Through the Eyes of the Customer

How to gain the trust of your customers

Hey Sheraton, why is the $4 price on your water bottles printed so small?

Does that give you an easy way to make a few bucks off the unsuspecting guest?  That’s not what you intended?  Well, that’s how it felt to me, your customer…

I stay in hotels often enough to know that in-room refreshments, like the ones in those well-stocked mini-bars are not free.  People expect to be charged for stuff like that.  It’s made obvious by those placards that are placed right inside the door.  They’re made visible so that the guest can’t miss them.

But your water bottles are a different story…

The price appears intentionally hidden through a creative combination of extra-small characters, and use of background colors.  That price was barely visible. 

I’m OK with the fact that you charge $4.00 for a bottle of water.  You have a right to charge whatever you want, just as I have the right to not buy it, if I think it’s too expensive.

But I’m not OK with your presumed attempt to hide the high price through your creatively deceptive label design.  If you’re going to charge me 4 bucks for a bottle of water, make that as clear as the word “Thirsty.”  (Hint:  If you're looking for the price, think "under water.")

A business grows a loyal customer base by delivering value, and building trust.   Trust and dis-trust are generated in infinite ways.  Even through the design of a water bottle tag.

Weigh all decisions, large and small, from the customers’ point of view.  How will it impact your perceived trust-worthiness?

The Right Way to Raise Prices, without Alienating your Customers

I've been a frequent reader of the New York Times on-line eddition for as long as I've been a frequent user of the Internet.  And I still am, even though it's no longer free.  But for those laggards among us - people like me who don't want to ante up, but know they  eventually will - the Times is taking a smart and considerate approach.

When the Times began the transition to paid access to online content, they imposed a limit of 20 free articles per month, per "subscriber."  Earlier this week, the Times entered another phase of the transition  - they reduced the number   of "free articles" from 20 per month to 10 per month.  The fact that they've added this phase reveals how they're sincere about making it easy on the customer, by smoothing the transition, to help customers to adapt to the new subscription fee.

Over the past several years, we've seen a lot of companies in a lot of industries alienate a lot of customers by charnging for some things that were once free.   Airline baggage fees, Netflix doubling its fees in last July, Bank of America's proposed $5  debit card fee,and others have been publicly demonized for suddently announcing fees in a way that infuriated customers.

But new fees don't have to alienate customers - sometimes, it's all in the delivery.

As a frequent reader of the New York Times on-line, I was initially frustrated and disappointed when I learned that they would soon charge customers for continued unlimited access to their on-line edition.
 
Frustrated, and mostly disappointed, but definitely not angry.  Here's why:

The Times explained in simple, logical terms why they made the decision to charge (a logical, believable economic reason).  And they gave notice early and often (several months in advance, and every time I logged on.)
 
When their new on-line fees began (or, the number of "free" views became limited), it wasn't a surprise, and the reason was clear. I wasn't happy with the situation, but I accepted it.  
 
If you do have to begin charging your customers for something that they didn't pay for in the past, take a tip from the Times:

Explain in simple, human terms why you have to make the change. 
Be honest and be sincere.  Don't say it through a stuffed-shirt executive, but say it through a casually-dressed, mid-level employee; an every-day person to whom your customers will relate.

Offer a Transition Period.
And don't shock your customers by imposing the entire fee suddenly  like an ice-cold bath tub, but give them a way to transition gradually, to minimize the pain.  

Give them early notice in straight, honest language, and transition gradually, so when it does happen, it's old news. 

Why Truth and Transparency can be a Better Guide than the Law in Building Your Brand

Several years ago, I rushed into a supermarket to pick up some apple juice for my toddler son.  In my haste, I read  “Apple Juice…” on the label and brought it to the checkout.

When I got home, I realized that I bought a product that wasn't what I thought it was; it wasn't really apple juice; it was a watered down, sugared-up version of the healthier product that I thought I was buying. 

At first, I wanted to kick myself for making a stupid mistake.  But the guilt was short-lived.  Instead, I decided to blame those duplicitous marketers that designed the label.  In great big letters, the label announced  “Apple Juice.”  Beneath that, there was much smaller print that said “… beverage containing 10% juice.”

"The only reason," I thought, "that those revealing words were smaller, was because the company’s marketing and product packaging team were trying to deceive me; they knew I’d read the bigger words on the label, and no more.  They thought they could trick the customer, and I fell for it!"

This week, there was an interesting article in Sunday's New York Times about the claims that many food product companies are making about the often exagerated healt benefits of their food products, particularly in advertising, and product packaging.

This article illustrates an unfortunate reality of the traditional approach to consumer-focused marketing:

What you claim doesn’t have to be TRUE, it only has to be LEGAL.

It’s about saying whatever you can get away with saying in order to sell your product, as long as you're not breaking any laws by saying it; whether or not the claim is true based on how the customer will perceive the message doesn’t matter.  What matters is that it’s legal.

Presently, companies have to answer to the FDA and FTC when they make marketing claims about the healthfulness of their products.  The ultimate goal of the messaging used by companies named in this article is not to make people healthy; the goal is simply to sell more product. 

 

Eventually, and hopefully sooner than later, legal authorities will have less influence on the claims that marketers make.  The influence of these legal authorities will be obfuscated by the influence of the drive toward TRANSPARENCY. 

 

Customers crave truth and transparency, and thanks to social media, they're getting more of it. Twitter feeds, Blogs, Facebook postings and other Web 2.0 sources are revealing more information about companies at faster speeds than even the companies can keep pace.  The access to information, and “Truth Brokers” such as Angie’s List and others, and the increasing use of social media, are collectively forming a stronger force than the smartest deception-based spin masters and hair-splitting corporate attorneys in marketing departments.

In the future, a dubious health claim made by a company about its product will do more harm to a company’s reputation and market standing, by painting the company as dishonest and deceptive - exactly what consumers are learning to loathe.

The companies that realize this and the companies that voluntarily move from a legal orientation to one of pure truth and transparency will ultimately prevail.

Those marketers that take it upon themselves to be more truthful will ultimately win more market share.  They’ll do this by de-emphasizing a legal-orientation in their marketing claims, and increasing their focus on truth and full disclosure.

Before long, Truth will be the only healthy alternative for marketing .

 
Thanks to Daniel Rosenbaum and The New York Times for this image of purportedly functional foods.
According to the Times article, "Shoppers must be able to trust brands "to have good science backing up their claims," says Mary K. Engle of the F.T.C."