IPA|ED:final - existing customers

Loyalty is dead, long live loyalty; a very contemporary case for the existence of brand loyalty

…because I believe brands should only invest in marketing
communications through existing users of their brand

Lead_image_4_loyalty_want_to_believet

Loyalty is dead

Ehrenberg showed us that loyalty has never existed.  In a retrospective of his research in
marketing he notes that within all the categories he has examined, brand-buying
is polygamous; consumers have “several steady partners (brands), some [of which
are] consumed more often than others … Very few buyers are 100% loyal.  Nor do they do it often.  They therefore have few opportunities for
being disloyal.  Marketing’s common
target of more loyal buyers is deeply unreachable” (see note 1).

Ehrenberg’s position is reinforced by the very nature of
loyalty in the context of free market economics.  Adam Smith writing in the 18th Century
commented that “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or
the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest”
(see note 2).

In other words, corporations don’t work in the interests of
consumers.  “For the market to function
well it is not necessary to be altruistic; indeed, it is even counterproductive
to be so.  Altruists ruin the functioning
of the market … What is needed is competition, non-violent rivalry between
producers and consumers” (see note 3).

In this context it’s hardly surprising that consumer brand
loyalty isn’t observed by Ehrenberg.  It
is simply not in the best interest of consumers to be loyal to a brand;
something that has been reinforced by the paradigm shifts in consumer
behaviours that have emerged as a result of the internet.

One example of this shift in behaviour is the extent to
which consumers are increasingly researching brands and purchases online.  A shift highlighted by the observation that
car showroom footfall has significantly decreased whilst conversions have
significantly increased; consumers increasingly enter already armed with a
plethora of research, information and opinions (see note 4).

Not only can empowered consumers now investigate and
challenge the motivations, behaviours and offerings of brands, but our
marketing investment encourages them to do so. 
Any loyalties that did exist are increasingly tested in a market where
moneysupermarket and Uswitch empower consumers to be price rather than brand
sensitive (see note 5).  The irony is
that the brands being undermined are the very same brands that are funding
their own demise.

The ‘myth’ of loyalty has most recently by highlighted in
analysis of the IPA’s databank (see note 6). 
The dataMINE analysis (see note 7) showed that whilst campaigns in the
dataBANK more often sought to increase loyalty than increase penetration, the
success rate in doing so was a mere 24% (see note 8).

 

Long live loyalty

Loyalty is alive and well. 
Read Adam Smith carefully and you’ll see that two of his major
provisions have been severely undermined; one, that information will be local
and complete, and two, that foreign investment will never happen.  Our world is quite different from the one
that Smith and his counterparts explained.

Findings of game theory such as the prisoner’s dilemma
demonstrate that cooperation is required to promote self-interest.  In fact evidence points to the emergence of
increasingly co-operative behaviour.  In
Wikinomics, Tapscott and Williams observe that “billions of connected
individuals can now actively participate in innovation, wealth creation, and
social development in ways we once only dreamed of.  And when these masses of people collaborate
they collectively can advance … the economy in surprising but ultimately
profitable ways” (see note 9).

People co-operate when they have a shared goal or
belief.  It is this observation that
points to a very contemporary case for the emergence of loyalty to brands.  In John Grant’s ‘after image’ world, the goal
for marketers is to create ideas with which their brands can be associated (see
note 10).  Jon Alexander comments that “I
would rather argue that loyalty never existed before, but is starting to now,
as brands for the first time develop values in a meaningful – as opposed to
superficial, advertising-related – way. 
Howies is a brand I am able to be loyal to, because I know everything
they stand for” (see note 11).

Of course we are repertoire consumers.  Of course we can defect.  But a brand imbued with an ethic to which we
can relate gives us a stronger emotional reason to be loyal than any comprehensively-developed
rational benefit.  The logical extreme of
this is seen in crowd-managed (see note 12) brands such as MyFootballClub’s
purchase of Ebbsfleet FC (see note 13). 
How long before we all have a couple of side-interests in brands?  These brands will not only occupy a small –
very engaged – part of our mind, but a considerable share of our wallet too
(see note 14).

IPA_final_Ebbsfleet

The success in building loyalty isn’t reflected in the IPA’s
dataMINE study because you can’t examine loyalty in isolation.  The concept of brand loyalty can only be
understood in the context of other factors. 
In another analysis of the IPA dataBANK, Peter Field identified that
what was so remarkable about O2’s ‘World that revolves around you’ campaign
(see note 15) was not just that it increased loyalty by reducing defections –
or churn – “from 35% to 29% at a time when competitors' churn rates were rising
… Rather the real achievement of this remarkable piece of marketing was to
double recruitment rates, in part by turning existing customers into advocates
for the brand … Twice as much share gain resulted from recruitment as retention
… to characterise the success of O2 as loyalty growth is like describing Dom
Pérignon as a fizzy drink” (see note 16).

IPA_final_O2_and_PF_quote

This is the key to understanding brand Loyalty; we must
place it in the context of the inter-related factors with which it sits.  Loyalty is inextricably linked to encouraging
customer retention through combating defections.  Loyalty is in effect the opposite of
defections – if you have a 10% defection rate you have, by definition a 90%
loyalty rate.  Not only does loyalty
exist, but it has for each and every brand, a number.

More crucially, the case study demonstrates the extent to
which both loyalty and retention are themselves intrinsically bound to advocacy
– the active support (see note 17) for a brand by a customer; but more of that tomorrow…

Notes

1. Andrew Ehrenberg. 
My Research In Marketing.  Admap –
May 2005, Issue 461

2. Adam Smith.  The
Wealth of Nations (1776).  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith

3. A.A.M. Kinneging.  Loyalty in the modern world.  Modern Age; 
Wntr-Spring, 2004 http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0354/is_1-2_46/ai_n6140578/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1

4. Observation made by Dennis Woodside, Vice President of
Google Region One, in a recent talk entitled ‘Chasing the Consumer’

5. At the time of writing, consumer price-sensitivity is
being further instigated by rising inflation and an economic slowdown in part
as a result of the global credit crunch

6. The IPA case study dataBANK is comprised of papers
submitted to the IPA Effectiveness Awards competitions since 1980

7. The IPA dataMINE project aims to use the dataBANK to
produce general learnings about how marketing works.  For more information visit: http://www.ipa.co.uk/Content/Marketing-in-the-Era-of-Accountability-published-today

8. Only 24% of campaigns succeeded in increasing loyalty
compared to 73% success rate for those campaigns which sought to increase
penetration and 88% success rate for those campaigns which sought to increase
both loyalty and penetration.

9. Don
Tapscott
(Author), Anthony
D. Williams
.  Wikinomics: How Mass
Collaboration Changes Everything

10. John Grant.  After
Image.  Grant observes that ownership of
ideas is far more valuable than the ‘personalities’ from which brands were
previously carefully constructed using insights and aspirations of brand users

11. Jon Alexander, Planner at Fallon – as quoted in an
conversation for this essay

12. Crowd-managed refers to consumers tangibly owning a
share in a brand.  For more see: http://www.coolbusinessideas.com/archives/from_crowdsourced_ideas_to_a_crowdowned_crowdmanaged_business_entity.html

13. MyFootballClub consists of 30,000 members who own
Ebbsfleet United and vote on all key decisions from team selection to financial
budgets.  See more at: http://www.myfootballclub.co.uk/

14. After all, if the brand was so good that you bought and
continue to buy into it, why – when you get to the shelf – would you buy
anything else?!

15. O2 – The best way to win new customers? Talk to the ones
you already have: the story of O2.  IPA,
2006

16. Peter Field.  The
quest for loyalty.  Admap MagazineMarch
2008, Issue 492

17. Advocacy: n active support of a cause or course of
action – Collins English Dictionary

Friday: Advocacy and the power of word of mouth
Monday: A new way of approaching comms planning

Standard
IPA|ED:final - existing customers

The heroin of CPAs: why marketing communications are addicted to customer acquisition

…because I believe brands should only invest in marketing
communications through existing users of their brand

Lead_image_3_78%

The three quarters we misspend

In yesterday’s post I identified the value that existing
customers hold for marketers.  Yet despite
this, most brands seem addicted to investment in marketing with the sole
purpose of attracting new customers.  Brands
are determined to talk to those who don’t love them.  Think about the last dozen briefs you wrote
or received.  How many were instigated to
recruit new customers?

A survey conducted for my IPA essay asked eighteen major
brands, who between July ’07 and June ’08 collectively invested £380m in
communications; “What proportion of your marketing budget is spent with the
specific intention of acquiring new customers?” 
The average – weighted by spend – across those brands was 78% (see note
one).  Over three quarters of their
marketing investment is deployed to communicate to those with whom their brands
have no proven relationship, and from whom no immediate profits will derive.

Hooked on an immediate fix

It’s not difficult to identify the sources of our
addiction.  We measure ourselves and are
judged by immediate-term sales metrics. 
Peter Doyle observes that “marketers have often allowed themselves to be
trapped by accounting-orientated management into seeking to justify their
marketing strategies in terms of improving immediate earnings” (see note two).

Weekly and even daily acquisition is what drives personal
and departmental targets.  One senior
agency figure commented to me that “this is part of the trap that most
businesses find themselves in: uncertain economic environments and hyper-competition in commoditised markets mean that most estimations of a company’s
success are based on evidence of growth ie headline sales”.

It’s also Google’s fault. 
One consequence of the emergence of the internet has been the precision
with which we can track online behaviours. 
The granularity of information around acquisition of new customers in
particular means that marketers who know they are focusing on the wrong
measures are nevertheless hooked on the heroin of CPAs and CPRs that drive
targets.

Notes

1. Collectively between July 2007 and June 2008 the brands
surveyed spent in the region of £380m on media and direct marketing (direct
mail and door drops); 78% of this – £294m – on acquisition.  If this were representative of the spend of
the top 200 brands across the same period it would amount to £4.6billion being
invested purely to communicate to non-users of their brands.  All spend figures sourced from Billetts.

2. Peter Doyle. 
Value-Based Marketing: Marketing Strategies for Corporate Growth and
Shareholder Value.

Tomorrow: The loyalty debate
Friday: Advocacy and the power of word of mouth

Standard
IPA|ED:final - existing customers

Why existing customers are a brand’s greatest asset

…because I believe brands should only invest in marketing communications through existing users of their brand

Lead_image_2_brands_greatest_asset

The principal assertion of my IPA final essay is that any
brand should focus their efforts through their existing customers.  It is so obvious that most revenues, and therefore
most profits, are derived from existing customers that we have forgotten – it would
seem – its fundamental importance.

But that is only the start of existing customers’
importance.  Fred Reichheld – who
pioneered loyalty research at Boston’s Bain Consultancy – observed that in most
businesses the profit earned from customers increases over time.  Furthermore it generally costs more money to
service a new customer than an established one; some businesses lose money on a
customer in their first year (see note #1).

Accenture have demonstrated the extent to which it is within
the control of businesses to increase customer profitability.  They suggest that a typical $1 billion
business could add $40 million in profit by enhancing Customer Relationship
Management capabilities by ten percent (see note #2).

IPA_final_Accenture_CRM

It’s also more expensive to attract rather than keep a
customer; a repeat sale is generally accepted to be between a quarter and a
third the cost of a new customer.  Julian
Saunders observes that “the economics of winning a new customer versus keeping
an existing one is generally well known. 
A healthy and mature service should get most of its business from
existing customers; it costs less” (see note #3).

Case study: magazine subscriptions

Let’s take the example of magazine subscriptions.  The profit on a typical annual magazine
subscription is around £15 per customer (see note #4), but the cost to acquire
that customer is in the region of £34. 
The acquisition cost doesn’t begin to be recouped until the third
financial year.

IPA_final_Magazines_Millivres_Prowler_stats

Compare this to a retention strategy.  Utilisation of the customer (subscriber)
database reduces – on average – retention cost to around £1, which generates a
profit of £14 in year one.  Average
retention rate in the magazine industry is around 45-50% in year one, but – significantly
– this increases to 75-80% in year two and a massive 98% in third and
subsequent years.  The fiscal benefit of
retaining your existing customers as opposed to the acquisition of new ones is
clear.

Notes

1 Frederick F Reichheld. The Loyalty Effect: The Hidden Force Behind Growth, Profits and Lasting
Value
.

2. Customer Relationship Management: Divide and Conquer, an
Accenture report by Mark T. Wolfe, Stephen F. Dull and Timothy Stephens

3. Julian Saunders.  A
market leader exclusive report: What is really changing in marketing
communications?

4. Based on a typical annual subscription cost to the reader
of £36, less £21 fulfilment cost on the part of the publisher.  Source: Milivres Prowler Group.

Tomorrow: Our addiction to the heroin of customer acqusition
Thursday: The loyalty debate

Standard
IPA|ED:final - existing customers

I Believe Brands Should Only Invest in Marketing Communications Through Existing Users Of Their Brand

Existing_customers_one
brands are wasting budgets on luring new customers.  that a far better tack is to get faithful brand stalwarts to spread the word is something that Mediation believes quite strongly in.

some other people agreed, and a piece I wrote for the IPA Excellence Diploma on the subject has been published in Campaign today.

but it's a starting point not an end point.  it raises more questions than it answers about what we do and how we do it; about how we value customers, plan communications, and measure success.

from Tuesday next week on this blog I'll be – over ten days – taking one section from my essay at a time and publishing it.  I hope that you'll enjoy the read, but more importantly I hope that you'll join in the debate; because I believe that most marketing in the early 21st century is excessively wasteful.  I want to believe that we'll look back at how we embraced change…  and I hope you'll come along for the ride…

Standard
IPA|ED:final - existing customers, promoting, selling

Looking after your own: how Starbucks is fighting the recession by rewarding its existing customers

Starbucks_card
so Mediation was in Islington at the weekend and popped into the local Starbucks.  whereupon I was asked if I wanted to sign-up for a Starbucks Card.  "no", I kindly replied, "I'm fine thanks."  …not wanting – frankly – to be spending money with a brand before I even had any of the product in my hand.

"but we're doing a special limited offer", countered the chap behind the counter.  "oh yeah", says I (see how they do it) – "what kind of offer?".  "free shots for life when you sign up for a card", said the chap casually.  just like that.  "free shots. for life", I said.  "yup yup, sign up to a Starbucks card and you get free shots and flavours for the rest of your life".

now I plan on living a good while yet.  I also plan on continuing to enjoy my venti skinny lattes with a shot of sugar-free vanilla syrup.

I left the store with a Starbucks card.

turns out that it's part of a trial by the coffee chain, limited (for the moment) to two stores in Islington.  the email I got upon registering was pretty standard, but the response from the care centre when I called up was a great deal more revealing…  they confirmed that I would indeed receive up to five free shots or flavours per drink from those outlets for 'the foreseeable future', whenever I used my card to pay for the drink.

why?  because, and this is a direct paraphrase from the Bucks, the brand is looking to what it can do – given the current economic climate – for its existing customers.

anyone who knows Mediation knows I'm pretty passionate about brands looking after their existing customers.  something which I think is more rather than less true in a recessionary climate.  taking care of your own, giving reasons for your existing customers to keep being your existing customers, is more important than ever before.

Starbucks would seem to agree.  so if you like your sugar-free vanilla syrup as much as I do I suggest that you get yourself to a Starbucks in Islington sharpish.

Standard