After my initial article on bridging a perceived loyalty gap went online, I received some direct feedback – thanks to all who responded. It mostly went along two lines:
- The article was too long, and I should get to the actual point quicker.
- While what was in the article might be the case it didn’t really show anything new or how to really address it. That’s giving that you have to focus on who provides the most revenues and can’t just treat everybody like that if you want your most “valuable” customers to feel special.
Both points are probably true in my mind. So, let’s see if I can address number 2 while keeping number 1 in mind.
Indeed, I’m not arguing against loyalty programmes or making your most important customers – those who provide you with the most revenues – feel special. Quite the opposite. I’m very much for loyalty programmes and think most of them – at least those that incorporate a recognition component next to rewards – do a great job in enhancing experiences for those customers.
Programmes – especially in retail and finance – that don’t include a recognition component but only offer rewards could in my mind benefit greatly from including customer recognition. There are ways to do that and if you’re interested contact me to discuss directly as this is not the topic for today.
Today the focus is on how you could potentially bridge a loyalty gap for all customers without compromising the position of an existing programme.
One way of achieving this is by surrendering (some) control to customers on your terms and doing so specifically when it matters most. My theory is that in our time of information and interaction being available almost everywhere and anytime this in effect means keeping in control.
So, when does it truly matter? Well, I guess when control has already been lost. When things have already gone wrong and product or service provision didn’t work as planned and promised. Thing is, no matter how hard anyone might try this will most likely always happen.
Imagine these scenarios – one in travel and another in retail:
- You’ve booked a connecting flight and already now the first flight will be delayed. There’s lots of apps available these days which will tell you.
The typical way of handling this is that whatever airline involved will take care of a solution – the ideal solution from their point of view. So, typically the ideal solution is to first “hope” things will somehow work out, maybe the connecting flight will be delayed further down the line and if not, there will be a re-accommodation to another flight once the connection airport is reached. This might be the next one if seats are available, a later one on the same day or one on the next day. Whatever then suits the provider and as per their terms.
This procedure will probably always be needed because not everyone will want to take control themselves – my theory today however is that most people like to feel in charge when things go wrong.
An alternative might be to openly communicate options and even if there is only a risk involved that things won’t work out as planned early on with clear choices to the customer. Why not let them choose in an app if they want the provider to take care of it or re-book immediately. Maybe another option would suit them better. It could be to travel on another day, via another airport on the same airline/group or maybe even at a surcharge with another airline.
There wouldn’t even need to be talk about compensation afterwards if they made the choice – potentially saving a lot of money. And quite frankly please don’t say “but that would mean changing a ticket for free and maybe giving them something they might want without paying according to the rules”. If things went wrong in the first place by the service not being provided as promised rules were already broken from the customers point of view – so please, don’t mention them here. - In retail when a purchased item doesn’t work as promised it’s returned to the manufacturer for service without any alternatives being provided. Quite frankly: how mail order and e-commerce. Companies keep infrastructures in place when retailing in brick and mortar shops and then don’t use them but act like e-commerce companies? Any questions why just ordering online might seem preferable if it doesn’t make a difference when it matters most?
Just imagine being taken care of by a person and being provided with immediate options. Sent it for repair, maybe get provided with a replacement, receive a loaner item for free or low cost for the time of being repaired or maybe even upgrading to a higher value item.
Unfortunately, at least in my experience, it’s always just “we’ll have to send it for repair and will notify when it’s back” – and that’s once you found the person who will take care of that. So, basically e-commerce with some extra effort: walking to the store, finding the right person, walking back to the store to pick it up again without any benefit in-between instead of just calling DHL pick-up.
I believe the technology basis – if not the actual applications – is already there as is the infrastructure in retail. Sure, there the balance between short term needs and a long-term relationship to be found, but I strongly believe that’s possible. Spoiler alert: I’m planning on next discussing balancing short term needs and long-term vision.
Realising I definitely didn’t manage to keep it shorter – I’m just passionate about these things – there are some ideas on what could actually be done.
Let me know what you think about these scenarios and contact me if you want to discuss how I could help your business bridging the loyalty gap.