The advent of Customer Engagement Marketing

We went through a recession, and while we weren’t looking, the world of marketing changed. We discovered as an industry that making certain that marketing governance is based on sound principles is critical in a recession. Digital marketing, with its granular tracking and ability to follow a customer from first contact, means you can observe his or her behaviour while they consider their first purchase and beyond. When digital marketing is joined up correctly, you should be able to establish precisely how much value you generate for every pound that you spend. And this accountability, during the recession, meant a degree of comfort that marketing actually was working. In other words, we gave credence to – and then priority to – marketing which has built into it a chain of custody.

The traditional view of brand marketing was centred around the way the business wanted to engage customers. To some extent, in the early days of internet-based marketing, this notion of brands built around customers’ needs was lost, at least temporarily. It became ‘build it and they will come’ – a conceit founded on the novelty of the medium: indeed, when I set up my first digital agency there were around 250 servers on the World Wide Web. Attendance and engagement could be reliably assumed.

The idea of a brand built around what the customer wants has of course changed as a result of the mediation of the internet. The customer is still at the centre of the business’s universe, but this position has evolved. Marketing, once predicated on understanding demographics, motivation and behaviour, can now be said to pivot about which channel the consumer is (or may be) consuming at that precise given point in the customer lifecycle when they are considering a step in their dialogue with the brand.

In simple terms, where once we considered marketing to be about mapping the progression from one medium to the next (TV followed press and PR, followed by Direct Marketing) this new age means we map the customer as she travels from mobile to Facebook, email to website and via SMS to shop.

In turn, this must be mapped against the decision-making cycle: first contact to second, peer review then press review, comparison sites, reminder banner, examination of features, emailed offer then shopping basket. We end up with a two-track series of events, joined at critical touchpoints which define the medium in which we pass on a specific, perfectly-timed message.

This form of marketing planning is necessarily going to be slightly different from segment to segment (a young mum’s media consumption is going to be radically different to that of a Baby Boomer), and from product to product. But the framework is sound, and applies as much to a high-value B2B proposition as to an FMCG brand – in fact we’ve used it for products as diverse as McCain oven chips, ASICS sportswear, Travelodge and the FT. What it delivers is a rational, measurable chain of custody from first contact to value. From this continuous sequence comes your brief for the messaging at each touchpoint, a detailed resource requirements list, indeed a foundation for micro and macro KPIs.

This new post-recession type of marketing is called Customer Engagement Marketing. It takes the power of the brand, dethroned by a combination of recession and digital renaissance, and refocuses it on the customer. In essence, it recognises that the customer is now the centre of everything, and that our job as businesses is not just to design our products around them but to design our marketing around them too.

Evidence-based marketing: myth or reality?

Apparently a Facebook ‘Like’ is worth £7. Isn’t that brilliant? If you have a hundred thousand followers that makes your social media strategy absolutely rocking news. The question is, says Felix Velarde of digital CRM agency Underwired, how many of you really believe it?

We ran a campaign for an FMCG client a while ago, in which we emailed a segment in the customer database using very specific messaging – it was relevant, timely and well-designed. The click-through rate (CTR) of 88% was staggering in anyone’s book. I’d like to say every campaign we run gets that kind of result, but occasionally we crash and burn too. Anyway, wow, what a great result. But what does it mean?

The digital marketing industry seems to be founded on metrics and key performance indicators (KPIs) of variable – if not downright dubious – quality. If you judge any of the industry awards you will know that half the entries benchmark against industry standards which in a lot of cases appear to have been made up on the spot: “Campaign X achieved a CTR of 12.3%, beating the industry standard 8% and therefore deserving of a Gold.”

This is where I have the first of my issues: even if there *is* an industry standard click-through rate, does it really apply to your campaign? Our campaign got an 88% CTR because it was highly targeted to a known audience expecting the email with a fantastic proposition. If it had achieved 12.3% or even 24.6% it would have been a failure. The truth is that no matter what the CTR is, one thing it is not is evidence of anything that isn’t either subjective (“I say, that’s awfully good isn’t it?”) or comparative (“Blimey, did much better than last time!”).

The second of my issues is that all these benchmarks aren’t evidence of sales. And hard revenue really is the only figure that ever matters (and before you ask about brand consideration or sentiment, these are both abstractions of sales – higher brand consideration may imply higher resulting sales, though you’d have to test it to find out if it’s really useful). So what is the *evidence* behind the assertion of success? How do you track from the planning phase through the campaign, to the reality of the effect on sales?

Well, it’s pretty easy in e-commerce. Straight-through processing (which is what the financial industry calls tracking the customer from first contact to order) in digital is quite simple these days. Ad tracking (display, affiliate, PPC and natural SEO) is relatively easily linked to website analytics, thence to email service providers (ESP), back to websites and even passing through couponing and promotion systems. It’s been done plenty of times by the big brands, and even small brands can buy integrated services. So if you’re an online retailer it’s pretty straightforward.

If you’re an FMCG brand you can still do it, although you may need to be a little more sophisticated about it. For example, this might mean matching your customer segments to commercially available purchase data and running regular surveys to track buying patterns in your base and cross-checking them against buying behaviour. If you’re a retailer you can find mechanisms to collect customer data and purchase behaviour at Point of Sale and match this data back to the single customer view.

The trick here is to get real data about whether your campaign actually worked, as opposed to seeing floating KPIs that may or may not indicate the same thing – but which provide no scientific basis for decision-making. How many times have you seen “successful” campaigns stopped? There’s a simple reason: there was no evidence to show they generated a profit. If there had been and they had produced £26 for every £1 spent, nobody in their right mind would stop them. Evidence is critical. Myth or reality? Evidence-based marketing is the only thing you should be *allowed* to do!

2013 will be the year of Total Customer Engagement

The year ahead will be marked by a number of really interesting developments in how we engage with our customers. One that has caught up with us – and which marks a sea change – is the advent of the Generation Y customer base. Gen-Y uses mobile as its main medium of interaction; if you’re not using mobile to engage with younger customers then you’re probably missing the biggest trick available, though it has been a very slow start since the trend first became apparent five, or so, years ago. Just in passing, to give you an idea of how trends break, let me illustrate this briefly…

Imagine your customer base is, potentially at least, a million strong. And say on day one a single person uses mobile as their main device for browsing the web, and every day that number doubles. By the end of the first week, 64 people use mobile. By the end of the second week that’s 8,192. That’s the point at which as a business you might start thinking there’s a trend. In actual fact it only takes another seven days and that’s your entire customer base. If you didn’t engage in a mobile strategy after two weeks, you missed it. Trends accelerate in an exponential curve – and in the internet age a trend can look slow for a few years, when in fact the numbers are doubling every month. Mobile is one of these, and if you target people born after 1982, that means you’ve got to jump, now!

There’s another trend that’s been a few years in the making, but in 2013 it will have gathered a critical mass, and it’s going to affect you – like it or not. The trend is for Total Customer Engagement. In plain English this means joined-up marketing, the opposite in fact of the “silo” thinking that has driven marketing during the first couple of decades of digital.

Most companies today have a web strategy, which may include e-commerce. They will also have a nascent social media strategy, a Google Adwords programme, and maybe an eCRM programme serving segmented comms to different sets of customers, split by value, behaviour, demographics and motivations. All of which have given businesses learning and insights into how they engage with customers using ‘new’(ish) channels. What’s lacking is integration. The sea change in 2013 requires a fresh way of thinking about customer engagement, which puts the customer at the centre. The trends feeding this are the shift in the balance of power from brand to customer, driven by the shift towards peer decision facilitated by social media, and the power of collective reviews.

So how does a business tap into this before it’s too late to do anything about it? A shift of focus is required, meaning the marketer needs to understand where the consumer is going to be, on- and off-line, when they are at a moment when they are likely to change their view of a brand, ideally positively. If you can identify that, Customer Type A is likely to be on a mobile, using Twitter, when considering whether to shortlist your brand, then you can target them with the right message at the right time and in the correct format. By mapping where the customer is at each critical point in their relationship with you, and mapping a rational sequence of nudges to take them from pre-custom to loyal customer, and then creating a matrix of comms against medium for this map, then you have a plan for engaging them. This Total Customer Engagement plan gives you as a business several things: a plan that can be tested, benchmarked and improved; a brief for your team and their suppliers so they have specific tasks to achieve against your business’s Key Performance Indicators (KPIs); and a framework that can be adapted when new trends become apparent.

This kind of approach is essentially multi-channel and channel-neutral. It’s also measurable and of course by its very nature future proof. By investing in developing this kind of (actually very simple) framework and marketing architecture, it will protect you against the overwhelming trends that are often nearly impossible to spot early, but which end up rather too quickly having strategic impact. Do it now, before it’s too late!

Making sense of the marketing maze

FMCG Magazine, issue 11 volume 13

Why is – and why should it be that – FMCG marketing feels so vague? Everyone thinks the be-all and end-all is the big TV campaign. It takes six months to write, three months to edit, a whole bunch of illustrators, animators, storyboardists and directors’ assistants, a hundred grand in production and a hundred more grand for a slot in Corrie. This elephantine effort would be fine, were it not for one tiny flaw: you know fifty per cent of it works, but you don’t know which fifty per cent. The elephant in the room is accountability, and in today’s climate marketers must, must be accountable, as must their marketing.

We’ve come out of a recession, and are wobbling around the edge of a second iteration. Consumer confidence is low, partly driven by what people see in the financial sections of the TV news and partly driven by the doom mongers in the red tops. Businesses like yours aren’t bonkers so there is close scrutiny of every budget from procurement to overheads to manufacturing to marketing. The days of the “Let’s do TV, it works for the big brands” being sufficient justification for the board are over.

There is a second driver at work here: FMCG brands don’t sell to consumers, you sell to intermediaries – Nisa, Bookers, Asda, Tesco. You might argue that they should be doing your marketing for you (in fact, perhaps you should argue; if you spent your TV budget on selling more lines into Tesco they would have a vested interest in pushing your products hard, and yet we have devised ourselves an effective if expensive pull-oriented strategy, presumably because such tactics are too much like hard work). Yet we compete for shelf-space, PoS, the (very) occasional appearance in a promotion or an ad. FMCG brands focus their marketing towards the end consumer, essentially cutting out the middle man and appealing for share of basket. Works beautifully for the supermarkets.

So, two drivers: bypassing the supermarkets to get straight to influencing the consumer, and a terrible lack of clarity about whether this consumer focus can become more focused. Oh, and a third factor: the supermarkets sneakily deciding to launch their own brands (as distinct from own-brand) competing directly with yours. Anyone would think you were in trouble.

Over the past sixteen years – in fact ever since the Snickers® MegaBite online community was created for the brand’s Euro96 sponsorship – digital has become a valid and very useful channel for reaching and engaging consumers. Multi-brand FMCG companies have created websites, communities, games, multimedia, email and mobile campaigns very successfully, if success is measured in awards, media exposure and word of mouth. Over the past ten years, online channels have become properly measurable. The rise of analytics, and analytics specialists, has allowed marketers to track users’ online behaviour in great detail. Marketers are familiar with terms like UX (User Experience), IA (Information Architecture) and User Journeys (a term we appropriated from the supermarkets as it happens). We can drive people to websites, deliver appropriate experiences that support the brand architecture (brand onion, pyramid, pretzel... your ad agency will have its own version), and increase dwell time (the amount of time a consumer spends wandering around, through engagement or confusion, your website).

Digital can track absolutely everything. So it’s slightly surprising that most FMCG brands have not, because they believe they cannot, tracked the value they get from it. In the days when nobody knows which fifty per cent of the advertising works, you would think that having such an auditable medium would be a lifeline.

Digital means a consumer’s activity can be tracked all the way through to a sale. For example, if you sell a tin of beans on your website, we can track a visitor from before they get to the site (their first click on a Google Adword or a banner) through the site, around the site, to the basket and to a successfully concluded sale. We can attribute sales value to visits, which in turn means we can optimise campaigns, spend more on the sources which produce the highest sales, and generally be pleased that you know which fifty per cent is which. We can distinguish good from bad and make commercial decisions based on evidence. And evidence-based marketing is what your board wants.

FMCG doesn’t trust digital in the same way. It’s why, for example, most brand campaigns have a limited shelf-life online, and why websites get replaced with alarming frequency. You’re marketing to the end consumer, but you’re selling indirectly. This perception is common among FMCG marketers: indirect means indistinct. Decision making is therefore down to gut instinct – and how many awards the campaign wins. For me, that makes online marketing for FMCG brands a hopeless case. I want to know how to attribute value, no matter how indirect the sale is.

So let’s discuss a method which means that indirect doesn’t necessarily make it quite so hopeless. We’ve used it over the last four years for McCain Foods.

We started with a database of customers, acquired from a number of sources: bought lists, competition entries, newsletter opt-ins; in fact anywhere we could find data. We cleaned it up, got rid of the stale, unidentifiable, lapsed and suspect data, and created a robust base of legally opted-in people. We put together an email programme. This was pretty simple, consisting of product descriptions, recipe ideas, offers and simple calls to action. This gave us a backbone we could measure, and measure we did.

You will be familiar with the normal email marketing metrics: Open Rates, Click Through Rates and dwell time. We benchmarked the programme, making sure we had some consistency to start off with, so we could run some experiments. The first experiment: when should we send these emails? We sent the same email every couple of hours to a different section of the database to establish which time of day got the best open rates. At this best time of day we sent an email every day of the week to see which day of the week got the best open rates. Inside eight days we had the optimum send time.

The second experiment involved benchmarking against the real world. The assumption was that anyone in the database would be more engaged with the McCain brand than the general population (for obvious reasons: these people have opted in to regular emails, and they are getting regular brand exposure). What we wanted to do was to see if we could affect behaviour over time. Working alongside the brand tracking studies already being performed by Hall & Partners, Underwired created a comparable set of questions to mirror the study, in effect asking the same questions of the database so we could compare database versus general population at start, then after six months.

The results at the start were entirely predictable: 61% of people in the base loved the brand versus 20% in the general population. By the end, after the email marketing programme had been in action for six months, that score had risen to 64%, and in fact the gap had widened to 11%. The programme was clearly driving changes in perceptions of the brand, against a general fall in the advertising-only scores. But still, indirect and indistinct. How do we change this?

The next step for the campaign was to find a value benchmark. This consisted of two distinct phases: first find the comparison data, and second find a way to accurately measure any changes wrought by the digital activity. By using email only, the customer journey was kept very simple, and there was a built-in mechanism for running surveys so we could establish consumers’ shopping behaviour.

First we sourced a chunk of useful data. This came by way of Dunnhumby providing real-world shopper behaviour from Tesco customers; we sought out product choice, average purchase value and purchase frequency.

We continued this stage of the journey into attribution by refining the segmentation of the McCain database. The segmentation was fairly simple: brand engagers, brand resistors, category resistors, neutrals. This was also split demographically. The segmentation was tweaked to exactly match the Tesco shopper profiles so we could accurately compare one with the other.

So what have we found? We have discovered that when we put a person into the eCRM programme, in the first six months their purchase frequency goes up by 3%. Knowing what we know about average purchase value (in £s) and frequency for each segment, we can therefore easily find out not only how much the change is worth within the base, but also how much we should invest in acquiring more people into the database in order to drive ever-increasing incremental profit.

So what does this mean? Well, for one it means we know precisely which segments are worth investing in, how much to invest, and what the sales volumes we drive will be. This makes TV seem vague indeed – we do, now, know how to attribute value even when we’re marketing directly yet selling indirectly. We can justify every penny of the digital marketing budget (or at least that portion that’s spent on auditable campaigns) and, in a recession or in a post-recession world, that means we can be certain that what is being done is being done right.

Le Manoir Aux Quat' Saisons and the Twitter Glitch

I love food. I'm a hopeless glutton foodie - I'll save up to eat at very poncy restaurants just so I can have my tastebuds tickled with divine ephemera (the ponciness may have rubbed off). I tend to fall in love with specific places and go back time and again. One of my all-time favourites is Le Manoir Aux Quat' Saisons in Oxfordshire; I was once in reception checking out after a sublime day and night for a birthday when my wife got into conversation with chef patron Raymond Blanc and we ended up staying for a second night's feasting.

I also love brands. I'm a brand marketer at heart, and for seventeen years I've expressed that through digital. I quite naturally follow Le Manoir on Twitter. In my daily twitterfeed Le Manoir constitutes a very minor part - my feed is full of marketing and digital industry stuff that's important to me. But every time I see Le Manoir's logo on a passing tweet it subliminally reminds me that I'm hungry and might well like to pop over to Oxfordshire soon.

Today they changed their avatar. It's suddenly absolutely tiny. I dropped them a tweet to say I couldn't read it any more. I got the short and I have to say teensy bit snotty riposte that it "conforms to the brand's guidelines, sorry to disappoint you". Well, it may well conform to your brand guidelines, but the point is it doesn't work. You've removed one of the main reasons for maintaining a corporate Twitter feed: free advertising to people who are predisposed to you. If you take away your brand awareness, then what, may I ask, are you doing it for? If it ain't advertising - as you so adroitly point out, you've done it because it conforms to brand guidelines - then it's corporate waste.

Much as I love the food, advertised for free by Messrs. Michelin and by those foodies and gourmands (myself included) who rave about it (though Le Manoir is probably 50% about the stunning location and gardens and 50% about the grub), your approach to actively generating brand exposure could do with a little more care. The excuse that I may not be able to read it but it doesn't matter because it fits the brand guidelines is naïve and silly. Get an extension to your guidelines so you can carry on doing marketing properly - or break the rules a bit. Live a little. But make yourselves invisible and your presence on Twitter will slowly and inexcusably fade from memory.

Social media value attribution

Everybody’s talking about how social media is the new big thing. Yesterday it was the next big thing. According to Facebook, the next big thing is, well, unknown so who knows what tomorrow will bring. So we have a marketing world set alight by the potential of social media, queuing up to use it, setting up plans to get into social media. But there’s no real rationale. It’s being done because it looks like it is important. People live there, so our world has changed. But as for value - well, who knows? KPIs all seem to surround the number of fans and Likes, sentiment (no matter how vague this is) and hope. Accountability - attribution - is the elephant in the room.

I’ve grown up with digital. In 1994 I set up a digital agency, building communities around websites for brands like Snickers and Hewlett-Packard. We added channels as we went along - search engines, ads, interactive television and mobile. Around ten years ago we had become part of the world’s fourth biggest advertising network, and the digital world looked full of colour, sexy as hell, with big brands piling in to spend money on visitors, eyeballs and sales. Having sold out, we next built an agency around something brand new in the world of digital marketing: accountability. We wanted to prove that digital could have tangible, measurable and commercial value. So we got into eCRM big time.

Working with brands like Virgin, NSPCC and News International we started creating digitally-delivered campaigns built around individual customers. What we learned about them and from them we used to better engage them. We used insights derived from demography and behaviour to inform targeting strategies that delivered relevant content when it was most likely to work. We used segmentation principles originated by the direct mail companies and facilitated by the cheapest of media, email, to improve response rates and sales revenues. We used Recency, Frequency and Value to benchmark customer segments, applied campaigns bespoked to each segment’s needs, and measured the changes. We gave marketers what they wanted: proof that what they were doing produced specific financial returns.

Today this is what we do, still. Sure, the channels have changed. We now use mobile, SMS and email, but we also use websites. What was once called personalisation has been adapted; for McCain Foods we extended the eCRM strategy from email onto its site, so that visitors see content based on which segment they belong to and where they are in a planned nudge-based customer journey. We track individuals through their entire web experience, bringing behavioural data back into the eCRM programme so we can attribute the contribution their experience makes towards changes in their value. Taking an example, we know that by increasing engagement through the programme, one specific segment has increased its average purchase frequency by 3% a year - leading to an increase in sales of around £1million.

This level of attribution means a client can justify spending part of its valuable marketing budget on this eCRM activity. If the incremental revenue a programme generates, and in particular the incremental margin it generates, is greater than the cost of generating it, then it’s a no-brainer. Likewise, one would think that if you could prove that the incremental margin was less than the cost of generating it, you’d close down the programme very quickly indeed.

And yet, social media defies this superbly clean logic. Because you cannot cast attribution, because you can’t tell whether it’s a positive or negative ROI, the hope that it’s the next big thing and it will be worth it seems to justify investment in it. Where’s the return? I read a statistic the other day that some Facebook campaign had generated an ROI of 4:1 (actually, they said “400%!!”). I’d love to know what that means... at a guess, this company isn’t making 25% margin, and unless it’s making 25% plus, that “ROI” is actually a loss.

So this is where we found ourselves, running fantastic, highly auditable campaigns, leveraging customer data for all its worth, using email, mobile and the web, when this groundswell of social media marketing buzz started preoccupying marketing minds. So Underwired has developed a tool that allows us to make some connections. It allows us to create specific calls to action to customer segments, and watch precisely what they do in response.

By creating this tool we’ve finally addressed the elephant in the room. We’ve added the ability to score individuals according to what social actions they take in response to our engagement programmes. It means we can add an advocacy dimension to our demographic, behavioural and motivation-based segmentation, and this means we can identify people who have value to us as recruiters and word-spreaders. We can even attribute new customers to an individual’s referrals, which gives us real power to tap into social behaviour and account for the results. This is the new big thing.

High ground for brands in a W-shaped recession

This is my first blog post for a few weeks, because I've been busy. I've actually been busier with pitches than I've been for more than a year. And quite evidently I am not alone. There's something in the water I think.

It's generally at this time of year that the pitches for the new year are well out of the way. We used to win our big accounts either just before Christmas or just before the other financial year starts in April. This year is different for us, and we've seen a surge in pitch work for eCRM actually happening in January. We think there's a logical explanation for this, and it comes down to the great typographical recession debate that's been going on for the past few months: is this a U, V or W-shaped recession?

If you are a marketer, then the past year of austerity has probably been quite trying. Selection for auditable marketing – eCRM and DM while a no brainer for some, has been held up by (respectively) lack of experience and expense. ECRM is cheap and responsive, works beautifully for retail and FMCG, and generates monetary returns, but very few companies have done it so in times of restriction and risk aversion new forays were rare. DM is proven and runs on the same principles as eCRM, but it's extremely expensive and lumberingly slow (not to mention impossible to port directly to digital because it requires native digital community experience). The most logical path for marketers has therefore been difficult to take.

But a year without engaging consumers with either big budget media or small budget retention marketing is dangerous. Smaller nimbler brands can operate with startup mentality and gain a disproportionate step up. A year after budgets stopped, a year during which eCRM has proven itself with spectacular achievements for foresightful adopters, marketing budget holders are facing a situation where we're either in recovery having reached the other side of the V or U, or at the very least on a temporary island in the middle of the W.

It's time to re-engage with customers and at the very least reinvigorate relationships with them. If it's the W then there's a window of opportunity. If we're out of recession (and personally I find it difficult to believe there won't be a backwash from the debt that's been stacked up to facilitate quantitative easing – let alone the poke in the eye that repairing the country's potholes is about to deliver), then it's time to spend. And clients are doing just that. Cautiously to be sure, and only on things that can be proven to work.

Marketers have been dabbling in eCRM. It's now time to take the plunge. The worst that can happen is that it does turn out to be W-shaped, but brands will have reconnected with customers at a critical time to ensure they stay brand loyal during the next leg of hardship. The best that can happen is that the process of spinning up extraordinary loyalty early means a spectacular resurgence in sales.