Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Internet’

For over four decades after the Second World War, TV sets had to be connected to antennas to receive broadcast TV programming (i.e., by air) from national media networks. In the two last decades of the 20th century, connections have shifted to networks of cable and satellite TV companies (the shift started earlier in the US; some households connected to private satellite dishes).  Now, in the early decades of the 21st century, TV connections move again, this time to broadband Internet to receive TV video content by streaming, including TV programmes and films. Moreover, video content can be streamed for viewing on Smart TVs, computer screens (desktop/portable), and on screens of mobile devices (smartphones and tablets), via wired or wireless connections (though wired is still advantageous for TV content). What counts for “TV” is more fluid and it is no longer bound to TV sets in the classic form.

The streaming market for TV content is entering lately a new stage of transition. The competition is getting tougher and more crowded as ‘old-new’ players (i.e., established media networks) are entering or stepping up their involvement in streaming of full-programme video content. Netflix has set an example, and a challenge, to the more ‘traditional’ TV companies since 2007, when Reed Hatsings identified the potential of broadband Internet for streaming film content and faded-out Netflix’s model of mailing DVDs to customers. Over the past decade Netflix kept an advantage, though the gap from competitors (e.g., Hulu, HBO-Now, Amazon Prime Video) has been narrowing down. The latest developments, as discussed below, pose a more serious threat already to the business model and status of Netflix, expected to make it much more difficult for Netflix to stay on top. But the overall growing streaming activity by technology and media companies should worry nonetheless the cable and satellite TV companies of the previous generation from the 20th century.

Netflix offers to its subscribers a variety of films (movies) and TV shows, but its prestige relies particularly on its original in-house productions. Its TV series may be found in multiple genres: TV dramas (e.g., Riverdale, The Crown), Comedies, TV Sci-Fi, Crime TV Shows, Anime Series, TV Horror, Documentaries, and Kids & Teen TV. Some series are known also outside the circles of its customers; among its popular series Netflix lists, for instance, Stranger Things.

However, Netflix gives its subscribers access to view many TV programmes from other companies, including highly popular series from the American national networks, and henceforth difficulties are starting to pile up. As media companies like NBCUniversal and Disney (which are tied together) are about to launch new streaming services, they become more protective of their in-house content productions and intend to block competing streaming services from offering their programmes and films. The Walt Disney Company is additionally now in full control of Hulu streaming service (through its acquisition of 21st Century Fox in March 2019). Furthermore, HBO which currently operates the streaming service HBO Now is in ownership of WarnerMedia (AT&T), under its Entertainment division; HBO is preparing to launch HBO Max in 2020, a new on-demand TV service by streaming.

A battle over rights, especially exclusive rights, to screen video content of films and TV programmes between companies of different orientations is unfolding, and this situation signals trouble for a company like Netflix. For example, Netflix had to pay a gargantuan sum of $100 million to continue to screen Friends on Netflix during 2019, but next year the series will move to HBO’s streaming platform as it launches HBO Max. Friends, the sitcom series from the 1990s, has been very popular among Netflix’s customers, since it started showing in 2015, thus putting pressure on the company to keep it, for as long as they could. In attempt to compensate, Netflix committed to pay a considerable sum of half a billion dollars to secure rights to screen Seinfeld (its ‘spin-off’ comic series Curb Your Enthusiasm by Larry David, that is considered more favourable outside the US, will remain an exclusive of HBO Max). Also, the American version of the originally British satirical series The Office that is still available in Netflix’s library will be reserved from 2020 to the new NBC’s streaming service, NBC Peacock. Such difficulties may force Netflix to rely even more on  new and original materials, but investors are debating if those materials, being expensive to obtain, can provide sufficient return to be profitable (“Netflix Feels the Pressure as Competitors Circle“. BBC News, 17 October 2019).

The streaming service Hulu provides primarily original content of NBC and Fox. Its library includes categories of Hulu Originals, Movies, Current and Past Seasons of TV Series, and Kids. Yet Hulu has an additional facet: it avails a service of real-time TV programming. Hulu offers a basic plan, Hulu (for $5 per month), that allows streaming content from its library (with ads) and an enhanced plan, Hulu + Live TV (for $45 per month), that includes 60 TV channels (American), VOD channels and DVR for recording.  As noted above NBC and Fox are actually owned by Disney, which in turn is set to launch in November 2019 a streaming service called Disney+. The Disney Plus service will specialise in films and programmes from Disney’s own studios, plus Marvel, Pixar, Star Wars (Lucasfilms), and National Geographic, and a large selection of Disney classics as well. Yet from a different corner, NBC is going to launch NBC Peacock in April 2020 that on its part will offer TV shows and series of NBC network, films from Universal Pictures and DreamWorks studios, and it promises to provide for viewing more cinema films from Hollywood bigger studios (NBC Press Release, 17 Sept. 2019). It is said to be supported by both advertising and subscription (not clear at the moment if it will be available outside the US/North America). It will be interesting to see how the Walt Disney Company allocates and manages content for viewing across the three streaming services in its control: Disney+, Hulu, and NBC Peacock. It is not unimaginable that one of them will become redundant due to overlap and internal competition.

More concerning is the intention of Disney to preserve for its own streaming services the rights to screen video content, past and present, from the various studios it controls. The company is expected to forgo $2.5 billion in revenue by removing Disney content from rival services [Adam Lashinsky in Fortune Magazine, May 2019 *]. Additional revenue is likely to be lost by taking off also content of NBC and Fox from the libraries of rival services, such as Netflix. Lashinsky raises alarm over this plan of the Disney company because of the financial harm foreseen to be endured; the big question is: will it pay off in the long run by attracting enough viewers-customers keen on watching Disney video content. Competitors will suffer some headache in filling the gap by bringing content from new productions and alternative sources; will their customers miss the withdrawn content enough to switch or to subscribe to an additional service to get access to the ‘worlds’ of Disney, NBC or Fox?

Amazon Prime Video service is challenging Netflix for a while now, especially in investment in original productions. The Prime Video service offers original Amazon TV productions next to TV series from other TV providers (e.g., HBO, CBS), in addition to categories of Movies and Kids. A title ‘Amazon Original’  is flagged upon image frames of programmes credited to Amazon. Multiple genres are available: Drama, Comedy, Kids & Family, Action & Adventure, Documentary, Animation, International, and more. Members of the Prime Video club can view much of the content for no additional fee. The video content can be watched from the Web and with Amazon Prime Video app on mobile devices, with set-top boxes, and on selected Smart TVs. The competition of Amazon with Netflix would become more intense if the more veteran media companies pull content out from their video libraries.

Apple, a prime technology company, is increasing its involvement in the field of TV media with the combination of its Apple TV app and the upcoming Apple TV+ streaming service (November 2019). Apple also will not be shy in investing in original productions. The Apple TV+ service will bring new original stories of Apple (e.g., The Morning Show starring Jennifer Aniston and Reese Witherspoon; the latter already appears with Nicole Kidman in a successful series “Big Little Lies” of HBO). The original programmes will show on top of programmes and films from different premium channels, streaming services (but not Netflix), and cable providers; all can be watched with the Apple TV app on the company’s mobile devices, computers and smart TVs (CNet.com, 16 October 2019).

  • The plans of Netflix range in price from $9 (Basic) to $16 (Premium) per month.  The plans of Hulu exhibit two price extremes ($5 — $45), with advertising on the one hand and Live TV on the other.  Disney is said to charge $7 per month ($70 for a year paid in advance); it promises the service will deliver at a technical (HD) and content quality of the Premium plan of Netflix. The expected starting fee for Apple TV+ is $5 per month. Subscription to Amazon Prime Video seems to require a membership fee of $9 and then $13 per month paid monthly or $119 for a year paid in advance.

Cable and satellite TV companies face a difficult competition from TV streaming services that give viewers great flexibility with often high quality programming content. The streaming option gives a new leverage to the established TV networks and media companies to attract viewers for starting customer relationships directly with them. But the cable and satellite TV providers can still hold an important advantage: bringing a widespan variety of content of different styles and flavours from different sources, not committing to a single external production house, in addition to their own productions. Furthermore, many TV viewers are still likely to want to watch real-time (‘linear’) TV programmes (e.g., news). The TV channels should include channels of the viewer’s own country as well as optional channels from other countries and in other languages. National TV networks already provide an option to view their programmes by streaming on the Internet: live as they show in TV schedule and recorded (e.g., BBC iPlayer allows UK residents to watch programmes of BBC1 to BBC4 channels on demand); some programmes may be viewed for free and some by paid subscription. Newspapers are also producing more video stories for streaming.

However, cable and satellite TV providers should re-consider their models of service and allow much more flexibility of choice of channels by building greater modularity into their TV service plans. Video-on-Demand (VOD) and recording (DVR) services are desirable and appreciated but they are not enough. There is little point left these days in offering ‘basic’ plans with 100+ channels for a high monthly fee when people regularly watch only a small fraction of them. In the age of customization, TV viewers-customers should be given more freedom in building their own bundles of TV channels. More of the company’s income can come from the fees on ‘packets’ or sub-bundles of channels customers add-on to a low-cost basic plan, yet customers will then know they are paying for channels they are truly interested watching (e.g., news and documentaries, classic cinema films 1940s-1980s, British / French / Italian TV, vintage TV series 1960s-1980s, animation, and so on). The sub-bundles should be small and focused.

Building fences around original TV content of one company and barring streaming services of other companies from offering those programmes will not benefit anyone, neither on the provider side nor on the customer-viewer side. A TV service provider can differentiate itself by protecting the exclusivity of a greater part of its original video content (as ‘anchors’) while allowing a flavour of it to be experienced by customers of its competitors. It is no less logical doing so than licensing rights to other broadcast TV networks, cable and satellite TV providers to screen their programmes. Content has to be shared between the TV service providers, for the appropriate credit and fee.

Television viewers are looking more afar and broadly across the TV spectrum to find the kinds of programmes they wish to see in the few hours they have spare to watch TV. But there is probably a limit to the number of different streaming sources they will be ready to subscribe to in order to access a satisfying variety of programmes and films for viewing. Adding streaming services will not help if they become too secluded. That is why cable and satellite TV providers can still have an advantage, yet they need to give more flexibility of choice to their customers. To gain the awareness and interest of TV viewers in the series and films produced by media and TV companies, they have to share their works instead of raising fences between them.

Ron Ventura, Ph.D. (Marketing)

Note:

[*] “Disney’s Latest Blockbuster Isn’t in Theaters”, Adam Lashinsky, Fortune Magazine, 1 May 2019, 179 (5), pp. 5-6.

Read Full Post »

Anyone who has been to a trade fair, as those taking place usually on weekends in villages, small towns and some big cities, would know the kind of treasure goods one can find there: woodcraft decorative figurines (e.g., animals), dolls and puppets, handmade kitchenware, glassware (sculptures, vases etc.), knitting and embroidery articles, fashion accessories, and much more (including some local food products). A great part of the products sold in the fair are handicraft made by local and regional residents who present their creations to visitors. Often it is possible to find in such fairs also vintage items from years past (e.g., cameras, radio sets, coins). Now, consider shopping, or hunting, these kinds of treasures in an online marketplace.

Etsy offers an online marketplace similar in concept as described above: it is a special type of e-commerce website for handcrafted and vintage goods, where the sellers are small and independent entrepreneurs who interact directly and sell their merchandise to buyers in the virtual marketplace of Etsy, and then ship the sold goods to their destinations. So a buyer will not find there food products (e.g., homemade jams or local cheese) but he or she can find on Etsy.com a great variety of handmade and vintage goods beyond what is usually presented in any single physical fair (e.g., larger items of furniture that are more difficult to bring to a physical fair). It is not the same experience as strolling between counters in a physical fair, looking for ‘treasures’, but browsing handcrafted and vintage goods in an online marketplace like Etsy offers its own advantages and opportunities in  (almost) immediate access.

Etsy hosts 2.3 million active sellers (all must be registered members) and 47.2 million active buyers (membership is voluntary) as of the end of June 2019 (an increase of 17.7% and 19.3%, respectively, from same period last year). On Gross Merchandise Sales (GMS) of $2.1bn made in its marketplace in the first half of 2019, Etsy has generated a revenue of $350.4m (74% revenue from marketplace fees and 26% from seller services). While GMS increased by 20% from H1/2018, revenue increased by almost 40% (Etsy, Press Release, 1 August 2019). The company provides a platform for a community of sellers to trade their handcrafted creations or vintage goods worldwide. The ‘community’ is a cornerstone of its whole activity. Etsy also cherishes interactions between people (“connecting humans”) as the basis for commerce — its headline calling is to “Keep Commerce Human”. While the company is aiming to maintain the intimacy, reliability and convenience customers expect from a community, it wants to provide these benefits with the efficiency of a large corporation [Fortune: A; Etsy: About]. Making those ends meet seems like a non-negligible challenge.

Shopping for handmade products or vintage products has a special motif: it often gives consumers the feeling of treasure hunting. The pleasure in finding sought-for products as such only increases as they become less common in the world of modern (automated) production and marketing. The product item has to be useful, yet an emotional appeal can be further more important as a driver for buying the product.

Handicrafts are desired for being perceived authentic and genuine. People value the talent, skills and effort invested in their making. They like the human touch in both making the product and personally selling it to them by the person who made the product. Moreover, many of the handmade products are artisanal (e.g., woodwork, glasswork) and may exhibit an exceptional quality. Buying such a product is often considered a gesture of appreciation and a way of making a contribution to the creator.  Vintage products (especially from 1920s to 1960s) may hold a somewhat different attraction: They are associated with the past period of time they originate from (e.g., nostalgia, personal memories from childhood); different, possibly higher standards of quality; different ways of doing things (e.g., listening to music, cooking, taking photos); and vintage ‘treasures’ are also likely to be much less available in the market and even being rare. Vintage products may be handcrafted but that is neither a requirement nor their main source of value to the prospect buyers. (Note: Handcrafted artefacts may be made using just low-tech machinery and tools).

The pages on the website of Etsy appear spacious and bright. Items (text bodies, pictures) are placed over a white background, and the pages do not seem to be condensed and crowded with them. Some areas may be painted in pastel colours (e.g., as background for text on the homepage). This design endows the website with a soft and light feeling, and makes it easier for the eye to move around and observe product listings, pictures and other information on pages. There are very few product listings with images on the homepage, used for illustration rather than out-right promotion; a ribbon with images of products most recently viewed by the visitor appears on top of the homepage and on other pages, exercising relevance and convenience.

Six main categories are displayed in the top menu: Jewelry & Accessories; Clothing & Shoes; Home & Living; Wedding & Party; Toys & Entertainment; and Art & Collectibles. A drop-down menu with sub-categories can be ‘pulled’ from each of these main category items. However, on category pages the visitor also can see tiles for subcategories with sample images, and a sample of product listings in the category. Visitors can narrow down their search by using a key list on the left-hand side of the screen. For any category and sub-category, a visitor-shopper can choose to see all available products in that class or select to focus on either handmade or vintage products in that class (an additional item on the top menu labeled Vintage allows quick access for those interested only in vintage products).

Three basic information elements appear on each product page: a title describing the product, price, and a photo image. In addition, three more components are noteworthy: (1) Handmade products (e.g., a TV stand with cabinet, mid-century modern, made of oak wood) are accompanied by a description on materials and ways of their application, modes of use, design trend, dimensions, etc. For vintage products (e.g., antique Teddy Bear from the 1930s, Dutch Arthur van Gelden), the viewer may find a background story on the artefact, materials, history, any versions if available, etc. (2) Sellers offering their own handmade goods may provide options for personalisation (e.g., first name, a phrase, and photograph in picture frames and displays) and customization (e.g., type of wood, surface finish- colour and texture , size, and extra features for furniture). Furthermore, additional images may show the product from different angles and in different versions that can be customized to the preference of the prospect buyer. (3) The page is set to include reviews contributed by buyers regarding the product purchased and any aspects of their relationships of exchange with the seller.

The complementary information in words and pictures may fulfill an important role in persuading visitors who view a product page to complete a purchase order. Giving a visitor the flexibility to make adjustments (modest as they may be) to the product to better fit his or her needs and preferences can only strengthen the shopper’s conviction to buy. Victor Yocco (‘A List Apart’, 1 July 2014) well-explains in his article key implications of the central and peripheral routes to persuasion (in the Elaboration Likelihood Model [B]) for e-commerce websites. He stresses the importance of including cues that may be applied at different levels by visitors who browse pages, process and evaluate product offerings through a central route or peripheral route. In the case of Etsy, we may distinguish between visitors who get their impressions and make judgement based on the images and reviews, and perhaps use price also as a cue for quality (peripheral route), and those visitors who extensively and carefully consider the technical details and background of the product offered, and may also inspect the images provided in greater attention (central route).

Etsy enables prospect buyers to engage in conversation with sellers and make queries before a purchase, and it encourages such interactions (e.g., buyers tell in their reviews about satisfying enquiries they have had with sellers who were particularly helpful in their responses). Sellers can use a community forum to consult and discuss any matters that concern their activities from craftmanship to e-commerce. Furthermore, Etsy publishes workshops it offers to sellers in different disciplines of craftmanship, and a special section of the website is dedicated to craft supplies and tools, thus extending its hand to help entrepreneurs-sellers in their creative work. Shipping, however, is in the responsibility of the sellers, and trust between them and their buyers-customers can be particularly crucial at that stage of the exchange.

Some recent initiatives taken by Etsy could be a more delicate matter and a source of friction. For instance, the company started encouraging sellers in the US to offer free shipping in the country. It provides some guidance and assistance in shipping, but a question hangs as to how Etsy actually facilitates and makes it easier for American sellers to offer free shipping (e.g., does it give any ‘subsidy’ to the seller, or should the seller raise the product price, or absorb the extra cost alone?). Without practical support in shipping, the legitimacy of asking sellers to eliminate shipping costs is weak. Etsy has also taken action to improve the payment functionality. At first it was a matter of ensuring to buyers the confidentiality of their payment information. Next, however, sellers were required to use only the payment platform of Etsy. That has allowed Etsy to collect commissions that had previously gone to other payment providers. While this initiative helped in standardizing the checkout procedure and improved customer service, it also led to raising the commission rate sellers are charged from 3.5% of revenue per transaction to 5% [A]. A third initiative involves a new programme of advertising for sellers in co-operation with Google — sellers who join in an advertising plan can get their product offers promoted or prioritised inside the platform (e.g., in displays of product listings) and outside (i.e., in Google search results). This would create two classes of sellers that did not exist before.

Etsy under the leadership of its CEO Josh Silverman (since 2017) is set to put more emphasis on quality over price, reports Wahba in Fortune. At a time when online retail is primarily concerned with low prices and price promotions, it is suggested as remarkable that Etsy succeeded in cultivating loyalty. First, by its focus on handcrafted goods and small businesses, Etsy succeeded in making its marketplace feel like a community, but it still aims to deliver with greater business efficiency. Second, Etsy intends to give greater weight to higher-priced and better-quality products in search rankings (a change from how its search engine worked so far) with an aim to elevate the image of Etsy’s brand to an upscale status. Etsy also expects to encourage shoppers to level-up their purchases with complementary products (e.g., if one wishes to buy a lamp for a desk, consider also buying a desk). [A]

Etsy offers a special type of online commerce: bringing the richness, spirit and originality of a trade fair for handcrafted and vintage goods to consumers’ homes. It is not only the attraction of the goods, but also the experience of browsing collections and finding precious treasures, and the interaction with small businesses of independent entrepreneurs and creators (‘people more like us’ the shoppers might say). Etsy has seen success in improving its business performance since early 2018 and is ambitious to move ahead in strengthening its online marketplace. However, Etsy will have to take extra care not to lose the friendliness and comfort of its marketplace and community, for the pleasure of treasure hunting.

Ron Ventura, Ph.D. (Marketing)

 

Note:

[A] “Crafting a Comeback at Etsy”, Phil Wahba, Fortune (Europe Edition), August 2018 [Global 500], 180 (2), pp. 31-33

[B] “Central and Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of Involvement”; Richard E. Petty, John T. Cacioppo, & David Schumann, 1983; Journal of Consumer Research, 10 (Sept.), pp. 135-146

 

Read Full Post »

Everything happens faster in the fashion world. Fashion houses and retailers have to deal with an increasingly turbulent market wherein trends and tastes fluctuate all the time and design styles replace each other in ever shorter cycles. This instability means greater uncertainty for firms, which makes it harder for them to plan and operate through the year. Attempting to curb the motion and introduce more stability can be a serious challenge for the fashion designers, marketers and retailers; the stream is strong, and more often it seems that everyone has to continue flowing to the next fashion style. Retailers with physical stores face an additional challenge from strengthening e-commerce — consumers prefer to buy more clothing items online, especially from whatever source and channel they can find them at lower prices.

Castro is a leading fashion house and retailer in Israel with over 130 stores carrying its name (i.e., Castro, Castro Men, and Castro Kids) across the country. The Castro company  was established by Aharon Castro in 1950. Its retail start was modest, and the business continued to be primarily a fashion house, designing and making garments (for women only), until the late 1980s. In 1985 the founder opened a flagship store on the modern Dizengof shopping street of Tel-Aviv; that may be considered a first brave move to lift-up the image of the Castro fashion brand and earn it more publicity.

In the early 1990s Aharon Castro passed the realm of the company to his son-in-law Gabriel (Gaby) Rotter, joined later by his daughter Esther (Etty) Rotter, and they have been serving as co-CEOs since then. The second period of Castro is marked by the great expansion of the retail arm of the business. More and more stores were opened in the 1990s and 2000s (Castro also made a venture abroad, mainly in Germany, but it was unsuccessful and largely cut-off). In this period the prevailing brand image of Castro was also invented, which gave it fame and appreciation. The last decade has seen more acquisitions of fashion enterprises (clothing and accessories) made by the company, but these do not carry the Castro name and therefore have less bearing on the Castro brand. In summer 2018 Castro merged with the fashion group Hoodies, and the repercussion of this move is yet to be seen, whether the brands mix or remain separated.

Listed below are selected actions that contributed more significantly to establish the prime attributes associated with Castro, exciting and daring, since the 1990s:

Castro aired a famed TV commercial in 1993 that was daring, playful and igniting the imagination — it is best simply to watch it.  Two more facts make this commercial special: (a) It was aired in the beginning of commercial TV in Israel, when the audience was highly curious and interested in advertising in this medium, which helped the commercial to become a “hit”; (b) The song featuring in the commercial was Creep by Radiohead, during the early stage of its musical career, so the commercial gave a unique exposure to Radiohead in Israel. Definitely in those days this Castro commercial was unusual and exciting (until today it is the most loved commercial in the country); it drove great attention and interest in the coats and other clothing products of Castro, and put it on a trail of growth.

In the early 1990s Castro moved into the pivotal shopping centre of Tel-Aviv (Dizengof Centre). Moreover, Castro situated its store near the entrance to the major department store of that time (HaMashbir), a sound call of challenge. A decade later, in 2003, Castro relocated within the shopping centre and opened its flagship store Castro Tel-Aviv, occupying three floors, with an external façade that turns to a strategic corner of streets with high exposure — a strong declaration of their presence. At least for several years it was an important anchor in the shopping centre.

Castro gradually started to enter clothes for men into its stores. Over time the fashion house expanded the scope of its target segments to become a marketer and retailer of clothing for men and women, youth and kids. On the retail side, Castro made two key moves: in 2000 it launched its sub-chain of Castro Men stores, and in 2013 the Castro Kids sub-chain of stores came to life. Perhaps already less exciting to consumers, but they are still daring moves (a demonstration of force).

However, the expansion of Castro’s activities, particularly adding stores to its retail chain, seems to have taken a toll from the company. It is hard to put a finger on a single factor as the cause of recent troubles at Castro. It appears, yet, that the toll has hit primarily Castro as a fashion house. From some point in the passing decade, consumers have been losing interest in the garments of Castro. In earlier decades, Castro led by its founder gained a reputation for creativity, for bringing new designs and quality fabrics (important especially in the 1960s and 1970s, credit going also to Aharon’s mother Nina). Consumers may have stopped believing that Castro’s clothing expresses creativity, novelty and ingenuity. Nonetheless, the needs and tastes of Israeli consumers apparently have changed, and they are looking for something different in fashion and clothing, which also happens to be less original and less expensive clothing.

Firstly, consumers buy more frequently from a variety of online retailers (‘e-tailers’), on top of them is Amazon.com, while getting easy access to broad selections of clothing from abroad at affordable prices. Consumers also are willing to pay less for garments, shoes and accessories of lower quality even if they would have to replace them more frequently. They further tend to inspect garments in physical stores and then buy the same or similar items from online stores. Yet another threatening competition to Castro comes from quick-movers, discount retailers like Zara and H&M that produce and sell garments of similar designs as those of known fashion houses (though they may have some original clothes). A more discomforting revelation of recent years is that a low cost retailer (Fox) is gaining in popularity while Castro is sliding down. The stores of Castro see less traffic of visitors (footfall), thus stores are too quiet for extended periods, and the sellers have too much ‘free time’ to arrange merchandise; a special report on public TV (Kan News, 4 May 2019, Hebrew) indicates that a growing pressure is put on sellers and other staff (e.g., visual merchandisers) to contribute to better results . Could it be that Israeli consumers find the design of stores less attractive; is the visual merchandising in-store less appealing to them; or is it the merchandise itself losing its appeal? We should not overlook the influence of background factors such as changes in the code of dressing (more casual, ‘dressing-down’, sportive) and economic constraints on consumers’ shopping behaviour in clothing and fashion.

  • In 2018 Castro saw overall a loss of 59 million shekels (~$16m), after a net gain of 48m shekels in 2017 and in 2016, and operating profit on clothing has dropped 66%. Additionally, sales of clothing in same stores of Castro+Hoodies fell 7.7% in 2018, above average rate in this sector (Globes, 5 May 2019, Hebrew — this article follows the report on Kan News).

A few ideas may be learned from the American department store chain Kohl’s that is taking dramatic measures in its effort for resurgence, led by CEO Michelle Gass [A]. Some of these measures may be relevant also to Castro, and could suggest directions for the transformation it may also be required of:

Kohl’s is reducing the amount of merchandise displayed in its stores, and is also decreasing the selling space of stores. On the other hand, the retailer installed an advanced inventory technology that allows it to track its merchandise on display at any time (by using RFID tags on product items), and follow purchase data (including online) and analyse it. Hence staff at Kohl’s can predict what products are in greater demand and what merchandise is in need of replenishing in real time, enabling to display less merchandise with no disadvantage.

Furthermore, Kohl’s  developed a capability to trace changes in market trends faster and cut the time needed to deliver new designs to stores (i.e., shorter time-to-market).

Kohl’s introduces new technologies in its stores to improve the service to shoppers and their in-store experience overall, including handheld checkout devices to cut waiting lines at cashiers, and digital price screens that can be updated with less hassle for staff; in addition, the RFID tags aforementioned enable staff to help customers quickly find products they seek (mirrors with holograms or augmented reality may come later).

  • Kohl’s has taken another intriguing step: orders from Amazon can be returned at desks in a hundred of its stores (out of 1,100+ stores). Critics and skeptics regarded this co-operation akin to “sleeping with the enemy” or “bringing a fox into the henhouse”. However, Gass sees in providing this service at Kohl’s stores an opportunity whereby Amazon’s customers already in a store may choose to buy some products they see around, similar to the case when Kohl’s customers who use its “click & collect” scheme at Kohls.com online store later come to pick-up the order at a physical store.

Castro announced recently that it plans to enlarge and redesign some of its stores. Castro Store TelAviv in GanHaIrPerhaps its management should re-consider enlarging stores. Does Castro really need to have stores as large as those of Zara and H&M (1000sqm+)? This may not be effective in terms of (lower) revenue per squared metre [B]. The stores can also be arranged to be more spacious between display exhibits and hold less merchandise, provided that information technology can be used to monitor it cleverly. Redesigning stores may indeed be welcome — current stores could feel too dark-toned with selective spot lights, which may be perceived more elegant but less convenient. Existing large stores may be reduced somewhat, or perhaps may better allocate space to other purposes like special projects (e.g., gallery of new art designs in fashion), a coffee bar or hosting events that may be more interesting than a space loaded with more products [cf. A].  Greater attention should be drawn to the experience that can be generated for visitors in-store.

Another issue concerns the image and experience delivered by the website and online store of Castro. Is the online store not advanced and rich enough? Will more exclusive online offers make the difference? [cf. B] What kind of experience should the website and online store present to visitors? Entering the e-commerce website overly feels like entering a catalogue. The e-store has some nice features like a model’s image changing position when hovering above with the mouse to show the garment from another angle, or being able to see the same garment in different colours. Yet the website appears nothing more than an e-commerce website; it misses something more important — it obscures Castro as a fashion house. The story of Castro and its creations is practically hidden, hard to find. When entering the website, it should communicate the image of the brand Castro — show original designs of the fashion house before start selling. The website should clearly show the “door” to the online store but right next to it should appear the “door” to Castro the fashion house and its story.

Eventually, the garments designed and created by Castro are the main issue to address. This should be an important point of differentiation for Castro from other retailers on which it should make its voice loud and clear. For example, prior to her role as CEO of Kohl’s, Gass identified the rise of the trend of activewear (sportive-energy) style in clothing; she gave it more emphasis in stores with the help of national brands like Nike and Adidas. Castro has a category (online) of Activewear. On the one hand, it can make its voice by introducing its own designs in this category. On the other hand, it should not go only after what seems popular at a time but suggest other modes or styles to the market.

Castro seems to lack sub-brands or endorsed brands up front that consumers can easily identify and associate certain styles or attributes with them (e.g., more daring or novel vs. more conservative, more artful vs. more functional). Castro is said to hire top-of-class young designers. Yet it does not elevate anyone as house designers by name, perhaps to encourage more collegiality and teamwork. An alternative approach would be to build a brand around a team of designers (like a “centre of excellence”) who share a certain vision and approach in fashion styles. Actually Castro already has three sub-brands: “Red” for casual dressing; “Blue” for more elegant, quasi-formal dressing; and “Black” for jeans wear. Castro can develop and enrich any of these sub-brands; create another brand with a specific style or tone of design as a secondary “specialisation” under any of those above; or build a new brand endorsed directly by the Castro name that will express new forms of art, novelty or elegance, etc. Whatever course taken, the leading idea is to give consumers a ‘name & face’ they can cling to, to follow how it evolves, and to identify with.

There are multiple avenues for Castro to reinvent and revive its brand and business as a whole. The expansion of its retailing activities may have led to the weakening of its fashion house and dilution of its brand. Some of the enterprises Castro acquired or merged with could hurt the brand to the extent that they are stopping Castro from developing answers in-house to gaps in the market. Therefore, it is perhaps the time now to return to increase the focus on Castro the fashion house as in earlier times, and let the retail arm serve it, not the other way round. Castro should be ready to enter its third period; the challenge will likely be assigned to the new Deputy CEO lately nominated, Ron Rotter (son of Etty and Gaby Rotter and former CFO), to reinvent Castro and put the brand on a new course.

Ron Ventura, Ph.D. (Marketing)

Additional Sources:

[A] “Michelle Gass Is Cracking the Code at Kohl’s”, Phil Wahba, Fortune (Europe Edition), December 2018, pp. 104-112.

[B] “Castro Once Was the Most Sexy Brand in Israel, But These Days Are Gone” (origin in Hebrew), TheMarker, 12 April 2019 (MarkerWeek edition), pp. 14-16

 

Read Full Post »

Online shopping in digital stores and shopping in brick-and-mortar stores offer different forms of experiences. It starts from the environment or setting in which the shopper is situated — being present in a 3D physical retail space or viewing a 2D screen of a computer or mobile device. It is the difference between how much and what specifically a shopper can see and absorb when looking around in a physical store compared with looking at a screen. The difference in setting may have a further impact on behaviour, like how shoppers find products and how they inspect them.

Imagine a shopper, Dan, entering a large fashion store. Dan’s head immediately turns around as much as 180 degrees scanning the scene. Just a few steps in front of Dan there is a low desk with shirts, and another desk with sweaters to the left; to the right Dan observes shirts hanging on a rectangle-shaped stand, and he notices how their designs differ from those on the desk; along the walls are more shirts and trousers, etc. Dan decides to approach first the shirts to the left because they have multiple colours, lifting one or two to look more closely at them; later he also turns to the wall to see trousers and tries to match them with shirts. As Dan’s shopping trip advances he may enter deeper into the store to check on some accessories or another variety of shirts. Very early in the visit the shopper can figure out what may be found in main sections of the scene. Then starts a sort of discovery tour that may be guided by a master goal but progresses as the shopper identifies relevant and visually attractive items (stimuli). The scene is ‘updated’ as the shopper goes deeper into the store, or into adjacent halls, and details that were more distant and vague before become sharper and clearer.

A different kind of shopping process usually occurs in online website stores: first of all because much fewer products (stimuli) can be observed in a relatively short glimpse of the screen-scene. The way merchandise in the online store is located and explored is much more gradual.  An online store actually encourages a more goal-driven search process (e.g., choosing names of categories from a menu, selecting attribute options to narrow down the search to a relevant selection of products). Then starts a back-and-forth process of exploration of different items (e.g., by clicking on item titles or images and entering product pages), and visiting additional major categories of products. However, the experience of search and exploration is so different: whereas in the physical store the shopper can ‘wash the eyes’ with shapes, designs and colours of products, and follow the eyes through the shopping trip, it is much harder to do so in an online store where one has to go step-by-step or in a piecemeal manner. Nevertheless, online shoppers have more flexibility and a wider span of possibilities for viewing product options simultaneously on the screen of a desktop or laptop computer than on the screen of a smartphone.

Certainly there are more clever and creative e-commerce or store websites that are able to generate an improved experience of exploration and inspection of products. For example, there are online stores that show grids composed of tiles of images representing major categories and sub-categories of products. The images are more lively, and some of them exhibit motion as well. With some images, hovering with a mouse on the product photo (before clicking) changes the angle in which a garment or handbag, for instance, is shown. On product pages, some options may be selected that immediately affect the product image (e.g., colours, dimensions, designs); products may be rotated dynamically or by selecting from a line of static thumbnail images under the main frame.

A large majority of shoppers enquire about products online before visiting a physical store. According to a Google/Ipsos survey (‘Omnichannel Holiday Study’, Nov. 2017-Jan. 2018), 78% of US holiday shoppers searched products before going into a store; the online search helps shoppers in planning their shopping trip to the store, narrow down the options they should be seeking at the store, but it also ‘inspires the purchase’ (thinkwithgoogle.com, October 2018). In another research by Publicis (‘Shopper First Retailing’, 2018), an even higher proportion of shoppers, 87%, report that they begin searches in digital channels (online, mobile), up from 71% in 2017 (RetailDive.com, 15 August 2018). Searching the Internet is regarded as a productive method to look for directions and learning about product options, as preparation for making purchase decisions. Shoppers do not feel obliged also to make the purchase online, even if they browse the e-commerce website of an online-only retailer (‘e-tailers’) or of a mixed retailer that operates both a website store and physical stores. Consumers like especially to consult reviews of peer users who have already had experience with products they consider.

This learning process seems functional and goal-driven where shoppers need some guidance to put order into their shopping journey. Online sources, including e-commerce websites, seem to provide an efficient solution for this purpose. The process may indeed inspire shoppers with ideas, perhaps to the extent of helping the shopper to focus on viable and worthwhile purchase options and avoid wandering too long clueless in a store. In such a case in particular, visiting the online store of a mixed retailer can prove most useful before arriving to one of its physical store locations — and this makes the website an even more effective tool for the retailer.

However, retailers that operate physical stores would not want shoppers to come too prepared with their minds pre-determined what to buy. While shoppers usually have a general plan of what they are looking for, final purchase decisions are still made mostly in-store. Hence it is so important for physical stores to be designed and arranged in an appealing and stimulating manner — to allow consumers to complete successfully their shopping trip in-store, and furthermore encourage and induce them to purchase a few more ‘treasures’ they discover in the store.

It may be relevant to consider here two scenarios:

For retailers that operate physical stores in multiple, even numerous locations, there should be a stronger incentive to leave their customers with enough reasons to conclude their shopping in-store rather than on the website store. Thus, the online store has to be visually attractive, user-friendly and informative, but it does not have to be fully equipped with features that convince customers to complete their shopping and purchasing online. The website should not go all the way in effort to draw shoppers from physical stores. Whereas the online store may provide more functional, productive experiences (e.g., efficient, time-saving), the physical store would be more capable in creating pleasant emotional experiences (e.g., excitement, thrill, joy). The positive emotions invoked should not be taken lightly because they drive purchases.

For e-tailers with no physical stores there should be greater need to invest in the quality and feel of experiences they can provide in their e-commerce websites. The introduction of shoppers to the online store should be more delightful as well as informative and user-friendly. Visual elements and interactive features have to be inviting and helpful in guiding the visitor into different sections of the store — on the ‘main stage’ of the screen estate and not just through the menu and search engine.

The latter applies, nonetheless, also to mixed retailers that have stores in just a few locations (e.g., major cities) and wish to reach much greater numbers of customers that do not have a store near them. It may also be relevant when targeting customer segments who for any reason have little time free to travel to a store, and in regions where shoppers are reluctant to go out during harsh weather conditions (e.g., steaming hot and dusty or freezing cold and snowy). [Note: Location data might be used to channel a reduced or enhanced version of a store website according to whether the user is in vicinity of a physical store by the retailer, a form of ‘geo-fencing’].

Delicatessen in Gstaad

The brick-and-mortar stores remain very much in demand. According to a Google/Ipsos online survey (‘Shopping Tracker’, US, April-June 2018), 61% of American shoppers prefer shopping with brands that also have physical stores than ones that are online only. Key benefits suggested for shopping in physical stores are the immediacy in which shoppers are likely to obtain the products they require; getting hands-on — seeing and interacting with products before buying; and being more fun than shopping online (35% feel so) (thinkwithgoogle.com, John McAteer, November 2018). The Publicis study indicates more generally that 46% of shoppers prefer to buy in physical stores (vis-à-vis 35% who prefer shopping using their laptops and 18% on mobile phones) (RetailDive). Apparently, shoppers are not blind to benefits and advantages of shopping in physical stores over online stores, and many are not ready to leave them to fade out.

It is not suggested that online stores necessarily have to be made to appear like physical stores on the screen — mimicking the scene of a brick-and-mortar store may be perceived as just artificial, awkward and inconvenient (though retailers who also have physical locations can integrate actual store images into relevant sections of the online store). On the one hand, the retailer (or e-tailer) should take advantage of the strengths of the digital medium in organising, displaying and tracing information in the online store. On the other hand, online stores may have to breakaway in some degree from rigid structures of tables, lists and matrices. Grids of image tiles make a good start. Yet, more versatile visualisation possibilities have to be considered to provide visitors of store websites (or mobile apps) a more stimulating presentation of the variety of products the store has to offer. The interactive presentation should expose visitors to an array of products available (e.g., by type, use purpose, or brand), and lead their way from there into sub-categories and specific product models or brands.

  • Virtual Reality (VR) technology may be used to emulate a view of a store in 3D space, but the equipment needed to create a truly compelling experience is not in reach of most consumers, at least not yet. The more crucial question is: why should consumers prefer an imitation or illusion when almost everyone can visit real physical stores and shops. At least one aspect VR is unlikely to provide adequately is the social experience.

Instead of treating online shopping and shopping in physical stores as substitutes competing with each other, the more sensible approach for mixed retailers is to create ways in which they can combine and complement each other. The connection can be a two-way street, especially given that shoppers use mobile devices more frequently during store visits (71% of shoppers according to Publicis study cited by RetailDive). From online to store, for example, a mobile app of the retailer used in-store can help the shopper navigate and find the way to the places of products that he or she detected and learned about in a preliminary search and study online (e.g., Home Depot). From in-store to online, the shopper may use the app of the retailer in-store to find more information about products found in the store by scanning a barcode for the product of interest (e.g., Sephora [cosmetics] allows access to product reviews, order history of the shopper, and more) [examples adopted from McAteer in thinkwithgoogle]. More technologies that help in bridging between the virtual and physical domains of shopping include beacons and augmented reality (AR).

  • There are other areas not covered above in which online shopping is distinguished from in-store shopping and require more attention, such as customer service, specifically providing advice and assistance to shoppers, and the fulfillment of orders (a ‘click-and-collect’ programme is another way of linking the physical and online stores).

The physical and digital (virtual) domains have each their strengths in creating different forms of shopping experiences. Physical stores and shops have built-in advantages in evoking emotional experiences while shopping — they are tangible and more direct, can provide good personal care, and may attract and excite shoppers by means of interior design and visual merchandising in their physical spaces. Furthermore, beyond vision, physical stores allow shoppers to enact other senses (e.g., touch, smell) that cannot be experienced in the digital domain. It is unsure how much a store website (or app) can give rise to a similar emotional experience and attachment in shoppers, yet there are aspects that can be borrowed into the digital domain that would make it seem not just functional but also more appealing and immersive. Nonetheless, mixed retailers may have the best opportunity to combine the strengths from the physical and digital domains and link them to produce shopping experiences that are more productive and enjoyable altogether.

Ron Ventura, Ph.D. (Marketing)

 

Read Full Post »

‘Experience’ has gained a prime status in the past decade — everything seems to revolve around experience in the universe of management, marketing, and even more specifically with respect to relationship marketing. It has become like a sine qua non of operating in this universe. There can be multiple contexts for framing experience — customer experience, brand experience, user (or product) experience, and also employee experience. Nevertheless, these concepts are inter-linked, and customer experience could be the central point-of-reference just because all other forms of experience eventually contribute to the customer’s experience. After all, this is the age of experience economy (cf. Pine and Gilmore).

This focus on the role of experience and primarily customer experience (CX) in contemporary marketing surely has not escaped the attention of companies involved with data-based marketing particularly on the service side (e.g., technology, research, consulting). In mid-November 2018 enterprise information technology company SAP announced a stark move of acquiring research technology firm Qualtrics for the sum of $8 billion in cash (deal expected to materialise during the first half of 2019). Qualtrics started in 2002 by specialising in survey technology for conducting consumer and customer surveys online, and has later on broadened the spectrum of its software products and tools to address a range of experience domains, put in a framework entitled Experience Management (XM).

However, less visible to the public, Qualtrics made an acquisition of its own of Temkin Group — an expert company specialising in customer experience research, training and consulting — about two weeks before announcing the SAP-Qualtrics deal. Qualtrics was reportedly engaged at the time of these deals in preparations for its IPO. Adding the knowledge and capabilities of Temkin Group to those of Qualtrics could fairly be viewed as a positive enforcement of the latter prior to its IPO, and eventually the selling of Qualtrics to SAP. Therefore, it would be right to say that Qualrtics + Temkin Group and SAP are effectively joining forces in domain knowledge, research capabilities and data technologies. Yet since the original three entities (i.e., as before November 2018) were so unequal in size and power, it raises some major questions about how their union under the umbrella of SAP will work out.

SAP specialises in enterprise software applications for organisational day-to-day functions across-the-board, and supporting software-related services (SAP was established in 1972, based in Germany). It operates today in 130 countries with 100+ innovation and development centres; its revenue in the 2017 financial year was $23.46 billion. Many of the company’s software applications can be deployed on premises, in the cloud, or hybrid (SAP reports 150 million subscribers in the cloud service user base). The two product areas of highest relevance to this story are CRM & Customer Experience solutions and the Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) solutions & Digital Core (featuring its flagship platform HANA). The two areas of solutions correspond with each other.

The S4/HANA platform is described as an intelligent ERP software, a real-time solution suite . It enables, for example, delivering personally customised products ordered online (e.g., bicycles). For marketing activities and customer-facing services it should require data from the CRM and CX applications. The ERP platform supports, however, the financial planning and execution of overall activities of a client organisation. The CRM & Customer Experience suite of solutions includes five key components: Customer Data Cloud (enabled actually by Gigya, another acquisition by SAP in 2017); Marketing Cloud; Commerce Cloud; Sales Cloud; and Service Cloud. The suite covers a span of activities and functions: profiling and targeting at segment-level and individual level, applicable, for instance, in campaigns or tracking customer journeys (Marketing); product order and content management (Commerce); comprehensive self-service processes plus field service management and remote service operations by agents (Service). In all these sub-areas we may find potential links to the kinds of data that can be collected and analysed with the tools of Qualtrics while SAP’s applications are run on operational data gathered within its system apparatus. The key strengths offered in the Customer Data Cloud are integrating data, securing customer identity and access to digital interfaces across channels and devices, and data privacy protection. SAP highlights that its marketing and customer applications are empowered by artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) capabilities to personalise and improve experiences.

  • At the technical and analytic level, SAP’s Digital Platform is in charge of the maintenance of solutions and databases (e.g., ERP HANA) and management of data processes, accompanied by the suite of Business Analytics that includes the Analytics Cloud, Business Analytics, Predictive Analytics and Collaborative Enterprise Planning. Across platforms SAP makes use of intelligent technologies and tools organised in its Leonardo suite.

Qualtrics arrives from quite a different territory, nestled much closer to the field of marketing and customer research as a provider of technologies for data collection through surveys of consumers and customers, and data analytic tools. The company has gained acknowledgement thanks to its survey software for collecting data online whose use has so expanded to make it one of the more popular among businesses for survey research. Qualtrics now focuses on four domains for research: Customer Experience, Brand Experience, Product Experience, and Employee Experience.

  • The revenue of Qualtrics in 2018 is expected to exceed $400 million (in first half of 2018 revenue grew 42% to $184m); the company forecast that revenue will continue to grow at an annual rate of 40% before counting its benefits from synergies with SAP (CNBC; TechCrunch on 11 November 2018).

Qualtrics organises its research methodologies and tools by context under the four experience domains aforementioned. The flagship survey software, PER, allows for data collection through multiple digital channels (e.g., e-mail, web, mobile app, SMS and more), and is accompanied by a collection of techniques and tools for data analysis and visualisation. The company emphasises that its tools are so designed that use of them does not require one to be a survey expert or a statistician.

Qualtrics provides a range of intelligent assistance and automation capabilities; they can aid, guide and support the work of users according to their level of proficiency. Qualtrics has developed a suite of intelligent tools, named iQ, among them Stats iQ for statistical analysis, Text iQ for text analytics and sentiment scoring, and Predict iQ + Driver iQ for advanced statistical analysis and modelling. Additionally, it offers ExpertReview for helping with questionnaire composition (e.g., by giving AI-expert ‘second opinion’). In a marketing context, the company offers techniques for ad testing, brand tracking, pricing research, market segmentation and more. Some of these research methodologies and tools would be of less relevance and interest to SAP unless they can be connected directly to customer experiences that SAP needs to understand and account for through the services it offers.

The methods and tools by Qualtrics are dedicated to bringing the subjective perspective of customers about their experiences. Under the topic of Customer Experience Qualtrics covers customer journey mapping, Net Promoter Score (NPS), voice of the customer, and digital customer experience; user experience is covered in the domain of Product Experience, and various forms of customer-brand interactions are addressed as part of Brand Experience. The interest of SAP especially in Qualtrics, as stated by the firm, is  complementing or enhancing its operational data (O-data) with customer-driven experience data (X-data) produced by Qualtrics (no mention is made of Temkin Group). The backing and wide business network of SAP should create new opportunities for Qualtrics to enlarge its customer base, as suggested by SAP. The functional benefits for Qualtrics are less clear; possible gains may be achieved by combining operational metrics in customer analyses as benchmarks or by making comparisons between objective and subjective evaluations of customer experiences, assuming clients will subscribe to some of the services provided by the new parent company SAP.

Temkin Group operated as an independent firm for eight years (2010-2018), headed by Bruce Temkin (with wife Karen), until its acquisition by Qualtrics in late October 2018. It provided consulting, research and training activities on customer experience (at its core was customer experience but it dealt with various dimensions of experience beyond and in relation to customers). A key asset of Temkin Group is its blog / website Experience Matters, a valued resource of knowledge; its content remains largely in place (viewed January 2018), and hopefully will stay on.

Bruce Temkin developed several strategic concepts and constructs of experience. The Temkin Experience Rating metric is based on a three-component construct of experience: Success, Effort and Emotion. The strategic model of experience includes four required competencies: (a) Purposeful Leadership; (b) Compelling Brand Values; (c) Employee Engagement; and (d) Customer Connectedness. He made important statements in emphasising the essence of employee engagement to deliver superior customer experience, and in including Emotion as one of the pillars of customer experience upon which it should be evaluated. The more prominent of the research reports published by Temkin Group were probably the annual series of Temkin Experience Rating reports, covering 20 industries or markets with a selection of companies competing in each.

Yet Temkin apparently has come to a realisation that he should not go it alone any longer. In a post blog on 24 October 2018, entitled “Great News: Temkin Group Joins Forces With Qualtrics“, Temkin explained as the motivation to his deal with Qualtrics a recognition he had reached during the last few years: “it’s become clear to me that Qualtrics has the strongest momentum in CX and XM“. Temkin will be leading the Qualtrics XM Institute, built on the foundations of Temkin CX Institute dedicated to training. The new institute will be sitting on top of Qualtrics XM platform. In his blog announcement Temkin states that the Qualtrics XM Institute will “help shape the future of experience management, establish and publish best practices, drive product innovation, and enable certification and training programs that further build the community of XM professionals” — a concise statement that can be viewed as the charter of the institute Temkin will be in charge of at Qualtrics. Temkin has not taken long to adopt the framework of Experience Management and support it in writing for the blog.

The teams of Temkin and Qualtrics (CEO and co-founder Ryan Smith) may co-operate more closely in developing research plans on experience for clients and initiating research reports similar to the ones Temkin Group produced so far. Bruce Temkin should have easy and immediate access to the full range of tools and technologies of Qualtrics to continue with research projects and improve on them. Qualtrics should have much to benefit from the knowledge and training experience of Temkin in the new XM institute at Qualtrics. It seems easier to foresee beneficial synergies between Temkin Group and Qualtrics than their expected synergies with SAP.

However, there is a great question arising now, how all this vision and plans for Temkin and Qualtrics working together, and particularly their project of Qualtrics XM Institute, will be sustained following the acquisition of Qualtrics by SAP. One cannot overlook the possibility that SAP will develop its own expectations and may require changes to plans only recently made or modifications to Qualtrics CX Platform and XM Solutions so as to satisfy the needs of SAP. According to TechCrunch (11 Nov. 2018) Qualtrics will continue to function as a subsidiary company and will retain its branding and personnel (note: it may be gradually assimilated into SAP while keeping Qualtrics associated names, as seems to be the case of Israel-based Gigya). Much indeed can depend on giving Qualtrics + Temkin Group autonomy to pursue with their specialisations and vision on XM while they share knowledge, data and technologies with SAP.

Bill McDermott, CEO of SAP, is looking high in the sky: as quoted in the company’s news release from 11 November 2018, he describes bringing together SAP and Qualtrics as “a new paradigm, similar to market-making shifts in personal operating systems, smart devices and social networks“. But it is also evident that SAP still sees the move through the prism of technology: “The combination of Qualtrics and SAP reaffirms experience management as the ground-breaking new frontier for the technology industry“.

Temkin’s viewpoint is much more customer-oriented and marketing-driven vis-à-vis the technology-driven view of McDermott and SAP, which may put them in greater conflict with time about priorities and future direction for XM. Qualtrics headed by Ryan Smith will have to decide how it prefers to balance between the marketing-driven view and technology-driven view on experience. Temkin, for example, has reservations about the orientation of the technology known as Enterprise Feedback Management (EFM), suggesting instead a different focus by naming this field “Customer Insight and Action (AIC) Platforms”. In his comments on the acquisition of Qualtrics by SAP (16 November 2018) he explains that organisations “succeed by taking action on insights that come from many sources, combining experience data (X-data) and operational data (O-data)“. In his arguments in favour of joining SAP with Qualtrics, Temkin recollects an observation he made in an award-winning report from 2002 while at Forrester Research: he argued then that “widespread disappointing results of CRM were a result of a pure technology-orientation and that companies needed to focus more on developing practices and perspectives that used the technology to better serve customers”; he claims that much has changed in the field since that time. Yet it is hard to be convinced that technology has much less influence now in shaping organisational, managerial and marketing processes, on both service side (e.g., SAP) and client side.

  • As a note aside, if SAP gets the upper hand in setting the agenda and does not give sufficient autonomy to Qualtrics as suggested earlier, the first sector at risk of having most to lose from this deal would be ‘marketing and customer research’.

SAP and Qualtrics are both involved in development and implementation of technology, yet SAP is focused on information technology enabling overall day-to-day operations of an organisation, whereas Qualtrics is focused on technology enabling experience and marketing research. Qualtrics and Temkin Group are both engaged in domains of experience: Qualtrics specialises in the technology that enables the research, while Temkin Group brought strengths in conducting research plus strategic thinking and training (education) on customer experience. In order for their joint forces to succeed they all will have to find ways to bridge gaps between their viewpoints, to ‘live and let live’, and at the same time complement one another in areas of shared understanding and expertise.

Ron Ventura, Ph.D. (Marketing)

 

Read Full Post »

It is hard to ignore the increased frequency at which men can be seen with a beard of some form or style on their faces in recent years. Beards have become popular especially among young men towards or in their early twenties. The renewed fashion of growing beards is making troubles for 115+ years old Gillette, once an independent company and since 2005 a division and brand of consumer packaged goods giant Procter & Gamble (P&G). The difficulties for the famed brand of razors and blades caused by changes in shaving habits of male consumers have been further exacerbated by increased competition and the growing shift to e-commerce. Yet above and beyond, Gillette faces a key challenge to defend and sustain its brand equity, arising from its reputation and position of leadership for many years.

Indeed ‘beards’ are far from being uniform. Beards, and facial hair in general, can be thick or thin, with or without a moustache, covering the cheeks or leaving them clear (see for example the  top 15 beard styles described by Gillette). Often enough the beard is not much more than stubble kept growing for a few days. But beards should be more than a matter of avoiding a shave everyday. As said above, there are different shapes and styles of them, and to keep the beard in form and in good appearance, one has to cultivate and nurture his beard on a regular basis.

  • From the late 19th century and through the first half of the 20th century the moustache was the epicentre of facial hair for men. It was a fashionable sign of manhood, and there were some creative and artistic designs of them.

According to figures from 2013, it was estimated that 17% of American men grew a beard of some form in that year, up from 14% in 2009. Beards are particularly frequent among young US men age 18-24: 35% in 2013 compared with 31% in 2009 (Experian Marketing Services, 14 March 2014; the estimate of ‘bearded men’ is based on a definition of men not using any shaving products or men who use electric shavers or shaving cream (foam) fewer than two times per week [to be distinguished from watching men and counting those bearded]).

The problem of Gillette seems to be aggravated, however, by a reduced frequency at which men shave per week. It is increasingly popular to grow a 2-day, 3-day or 5-day beard. If to judge by the frequency of using shaving cream, US men used it 4.5 times per week in 2009 versus 4.3 times in 2013 (mean 3.5-3.6 among 18-24 years old). Therefore, this is not simply a question of whether an individual uses shaving products, particularly disposable razors and blades, but how much one uses them (and thereof pays to buy them). It should be noted that just 15% of young men age 18-24 in the US have had a thick beard (using no shaving products) in 2013 (2009 13%);  among those in the next age group of 25-34 years old this proportion was a minor 5%.

  • In other data (by Mintel) for 2015, 41% of men using shaving products in the US do not shave daily (50% of  18-24 years old, 51% among 45-54 years old). Nonetheless, among those who do not shave daily not all is lost, probably far from it.

Hence, there is a different way, more optimistic, to look at the situation. Many of the men who grow some form of a beard do have to continue to shave regularly enough. First, it can be noticed that many of the young men grow a rather thin and light beard. Second, many grow a beard on part of their faces (e.g., around the mouth) and hence have to keep shaving the remaining areas where facial hair grows. Therefore, instead of looking at how men do not shave or shave less frequently, one should look at the frequency they do shave, when and how. Additionally, men who grow thin and partial beards can be encouraged and advised on nurturing their beards, keeping them in line and aesthetically appearing. In fact, Gillette demonstrates in videos on its country-websites how to do so with their manual shaving products, a step in the right direction (note: similar instructive videos are available from other sources as well). Nevertheless, more emphasis may have to be given to trimmers for cutting off more dense facial hair to offer customers a more complete solution.

Shaving manually with razor blades is a ritual that demands time, patience and care. It involves three main stages and requires the use of supplementary products (e.g., pre-shave lotion, shaving cream or foam). Part of the market of manual razors and blades has been captured years ago, especially in developed countries, by electric shavers for the greater simplicity of shaving with them and also for being safer. In the US, the ratio between shaving methods stands (2013) at about 3:2 — 6 users of disposable razors and blades to 4 users of electric shavers (Experian). Younger men (18-24) tend somewhat more to prefer manual shaving over electric shavers. If it gives any consolation, only 27% of American users of electric shavers apply the machine daily (i.e., 7+ times per week). In addition, users of electric shavers seem to have lowered their frequency of shaving (mean uses per week): 4 in 2009 versus 3.7 in 2013 (18-24 years old use them less frequently to start with, 2.5-2.6). A possible lesson from those revealed figures might be that men in developed countries should not be expected nowadays to shave daily, perhaps only half as frequently, using either manual or electric devices.

In some ways, as suggested below, the management of Gillette can draw back users of electric shavers to using the brand’s razors and blades. First, users of electric shavers may be convinced of a greater accuracy in which Gillette razor blades can be used to keep, for instance, a beard within its intended  border lines. Second, while men may not find the time and patience to shave manually during the week, they may see the benefits of doing so, instead of using the electric shaver, on weekends and holidays when they have more time to groom themselves. It may be possible to widen an already small overlap that appears to exist between the use of electric shavers and the use of disposable razors and blades.

  • P&G also markets the Braun brand of electric shavers (foil covering a straight-line blade). Philips, a leader in electric shavers (round rotary heads), is offering models with or without a pop-up trimmer on back of the handset shavers; a trimmer is also available as a separate device, as may fit the need to separately treat more dense hair. (Royal Philips has been re-aligning its business in the past few years, but it seems to have found a place for its shaving products in the personal care category for men as an extension to health-care technologies).

Gillette looks as an autonomous division of P&G, almost independent from it. It may get even more freedom than other brands in the house of brands of P&G. Indeed, Gillette has been an independent strong brand for many years and is still capable of being a driver of consumer choice without the help of the corporate name of P&G. Moreover, Gillette has been and remains the endorser of product brands such as Sensor (since 1990), Mach 3 (since 1998) and Fusion (since 2006; Fusion has two premium sub-brands ProGlide and ProShield). The three product brands may be strong enough each to share a driving power equally with the endorsing Gillette name. Some consumers may know that Gillette is owned by P&G and they may value the solid backing it can give Gillette, but it seems the P&G name has no more than a role of shadow endorser [1]. The root (US) website of Gillette and its various country-websites make no reference to P&G in their content; the only mention given is a title at the top left corner saying “Part of the P&G family”. This approach thus helps in instilling the notion that Gillette acts as a stand-alone brand (or brand tree).

The cost of replacing the disposable razors (‘handles’) and blades of Gillette has become a key issue for the brand in the last ten years. The ‘heads’ that contain the blades (e.g., Sensor with 2 blades, Mach has 3 blades and Fusion has 5) seem to cause the greater burden for users, especially as they have to be replaced more frequently than the razor on which the ‘head’ is mounted. Gillette has embarked on a major effort in the US to lower their cost and bring back customers — the US website includes a ‘Pricing’ page introducing a special Lower Prices offer on razors and blades (these are recommended retail prices that Gillette is careful to stress it cannot guarantee for every retailer). A similar ‘Pricing’ page appears on the Canadian website but without details of prices, while no such page appears on websites of other countries (e.g., Australia, UK, Germany, Argentina, South Africa). Additionally, Gillette publishes on its American website a ‘Letter to Consumers’ from its employees as part of its effort: showing how they listen to consumers, and expressing gratitude to those who have already returned after trying razors and blades of competitors (attributed to Gillette’s quality advantage and their lower price offering). It begs one to wonder why this effort is limited to North America.

A threat to Gillette has come primarily from online retailers such as Dollar Shave Club (now owned by Unilever) and uprising Harry’s. At first, men reacted to increasing costs of blades by growing beards and shaving less frequently, but then also by turning to online suppliers. Dollar Shave Club was estimated to have an online market share in 2016 of 52.4% on razors and blades, and Harry’s obtaining 9.4%. However, Gillette has also entered into selling its razors and blades online and launched a customer Club in 2014; in 2016 its share online was estimated at 21.2% (CNBC, 7 August 2016, estimate figures provided by Slice [Ratuken] Intelligence). An increasing interest in subscription plans was further noted by Mintel (5 Nov. 2015) — such plans offer razors and blades at lower prices with the advantage of providing also supplementary shaving products; all can be ordered together in convenient packages. Gillette had to adapt to the new conditions, including the shift in consumer behaviour and new market rules (i.e., e-tailing). The subscription scheme of Gillette Club is available mostly in Western countries of North America and Western Europe (notes: in some countries it is labeled ‘On Demand’, and in the scheme described online, orders are set to be fulfilled via retail stores).

  • Gillette was acquired by P&G in 2005 for $57Bn. In May 2018 the Gillette brand was ranked #32 on the List of Most Valued Brands of Forbes, valued at $17.1Bn. Market share of razors in the US has been sliding down during six consecutive years, from 70% in 2010 to 54% in 2016. Since 2012 the sales of Gillette have declined from a peak of $8.3bn to $6.8bn in 2016, and dropped another 3% in 2017 to $6.6Bn. There is an anticipation now that the Club would help to halt the decline in 2018.

The slogan of Gillette, sustained for several decades already, is “The Best a Man Can Get”. Gillette has been thriving for excellence in the area of shaving as a cornerstone of its brand equity. It has won its recognition as a leader based on high perceived quality of its shaving products, especially its razors and blades (as a ‘power brand’, it achieved a central category benefit [‘the closest shave’], and has been continually improving [2a]). An association that resonates with consumers is significant for brand-building; it has to be meaningful and relevant to them. David Aaker and Erich Joachimsthaler noted in their book ‘Brand Leadership’ that Gillette was among the brands “that have high customer resonance because their customer value proposition is highly relevant” [2b]. This could be the prime challenge of Gillette as a brand for the coming years: The high quality of its products is undeniable, but can it uphold its relevance to consumers?

 


In its struggle to bring customers back, a national advertising campaign to persuade men to shave again has missed its target. An Israeli advertising agency (ACW) created a campaign titled ‘The Dad Test’ featuring a ruler for measuring how much a beard or stubble hurts babies by scratching the baby’s face (2017). The campaign stirred protest and anger for being insensitive and aiming low (Mako-Keshet TV, 7 June 2017 [Hebrew]). First, the ‘problem’ the ad caught onto is hardly new. Second, the campaign took an offensive stand by raising a conflict, alienating customers, and thus was shooting in the wrong direction. (ACW is affiliated with international advertising agency Grey; this campaign does not seem to have appeared outside Israel).

The US-based advertising agency Grey New-York launched in the past three years ad campaigns, for American Father’s Day, that seem to adopt a more positive and constructive approach to father and son relations: (1) In 2016, ‘Go Ask Dad’ instead of turning to the Internet (The Drum, 19 June 2016); (2) In 2017, ‘Handle with Care’ featuring a son helping his elderly father shave (AdWeek, 22 June 2017); (3) In 2018, ‘Your Best Never Comes Easy’, meant to redefine or re-establish the brand’s slogan (AdAge, 11 September 2018). A leading theme in these ad campaigns is connecting fathers and sons with a razor product of Gillette as the pivotal mediator. They may also be noted for enhancing a functional benefit of Gillette with an emotional benefit.


 

An approach that may help Gillette paving its way forward is looking through the lens of The Theory of Jobs to Be Done developed by Clayton Christensen [3]. In order to attract customers and keep them, a company has to understand the goal or task the consumers wish to accomplish and focus on how its designated product will help them in making progress towards achieving their goal (i.e., ‘getting the job done’). Furthermore, jobs are context-dependent, that is, in different circumstances or conditions the consumer may need the same product to do differing jobs. In the case of shaving razors and blades, we may posit ‘jobs’ such as: (1) What type of look men wish to display with their beards — does the consumer want to foster a ‘neat and elegant’ look or is he interested in appearing ‘rough and tough’? — from here a company may derive the extent to which razors have to provide a close shave and accuracy; (2) The main concern of male users may be that shaving will be easy and convenient, and without taking too much time (say 10 minutes). An additional goal for shaving may require that it is more economically affordable. Taking these options into consideration, it may prompt Gillette to examine whether consumers can easily distinguish between the different razors it offers and trace which model of razor and blades is most appropriate for the job one wants to accomplish.

The challenges Gillette has to resolve may be divided into two levels. In the short to medium term the brand may be more engaged in tackling the contemporary fashionable trends in growing beards and thereby the shifts in shaving behaviour of male consumers. There is little point in speculating how long this period may last — the brand just has go through it and adjust its product offerings and marketing. In the longer term, more crucially, Gillette will have to be concerned with sustaining the relevance of the brand (e.g., fit for a job) to men, younger and older, and ensuring that associations they hold of the brand remain valid and meaningful. On that depends the future of Gillette.

Ron Ventura, Ph.D. (Marketing)

Notes:

[1] Based on the model of brand architecture in: Brand Leadership; David A. Aaker and Erich Joachimsthaler, 2009/2000; London, UK: Pocket Books (paperback edition, originally published in 2000 by Simon & Schuster UK)

[2] Ibid. 1: [a] (p. 67) and [b]  (p. 89)

[3] Competing Against Luck; Clayton M. Christensen with Taddy Hall, Karen Dillon, & David A. Duncan, 2016; Harper Business (HarperCollins Publishers)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

Revelations about the Facebook – Cambridge Analytica affair last month (March 2018) invoked a heated public discussion about data privacy and users’ control over their personal information in social media networks, particularly in the domain of Facebook. The central allegation in this affair is that personal data in social media was misused for the winning political presidential campaign of Donald Trump. It offers ‘juicy’ material for all those interested in American politics. But the importance of the affair goes much beyond that, because impact of the concerns it has raised radiates to the daily lives of millions of users-consumers socially active via the social media platform of Facebook; it could touch potentially a multitude of commercial marketing contexts (i.e., products and services) in addition to political marketing.

Having a user account as member of the social media network of Facebook is pay free, a boon hard to resist. Facebook surpassed in Q2 of 2017 the mark of two billion active monthly users, double a former record of one billion reached five years earlier (Statista). No monetary price requirement is explicitly submitted to users. Yet, users are subject to alternative prices, embedded in the activity on Facebook, implicit and less noticeable as a cost to bear.

Some users may realise that advertisements they receive and see is the ‘price’ they have to tolerate for not having to pay ‘in cash’ for socialising on Facebook. It is less of a burden if the content is informative and relevant to the user. What users are much less likely to realise is how personally related data (e.g., profile, posts and photos, other activity) is used to produce personally targeted advertising, and possibly in creating other forms of direct offerings or persuasive appeals to take action (e.g., a user receives an invitation from a brand, based on a post of his or her friend, about a product purchased or  photographed). The recent affair led to exposing — in news reports and a testimony of CEO Mark Zuckerberg before Congress — not only the direct involvement of Facebook in advertising on its platform but furthermore how permissive it has been in allowing third-party apps to ‘borrow’ users’ information from Facebook.

According to reports on this affair, Psychologist Aleksandr Kogan developed with colleagues, as part of academic research, a model to deduce personality traits from behaviour of users on Facebook. Aside from his position at Cambridge University, Kogan started a company named Global Science Research (GSR) to advance commercial and political applications of the model. In 2013 he launched an app in Facebook, ‘this-is-your-digital-life’, in which Facebook users would answer a self-administered questionnaire on personality traits and some personal background. In addition, the GSR app prompted respondents to give consent to pull personal and behavioural data related to them from Facebook. Furthermore, at that time the app could get access to limited information on friends of respondents — a capability Facebook removed at least since 2015 (The Guardian [1], BBC News: Technology, 17 March 2018).

Cambridge Analytica (CA) contracted with GSR to use its model and data it collected. The app was able, according to initial estimates, to harvest data on as many as 50 million Facebook users; by April 2018 the estimate was updated by Facebook to reach 87 millions. It is unclear how many of these users were involved in the project of Trump’s campaign because CA was specifically interested for this project in eligible voters in the US; it is said that CA applied the model with data in other projects (e.g., pro-Brexit in the UK), and GSR made its own commercial applications with the app and model.

In simple terms, as can be learned from a more technical article in The Guardian [2], the model is constructed around three linkages:

(1) Personality traits (collected with the app) —> data on user behaviour in Facebook platform, mainly ‘likes’ given by each user (possibly additional background information was collected via the app and from the users’ profiles);

(2) Personality traits —> behaviour in the target area of interest — in the case of Trump’s campaign, past voting behaviour (CA associated geographical data on users with statistics from the US electoral registry).

Since model calibration was based on data from a subset of users who responded to the personality questionnaire, the final stage of prediction applied a linkage:

(3) Data on Facebook user behaviour ( —> predicted personality ) —>  predicted voting intention or inclination (applied to the greater dataset of Facebook users-voters)

The Guardian [2] suggests that ‘just’ 32,000 American users responded to the personality-political questionnaire for Trump’s campaign (while at least two million users from 11 states were initially cross-referenced with voting behaviour). The BBC gives an estimate of as many as 265,000 users who responded to the questionnaire in the app, which corresponds to the larger pool of 87 million users-friends whose data was harvested.

A key advantage credited to the model is that it requires only data on ‘likes’ by users and does not have to use other detailed data from posts, personal messages, status updates, photos etc. (The Guardian [2]). However, the modelling concept raises some critical questions: (1) How many repeated ‘likes’ of a particular theme are required to infer a personality trait? (i.e., it should account for a stable pattern of behaviour in response to a theme or condition in different situations or contexts); (2) ‘Liking’ is frequently spurious and casual — ‘likes’ do not necessarily reflect thought-out agreement or strong identification with content or another person or group (e.g., ‘liking’ content on a page may not imply it personally applies to the user who likes it); (3) Since the app was allowed to collect only limited information on a user’s ‘friends’, how much of it could be truly relevant and sufficient for inferring the personality traits? On the other hand, for whatever traits that could be deduced, data analyst and whistleblower Christopher Wylie, who brought the affair out to the public, suggested that the project for Trump had picked-up on various sensitivities and weaknesses (‘demons’ in his words). Personalised messages were respectively devised to persuade or lure voters-users likely to favour Trump to vote for him. This is probably not the way users would want sensitive and private information about them to be utilised.

  • Consider users in need for help who follow and ‘like’ content of pages of support groups for bereaved families (e.g., of soldiers killed in service), combatting illnesses, or facing other types of hardship (e.g., economic or social distress): making use of such behaviour for commercial or political gain would be unethical and disrespectful.

Although the app of GSR may have properly received the consent of users to draw information about them from Facebook, it is argued that deception was committed on three counts: (a) The consent was awarded for academic use of data — users were not giving consent to participate in a political or commercial advertising campaign; (b) Data on associated ‘friends’, according to Facebook, has been allowed at the time only for the purpose of learning how to improve users’ experiences on the platform; and (c) GSR was not permitted at any time to sell and transfer such data to third-party partners. We are in the midst of a ‘blame game’ among Facebook, GSR and CA on the transfer of data between the parties and how it has been used in practice (e.g., to what extent the model of Kogan was actually used in the Trump’s campaign). It is a magnificent mess, but this is not the space to delve into its small details. The greater question is what lessons will be learned and what corrections will be made following the revelations.

Mark Zuckerberg, founder and CEO of Facebook, gave testimony at the US Congress in two sessions: a joint session of the Senate Commerce and Judiciary Committees (10 April 2018) and before the House of Representatives Commerce and Energy Committee (11 April 2018). [Zuckerberg declined a call to appear in person before a parliamentary committee of the British House of Commons.] Key issues about the use of personal data on Facebook are reviewed henceforth in light of the opening statements and replies given by Zuckerberg to explain the policy and conduct of the company.

Most pointedly, Facebook is charged that despite receiving reports concerning GSR’s app and CA’s use of data in 2015, it failed to ensure in time that personal data in the hands of CA is deleted from their repositories and that users are warned about the infringement (before the 2016 US elections), and that it took at least two years for the social media company to confront GSR and CA more decisively. Zuckerberg answered in his defence that Cambridge Analytica had told them “they were not using the data and deleted it, we considered it a closed case”; he immediately added: “In retrospect, that was clearly a mistake. We shouldn’t have taken their word for it”. This line of defence is acceptable when coming from an individual person acting privately. But Zuckerberg is not in that position: he is the head of a network of two billion users. Despite his candid admission of a mistake, this conduct is not becoming a company the size and influence of Facebook.

At the start of both hearing sessions Zuckerberg voluntarily and clearly took personal responsibility and apologized for mistakes made by Facebook while committing to take measures (some already done) to avoid such mistakes from being repeated. A very significant realization made by Zuckerberg in the House is him conceding: “We didn’t take a broad view of our responsibility, and that was a big mistake” — it goes right to the heart of the problem in the approach of Facebook to personal data of its users-members. Privacy of personal data may not seem to be worth money to the company (i.e., vis-à-vis revenue coming from business clients or partners) but the whole network business apparatus of the company depends on its user base. Zuckerberg committed that Facebook under his leadership will never give priority to advertisers and developers over the protection of personal information of users. He will surely be followed on these words.

Zuckerberg argued that the advertising model of Facebook is misunderstood: “We do not sell data to advertisers”. According to his explanation, advertisers are asked to describe to Facebook the target groups they want to reach, Facebook traces them and then does the placement of advertising items. It is less clear who composes and designs the advertising items, which also needs to be based on knowledge of the target consumers-users. However, there seems to be even greater ambiguity and confusion in distinguishing between use of personal data in advertising by Facebook itself and access and use of such data by third-party apps hosted on Facebook, as well as distinguishing between types of data about users (e.g., profile, content posted, response to others’ content) that may be used for marketing actions.

Zuckerberg noted that the ideal of Facebook is to offer people around the world free access to the social network, which means it has to feature targeted advertising. He suggested in Senate there will always be a pay-free version of Facebook, yet refrained from saying when if ever there will be a paid advertising-clear version. It remained unclear from his testimony what information is exchanged with advertisers and how. Zuckerberg insisted that users have full control over their own information and how it is being used. He added that Facebook will not pass personal information to advertisers or other business partners, to avoid obvious breach of trust, but it will continue to use such information to the benefit of advertisers because that is how its business model works (NYTimes,com, 10 April 2018). It should be noted that whereas users can choose who is allowed to see information like posts and photos they upload for display, that does not seem to cover other types of information about their activity on the platform (e.g., ‘likes’, ‘shares’, ‘follow’ and ‘friend’ relations) and how it is used behind the scenes.

Many users would probably want to continue to benefit from being exempt of paying a monetary membership fee, but they can still be entitled to have some control over what adverts they value and which they reject. The smart systems used for targeted advertising could be less intelligent than they purport to be. Hence more feedback from users may help to assign them well-selected adverts that are of real interest, relevance and use to them, and thereof increase efficiency for advertisers.

At the same time, while Facebook may not sell information directly, the greater problem appears to be with the information it allows apps of third-party developers to collect about users without their awareness (or rather their attention). In a late wake-up call at the Senate, Zuckerberg said that the company is reviewing app owners who obtain a large amount of user data or use it improperly, and will act against them. Following Zuckerberg’s effort to go into details of the terms of service and to explain how advertising and apps work on Facebook, and especially how they differ, Issie Lapowsky reflects in the ‘Wired’: “As the Cambridge Analytica scandal shows, the public seems never to have realized just how much information they gave up to Facebook”. Zuckerberg emphasised that an app can get access to raw user data from Facebook only by permission, yet this standard, according to Lapowsky, is “potentially revelatory for most Facebook users” (“If Congress Doesn’t Understand Facebook, What Hope Do Its Users Have”, Wired, 10 April 2018).

There can be great importance to how an app asks for permission or consent of users to pull their personal data from Facebook, how clear and explicit it is presented so that users understand what they agree to. The new General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) of the European Union, coming into effect within a month (May 2018), is specific on this matter: it requires explicit ‘opt-in’ consent for sensitive data and unambiguous consent for other data types. The request must be clear and intelligible, in plain language, separated from other matters, and include a statement of the purpose of data processing attached to consent. It is yet to be seen how well this ideal standard is implemented, and extended beyond the EU. Users are of course advised to read carefully such requests for permission to use their data in whatever platform or app they encounter them before they proceed. However, even if no information is concealed from users, they may not be adequately attentive to comprehend the request correctly. Consumers engaged in shopping often attend to only some prices, remember them inaccurately, and rely on a more general ‘feeling’ about the acceptable price range or its distribution. If applying the data of users for personalised marketing is a form of price expected from them to pay, a company taking this route should approach the data fairly just as with setting monetary prices, regardless of how well its customers are aware of the price.

  • The GDPR specifies personal data related to an individual to be protected if “that can be used to directly or indirectly identify the person”. This leaves room for interpretation of what types of data about a Facebook user are ‘personal’. If data is used and even transferred at an aggregate level of segments there is little risk of identifying individuals, but for personally targeted advertising or marketing one needs data at the individual level.

Zuckerberg agreed that some form of regulation over social media will be “inevitable ” but conditioned that “We need to be careful about the regulation we put in place” (Fortune.com, 11 April 2018). Democrat House Representative Gene Green posed a question about the GDPR which “gives EU citizens the right to opt out of the processing of their personal data for marketing purposes”. When Zuckerberg was asked “Will the same right be available to Facebook users in the United States?”, he replied “Let me follow-up with you on that” (The Guardian, 13 April 2018).

The willingness of Mark Zuckerberg to take responsibility for mistakes and apologise for them is commendable. It is regrettable, nevertheless, that Facebook under his leadership has not acted a few years earlier to correct those mistakes in its approach and conduct. Facebook should be ready to act in time on its responsibility to protect its users from harmful use of data personally related to them. It can be optimistic and trusting yet realistic and vigilant. Facebook will need to care more for the rights and interests of its users as it does for its other stakeholders in order to gain the continued trust of all.

Ron Ventura, Ph.D. (Marketing)

 

 

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »