Posts filed under ‘Customer Service’
Is CRM Really a Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing?
No I don’t necessarily think so, but to keep mixin’ up the metaphors it is not unlike Field of Dreams with the oft-used mantra “build it and they will come“. Just because you build or buy a CRM at great expense and turn it on does not mean that “… they will come”, let alone continue to come again, more often, with increasing loyalty across the various constituent lifecycles.
As many other suggest CRM is but infomation enabled Relationship Marketing that requires equal investments in strategy, people AND technology.
The reason for my initial question is a recent blog post from Lisa Baxter of The Experience Business Customer Relationship Management: Pulling the wool over our own eyes.
Lisa, I suspect you and I are singing from the same hymnsheet (oops analogy three and counting), but I worry about your vilification of CRM at the start or am I getting the wrong end of the stick (oh oh four).
I think an essential element of a CRM in assisting Audience Development is initiating and then building an ongoing relationship, but an important part of that is trust. Trust is based on mutual respect and organisational actions and tactics must align with that as part of a sustainable long term strategy. The tactics that you mentions may be useful components, but as you suggest, on their own with out the coordinated organisational committment that builds trust each and every contact, they are just cheap tricks (and are perceived as such).
CRM like marketing is about managing an exchange of value and that means providing value for both sides, the customer and the vendor. Lisa, the examples you give do seem to be framed to sound “predatory”, but the language does not include the value that such actions may have for the customer (whether prospective, first time, recent or frequent, lapsed or refused and so-on)
Maybe our perspectives are very similar, I agree with you that maybe it is the people and strategy components at fault. A selling orientation is increasingly out of place in this day and age and push marketing is limited by its short term perspective.
I don’t disagree with your ‘platitudes’ that Relationship Marketing may deliver via a CRM: gratitude, helpfulness & empathy, inform, delight, connect and value. In fact, they sound like worthwhile values to aspire to in any initiative.
Yes, retention is the way forward. Retention in all its guises from return attendance to frequency recency and monetary value to upselling, cross-selling and value adds and so-on. But it is a two-way exchange of value that ensures longer term success.
2 May, 2012 at 4:46 pm Tim Roberts ARTS Australia 2 comments
The Influences of Mobile Commerce on Shopping Behaviour
Diane Greig Senior Partner @CultureSparks spotted this article: 4 Ways Smartphones Are Changing Consumer Shopping Behavior
“Two-thirds of smartphone or tablet owners have used their devices to make purchases and more than 80% have used them to help in the purchase decision.“
The L.E.K. Consulting Mobile Commerce Survey identified four trends that businesses should monitor:
- Price Harmonization:
- Deeper Customer Relationships:
- Social Media Influence:
- Flash Retailers:
Download the full Report online here>>
3 September, 2011 at 3:30 pm Tim Roberts ARTS Australia Leave a comment
Westpac and Moshtix wear the blame for Splendour Ticketing Meltdown
In a public relations nightmare for all parties involved, the eagerly awaited onsale for for the annual Splendour in the Grass festival hit had a major meltdown as reported in the Sydney Morning Herald. Online blogs were aflame with fans venting their frustrations with the problems getting hold of tickets.
Of course, the Fairfax Media owned Herald could not miss the opportunity to take a free jab at the Rupert Murdoch News Corp owned Moshtix.
Westpac’s air-con blunder takes a blender to Splendour
6 May, 2011 at 11:39 am Tim Roberts ARTS Australia Leave a comment
We believe that we own the tickets we buy, but do we?
I have been watching this movement with interest since the start of the year.
The Fan Freedom Project rails against the “new restrictive paperless ticketing technologies under the guise of innovation and convenience.“
It is the terms and conditions that are now being applied to paperless tickets that the Fan Freedom Project sees as restrictive:
Two types of paperless ticketing, both of which have negative implications for fans of live events:
- Restricted transfer (closed-loop system administered by the ticket agent)
- Prohibition of ticket transfer (ticket tied to one credit card or ID)
While I applaud the sentiment and the call to action for change, I am not so sure about the statement – “We the fans believe we own the tickets we buy.” My understanding is that a ticket is just a licence to attend an event at a specific location, date and time (and maybe seating location). Does the consumer really own it and own what? Any opinions?
Take a look at the infographic for a quick summary of the issues.
1 March, 2011 at 1:06 pm Tim Roberts ARTS Australia 1 comment
Convenience Fees – convenient for whom and for what?
I am mystified by Cirque du Soleil charging fees on top of ticket prices.
On the website it states “Convenience fees and Delivery fees apply“. One does have to 
ask why?!
Cirque du Soleil own the show, they own the venue (the tent) and they have their own ticketing system. So why are the prices not all in?
Is it that it purely convention (courtesy of Fred Rosen and Ticketmaster in the 70′s & 80′s) to fleece the consumer with added outside charges?
I would have thought a company reknowned for innovation like Cirque du Soleil (even OutBox is described as a “ground-breaking platform“) would have taken the opportunity to innovate in pricing, let alone break some new ground with customer service.
As mentioned previously in A not so well kept secret has been let ‘out the box’, Fred Rosen the CEO of Outbox used to be CEO of Ticketmaster.
Fred Rosen has stated “Simply put, there is no longer a need for a middle man in this business“, but why is there still a ‘need’ for archaic opportunistic price gouging with additional fees that are of “convenience” to the middle man the ticket seller?
By way of example, looking at the Cirque du Soleil show OVO in Frisco (Dallas Area), TX
If you buy 2 seats near the front that is US$125.00 each. That totals, US$250.00 BUT on top of that is $32 fees!
This comprises 2 x “Convenience Fees” @ US$13.50 = US$27.00
Then “Delivery Fees” on top of that e-Ticket add US$5.00 and for Will Call add US$7.00
That is 12.8% added on top.
You will be pleased to know that taxes are included!
Read more about Cirque du Soleil, AEG and Outbox – AEG, Cirque du Soleil and Jean-Francoys Brousseau-owned Outbox Technology and Fredric D. Rosen to Form Joint Venture to Provide Electronic Ticketing Solutions
8 February, 2011 at 1:12 pm Tim Roberts ARTS Australia 2 comments
A not so well kept secret has been let ‘out the box’
We always expected Anschutz Entertainment Group (AEG) take the opportunity to go its own way with ticketing. Particularly as it is #2 to Live Nation, now owners of Ticketmaster.
It is not surprising that AEG chose not to Ticketmaster’s system, surely this is an endictment of the decision and logic of the antitrust regulators?
AEG has entered a joint venture called Outbox Enterprises. Fred Rosen, former Ticketmaster CEO who steered Ticketmaster to dominance in the 80′s and 90′s, is the new venture’s CEO. Outbox originates from Canada and is responsible for the sexy Cirque du Soleil online ticketing interface written about in FULLHOUSES last year.
It will be interesting to see how the rest of the industry takes to the ‘white label‘ model that Outbox offers, removing the need for a central ticket agent online brand selling directly from the venue or event owners website. Is it the end of the agent middleman?
“This isn’t about trying to go out there and build a whole new brand around the name Outbox, … This is about service.” AEG Chief Executive Tim Leiweke
4 February, 2011 at 12:52 pm Tim Roberts ARTS Australia 3 comments
Are the “new” ticketing models really new, let alone better?
The article GigsWiz Launches at Midem Providing Artists With New Revenue Stream reports that “the landscape of gig promotion is changing rapidly“. So why are the same old models being rolled out and trumpeted as new and innovative?
“By providing the artist a share of the ticket sales revenue, GigsWiz becomes a key factor in increasing ticket sales.” So let me know if I have this correct, the event owner is paying no booking fees and the ticket agent is sharing revenue with the artist. So it sounds like the artist is being paid a split of the additional outside fees charged to consumers to buy tickets.
GigsWiz does appear to assisting artists to go direct to consumers, but it is not cutting out the other middlemen. So you have to ask how efficient this new model is.
“Fans are increasingly linked to bands online and the traditional marketing methods used by promoters are increasingly inefficient at reaching fans.“
Surely the most efficient (and dare I say effective) model is for the artist or event owner to deal directly with the fan or consumer without the need for the interventions (and added margins) of others?
From that sort of foundation, real Customer Relationship Management is possible.
27 January, 2011 at 9:49 am Tim Roberts ARTS Australia 1 comment
Customer Service by Numbers and by Attrition
25 January, 2011 at 10:52 am Tim Roberts ARTS Australia Leave a comment
