The Missing Links in the Customer Engagement Cycle

The Customer Engagement Cycle plays a central role in many marketing strategies, but it’s not always defined in the same way. Probably the most commonly described stages are Awareness, Consideration, Inquiry, Purchase and Retention. In retail, we often think of the cycle as Awareness, Acquisition, Conversion, Retention. In either case, I think there are a couple of key stages that do not receive enough consideration given their critical ability to drive the cycle.

The missing links are Satisfaction and Referral.

Before discussing these missing links, let’s take a quick second to define the other stages:

Awareness: This is basic branding and positioning of the business. We certainly can’t progress people through the cycle before they’ve even heard of us.

Acquisition: I’ve always thought of this as getting someone into our doors or onto our site. It’s a major step, but it’s not yet profitable.

Conversion: This one is simply defined as making a sales. Woo hoo! It may or may not be a profitable sales on its own, but it’s still a significant stage in the cycle.

Retention: We get them to shop with us again. Excellent! Repeat sales tend to be more profitable and almost certainly have lower marketing costs than first purchases.

Now, let’s get to those Missing Links

In my experience, the key to a strong and active customer engagement cycle is a very satisfying customer experience. And while the Wikipedia article on Customer Engagement doesn’t mention Satisfaction as often as I would like, it does include this key statement: “Satisfaction is simply the foundation, and the minimum requirement, for a continuing relationship with customers.”

In fact, I think the quality of the customer experience is so important that I would actually inject it multiple times into the cycle: Awareness, Acquisition, Satisfaction, Conversion, Satisfaction, Retention, Satisfaction, Referral.

Of course, it’s possible to get through at least some of the stages of the cycle without an excellent customer experience. People will soldier through a bad experience if they want the product bad enough or if there’s an incredible price. But it’s going to be a lot harder to retain that type of customer and if you get a referral, it might not be the type of referral you want.

I wonder if Satisfaction and Referral are often left out of cycle strategies because they are the stages most out of marketers’ control.

A satisfying customer experience is not completely in the marketer’s control. For sure, marketing plays a role. A customer’s satisfaction can be defined as the degree to which her actual experience measures up to her expectations. Our marketing messages are all about expectations, so it’s important that we are compelling without over-hyping the experience. And certainly marketers can influence policy decisions, website designs, etc. to help drive better customer experiences.

In the end, though, the actual in-store or online experience will determine the strength of the customer engagement.

Everyone plays a part in the satisfaction stages. Merchants must ensure advertised product is in stock and well positioned. Store operators must ensure the stores are clean, the product is available on the sales floor and the staff are friendly, enthusiastic and helpful. The e-commerce team must ensure advertised products can be easily found, the site is performing well, product information in complete and useful,  and the products are shipped on time and in good condition.

We also have to ensure our incentives and metrics are supporting a quality customer experience, because the wrong metrics can incent the wrong behavior. For example, if we measure an online search engine marketing campaign by the number of visitors generated or even the total sales generated, we can absolutely end up going down the wrong path. We can buy tons of search terms that by their sheer volume will generate lots of traffic and some degree of increased sales. But if those search terms link to the home page or some other page that is largely irrelevant to the search term, the experience will be likely disappointing for the customer who clicked through.

In fact, I wrote a white paper a few months ago, Online Customer Acquisition: Quality Trumps Quantity, that delved into customer experience by acquisition source for the Top 100 Internet Retailers. We found that those who came via external search engines were among the least satisfied customers of those sites with the least likelihood to purchase and recommend. Not good. These low ratings could largely be attributed to the irrelevance of the landing pages from those search terms.

Satisfaction breeds Referral

Referrals or Recommendations are truly wonderful. As I wrote previously, the World’s Greatest Marketers are our best and most vocal customers. They are more credible than we’ll ever be, and the cost efficiencies of acquisition through referral are significantly better than our traditional methods of awareness and acquisition marketing. In my previously mentioned post, I discussed some ways to help customers along on the referral path. But, of course, customers can be pretty resourceful on their own.

We’ve all seen blog posts, Facebook posts or tweets about bad customer experiences. But plenty of positive public commentary can also be found.  Target’s and Gap’s Facebook walls have lots of customers expressing their love for those brands. Even more powerful are blog posts some customers write about their experiences.  I came across a post yesterday from entitled Tales of Perfection that related two excellent experiences the blogger had with Guitar Center and a burger joint called Arry’s. Both stories are highly compelling and speak to the excellent quality of the employees at each business. Nice!

————————————————–

Developing a business strategy, not just a marketing strategy, around the customer engagement cycle can be extremely powerful. It requires the entire company to get on board to understand the value of maximizing the customer experience at every touch point with the customer, and it requires a set of incentives and metrics that fully support strengthening the cycle along the way.

What do you think? How do you think about the customer engagement cycle? How important do feel the customer experience is in strengthening the cycle? Or do you think this is all hogwash?

Wanna be better with metrics? Watch more poker and less baseball.

Both baseball and poker have been televising their World Series championships, and announcers for both frequently describe strategies and tactics based on the statistics of the games. Poker announcers base their commentary and discussion on the probabilities associated with a small number of key metrics, while baseball announcers barrage us with numbers that sound meaningful but that are often pure nonsense.

Similarly, today’s web analytics give us the capability to track and report data on just about anything, but just because we can generate a number doesn’t mean that number is meaningful to our business. In fact, reading meaning into meaningless numbers can cause us to make very bad decisions.

Don’t get me wrong, I am a huge believer in making data-based decisions, in baseball, poker, and on our websites. But making good decisions is heavily dependent on using the right data and seeing the data in the right light. I sometimes worry that constant exposure to sports announcers’ misreading and misappropriation of numbers is actually contributing to a misreading and misunderstanding of numbers in our business settings.

Let’s consider a couple of examples of misreading and misappropriating numbers that have occurred in baseball over the last couple of weeks:

1. Selection bias
   This one is incredibly common in the world of sports and nearly as common in business. Recently, headlines here in Detroit focused on the Tigers “choking” and blowing a seven-game lead with only 16 games to go. In a recent email exchange on this topic, my friend Chris Eagle pointed out the problems with the sports announcers’ hyperbole:

   “They’re picking the high-water mark for the Tigers in order to make their statement look good.  If you pick any other random time frame (say end-of-August, which I selected simply because it’s a logical break point), the Tigers were up 3.5 games.  But it doesn’t look like much of a choke if you say the Tigers lost a 3.5 game lead with a month and change to go.”

   Unfortunately, this type of analysis error occurs far too often in business. We might find that our weekend promotions are driving huge sales over the last six months, which sounds really impressive until we notice that non-sale days have dropped significantly as we’ve just shifted our business to days when we are running promotions (which may ultimately mean we’ve reduced our margins overall by selling more discounted product and less full-price merchandise).

   In a different way, Dennis Mortensen addressed the topic in his excellent blog post “The Recency Bias in Web Analytics,” where he points out the tendency to give undue weight to more recent numbers. He included a strong example about the problems of dashboards that lack context. Dashboards with gauges look really cool but are potentially dangerous as they are only showing metrics from a very short period of time. Which leads me to…

2. Inconsistency of averages over short terms
   Baseball announcers and reporters can’t get enough of this one. Consider this article on the Phillies’ Ryan Howard after Game 3 of the World Series that includes, “Ryan Howard’s home run trot has been replaced by a trudge back to the dugout.The Phillies’ big bopper has gone down swinging more than he’s gone deep…He’s still 13 for 44 overall in the postseason (.295) but only 2 for 13 (.154) in the World Series.” Actually, during the length of the season, he had three times as many strike outs as home runs, so his trudges back to the dugout seem pretty normal. And the problem with the World Series batting average stat is the low sample size. A sample of thirteen at bats is simply too small to match against his season long average of .279. Do different pitchers or the pressures of the situation have an effect? Maybe, but there’s nothing in the data to support such a conclusion. Segmenting by pitcher or “postseason” suffers from the same small sample size problems, where the margin of error expands significantly. Furthermore, and this is really key, knowing an average without knowing the variability of the original data set is incomplete and often misleading.

   This problems with variability and sample sizes arise frequently in retail analysis when we either run a test with too small a sample size and assume we can project it to the rest of the business, or we run a properly sized test but assume we’ll automatically see those same results in the first day of a full application of the promotion. Essentially, the latter point is what is happening with Ryan Howard in the postseason. We often hear the former as well when a player is all of the sudden crowned a star when he outperforms his season averages over a few games in the postseason.

   In retail, we frequently see this type of issue when we’re comparing something like average order value of two different promotions or two variations in an A/B test. Say we’ve run an A/B test of two promotions. Over 3,100 iterations of test A, we have an average order size of $31.68. And over 3,000 iterations of Test B, we have an average order size of $32.15. So, test B is the clear winner, right? Wrong. It turns our there is a lot more variability in test B, which has a standard deviation of 11.37 compared with test A’s standard deviation of 7.29. As a result the margin of error on the comparison expands to +/- 48 cents, which means both averages are within the margin of error and we can say with 95% confidence that there really is no difference between the tests. Therefore, it would be a mistake to project an increase in transaction size if we went with test B.

   Check out that example using this simple calculator created by my fine colleagues at ForeSee Results and play around with your own scenarios.  Download Test difference between two averages.

Poker announcers don’t seem to fall into all these statistical traps. Instead, they focus on a few key metrics like the number of outs and the size of the pot to discuss strategies for each player based largely on the probability of success in light of the risks and rewards of a particular tactic. Sure, there are intangibles like “poker tells” that occur, but even those are considered in light of the statistical probabilities of a particular situation.

Retail is certainly more complicated than poker, and the number of potential variables to deal with is immense. However, we can be much more prepared to deal with the complexities of our situations if we take a little more time to view our metrics in the right light. Our data-driven decisions can be far more accurate if we ensure we’re looking at the full data set, not a carefully selected subset, and we take the extra few minutes to understand the effects of variability on averages we report. A little extra critical thinking can go a long way.

What do you think? Are there better ways to analyze key metrics at your company? Do you consider variability in your analyses? Do you find the file to test two averages useful?

Related posts:

How retail sales forecasts are like baby due dates

Are web analytics like 24-hour news networks

True conversion – the on-base percentage of web analytics

How the US Open was like a retail promotion analysis

The Right Metrics: Why keeping it simple may not work for measuring e-retail performance (Internet Retailer article)