Comments

I was thinking the same thing on a recent business trip in Germany. I have all these Euros, who am I going to give them to? The people that treat me the best. The people that will engage with me.

Phil

Posted by Phil at July 2, 2008 2:48 PM

I believe the time to be most focused on our customer is when things are going well. Sorry if this sounds harsh but those who will be most concerned in some ‘alleged’ recession (which I believe we are gradually ‘talking ourselves’ into) will be those who dropped their guard in the ‘good’ times and became complacent. ‘Loving’ our customer does not stop when we are doing well.

PS – Steve Yastrow’s book ‘We’ is my recommended holiday reading if you want to receive a profound dose of common sense about how to have a real relationship with your customer. Congratulations Steve on a marvellous book.

Posted by Trevor Gay at July 2, 2008 6:01 PM

Believing in 'we' is like believing that 'Elvis' is still in the building. Elvis is dead - so too is the carbon-intensive economy. Consumers are changing their behaviours because the current and future costs of past patterns of consumption are now too expensive. Welcome to the flat world of the internet and 'nanosecond consumers' who make purchasing decisions in less time than it takes you to blink.... See Tom's post about EVA Airlines - today you have be relevant (high quality measured against best in world) and remarkable (low, no really low, prices).... Brands are dead or dying and so too is this notion of 'we'... Who cares if there is a recession or not - the important thing is there are new ways of doing business and purchasing goods and services - these new ways will disrupt old spending patterns.

Posted by Richard Lipscombe at July 2, 2008 6:45 PM

Richard...There is only "we." Are you suggesting that "new" spending patterns will change the notion of community and how we connect with a each other or the products that we ourselves create whether sold on the Internet or in person? I think not. "We" connect with products through their ability to connect to us, people.

Products are not nebulous things. The notion connects us with each other in meaningful ways, but not necessarily sustained ones during every transaction or encounter. The concept of "we," does make the necessary connection during the transaction or encounter which produces the best atomosphere for a certain kind of relationship be it momemtarily or sustained.

Your comment puts me in the mind of products that sell themselves or mindless people shopping in a frenzy. Products are not just sold as products; products have emotional attachments based on needs, desires, greed etc. "We" determines the attachment and sells the product. Personally, I love the concept. (Have you read Steve's book?) The Internet or no other technology will divorce the need for sales and "we" do this best. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Regarding brands, if brands are dead, so are we. We are being brands. It's a matter of negotiation. And...I am not sure if we are buying in a nanosecond as suggested. The subconscious engulfs much and is no joke. If we were buying at such rapid speed, which implies to me that their is little connection to the product but a kind of frenzied purchasing en masse, would there be less of a global slowdown?

Posted by Judith Ellis at July 2, 2008 9:27 PM

And...Regarding our subconscious, perhaps the notion of "we" needs to be embedded in our daily encounters which will translate in the nanosecond spending you suggest. This is the only spending that makes sense to me, the kind that builds a relationship with the product through a "we" enounter.

Posted by Judith Ellis at July 2, 2008 9:41 PM

Thanks for the comments, Tom, and for the book note Trevor.

Phil's point reminds of something a friend said the other day. The typical response for companies in a down economy is to buy customers with lower prices. My friend said that she'd probably be buying less clothing this year, so she'd be a lot pickier about who she bought from. With fewer buying opportunities, she'll be more likely to focus on the stores where she had the best relationship, and do less random shopping.

Posted by Steve Yastrow at July 2, 2008 9:46 PM

Richard,

I've read your comment a few times, and I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Are you suggesting that Internet purchasing will change people's notion about relationships in all of their purchase interactions? Do you think all purchase decisions will tend towards happening in a "blink," and people will suddenly reverse the trend they've shown to more discernment?

I just haven't seen it. In my work, which takes me to many industries, I keep seeing that relationships are the strongest differentiators in a world where customers see products and services as largely interchangeable. And, I constantly see companies not developing the potential of these relationships.

No matter how much commerce goes online, I don't think we're anywhere close to sitting at home using the Internet as a big impersonal vending machine, avoiding the interpersonal nature of buying and selling that's been around for 10,000 years.

Posted by Steve Yastrow at July 2, 2008 10:00 PM

Richard - I'm not sure I get what you're saying about "we" being out of favor. First thing, I've not read Steve's book yet so I'm making some assumptions based on the synopsis on Steve's website and the one time I saw Steve speak.

Are you saying that collaboration and "loyal customers" are dead concepts because:
1. The sales/business cycle is so much faster
2. Consumers are changing to a more "conservative"/budget concious mind set?

Isn't there still something to be said about switching costs? Couldn't relationships make it harder, sometimes, to make that "nanosecond" decision if it jepordizes the relationships you've built at a company?

I look forward to your comments.

PS It looks like Judith and Steve have asked similar questions as I've been typing out this response.

Posted by Todd Reed at July 2, 2008 10:29 PM

Judith .... Thanks for your comment.... Obama has proven to me that the Internet has changed the way politics is being sold across America today - it happened here in Australia last year too in a 'small town' kind of way. For you all it is the big time.... Obama has campaigned on the slogan 'change we can believe in'... The 'we' there is his newly formed voting constituency - I love what he has been able to do because his electors cross all the boundaries reserved for 'we' thinkers... He appeals across age, wealth, race, gender, etc boundaries in ways that were not imagined just 8 years ago. On policy settings he is a very liberal Democrat yet he is not being judged on that basis and will not be judged that way until he is in the White House.... So sure there is a new 'we' in America today and sure it is a new type of community... It is a community of people who want less of the same old same old and more raw idealism ... Some say that Obama is a Brand - if so he build that Brand in a record time (except perhaps for that amazing job done by Jodi Powell for Brand Jimmy Carter)... I rather think that Clinton was a Brand and I believe that her sort of Brand politics is dead... Obama is about to become the first Internet or Digital Age President... He will have done that without being a national entity, without being a predictable commodity, without being a well known fellow, etc. and definitely without a 'we' constituency... Sure there is a new community, sure they make decisions differently from those who voted for George W Bush in 2000, sure they may come to rue the day they voted for Obama (given his liberal policy ideas he may screw it all up - the world has to wait and see - however I think he will do well because he is a very smart guy!)... There is no 'we' in the Obama bandwaggon ... There are millions upon millions of individuals who have made, or will make, a 'nanosecond' decision to go with the new product or service that seems to be offering what he or she wants in the White House next year... What does he or she want - change, something different, an end to more of the same....

Steve ... I do think that purchases face-to-face and online will be done in 'a blink'... I believe that is happening now... Consumers/users are making decisions not to buy Microsoft's Vista Suite because they have been told by the chatter on the net that it sucks - they make a decision to buy Microsoft XP or Linux (Mandriva, Ubuntu, etc) or ..... in a blink! Often our experience is not a good guide to the future - it can lead us to end up talking to ourselves or merely to some clones of us... Expensive carbon is working its way through lots of industries right now (Texas Crude at $US144) and former customers will change their consumption patterns whether they feel part of a 'we' relationship or not... Sustaining our current 'we' or 'brand' loyalty based consumption patterns into the future in part will come down to how affordable these lifestyle choices prove to be... Consumers are and will continue to change their preferences in a 'blink'... They will favour high quality low priced goods and services (EVA Airlines may be one to benefit) like the Aldi Supermarket Chain (out of Europe) which has no pretensions to 'we'... it is a 'no frills' supermarket, with minimal choice of products, none of the regular brands locals are familiar with in their store, etc ... Aldi is storming through Australia right now because it costs about 1/2 the price to shop there and yet you get good to high quality goods... You pack your own bags yet the checkouts are faster than anywhere else and the staff are friendly... Aldi has good European Chocolate at bargain prices so that is why I love the place... There is no 'we' in that transaction...

Todd ... Yeah collaboration and loyal customers are dead! Long live the new era of cooperation between consumers and businesses on feedback and innovation... Genuine cooperation demands transparency of process - collaboration does not - and that is what we are headed for in the digital age... Brand loyalty was a convenience because it allowed us to side step the issue of having too much choice and complexity when we came to buy very similar products or services... Customer loyalty is not something I expect to be a big part of business in the C21st. You are right, of course, the big issue is 'switching costs'... In the past the only 'we' relationship I had with a supplier was that I was trapped due to the 'switching costs' of going elsewhere - these can be high or perceived to be high...I contend that new carbon pricing regimes will force most of us to dramatically change our living and consuming patterns - for some this process is well under way today... If you do have current 'we' relationships then sure it will more difficult for you to change your preferences and consumptions patterns so you may have to 'blink' twice rather than once,... Switching cost can lock us into suppliers that are not our best option - in these cases it is their smart use of their revenue models to get us to commit to them in the first place (banks are good at this type of up front offer or loss leading product/service suite because they know it is not always simple to switch all accounts to another provider - Bill Gates at Microsoft built an empire on the fact that he made Microsoft the world standard but now his once solid revenue model is embedded into a failing Brand which has a new 'we' of hostile chattering clusters that are not favourably disposed towards his Brand or to the fact that it is the 'effective' world standard)... Switching costs will become less of an issue because many services are now so very easily transferable without the loss of a key access code or number (eg telephone numbers, superannuation fund transfers, etc)... It can all be done in a 'blink'....

To all.... Chattering Clusters are the new 'we' if you like... This is where the new Digital Age relationships are being forged... They are there on Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, Blogs, etc... The conversations being conducted there are the foundations stones for a new sense of trust - once that trust is formed within a cluster then the individuals take note of the collective 'we' consumption preferences being made - it is done in blink you understand!... A quick warning here - you can not direct sell or even use Brand positioning or seek to place product advertising into these clusters as Facebook has found out to its detriment.. Members of these chattering clusters trust their conversations - they take this trust when they shop online or face to face. They know what they want to buy before they enter the store or go online so the whole transaction is done in a blink.... These are what I refer to as 'nanosecond consumers' (thanks Jon for the term)....

I hope this helps you understand where I am coming from - I do not expect you to agree with me now but may be, just may be, in 3 years time you will remember this riff....

Posted by Richard Lipscombe at July 3, 2008 1:34 AM

It will be interesting to see how Irish budget airline RyanAir - which happily and totally ignores the concept of "we" in favour of rock-bottom prices - does in comparison to more customer-service-focussed competitors. They have very successfuly built a business on bargain prices and a complete absence of frills - in fact a quite aggressive "don't dare expect anything but a cheap seat for the price you're paying" approach. On that uncompromising basis, people have flocked to them. So far.

Posted by Rob at July 3, 2008 3:05 AM

Guys...I don't understand this! Rock botttom prices still need a kind of we relationship of some type. Without this relationship, one that is built online or off, there will be no sustainability. We are not buying or donating into some nebulous technology without connections to heartstrings. We encounters of all types are about this. Purchasing is all about this. And, another thing, regarding our next president of the United States (my fingers are firmly crossed), the whole Internet thing is squarely do to the product (Mr. Obama) and his connection to the American people (us). This creates the we. Without this sense of we, there would be no massive online giving; you can bet your dollar on that!

Posted by Judith Ellis at July 3, 2008 5:22 AM

We are being brands, individually and collectively. There is nothing outside of this. The question is how such brands create products and sell them. This is the competitive edge. We relationships and being brands will sell a product faster than the product itself. Case in point: recently, I bought a car from a dealership owned by the Roger Penske. I went there because of certain relationships I had made through his awesome work in the community and during his leadership in the Superbowl in Detroit.

The experience was great not because the car was any different from other dealerships but because the we relationship was firmly established through Penske's work on unrelated projects that I assumed affected the being brands that sold me the car. I was not wrong. The experience was a beautiful one from the GM to the salesman to the driver that brought the car around. There was both a collective and individual brand that was impressive to me, all connected to a sense of being. There can be no we without me. The me is firmly connected to the individual brand that affects the collective brand. This to me is the we.

Posted by Judith Ellis at July 3, 2008 5:37 AM

Another thought: Is there no sense of we in Internet encounters?

Posted by Judith Ellis at July 3, 2008 5:45 AM

There will always be more people without than there are people with. And, on top of this, there will always people who are looking for bargins. But if when I board a Ryanair jet and there are no established we relationships (minus frills and all) among the crew and me, I will not be boarding another Ryanair jet again. There is no getting around this we stuff. There is only we which stems from me and negotiated collectively.

Posted by Judith Ellis at July 3, 2008 5:51 AM

I think ‘we’ is about people not machines and cold, clinical processes.

I think Richard is right about a new type of customer and mass online purchasing. However I don’t see how or why that can or should replace the ‘we’ relationship I currently have with a trusted and known provider. All the technology in the world is not going to persuade me to buy my fish and chips outside my village – ‘cos I know the family that owns the shop – it’s a ‘we’ relationship. Technology will not make me go to another garage to get my car serviced – ‘cos I know and trust Steve too well - it’s a ‘we’ relationship. Tony Blair ‘connected’ with the British public in 1997 – it was a ‘we’ relationship. With all the technological advances over the last 11 years Gordon Brown just doesn't ‘connect’ with British people like Tony did - it’s definitely not a ‘we’ relationship. It looks to me from a distance that Mr Obama has ‘connected’ with people - it’s a ‘we’ relationship.

Actually I think Richard might be saying that anyway with his ‘chattering clusters’ stuff – that is, after all, just another way of saying there is a ‘we’ relationship.

I'm two thirds of the way through Steve's book and have yet to come across a single observation from him that I disagree with. I believe Steve’s passion for a meaningful 'we' relationship between customer and provider will be as important 100 (or 1000) years from now as it was 100 years (or 1000) ago and is today.

Posted by Trevor Gay at July 3, 2008 6:17 AM

Regarding Steve's point about not seeing the sales numbers on the Internet as opposed to direct personal spending, this may in fact change over time. This was not in particular my point, thought of as such or not. To be very clear, my point is that whether I have a direct encounter or not, sustainability and repeat business matters when I have connected being to being, heart to heart whether through technology or person to person. Somewhere there is a connection, a kind of encounter, that makes me spend. We then must be connected to being and this being is both individual and collective. If you have the individual without the collective there is a sense of me-ism that doesn't connect. If you have the collective without the individual there is a hollow bland suck up disingenuous disconnect. There can be no we without me negotiated collectively -- constantly.

Posted by Judith Ellis at July 3, 2008 8:25 AM

That's a great idea! Expensive meals, free tickets, and lots of sucking up. Every client can be plied with the must-have ticket or executive meal, um, Per Se. Just delegate this stuff but it really must happen. adagencysecretformula.com

Posted by AgentM at July 3, 2008 1:21 PM

Hi Richard -- In your Aldi experience, how is there no "we"? If the shopping experience sucked, then you wouldn't care how low the prices are. Let's say the staff were surly and the lines half an hour long. Would you still go there for your chocolate? Low price strategy isn't the opposite of we connections. They can work together.

Posted by Amanda Cullen at July 3, 2008 7:18 PM

yeah... wonderful approach..
to stay alive in such periods..
so when we keep our relation with customers, and when we find some other ways to serve more to them means earn more from them...
seems it wouldnt be soo hard to get rid of such recessions...
http://girisimcilik.blogspot.com

Posted by Mehmet Cihangir at July 4, 2008 6:29 PM

Amanda ... Thanks for your comment... Sometimes there is every bit of what you say at Aldi, just as there is at other Supermarkets, but people still shop there anyway because they get 'use value' (low cost and good quality) not because they have any sense of 'we'... I often 'choose' not to go into Aldi when a bottleneck is occurring or looming... On such occassions I either buy elsewhere or not at all... If I decide to buy elsewhere I look for the most expensive chocolate I can find ... Why? Because I believe that variety not conformity is the spice of life... Please note there is no 'we' in any of my thinking on these occasions it is all about 'me'... However there is a humble acceptance that modern life, even the simple art of shopping, is becoming more complex not less....

Lee Scott is CEO of Wal-Mart - Lee is trying to develop 'we' at all his stores/outlets.. Lee is perpetual motion in visiting his vast network of outlets as he searches for ways to find the key to 'we' at Wal-Mart... He calls it 'store the community' - I guess in Steve Yastrow's terms Lee Scott is trying to develop 'we' so that all his shoppers will cross the isles and spend more of their retail budget or 'increase their share of wallet' with their local Wal-Mart... He is going 'green', he is adding pharma services, he is doing everything he can to create 'we' ... There is no 'we' at Wal-Mart yet there are loyal customers in categories (men buy certain items and women others)... Lee Scott would be far better off trying to build his own Chattering Clusters, Clans and Tribes as feedback loops that genuinely help him and his store managers to better assess what 'use value' shoppers get from their trip to Wal-Mart as opposed to some other retail store...As petrol prices rise and rise and RISE I expect shoppers to make fewer, not more trips, to their local Wal-Mart and thus there is less and less opportunity to develop, a 'we' .... Fewer trips to Wal-Mart stores can and should result in 'a great share of retail wallet' for Wal-Mart if they can build their 'use value' profile amongst the Chattering Clusters...

Amanda, as I said above, I don't expect you or anyone else who reads tompeters! blogs to agree with me.. My purpose here is not to win agreement ....If I can get one person to think about this concept of 'we' as they take it apart and then put it back together again then I will have succeeded here.... If they put it back together again in ways that better fit C21st business environments and revenue models then my time here has been really worthwhile... To everyone else who did read this 'stuff' and got frustrated even angry then I am sorry for 'wasting' your valuable time ....

I love with 'an absolute passion' the increasing complexity that is coming at us with digital networked businesses at the global and the local levels - it is a truly fun time to be alive.... I will be off now....

Posted by Richard Lipscombe at July 4, 2008 6:47 PM

Richard, my friend. What is your definition of we? Wal-mart, though offering massive cost-cutting measures, may be surprised to find out that they are not an organization which believes in the concept of we.

If Wal-mart ever thought that such a concept was not a worthy one, they may think differently now after many lawsuits from employees. Where there is no we relationship with employees there will be less of a we relationship with customers. Let's see how that will erode sales over time with a continuous onslaught of bad press. Believing in the concept and cost-cutting are not mutually exclusive. The concept, by the way, has been around since the beginning of time.

Regarding agreement, I don't think too many of us who comment on this blog are all that interested in it. (I, for one, am not terribly big on it, though I do not shun it.) It maybe that we are more interested in understanding various points of view. Agreement is not necessary where there is understanding. We can, of course, chose to respectfully disagree.

Your definition...please.

Posted by Judith Ellis at July 4, 2008 7:14 PM

And...there need not be a disconnect with we and "digital networked businesses at the global and local levels." Why?

And...I, for one, am not frustrated or angry in the very least. It's all good, Richard!

Posted by Judith Ellis at July 4, 2008 7:19 PM

Hi Judith.... My sense of 'we' here is the formation of a 'sentience boundary'... I guess a shared or reciprocated sense of being within or belonging to the same activity, purpose, or set of goals... People can have a sense of 'belonging' while shopping but it is reciprocated? Is business being transacted only because consumers, users, customers have a sense of 'we' that they believe is being reciprocate by their providers... I can not do any better than that, sorry Judith, because I do not believe in this concept at all... I go back time and time again to the same store, cafe, etc because I have good experiences there... When my behaviour patterns change due to work, family, location, etc I rarely miss those 'we' relationships if that is what they were... Indeed I am happy to forge new ones that better suit my new circumstances... This is what people will do now that petrol, food, and other prices are rising.... Instead of having a compelling 'we' experience with the local petrol station attendant they will have a 'we' experience with public transport operators... I don't know .... I just do not believe in this stuff at all.... Stay well have fun and happy 4th July to you Judith .....

Posted by Richard Lipscombe at July 4, 2008 8:00 PM

Richard...I struggle to see a cause to disagree with anything that you have just written of. I do not believe the concept of we embodies a loyalty where situations have changed or where there is no longer a need. The concept is purely relational/reciprocal to my understanding, all human things in life are.

I don't get your analogy regarding the petrol sstation assistant and the pubic transporation operator. To my understanding, we relationships of all kinds can be built in a moments time and last for a lifetime or a brief time. To me, it is the encounter that matters that makes me want to return to that meeting place, while I am establishing other we encounters all the time.

Posted by Judith Ellis at July 4, 2008 8:30 PM

Greetings, Richard. It seems you believe that human nature is fundamentally changing based on new technology and the speed at which things are now possible. But human nature has always been the same, and all indications say that it will remain the same. People as a whole have always wanted to have friends, to be wealthy, to fall in love and to continue the human race. Just because we achieve these goals differently doesn't mean we are fundamentally different from our ancestors.

Technology can truly be used to create We relationships and encounters with customers. Or, it can be used to drive wedges between the customer and the company. Every time I call my credit card company, the phone recording asks me to punch in my card number. Then, what is the first thing the poor hapless soul asks for when my call has finally been answered? The same number! No one knows why, and it's a silly practice that makes me frustrated at my extra effort. (Here's a dirty secret: I'm one of those consumers who have no patience and want things to happen NOW)

However, when I worked at Apple Retail, we used technology to connect with customers and make relationships. How can this be? Apple is a big corporation with hundreds of retail stores. We kept a database of notes from each time a customer had been in for an appointment and used those notes for future appointments. Did Sally want to learn about blogging for her jewelry making business? We knew about it! Additionally, we all carried a Credo Card with a detailed philosophy of why our jobs were important and how we were helping our customers. That's why all Apple Retail Stores feel the same across the country. The employees are the brand, and they believe in it. And that's how a big company can create We relationships.

I would encourage you to read We, Richard. Just as you say today's world is not simplistic, neither is the concept of We relationships. Without reading the book, you are missing most of the practicality of it.

Posted by Amanda Cullen at July 10, 2008 10:08 AM

Beautiful response, Amanda. Thank you.

Posted by Judith Ellis at July 10, 2008 7:20 PM

Aw shucks, Judith

Posted by Amanda Cullen at July 11, 2008 3:27 PM