if you are stranded outside Europe with a non-European airline, they are not obliged to provide this assistance.

Many airlines are claiming that as the volcanic eruption is an “Act of God” (or “Force Majeure”) they are absolved from any responsibility for such assistance and are turning passengers away. This is patently untrue as the regulation only makes provision in such circumstances for airlines to be excused from paying additional (cash) compensation that they are normally liable for in the event of delays. They are still required to accommodate, feed and provide communications for stranded passengers, regardless of the reason.

Other airlines, such as Qatar Airways (on which my son is booked – so much for the “5 Star Service” they like to advertise!), are saying that they are not required to provide any assistance as they are foreign-owned. Again, this is simply not true. Although they are not obliged to provide assistance for those passengers stranded outside Europe, they are absolutely obliged to do so for the passengers stranded in Europe.

Should your airline have refused you compensation at the time, you should retain all receipts for accommodation, food, etc., while you have been delayed and lodge a claim with the airline on your return home.

I hope this will help clear up the confusion surrounding this issue and enable people to claim appropriate assistance.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Customer Loyalty – is there a Right Kind?

Your Customer's Emotional Experience
Image by 33 Interactions via Flickr

We talk a good deal about customer loyalty nowadays, but do we really understand it and know how to gain it?

The “1 to 1” gurus, Peppers & Rogers, define three sorts of Customer Loyalty:

  • Emotional Loyalty – this is about how customers feel about your brand;
  • Behavioural Loyalty – the way customers respond, and whether they actively seek to do business with you;
  • Profitable Loyalty – those customers that help you to make money.

Emotional Loyalty was the first level of understanding of the concept of customer loyalty, with early marketing designed to appeal to the emotions and build a bond with customers in this way. However, it became apparent that while customers might feel emotionally close to your brand, that didn’t necessarily mean they would buy from you, or do so on a regular basis.

This led to the concept of Behavioural Loyalty where marketers sought to find ways of bringing the customer to them to do business, and do so regularly. Of course, in many cases Emotional Loyalty was ignored as the focus was on getting the customer to purchase from you.

More recently, with the advent of tools to analyse customer purchases and overall costs more accurately, companies are discovering that on average only around 20% of customers are profitable for a business, with 60% being around break-even and a further 20% losing the company money, so they then focused on trying to find ways to increase the percentage of profitable customers and either remove the unprofitable ones or make them profitable.

However, isn’t the key really to do the first two well and use this to leverage the third? It really is not about focusing on just one aspect of loyalty, but rather about understanding how all three interact and driving your business accordingly.

On the emotional level, you need to be clear about what your brand stands for and ensure that you deliver what you say you will do – never over-promise and under-deliver as that is the quickest way to kill your brand’s emotional loyalty.

To keep your customers coming back – and we all know that repeat customers are best – your marketing must understand their buying behaviour and ensure that you continue to interact with them to capture the maximum share of their wallets. The Lifetime Value concept is key here.

But, of course, you must ensure you do so profitably – and this is not just about margin, but about the total costs of doing business with each customer. A high margin customer can still result in a loss for you if, for example, they are consistently returning items for credit, needing expensive support resources, paying late, and so on, while a low-margin customer who pays cash and never needs support can be nicely profitable. Be clear about where the costs are for each customer.

A great example of a company that does all three well is Amazon: just look at the brand recognition, the fact that you know they it’s a reliable supplier of books, DVDs, etc., at good prices, with a no-quibble replacement policy, and then see how it constantly offers you new items based on your buying behaviour. Amazon’s systems are not only providing its marketing engine with ongoing offers tailored to your likes, but make purchasing easy, so its internal costs are low as there is minimal need for support.

But, after all, if you really think about it, isn’t this what business is all about anyway: getting customers who feel good about doing business with you as you provide a consistently great customer experience, coming back over and over again to make purchases that are profitable for you?

So, to answer the question as to whether there is a Right Kind of Customer Loyalty, the answer is clearly, “No.” To be successful you need to ensure you are focusing your business on all three – Emotional, Behavioural and Profitable. And, in the famous words of a song first made popular in the mid 60s, “Do What You Do, Do Well.”

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Analyse This!

‘Analysis Paralysis’ is often cited as a reason for businesses failing to achieve their potential – too much time spent analysing an opportunity (or problem) with the result that the window closes and nothing is achieved. In fact, much has been written about this, with Google, alone, returning over half a million pages!

The problem is that many in business – particularly the more entrepreneurially-minded – use this syndrome as an excuse not to analyse anything, relying instead on ‘gut feel’ for all decisions.

However, analysis is a critical part of achieving maximum success in a business and there are many areas where this can be automated to a large extent, too.

One often-overlooked area of a business – because it is nowhere near as glamorous as Sales in many eyes – is Credit Control (also referred to as the Debtors’ or Accounts Receivable Department, depending on where you are in the world). And yet, it’s an area that can have a huge impact on the overall health of a company, and one where analysis should play an important role.

In the years BCC (Before Credit Crunch), of course, many companies effectively outsourced much of the decision-making to Credit Insurers, who would determine appropriate account limits for customers, and would chase up for the longer-overdue debt once it was reported to them. The company was paid out either way – by the customer or the insurer – so was less concerned.

This, of course, has all changed.

Credit Insurers are now a lot more careful with their level of risk and companies are having to re-evaluate their approach: do they accept lower credit limits and a consequent restriction to their business, or do they ‘self insure’ to maximise their opportunities?

By analysing their customers’ payment patterns over time, companies will develop a much better understanding of their customers, being better able to assign appropriate credit limits, while also developing an early-warning system of impending trouble.

What’s more, utilising this information in cash-flow forecasts will provide a far more accurate picture of expected income for a given period than the ‘rule of thumb’ that so many companies seem to still use. And, of course, this should feed through to enable companies to give accurate information to their creditors as to payments due, and take maximum advantage of any early-settlement discounts that may be available.

It all comes down to understanding your business more thoroughly. If nothing else, the economic conditions of the past couple of years should encourage businesses to pay a lot more attention to the fundamentals, and that will be good for everyone going forward.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]