nikos karaoulanis

 
Well, actually pictures according to some research mentioned on HBR. In a nutshell, the research suggests that when customers print out pictures of items they bought online the quality of  the printouts affects 'the expectations during the shipping time, and can result in dissatisfied consumers'. Ok, useful to know but not sure how much valuable the findings are.

Firstly, the research makes the assumption that printing pictures of items bought online is common practice. I'd question that. In all the research I've done I ever came across anyone who actually does that. Collecting pictures of products for research is common but usually these pictures are cut-outs from magazines, catalogues, etc. and their purpose are to compare and inspire.

Secondly, more often than not, receipts do not include pictures of the purchased products. They may however include links to the product pages.

Thirdly, those customers wishing to share their purchase tend to do so online either by emailing links to the products purchased or using any of the social media tools. The increasing use of smartphone further reduces the need for any type of printouts, including the actual receipts.

For me there are two key learning here:

1. Good quality pictures are important in encouraging loyalty in customers. I have to say though, nothing new here. 
2. The second learning is that academics have too much time on their hands and would research anything... so we don't have to...

 image by Tenisha Rawlin on flickr

A recent article in DarkPatterns, discusses how online businesses use trick questions to get users to either agree to sharing their information with them (Wired) or inadvertentdly buy a service (Ryan Air). A more benign, yet sneaky approach employed by online marketers is the use of opt-out communication/registration questions. Typically this takes place when marketers wish to collect users' personal information to later contact them with offers, etc. The opt-out usually takes the form of a check box with negative text, something like: 'tick here if you do not wish to...' see example from Wired: 

 Why  is this approach insidious? Firstly it breaks the heuristics governing a check box, specifically that a selected check box equates to a positive, true statement. That is, by selecting a checkbox a users makes a positive statement, which in the marketing world would be that they opt in, agree to a business sharing their information, contacting them, etc.

Secondly, a key feature  of asking users to opt in - apart from legal requirements - is that all emals, materials, letters, any communication made is anticipated by the user. It confirms that the user wants to receive it, which makes it quite different to unsolicited advertisements. 

Finally, opt out questions take advantage of our tendency to not fully read online but rather scan text. Basically they rely on us not noticing and inadvertently opting-in.

All in all this does not make for an honest and fair start to a relationship. Is this really how online businesses want to engage with their customers?

 
A blog entry in HBR today outlines three questions companies need to ask themselves to see if they are heading the right direction, that towards the head of the pack. Unsurprisingly question no 1 is: '

• Would you say your company is becoming more effective at meeting customer needs?'

• Has your company recently implemented a significant innovation campaign or launched numerous small-scale innovation pilots?
• Is your company becoming more collaborative with outside firms? 

Now that pop up shops have become a norm among brands that want to experiment with new formats or simply follow a fashionable trend, the Prinzessinnengarten  urban farm in Berlin adds a new dimension to this retail trend. Temporary by nature,  the gardening season last till about November, and by circumstance, the farm will need to move as soon as the space is sold off, Prinzessinnengarten is set up by non gardeners as a way to support knowledge exchange and work with the local communities. Interestingly ,the founders see this as a business venture, determined to make a profit by selling produce and running a cafe. The farm, with it sown resident beekeeper, seems to have  proven a success with different social groups and cultural backgrounds. It also stays true to the notions of provenance and traceability.

Have a look at this video by Monocle

 A recent New York Times article describes how Nordstrom increased sales and inventory turnover by linking its on-line inventory with that of its 115 stores. A integrated inventory allowed on-line customers to buy a product even though it was not available on-line: 'if the Web warehouse was out of that bag, it did not matter. Inventory from Nordstrom’s 115 regular stores is also included. Maybe there was just one handbag left in the entire company, sitting forlornly in the back of the Roosevelt Field store — it would be displayed on-line and store employees would ship it to the Web customer.' As a result of the inventory changes there were significant improvements in stock management and eventually sales and earrings: 'we can sell more without having to buy more inventory,' Mr Nordstrom said. 'That plays through to margins and, ultimately, earnings'.

Having worked on retail sites, one major challenge that comes to mind is that how certain is  Nordstrom that the bag that appears to 'sitting forlornly in the back of the Roosevelt Field store' is actually there and not  a)misplaced and impossible to locate, b) stolen,  c) in good condition, and d) sold but never accurately registered. This is not to say that integrated inventory cannot work, quite the opposite; customers view a brand as one entity not separate touch-points.  There are however, challenges in communicating to customers how reliable  stock availability actually is.

It won't be news to anyone that when designing newsletter subscriptions or any email sign up journeys for that matter, marketers would insist they  need to collect all types of information; details ranging from date of birth and gender  to favourite brand and  colour. when asked why, they answer tends to be something like 'in case we need this information in the future'. We all know that asking information unrelated to the task at hand poses a barrier to task completion and can make customers suspicious. A recommended approach is to only ask for key and relevant information first and invite more details as the relationship grows; the principle of reciprocity works really well here. A common response is that it is best to get all that information when  users first sign up as 'they are already  filling in a form' and that 'they won't bother give us more details later'. Wrong, customers will provide you with as much information as you need if a) they see a direct benefit or/and b) is easy to provide this information. Myla includes a simple question at the end of their emails asking you to provide more information  about  yourself. By simply clicking on one of the two options you are taken to their website where a confirmation that your details have been updated is displayed. Simple, quick, and effective.

In an HBR article, entitled  'Why your customers don't want to talk to you'  the authors argue that  customers prefer self service channels to face to face interaction with employees. They also raise the concern that this may be because customers 'never wanted the kind of relationship that companies have always hoped for, and that self service now allows customers the "out" they've been looking for all along.' Quite an interesting thought.

They also claim that channel hoping, customers' movement from channel to channel when interacting with a company, increases the likelihood of them being disloyal. That is an easy one to fix. Just design your service holistically. Look at all your touch-points as part of the same service, not as independent channels.

You never know maybe your customers do want to have a relationship with you, but at the moment that relationship is painful... for them.

How the people at Continuum approached the design of a hospital room for Herman Miller: They began by interviewing and observing everyone in the hospital spectrum--patients, doctors, janitors, visitors, administrators--to discover inefficiencies and learn how infection spreads throughout a room. “A lot of times, especially as caregivers, they don’t often even know why they do certain things,” Beth Nickels, president of Herman Miller Healthcare, says. “And when you listen to their answers, you might be able to point out a better way to do things.” (From FastCompany)

This morning, as I was leaving the flat for work, I came across this notice. What a brilliant public display of what is obviously quite private.  I just hope 'Scottland' and 'America' go out for that coffee...