El cambio hacia la orientación al cliente en una estrategia relacional

Lejos de ser un simple espectáculo o una moda pasajera, el proceso de cambio que se vive en la actualidad es parte de un cuestionamiento más amplio de la sociedad de hoy. Se relaciona, de forma muy directa, con la preocupación por la calidad de las acciones, incluyendo las expectativas de los clientes respecto a la calidad de los servicios. Es una realidad que influye determinadamente en la planificación de las empresas, en las estrategias de marketing y que se encuentra en el corazón de todos los enfoques y medios utilizados en la gestión de la calidad del servicio.

Para convertir la calidad de servicio en un enfoque estratégico debemos ser capaces de percibir la forma en que algunas realidades más amplias (tecnológicas, del entorno, psicológicas, sociales y económicas) influyen en nuestra visión de la gestión.

En primer lugar, la tecnología está ampliando la gama de los sistemas de entrega y, en consecuencia, la estructura de distribución (sucursales por ejemplo) de las empresas. Esto se comprende mejor si vemos cómo los sistemas de distribución basados en sucursales, que son puntos de venta fijos, se transforman en zonas de distribución con múltiples puntos de prestación que pueden llegar, incluso, a las propias viviendas de los clientes (con nuevas posibles configuraciones que inciden en la calidad del servicio y en la productividad).

En segundo lugar, la creciente necesidad mostrada por los clientes, de alcanzar una mayor sensación de control se deriva, en gran medida, de cambios sociales y culturales que se producen a nivel mundial y que pueden definirse como un movimiento al ya mencionado reinado del cliente. De esta tendencia se deriva el deseo de los clientes de disponer de más opcione, y de recibir más asistencia y consejos.

En este entorno varias empresas han empezado a actuar como agentes de cambio, modificando la programación del trabajo, la configuración de los productos y la percepción del servicio al cliente. Esto implica cambios en las normas básicas y en los sistemas de creencias de la gestión. Estas empresas han venido gestando desde hace mucho tiempo el deseo de liberarse del pensamiento tradicional del marketing.

Las empresas de éxito de hoy son las capaces de redescubrir al cliente, y que pueden gestionar con eficacia el servicio al cliente. El diseño del entorno, los procesos operativos y la forma en que se organiza el trabajo en todas las áreas de la organización, a fines de generar verdaderos “encuentros de servicio”, son clave dado que pueden ayudar a obstaculizar la calidad de esos encuentros.

Es imposible “vender” la deficiente calidad de un servicio. Provoca la pérdida de clientes. En consecuencia, el trabajo de una empresa de servicios consiste en gestionar las relaciones con los clientes, tanto en el mostrador como en las áreas que sirven de apoyo. Si la calidad no se construye como parte de los sistemas de entrega, los clientes experimentan variaciones en los procesos y las perciben como deficiencias o incongruencia del servicio prestado por el personal de “primera línea”.

 

Fuente:

MARTIN CHRISTOPHER, ADRIAN PAYNE, DAVID BALLANTYNE, Marketing Relacional, integrando la calidad, el servicio al cliente y el marketing. Ediciones Diaz de Santos.

 

 

Fuente:

Marketing Relacional, integrando la calidad, el servicio al cliente y el marketing

1 comentario

Archivado bajo Estrategia, Marketing Relacional

Considerar al jefe como a un cliente (y a los colegas también)

Your boss is your client (and your colleagues are too)

Por Jodi Glickman | Harvard Business Review Blogs

Bob Bowman, longtime coach of swimming phenom Michael Phelps, was once asked why Phelps did not swim the languorous distance sets that were part of some other competitors’ regimens. “We don’t want him to swim slow in meets,” he said, “so why would we have him practice swimming slow?”

I am often reminded of this distinction when I’m asked about the difference between communicating with a client and communicating internally, with your team.

My answer is that they are one and the same. Whether you’re talking to your assistant, your manager or the head of the firm, you should assume that everyone is your client and apply the same degree of professionalism to every conversation, no matter the audience.

Treating your boss and your colleagues as if they are clients accomplishes two important things: i) it shows your team that you respect them — enough to treat them with the same level of care and handling you treat other VIPs; ii) as with Michael Phelps’s swimming, it gives you great practice so you’re uber-prepared for the real thing — when you are speaking to your client or customer. You know the drill, you’ve done this before.

When I was a banker at Goldman Sachs, the rule was this: treat your vice presidents and managing directors as if they were your clients. When you ask a question, make sure it’s a smart one. When you present an analysis, spend a few minutes thinking ahead about your key message, supporting details and follow-up or action items. Operate at 110% always, whether you’re talking to your assistant or the CEO of the client.

If you’re always “on” you’ll show that you’re smart and capable and competent and you’ll find your supervisors far more willing to actually put you in front of a client. You’ll also find that if you’re default mode is “client mode” you’ll naturally perform at a higher level over time — it’s like the old saying goes — people live up to expectations.

A recent Delta advertising campaign stated: “Our customer service doesn’t change with the price of oil.” In other words, output is fixed — it doesn’t change based on the cost of input. Your output, or the way you interact with and relate to others, should be fixed as well — without regard for status, title or even whether you’re on or off the clock. This approach will provide opportunities to practice and hone your interpersonal skills. And while practice may not be necessary for people like Allen Iverson, it’s a great way to sharpen your skillset, experiment with different communication strategies and prove to others that you’re “client-ready” at a moment’s notice.

Deja un comentario

Archivado bajo Management

Integrar la estrategia de CRM (Marketing) con la de empresa 2.0 (RRHH)

Comparto interesante artículo sobre la importancia de elevar el compromiso emocional de los empleados con los clientes para generar la buscada experiencia del cliente con la empresa/producto.

Creating an Engaging Employee Experience

Autor: Shaun Smith | Fuente: customerthink.com

More and more organisations are coming to the realisation that in order to deliver a great customer experience you must first create an engaging employee experience. There is no doubt that creating a powerful customer experience requires the full and continual commitment of the people responsible for making it happen. This article describes how brands like Zappos, innocent and The Geek Squad create ‘wow’ experiences for their employees and customers and, in so doing, outstanding results for their shareholders.

The essence of a highly distinctive customer experience lies in the emotional connection made with the customer. As Tom Ford said when he was Chief Designer at Gucci. “A brand is a memory”. It is how it makes the customer feel about the experience. Indelible memories are more often created by the intangible attributes than the tangible. Research by Ogilvy for their annual BrandZ loyalty survey found that companies “….successful in creating both functional and emotional bonding had higher retention ratios (84% vs. 30%) and cross-sell ratios (82% vs. 16%) compared with those that did not”. This is a significant difference and one that is more than sufficient to negate the effects of the economic downturn. It is for this reason that brands like Burberry, First Direct and O2 have continued to grow their customer base and thrive while their competitors have lost market share and seen declining loyalty from both customers and employees.

How then, do you create customer experiences that create an emotional bond with your brand? The answer lies in having a great product for sure – Apple would not be the brand it is without leading edge design – but just as importantly, it is the ability to have customers interact with your products and brand at a deep level that creates true loyalty. Anyone who has visited an Apple store and received help at the ‘Genius bar’ or spoken with one of the highly knowledgeable and enthusiastic store associates would know that the in-store experience is a stage for the brand and the store people the actors who bring it alive. Just as with any theatrical production, casting, direction and rehearsals are essential to top performance on the night.

We have just completed two years of research with leading brands for our forthcoming book ‘BOLD’. The book tells the story of 14 brands who are challenging the rules of business and delivering highly distinctive experiences. The stories are told through the words of the executives, employees and, in some cases, the customers themselves. What struck us in conducting our research was the unusual attention paid to the employee experience by the brands we studied: brands like Zappos, innocent and The Geek Squad. The qualitative research was supported by a survey where we measured the perceptions of the BOLD brands with a control group of executives from other organisations. The BOLD companies outscored the control group on the 8 dimensions and 40 practices measured in our survey by a significant margin. You will have to wait for the book to be published for the full detail but what I can share with you is that one of the dimensions that showed greatest difference was what we labled ‘A cult-like culture’. Now the term ‘cult’ tends to carry negative connotations. It conjures up images of fringe religious groups of some kind following the warped vision of a charismatic leader. But if we examine what makes a group ‘cult-like’ the attributes are neither good nor bad; it is the vision or purpose that drives them that is good or bad and which provides the context for their actions.

One brand that has attracted an enthusiastic following of customers is the US on-line retailer Zappos. Zappos sells shoes and other items of apparel but that is not its purpose. According to Tony Hsieh, its Chief Executive, the purpose of the organisation is to deliver happiness through ‘wow’ experiences. He calls it their ‘secret sauce’. The organisation defines a ‘wow’ experience as one that goes way beyond what you expected. One example is when Wendy Fitch, a regular Zappos customer, posted an ‘out of office’ announcement in her Outlook saying that she was away on a charity run for breast cancer. When the Zappos e-mail letter she subscribed to, bounced back one of the agents in the call centre picked it up. During her lunch break the agent purchased a gift card and sent it to Wendy with this message;

‘Hello, Wendy, while working through e‐mails from our amazing customers, I came across your auto‐reply. Normally we mark them as auto‐replies but yours caught my eye. I just wanted to let you know what an admirable thing you are doing. We at Zappos are proud to have you as a customer and as a part of our family. Thank you for being a wonderful person’.

So what was it that motivated that agent to take that action? From our research we would suggest there are a number of key factors.

Purpose beyond profit. This may come as a shock but most employees do not leap out of bed in the morning excited by the prospect of making more profit for their organisation that day. This may serve to motivate the senior executives but it rarely does so for the front-line unless they also happen to be shareholders too as in the case of the John Lewis Partnership. What motivates employees is feeling connected to a cause. That cause can be ‘Delivering Happiness’ as in the case of Zappos or ‘saving the planet’ as in the case of the World Wild-Life Fund. If you ask employees of Umpqua, the community bank based on Oregon, what their purpose is, they will tell you ‘making customers feel dealing with Umpqua was the best thing that happened today’. Quite a tall order for a bank! The financial services sector is one that generally has low levels of emotional engagement with its customers.

Hire for DNA not MBA. We wrote about this in our first book ‘Uncommon Practice’ but we found that it is still true for these brands. The fact is that there are many bright, well-qualified people out there that you can hire, but only a few of them will be the right fit for your brand. We tell our clients ‘Hire for DNA not MBA’. In other words find the people who share your values and teach them the skills they need. Umpqua advertises for employees in retail trade magazines, not the financial services press because it wants people who understand customer service rather than banking. Tony Hsieh offers recruits $2,000 at the end of their first week of training to leave the company. Why? Because he only wants people who are passionate about the brand and committed to what it stands for.

Rites and rituals. Sustaining a culture is very hard, particularly if you are growing. One of the things these brands do is to reinforce their uniqueness through the use of what we describe as ‘rites and rituals’. Umpqua has a daily ‘Motivational moments’ session where everyone gathers to hear someone sing a song, tell a joke or conduct a short exercise in some way related to their purpose. Zappos encourages their employees to be ‘weird’ which means they organise parties and theme events where people dress up and have fun. They engage in ‘Zuddles’ which are short, motivational work-group meetings. Innocent, the UK smoothie maker holds its AGM (A Grown-Up Meeting) where all the employees gather to hear the latest news and then have a barbeque. The Geek Squad, the computer support firm, uses language and titles to reinforce the zany culture whose sole purpose is to ‘Save your ass’ if your computer should crash. Their employees are called ‘agents’ or ‘double-agents’ and encouraged to share their stories of daring-do in helping customers through the intranet site but also social media.

You may be reading this and saying to yourself ‘Well, you might be able to do that kind of thing in the States but not here’. You would be wrong. We have seen examples of brands that focus on purpose beyond profit, hiring for DNA and encouraging rites and rituals in the UK, US, Brazil and Asia. Of course, if these practices are false or forced, they become trite and will not deliver value for your brand; but when they are driven by a common purpose and shared values, when they are sincere, when they create a great employee experience and when they result in a ‘wow’ experience for customers- they work.

Copyright. Smith+Co 2010. http://www.smithcoconsultancy.com/

1 comentario

Archivado bajo Estrategia

Innovaciones en los procesos, poco glamorosas pero eficaces

Fuente: Harvard Business Review

¿La innovación sólo consiste en introducir productos o servicios nuevos y atractivos, o no? No necesariamente. Hay mucho espacio para que las ideas frescas e innovadoras resuelvan problemas cotidianos de negocios y mejoren procesos aparentemente mundanos, como encontrar una forma mejor, más barata y más rápida de llevar los productos a las tiendas. Piense en la industria de la moda. Las empresas top como Gucci y Burberry están trabajando duro para gestionar mejor sus cadenas de suministro. Un problema crucial es cómo reemplazar colecciones no exitosas antes de que los minoristas se pongan nerviosos. Burberry ha invertido más de US$ 100 millones para mejorar su capacidad de asegurar los productos correctos a las tiendas correctas en el momento indicado. Claro, es una innovación cotidiana. Pero es tan crucial para el éxito de la empresa en largo plazo como lo son productos y servicios revolucionarios y atractivos.
 
Adaptado de “Everyday Innovation,” publicado por Scott Anthony en “Innovation Insights”, el 26 de agosto de 2008.

EVERYDAY INNOVATION | THE ARTICLE BY SCOTT ANTHONY

People typically associate innovation with the introduction of a sexy new product or service. While this kind of innovation gets the headlines, innovative ideas applied to everyday problems can have just as much business impact.

Consider a recent Wall Street Journal article describing how top fashion companies like Gucci and Burberry are working hard to better manage their supply chain. One critical problem: replacing dud collections before retailers grow antsy. Burberry has spent more than $100 million to improve its ability to ensure that the right products get to the right stores at the right time.

These challenges of course require a fair amount of blocking and tackling, but there’s also ample room for fresh, innovative thinking. And think of the top- and bottom-line impact of finding better, cheaper, and faster ways to get products into stores more quickly.

Innovation should matter to you if your job doesn’t involve strategy or product development.

Innovation is about solving old problems in new ways. Human resources or information technology workers can think of new ways to help internal customers solve the problems they face. Process-focused managers can develop ways to have their processes run better, faster, and cheaper. Customer-focused employees can find new ways to provide positive experiences to customers. And on and on.

The good news is that the principles that help growth-seeking innovators apply equally to internal innovation efforts. The following questions are a good starting point for any innovation effort:

  • What is an important problem that the customer, or internal client, can’t adequately solve?
  • What stops the customer, or internal client, from adequately solving the problem?
  • How can you make it easier and simpler for the customer, or internal client, to address the problem?
  • What is a low-cost way to test your idea?

Innovation doesn’t have to land in the headlines to have impact. Everyday innovation can be critical to long-term business success.

Deja un comentario

Archivado bajo Estrategia, Innovación y Tecnología, Marketing Relacional

Why the revolution will not be tweeted

Small Change

Why the revolution will not be tweeted.

by Malcolm Gladwell | The New Yorker, 4 de octubre de 2010

t four-thirty in the afternoon on Monday, February 1, 1960, four college students sat down at the lunch counter at the Woolworth’s in downtown Greensboro, North Carolina. They were freshmen at North Carolina A. & T., a black college a mile or so away.

“I’d like a cup of coffee, please,” one of the four, Ezell Blair, said to the waitress.

“We don’t serve Negroes here,” she replied.

The Woolworth’s lunch counter was a long L-shaped bar that could seat sixty-six people, with a standup snack bar at one end. The seats were for whites. The snack bar was for blacks. Another employee, a black woman who worked at the steam table, approached the students and tried to warn them away. “You’re acting stupid, ignorant!” she said. They didn’t move. Around five-thirty, the front doors to the store were locked. The four still didn’t move. Finally, they left by a side door. Outside, a small crowd had gathered, including a photographer from the Greensboro Record. “I’ll be back tomorrow with A. & T. College,” one of the students said.

By next morning, the protest had grown to twenty-seven men and four women, most from the same dormitory as the original four. The men were dressed in suits and ties. The students had brought their schoolwork, and studied as they sat at the counter. On Wednesday, students from Greensboro’s “Negro” secondary school, Dudley High, joined in, and the number of protesters swelled to eighty. By Thursday, the protesters numbered three hundred, including three white women, from the Greensboro campus of the University of North Carolina. By Saturday, the sit-in had reached six hundred. People spilled out onto the street. White teen-agers waved Confederate flags. Someone threw a firecracker. At noon, the A. & T. football team arrived. “Here comes the wrecking crew,” one of the white students shouted.

By the following Monday, sit-ins had spread to Winston-Salem, twenty-five miles away, and Durham, fifty miles away. The day after that, students at Fayetteville State Teachers College and at Johnson C. Smith College, in Charlotte, joined in, followed on Wednesday by students at St. Augustine’s College and Shaw University, in Raleigh. On Thursday and Friday, the protest crossed state lines, surfacing in Hampton and Portsmouth, Virginia, in Rock Hill, South Carolina, and in Chattanooga, Tennessee. By the end of the month, there were sit-ins throughout the South, as far west as Texas. “I asked every student I met what the first day of the sitdowns had been like on his campus,” the political theorist Michael Walzer wrote in Dissent. “The answer was always the same: ‘It was like a fever. Everyone wanted to go.’ ” Some seventy thousand students eventually took part. Thousands were arrested and untold thousands more radicalized. These events in the early sixties became a civil-rights war that engulfed the South for the rest of the decade—and it happened without e-mail, texting, Facebook, or Twitter.

he world, we are told, is in the midst of a revolution. The new tools of social media have reinvented social activism. With Facebook and Twitter and the like, the traditional relationship between political authority and popular will has been upended, making it easier for the powerless to collaborate, coördinate, and give voice to their concerns. When ten thousand protesters took to the streets in Moldova in the spring of 2009 to protest against their country’s Communist government, the action was dubbed the Twitter Revolution, because of the means by which the demonstrators had been brought together. A few months after that, when student protests rocked Tehran, the State Department took the unusual step of asking Twitter to suspend scheduled maintenance of its Web site, because the Administration didn’t want such a critical organizing tool out of service at the height of the demonstrations. “Without Twitter the people of Iran would not have felt empowered and confident to stand up for freedom and democracy,” Mark Pfeifle, a former national-security adviser, later wrote, calling for Twitter to be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Where activists were once defined by their causes, they are now defined by their tools. Facebook warriors go online to push for change. “You are the best hope for us all,” James K. Glassman, a former senior State Department official, told a crowd of cyber activists at a recent conference sponsored by Facebook, A. T. & T., Howcast, MTV, and Google. Sites like Facebook, Glassman said, “give the U.S. a significant competitive advantage over terrorists. Some time ago, I said that Al Qaeda was ‘eating our lunch on the Internet.’ That is no longer the case. Al Qaeda is stuck in Web 1.0. The Internet is now about interactivity and conversation.”

These are strong, and puzzling, claims. Why does it matter who is eating whose lunch on the Internet? Are people who log on to their Facebook page really the best hope for us all? As for Moldova’s so-called Twitter Revolution, Evgeny Morozov, a scholar at Stanford who has been the most persistent of digital evangelism’s critics, points out that Twitter had scant internal significance in Moldova, a country where very few Twitter accounts exist. Nor does it seem to have been a revolution, not least because the protests—as Anne Applebaum suggested in the Washington Post—may well have been a bit of stagecraft cooked up by the government. (In a country paranoid about Romanian revanchism, the protesters flew a Romanian flag over the Parliament building.) In the Iranian case, meanwhile, the people tweeting about the demonstrations were almost all in the West. “It is time to get Twitter’s role in the events in Iran right,” Golnaz Esfandiari wrote, this past summer, in Foreign Policy. “Simply put: There was no Twitter Revolution inside Iran.” The cadre of prominent bloggers, like Andrew Sullivan, who championed the role of social media in Iran, Esfandiari continued, misunderstood the situation. “Western journalists who couldn’t reach—or didn’t bother reaching?—people on the ground in Iran simply scrolled through the English-language tweets post with tag #iranelection,” she wrote. “Through it all, no one seemed to wonder why people trying to coordinate protests in Iran would be writing in any language other than Farsi.”

Deja un comentario

Archivado bajo Comunicación, Innovación y Tecnología

Cómo vender en 140 caracteres

La red social Twitter empieza a ser usada como herramienta de marketing online. Los casos del Citi, Coca-Cola y Nike. Oportunidades y riesgos.

(Por María Eugenia Pintos, para Apertura.com)

El usuario de Twitter de Gabriel P. es su alter-ego. En la notebook, el celular o la computadora de escritorio, la aplicación de la red de microblogging es infaltable. Gracias a su fidelidad con el servicio, se enteró de las últimas promociones de su banco, supo cuáles eran las nuevas tendencias en la moda y pudo aprovechar descuentos instantáneos. De yapa, Gabriel sabe qué hacen y dónde están sus más de 1000 seguidores.

Twitter es una red social de microblogging que permite a sus usuarios enviar breves mensajes –llamados tweets– que no deben superar los 140 caracteres vía mensajes de texto o a través del sitio web de Twitter (http://twitter.com). Desde que se lanzó en 2006, no paró de crecer y en el mundo tecnológico se la conoce como el “SMS de Internet”. Hoy, la red social tiene 50 millones de usuarios en todo el mundo. Una cifra lo suficientemente atractiva para que las empresas empiecen a pensar en ella como plataforma de negocios.
El Citi –por ejemplo– es el primer banco que apuesta a la red social para interactuar con sus clientes. La experiencia viral surgió hace cuatro meses desde el departamento de marketing de la filial local y, a partir de este año, se empezará a replicar en otras partes. “Es la primera fase de una serie de proyectos. Queremos convertir a Internet en un canal donde el banco pueda vender, retener y atender clientes”, explica Sebastián Lancman, Consumer Strategic Head Global Consumer Group Vice President.

El uso de Twitter –dicen en la empresa– ayudó a mejorar la percepción de los clientes del Citi. Para el banco, en cambio, se convirtió en un medio más específico para comunicar beneficios y para saber qué opinan los usuarios de la marca. “Desde el punto de vista estratégico, las tres redes sociales que usamos –Twitter, Facebook y LinkedIn– apuntan al servicio. En Twitter, la relación es más uno a uno; allí tenemos que ser más rápidos y eficientes”, agrega Darío Lanchuske, Digital Channels Manager Global Consumer Group del Citi.

Nike también encontró un canal de ida y vuelta a través de Twitter. La empresa creó tres cuentas según las distintas categorías de productos: Fútbol, Running y Sportswear o moda urbana. “Generamos contenidos para que los seguidores puedan dar su feedback; también usamos la red social como generador de tráfico hacia sitios oficiales por medio de links”, explica Diego Luque, gerente de BrandCommunications de Nike Cono Sur. 

Como responsable final de la estrategia digital, Luque explica que la marca utiliza a Twitter como un generador de contenido en acciones especiales o como un simple comunicador de noticias. Por ejemplo, la emplearon para el lanzamiento de productos especiales o para difundir acciones como RED –una acción para generar fondos y concientización para luchar contra el SIDA–. Este año, la Nike + Human Race 10k fue transmitida vía Twitter. Para la ocasión, crearon una aplicación en los celulares que permitió a algunos líderes de opinión –como Germán Paoloski, Marcelo Gantman, Brenda Asnicar y Favio Posca– contar lo que estaban viviendo online. Los corredores tenían un celular adherido al brazo y un auricular con micrófono y, con sólo apretar un botón, podían narrar su experiencia. El mensaje de voz se convertía en texto que automáticamente era publicado en sus cuentas de Twitter.
Coca-Cola también se sumó a la movida. Mariano Bosaz, Interactive Marketing Manager de Coca-Cola de Argentina, reconoce que para la compañía es importante acompañar las tendencias. “A diferencia de otras redes sociales, Twitter está en pleno surgimiento y hoy es una estrategia más de posicionamiento que de masividad online”, sostiene.

Las organizaciones y los medios también capitalizaron su uso. Greenpeace, por ejemplo, aprovecha la portabilidad del celular y la viralidad que ofrece la herramienta. “La usamos para comunicarnos en tiempo real con la gente y para generar acciones sorpresa. Con Twitter podemos llegar a un montón de teléfonos celulares en tiempo real y a un costo cero”, reconoce Hernán Nadal, coodinador de Nuevas Tecnologías de Greenpeace. En La Nación, en cambio, Twitter modificó la relación del medio con su audiencia. Según Gastón Roitberg, secretario de redacción multimedia del diario, se trata de una herramienta de extraordinaria potencialidad para las coberturas periodísticas en tiempo real, “que reduce la distancia entre el staff de periodistas y la audiencia, generando un diálogo casi punto a punto”.

 Cómo no hacer agua
Ahora bien, ¿es Twitter una herramienta para dialogar con consumidores? Sí. ¿Y para generar mayores ventas? También. Pero hay quienes caen en el vacío a la hora de hacer su aparición triunfal en la red social. Christian Krikorian, Interactive Manager de Grey Argentina, destaca que es usual que las marcas tiendan a replicar el mismo comportamiento que las personas, suponiendo que ésa es la manera de utilizar Twitter. “Comunican todo tipo de promoción comercial y carecen de un enfoque que los vuelva valiosos frente a los otros”, reconoce. Y advierte que, de incurrir en esa práctica, las marcas pueden perder credibilidad. 

“Saber comunicar qué le interesa a un seguidor exige un nivel de compromiso muy grande”, dice. “La gente no te sigue porque sos una determinada marca, sino por la propuesta de valor que tengas para ofrecerle. La relación tiene que ser un win-win”, se sincera.

Para Germán Herebia, profesor del Programa Ejecutivo Publicidad On Line de la Universidad de Palermo, Twitter es un interesante canal que –sin embargo– todavía no explotó en el país. De hecho, según eMarketer, en los Estados Unidos hay unos 18 millones de usuarios (11 por ciento de los usuarios totales de Internet en ese país) de más de 18 años que acceden a Twitter, por lo menos, una vez al mes. En la Argentina, por el contrario, se calcula que los usuarios activos no superan los 3000.

Pese a los números, Herebia es optimista respecto al futuro de la red. “Va a crecer porque es un canal que potencia el tiempo real y en el que se puede tener una actividad mucho más social con las marcas”, comenta.

“Hay que basar la relación en la igualdad, el respeto, no intentar vender a toda costa. Como en cualquier relación, primero es preciso decir cosas interesantes, seducir, empatizar”, sugiere Diego Domingo,director creativo de la agencia Advocracy. Según el creativo, en 140 caracteres se pueden decir muchas cosas interesantes, pero también estupideces. “Hay que elegir bien el camino”, remarca. Krikorian agrega que a las empresas locales todavía les falta entender que Twitter requiere la presencia de una persona física detrás, para moderar el comportamiento de su marca en la plataforma. “Algunas siguen con la creencia de que todo en Internet es barato y porque Twitter es gratis, no requiere inversión de ningún tipo. Cuando se enfrentan a los costos de implementación pierden el interés”.

Para prevenir un eventual daño a su imagen, McDonald’s y Coca-Cola, por ejemplo, contrataron a CoTweet Enterprise Innovators Program, un servicio que promete administrar la cuenta de las marcas en Twitter ofreciendo un análisis de clicks y la popularidad de los mensajes, además de identificar a los usuarios más activos. “Es necesario tomar precauciones porque es una herramienta de microbbloging masiva y, al aplicarla a campañas de un producto, puede llegar a ser contraproducente si no se modera adecuadamente”, añade Facundo Oliva, SEO Manager de Grupo BGL. “Google toma en cuenta los tweets en sus resultados de búsqueda y, si no hay una moderación de los mismos, puede generar un branding negativo desde los buscadores”, remata.  
Las más seguidas

Según un ranking de Brand Republic, Starbucks es la marca más exitosa de Twitter, con 3,37 millones de menciones. La siguen Google (1,01 millones de menciones), la cadena BBC (703.000), Apple (512.000) y AIG (455.000 menciones). 

Pero Dell es un caso de éxito citado frecuentemente. La empresa ya lleva generados US$ 6,5 millones en ventas a través de Twitter. Según Bloomberg, la compañía tiene un equipo de 100 personas tweeteando con 35 diferentes perfiles de PR y atención al cliente, lo que les representa una inversión de US$ 500.000 anuales. Un retorno del 1300 por ciento. ¿Un dato curioso? Coca-Cola y Pepsi se hicieron mutuos seguidores en Twitter. Síntomas de que la herramienta también puede ser útil para estudiar los movimientos de la competencia.
En el mercado local, las empresas de retail son las que más están utilizando el medio, sobre todo como cadenas de descuentos. También las líneas aéreas (LAN) o sitios, como Despegar.com, ofrecen descuentos exclusivos a usuarios.

El futuro de la red social parece promisorio. De hecho, Twitter está buscando ser más rentable desde que cerró hace poco un acuerdo con los buscadores Google y Bing que le pagarán US$ 25 millones por publicar contenidos. Según estadísticas de ComScore, el tráfico de Twitter crece exponencialmente. A nivel mundial, la red generó casi 10 millones de visitantes en febrero de 2008, un crecimiento de 700 por ciento comparado con el año anterior.

1 comentario

Archivado bajo Branding, Marketing Relacional

Por qué muchos CEOs son malos estrategas

Fuente: Harvard Business Review

Las dos decisiones estratégicas esenciales son dónde jugar y cómo ganar. Responder estas preguntas requiere análisis y lógica, sí; pero lo más importante es la integración creativa. Muchos buenos estrategas sólo se enfocan en una de estas preguntas, tratando de solucionar diligentemente cómo globalizar o entregar un producto nuevo. Un estratega experto aborda ambas preguntas simultáneamente y se asegura de que las respuestas calcen entre ellas. No se fíe de una lógica o análisis singular, sino que integre creativamente la opción de su empresa respecto de en qué mercado jugar y cómo ganar en él. La integración es lo que permite elaborar estrategias espléndidas, distintas de aquéllas que no conducen a ninguna parte.

________________________________________________

 Why Most CEOs Are Bad at Strategy

Por: Roger Martin, en Harvard Business Review

There is a lot of strategy in the world, produced by all types of CEOs, corporate heads of strategy, and strategy consultants. Yet very little of this strategy is any good. There are undoubtedly many possible explanations for why this is the case, but here is my own pet theory, which I offer up to elicit your reactions and surface alternatives:

A good strategy is the product of the creative combination of two disparate logics — rather than a single linear analytical logic flow — but CEOs and “strategists” are seldom conditioned to become skilled at the requisite creative combination.

The two most fundamental strategic choices are deciding where to play and how to win. These two decisions — in what areas will the company compete, and on what basis will it do so — are the critical one-two punch to generate strategic advantage. However, they can’t be considered independently or sequentially. In a great strategy, your where-to-play and how-to-win choices fit together and reinforce one another.

For example, operating only in your home country market may seem to be a perfectly fine where-to-play choice and winning on the basis of technological superiority a perfectly fine how-to-win choice, but their combination almost always produces a bad strategy — because of global economies of scale in R&D, some competitor will globalize and blow out the geographically narrow national player. These choices don’t fit or reinforce.

In contrast, Apple wins because its where-to-play choice — broad participation across a number of high-involvement consumer electronics categories (computers, music, phones) — is matched wonderfully with its how-to-win choice — competing on user experience design and eco-system orchestration. It leverages the winning capabilities it has built in these two areas across the domains in which it has chosen to play to produce its winning Macs, iPods, and iPhones.

The trouble is, CEOs don’t usually get to the top by integrating different logics in that way. More often they rise by pushing a single logic. They like to analyze a problem and come up with a single, sufficient answer, like how to globalize or get costs under control or introduce a new product, rather than trying to look for answers to two questions that fit together elegantly.

As a consequence, many of them come to think of strategy as either where-to-play or how-to-win. For example, in the global pharma industry today, it appears that most CEOs define their strategies as simply playing in the historically lucrative pharma industry and doing whatever the rest of their competitors do. This is silent on how-to-win and the resultant set of me-too strategies is one reason why performance in the industry is going downhill fast.

Or alternatively, for many high-tech CEOs, the dominant choice is to win with a proprietary technology. This is silent on where-to-play and that has led many technology companies astray because it really matters where exactly that technology is used — as we see with Nortel Networks, which is now in the bankruptcy court despite its treasure trove of technology patents.

Meanwhile, corporate strategists and strategy consultants get ahead by demonstrating mastery of all sorts of conceptual tools for analyzing where-to-play (five forces, profit maps, etc.) or how-to-win (experience curve, value chain, VIRO, etc.). However, there as yet is no analytical tool for combining a given where-to-play choice with a congenial how-to-win choice or vice versa. That takes creative insight. But the majority of people who seek to become corporate strategists or strategy consultants do so because they are much more comfortable with analysis than what they perceive as guesswork. So they tend to become expert at strategic analyses, not strategy.

That, I submit, is why CEOs and “strategists” so seldom produce good strategies. Strategy is a creative act and the way to produce good strategy is go beyond basic analysis to creatively integrate your choices concerning where you play and how you propose to win.

Roger Martin is the Dean of the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto in Canada and the author of The Design of Business: Why Design Thinking is the Next Competitive Advantage (Harvard Business Press, 2009).

Deja un comentario

Archivado bajo Estrategia