Archive for October, 2011
The video is not new now (2007), but it seems that everyone is only keener now to roll out NFC, we may be just waiting for ticketing providers and venues to support NFC.
PayPal has been trying out mobile to mobile payments via ‘bumping’ in PayPal bringing NFC to Australia in months
Visa and ANZ have been trialling NFC this year as reported in NFC Is Coming To Australia Sooner Than Later
Coming to a turnstile near you … soon
Of course, the first thing to decide is how you measure success.
It is often suggested that a loyalty program is working if it accomplishes at least one of two objectives:
- clients are either holding onto their customers longer or,
- are getting them to spend more with the brand.
Kobie Marketing believes that there is only one variable for measuring loyalty – engagement.
“Engagement is a minimum threshold variable that can measure individual member’s contributions to the program’s bottom line. In other words, if a member has an actively engaged relationship with the brand and program, we should measure their contribution. If the relationship is passive, we say don’t include them in positive performance metrics.”
McKinsey in The Consumer Decision Journey discusses these different kinds of loyalty – active and passive:
“Of consumers who profess loyalty to a brand, some are active loyalists, who not only stick with it but also recommend it. Others are passive loyalists who, whether from laziness or confusion caused by the dizzying array of choices, stay with a brand without being committed to it. Despite their claims of allegiance, passive consumers are open to messages from competitors who give them a reason to switch.”
This suggests that we may need the reality of a harsher measure of loyalty in the arts and entertainment to move beyond the false expectations of a fickle passive loyalty. Much of the shadow audience can only be considered passively loyal and the audience attracted to one of your shows only when it is a hit is at best – passively loyal. Actively loyal supporters are more valuable as they will support the challenging rather than just the easy or safe bets.
I have seen it quoted we should measure audiences not by tickets, but by customers. The view above adds another qualifier to measuring audience loyalty to only actually counting those actively engaged.
“There is much credit given to the “coffee table” appeal of brochures as something to be revered, perhaps it might be brought out over a dinner with friends while dipping some of that modern marvel french bread into the cheese fondue.”😉
I can not argue with his logic that a simple segmentation may assist his marketing. He approaches that with an analysis of recency and frequency within the parameters of the communication permissions of UK Data Protection.
It is as he says a work in progress with updates to be posted on his blog in the post Small Scale Segmentation.
Back in April last year FULL HOUSES floated the possibility that ‘Apple is patently on the move into ticketing‘ and this was followed by ‘Apple Adds to Future Ticketing Potential of the iPhone‘.
It appears that NFC did not make it to the very recent iPhone 4S, but there is always the much vaunted iPhone 5 … stay tuned.
Another proprietary interest trying to control ticketing or corral a section of the market is not desirable at this stage, however the groundbreaking innovation that Apple was reknowned for under Jobs may be just what the doctor ordered.
Just maybe we have some potential precedents looming internationally … finally! It is not Ticketmaster taking it in the neck this time. However, the industry practice of venue exclusive ticketing contracts (introduced by Fred Rosen in the 80’s when CEO of Ticketmaster) is being questioned.
There are two cases currently, one in Singapore and the other South Africa, that are considering the anti-competitive impact of venue exclusive contracts.
Competition Commission Singapore – Abuse of Dominant Position by Sistic resulting in a $989K fine with the appeal hearing on 3rd October 2011.
The Infringement Decision was 4th June 2010 – CCS Fines SISTIC.com Pte Ltd for Abusing Its Dominant Position to Foreclose Competition in the Ticketing Services Market
“CCS finds that SISTIC is the dominant ticketing service provider in Singapore with a persistent market share of [85-95]%, and that the restrictions under the Exclusive Agreements are harmful to competition by restricting the choices of venue operators, event promoters and ticket buyers. Symptoms of such harmful effects have been observed in the market, such as an increase in SISTIC’s booking fee for ticket buyers in 2008.”
Competition Commission South Africa – Exclusionary Conduct by Computicket. Next hearing 13th October 2011
Press Release from the SA Competition Commission announcing the case of exclusionary conduct against Computicket back in May 2010.
“With a market share exceeding 95%, the Commission identified that Computicket is dominant in the market for outsourced ticketing services for entertainment events including theatres, festivals and live events.”
“Computicket’s exclusive contracts prevent rivals from entering the market thereby reducing choice and convenience for consumers. As a result the commission and fees that it charges for its services are higher than they would have been in a competitive market,” said Commissioner Shan Ramburuth. They don’t seem to be addressing the whole issue by focussing (maybe by legal necessity) on the B2C impact as opposed to the B2B effect upon event owners and presenters.
If these cases do set an international precedent, will we see an enduring change to the current ticketing model for venues and agencies?