Many of us who write and read this site consider ourselves advocates of customer-centric business practices. Many of us have been at it for more than a few years and most of us can point to some sterling cases of success.
Unfortunately, many mainstream marketers see customer-centric practices as a tactic not an all embracing strategy. If they didn't we wouldn't be getting reports like the following.
A Pitney Bowes study reported in the latest issue of Customer Strategy [1] asked customers to rank marketing techniques from "0" (not irritating) to "10" (intensely irritating). I was not surprise to find the most interruptive techniques were considered the most irritating. Automated telesales, live telesales and spam email ranking over 9. Fourteen of the fifteen techniques reported had scores over 5. Only "promotions at railway stations/shopping centers was less but it was ranked 4.84. In spite of this, all 14 techniques are commonly used.
Here's what did surprise me. The interpretation of the study was that "personalized direct mail" was valued by customers. Why? Because it ranked 5.44, where as other "junk" communication rank higher. It takes some heavy spinning to turn something that was moderately irritating to customer to be seen as valued.
A second study by Retail System Research reported that 42% of retailers set prices based on an analysis of competitors pricing. Yet, retailers do say customer relationships matter. Yet, studies of retail profitability by IBM and others clearly show profitability is highest in retailers who focus on the value they deliver customers, not the price they charge.
Why aren't we able to reach mainstream marketing? Do we need to spend more energy on defining what not to do, that is, what undermines customer-centricity?
Body: