Archives

All posts for the month November, 2011

A common thread in the online discussion that sparked my previous post was that (to varying levels, depending on the opiner) “all, most or some” shoppers just want to “get in and out” of their grocery, drug and convenience stores.

This insight is undoubtedly true, but the typical reaction of shopper marketers highlights another “common nonsense” we need to overcome: an innate ability to focus on a symptom rather than dig deeper to understand root cause.

Let’s take it as a given that time is a decreasing commodity these days, and that people really need to save a few minutes each day.  There’s a dozen activities they could shave that time from: they could save the four minutes (and more than a few bucks!) spent waiting for their “grande-three-pump-caramel-soy-latte-with-no-whip”; or could walk the four extra blocks to catch the express train and save fifteen. So, why are people so focused on the time “wasted” while in their grocery store?

It’s time to put aside the symptom (“takes too long”) and focus on the actual disease: why do people find time spent in grocery stores so irritating? Why do grocery stores suck so much that the two-minute wait in line is considered more painful than the seven- minute wait (out in the cold, mind you!) at their favorite lunchtime food truck?

Some stores seem to get it, and people seem to linger longer and complain less.  As one shopper shared with the world on shopping blog Beth’s Journey“I could spend a couple of hours in a place like Whole Foods”.  On the other hand, ground-breaking location analytics start-up Locately wrote a great article about just how much people complain via social media while in Walmart – and tend to focus their tyrades on the long lines. Not so much the time that is, as the fact that Walmart is subjecting them to lining up.

In short: experience matters.

Kotler, Mehrabian and Russell started productive discussion in the ’70s showing the influence of the store atmosphere on shopper perceptions and, ultimately, behavior.

So, when the experience is poor, simply quickening a bad experience is not the way satisfy shoppers.  A swift hand might work for a doctor giving a child his shots, but it’s not the answer for retailers. (And heck, even the doctor gives out candy to finish the experience on a good note!)

In fact, this focus on shaving time off a bad experience is a veritable death spiral – the shopper will always still want you to shave more, and there’s only so quick you can make the whole experience. But worse, a lot of the ‘solutions’ for making things faster make the process even more abhorrent. (There’s a reason some chains are removing self checkout already!)

Imagine instead what we might do to make people love (instead of loathe) those 12 (or 17, or 36…) minutes in store.  Or just the 3 minutes in your own aisle, CPG category managers. Shoppers don’t have to jump for joy – just find the time ‘well-spent’.

Perhaps if we can focus on creating 12 enjoyable minutes – instead of cutting it down to 10-minutes that still suck – we’d be treating the root cause, not the symptom, and then will have a better platform to truly connect with shoppers.  Or else we can stick to rushing them out the door ever-and-ever quicker… with a sore arm and no candy.

the orange sheep

Sometimes I wonder whether shopper marketers in the US actually want to move forward.

Today, I spotted a RetailWire article that really captured my attention: about a Finnish retailer and university, partnering together to test the idea of a ‘slow lane’ at the checkout.  For me this was a “hallelujah!” moment – as you read the article, the team has identified that older customers and customers with disabilities often find the check-out to be a high-pressure, stressful end to what is otherwise a great experience in the store. So they flipped conventional thinking and saw an opportunity. Bravo!

But my bleat today is not to simply re-hash the RW article: rather to express disappointment on the comments that you will find below the article.  A majority of RW commenters have quickly dismissed that this idea could work in the USA.  Just like that- poof! – new thinking strangled by dead thinking!

Comments like “I could be wrong but the whole purpose of the checkout is to be the high pressure, high impulse area of the store. Yes, it’s a hurried experience because the customer wants to get out of there as soon as possible” just highlight the myopia that too many shopper marketers suffer, and the lack of insight into the varying needs of different shoppers, and different shopping missions.

The fact is that some (sure, many!) shoppers, on certain missions, want speed – but others want a more pleasurable experience, and still others just plain NEED more time.  This reality is hit home by one commenter (writing as a shopper & arthritis sufferer, not a shopper marketer!) who reinforces that a slow lane, which allows her to check-out at her pace, would be an idea she would not only reward with trips, but also would trumpet loudly in the social media.

Plus it is not just the elderly or disabled that I can imagine taking advantage – I would use the lane when I have my little lamb in the stroller. And how about the person with a bunch of coupons to use – or a question for the clerk – but is nervous of slowing down the next person and earning their wrath?

Imagine instead, couldn’t a slow lane actually help ‘speed up’ the ‘fast lane’ for the rush-rush-rush Americans described by so many commenters?  Wouldn’t it be beneficial to the ‘speed shoppers’ to have the ‘slow shoppers’ over in the metaphoric ‘right-hand lane’… out of their way? (Kudos to Bernice from RW for also pointing this out!)

So perhaps before we shoot down a new idea, we need to put aside our old assumptions, and re-imagine our view of the perfect shopping experience: we just might find a ‘crazy idea’ addresses a bunch of problems that our rational planning has never been able to solve.

the orange sheep

I’ve just created a new twitter account for all those little instances of “new thinking” or “dead thinking” that pop up between bleats on my blog.

Follow me @the_orangesheep, and when you see your own instances of dead thinking (or new thinking!) remember to tag me or use #dead-thinking so the whole flock can follow.

happy tweeting bleating
the orange sheep

I am on the record as being a huge advocate for ‘new thinking’ in shopper marketing (and, in fact, in any field).

But in reaffirming that point of view, I want to emphasize the second word in that phrase: thinking.  There’s a big difference between ‘new thinking’ and ‘doing what’s new’: just following every fad or idea hawked by the latest VC-rich wunderkind.

Thinking should be, by definition, a critical & selective process. Yet too often today we see marketers following the ‘flavor of the month’ without knowing why.  Or worse, without any objective for doing so. How many people have sat in a meeting in the past 5 years where someone proclaimed, “I feel like we should be doing something with the Facebook”? (Or ‘the Twitter’, or ‘this near field communications stuff’, or…).

I call this particular disease the ‘solution-looking-for-a-problem’.

This little sheep offers up two reasons this paradox plagues business thinking right now:
1) ‘solutions’ are currency in today’s corporate world: When ‘solutions’ are the way to the top, people start ‘imagining’ problems to address with whatever ‘solution’ they have found. (Hell, I’ve done it myself!! Why let a great idea go to waste just because it’s not solving a problem (or tapping an opportunity) that’s meaningful to your business?)
2) decision-makers are not educated or familiar enough to be effective filters: with a lot of digital or truly innovative ‘solutions’, managers are often entirely unfamiliar with the technology or environment they’re looking at, because the speed of change is so rampant. When the content is foreign, it’s difficult to be a critical thinker, impossible to make an informed choice and easier to follow the lead of a (any!) person you believe understands things.. which is often the person pitching the idea in the first place.

Given these two issues, we end up pursuing a lot of “ideas in solutions’ clothing” and, sadly, end up missing opportunities to solve real problems.

A classic case for me in Shopper Marketing are QR codes.  Everyone thinks they’re ‘kinda neat’. Everyone wants to be on the bandwagon (lest someone crucify them in 2 years because they ‘didn’t see that trend coming’).  When you look around though, who is really applying them in a way that meaningfully addresses a shopper need?

QR codes as artwork? It's no less useful than some other applications out there.

“Snap the code to view our website” is widely used and hardly helpful. I probably have no interest in your website, and if I did, guessing your URL is hardly rocket science.  As a shopper, I want you to help me meaningfully. Solve a real problem or challenge I have while shopping.

Imagine instead that you gave me an app to snap the QR codes on your products when I am at home and close to running out, which auto-add a reminder to my calendar for my commute home (or text my better half to pick it up later?). You just saved me getting home and seeing the empty pack again.

Not everyone is QR-clueless though: SCJohnson used a QR code in a helpful way, to explain their new Drano product which includes both a tool & gel.  A new concept that could be difficult to comprehend, and hard to convey through packaging alone, so they included a QR code on the shelf display to show shoppers the product in action via a web video on their smartphone. Bravo Drano!

Your turn… What’s the best thinking you’ve seen (or would you apply) to turn QR codes into a true solution to a real problem?

the orange sheep