Teamspirit have written a blogpost challenging the FSA to create an innovative campaign to make saving cool.
We keep hearing about the pensions time bomb that's about to go off - so I don't think we should leave this to the FSA. All savings marketers should be trying to find innovative ways to encourage people to save throughout the economic cycle. With the savings ratio as high as it is at the moment, now is the time for us to start creating some innovative campaigns to embed the habit so that people continue saving even when the recovery begins.
I'd love to see a bank or building society - maybe one of the smaller ones that is less tied up dealing with the fallout from the credit crisis - make a real play to own savings. There's a great opportunity to run a relatively inexpensive campaign using social media, YouTube and blogs that could increase the savings ratio for good. The organisation that sets the agenda will be the winner.
Saturday, 31 October 2009
Vote in Mashable's Open Web Awards
Voting is now open in Mashable's Open Web Awards 2009. It would be great to see a financial services brand win in one of the categories - and it will be interesting to see what we can learn from the category winners.
http://mashable.com/owa/votes
http://mashable.com/owa/votes
Friday, 30 October 2009
HSBC uses Facebook to market new Financial Planning site
This week, ads for HSBC's Financial Planning site have been popping up on my Facebook pages fairly regularly - the first time I've noticed a financial services brand advertising there and great to see.
Although the site is content rich, well laid out and interesting, sadly it's not brought many of the characteristics of Facebook with it - characteristics that would have made it really stand out and help HSBC develop their relationship with customers and prospects.
The only options to actively engage with the site are to use a tool to create a personal plan, start a web chat (which didn't work when I tried it) or move offline and call their call centre or make an appointment with a branch-based adviser.
It would have been great to see HSBC set up some discussion forums or blogs on specific aspects of financial planning - they would have encouraged repeat visits too. There isn't even a link to share the page on Facebook - or Digg, Twitter or anything else.
Interestingly, when I did a Google search to find out when the site had launched and what other comments people had made about it, all I could find were pages about a Facebook campaign a couple of years ago about overdrafts on student accounts.
All in all, it feels like HSBC is dipping its toe in the water with Facebook but sees it as a source of audience for its content, rather than allowing users to engage with it on their own terms. It will be interesting to see how they develop the tool and if they bring in more interactivity over time.
Although the site is content rich, well laid out and interesting, sadly it's not brought many of the characteristics of Facebook with it - characteristics that would have made it really stand out and help HSBC develop their relationship with customers and prospects.
The only options to actively engage with the site are to use a tool to create a personal plan, start a web chat (which didn't work when I tried it) or move offline and call their call centre or make an appointment with a branch-based adviser.
It would have been great to see HSBC set up some discussion forums or blogs on specific aspects of financial planning - they would have encouraged repeat visits too. There isn't even a link to share the page on Facebook - or Digg, Twitter or anything else.
Interestingly, when I did a Google search to find out when the site had launched and what other comments people had made about it, all I could find were pages about a Facebook campaign a couple of years ago about overdrafts on student accounts.
All in all, it feels like HSBC is dipping its toe in the water with Facebook but sees it as a source of audience for its content, rather than allowing users to engage with it on their own terms. It will be interesting to see how they develop the tool and if they bring in more interactivity over time.
Wednesday, 28 October 2009
Paid-for PR - the future of newspapers?
The Guardian is today asking why marketers aren't following newspaper audiences online.
The problem is that newspapers have tried to translate the advertising model they use offline, online. As The New Rules of Marketing & PR points out, that just doesn't work. Interruptive, display-type advertising is just not relevant online. What marketers are looking for is what newspapers have always given away free: editorial content. That way, you get a relevant, engaged audience that is interested in your message.
As brands differentiate themselves through their values, it will make increasing sense for newspapers to look to generate an income from offering paid editorial content, tie-ins etc that are in keeping with their editorial guidelines. That will require newspapers to tread very carefully to bring their readership with them and not be seen as 'selling out' - but if managed well, could make it easier for consumers to find the brands that match their values and for brands to find genuinely engaged audiences.
The problem is that newspapers have tried to translate the advertising model they use offline, online. As The New Rules of Marketing & PR points out, that just doesn't work. Interruptive, display-type advertising is just not relevant online. What marketers are looking for is what newspapers have always given away free: editorial content. That way, you get a relevant, engaged audience that is interested in your message.
As brands differentiate themselves through their values, it will make increasing sense for newspapers to look to generate an income from offering paid editorial content, tie-ins etc that are in keeping with their editorial guidelines. That will require newspapers to tread very carefully to bring their readership with them and not be seen as 'selling out' - but if managed well, could make it easier for consumers to find the brands that match their values and for brands to find genuinely engaged audiences.
Monday, 19 October 2009
Where are you advertising today?
Once upon a time, marketers decided where to place their ads based solely on demographics. If it met the demographic requirements for a reasonable price, it was a good place to advertise.
Then, marketers started to demand measurability - was the cost of the advertising space reflected in the response rates and conversions?
Finally, the demographic bit back. In I'm With The Brand, Rob Walker writes that Timberland was forced to rethink its media strategy when it's demographic - hip hop fans - objected that it wasn't supporting their choice of media through its advertising expenditure.
Advertising is no longer simply about finding the kind of customers you are looking for - it's a statement of brand values by association. Waitrose has pulled its advertising from Fox News because a customer complained that their advertising was supporting the controversial presenter Glenn Beck's programme. The Daily Mail was forced to remove the advertising stream completely from Jan Moir's article about Stephen Gately after brands such as M&S asked to have their branding removed.
People expect brands to stand for something these days - and for that something to be carried across into all their activities throughout the value chain, including advertising. Yet advertising is often bought in bulk or, as with the Google ads on this blog page, selected thematically without advertiser input. It's the one area where our customers are demanding action, and which we are not properly in a position to control.
Now, looking at it cynically, all the advertisers (and in particular M&S and Waitrose) have benefited a lot more by publicly removing their advertising from places that don't fit the brand than if they had quietly chosen not to advertise there in the first place. But if we want our brands to have a moral core for our customers to identify with, we need to write an Advertising Standards Code of our own.
What do we want to support with our advertising spend?
What do we actively want to avoid?
How can we get our customers involved in shaping it?
How can we ensure our media buyers can and do implement it?
Then, marketers started to demand measurability - was the cost of the advertising space reflected in the response rates and conversions?
Finally, the demographic bit back. In I'm With The Brand, Rob Walker writes that Timberland was forced to rethink its media strategy when it's demographic - hip hop fans - objected that it wasn't supporting their choice of media through its advertising expenditure.
Advertising is no longer simply about finding the kind of customers you are looking for - it's a statement of brand values by association. Waitrose has pulled its advertising from Fox News because a customer complained that their advertising was supporting the controversial presenter Glenn Beck's programme. The Daily Mail was forced to remove the advertising stream completely from Jan Moir's article about Stephen Gately after brands such as M&S asked to have their branding removed.
People expect brands to stand for something these days - and for that something to be carried across into all their activities throughout the value chain, including advertising. Yet advertising is often bought in bulk or, as with the Google ads on this blog page, selected thematically without advertiser input. It's the one area where our customers are demanding action, and which we are not properly in a position to control.
Now, looking at it cynically, all the advertisers (and in particular M&S and Waitrose) have benefited a lot more by publicly removing their advertising from places that don't fit the brand than if they had quietly chosen not to advertise there in the first place. But if we want our brands to have a moral core for our customers to identify with, we need to write an Advertising Standards Code of our own.
What do we want to support with our advertising spend?
What do we actively want to avoid?
How can we get our customers involved in shaping it?
How can we ensure our media buyers can and do implement it?
Friday, 9 October 2009
Loyalty - it's in the game
Do you play games on Facebook? Mafia Wars apparently has over 6 million users, Farmville recently hit a million and new applications are appearing daily. These games, besides being fun, are really interesting because of the way they actively design in customer loyalty. Financial services marketers could usefully steal a lot of their ideas.
The first challenge for the gamers is to encourage people to sign up. Digital channels make it easy to run multiple iterations of ads - so they do.This way, they can run simple appeals based on different criteria at different times, the ads stay fresh and they have a better chance of presenting the viewer with a compelling ad at a receptive moment.
They then start to use each new gamer they recruit to recruit more, by inviting them to post a message to their Facebook page letting their network know they have just signed up.
The next challenge is to build loyalty. They do this by setting regular, visible, achievable goals that reward frequent visits and disincentivise infrequent visits. Rewards are most easily earned when the gamer has just been recruited and needs to be converted from trial to active engagement.
To reduce attrition, the developers are continually innovating to provide plenty of opportunities to reach out to gamers and stop them getting bored and moving elsewhere. These often encourage gamers to create a highly personalised experience.
Over time, viral recruitment continues as the gamer is actively incentivised to recruit their friends and expand their networks to include other players. Friends can be sent free gifts and receive special rewards for helping each other. As friends are recruited, their wall posts become a reminder to continue playing.
It works brilliantly because it incentivises the behaviours that the player wants to demonstrate in that environment: friendship, sharing, social interaction.
Some financial institutions do some of these things some of the time. I receive regular statements that remind me about my bank account. I have a savings account that rewards my behaviour as well as my balance by paying more interest in months when I don't make withdrawals. Private and corporate banks run networking events that encourage people to bring their friends and colleagues.
However, all too often banks do none of these things. I have a term savings account with a bank that has not contacted me once since I opened it. It would be all too easy to forget it even existed. Presumably they hope I will continue to invest with them once the term has ended - but they have wasted the opportunity to build a relationship with me and are relying solely on interest rates and apathy to achieve that.
5 ways financial services marketers could turn loyalty into a game
The first challenge for the gamers is to encourage people to sign up. Digital channels make it easy to run multiple iterations of ads - so they do.This way, they can run simple appeals based on different criteria at different times, the ads stay fresh and they have a better chance of presenting the viewer with a compelling ad at a receptive moment.
They then start to use each new gamer they recruit to recruit more, by inviting them to post a message to their Facebook page letting their network know they have just signed up.
The next challenge is to build loyalty. They do this by setting regular, visible, achievable goals that reward frequent visits and disincentivise infrequent visits. Rewards are most easily earned when the gamer has just been recruited and needs to be converted from trial to active engagement.
To reduce attrition, the developers are continually innovating to provide plenty of opportunities to reach out to gamers and stop them getting bored and moving elsewhere. These often encourage gamers to create a highly personalised experience.
Over time, viral recruitment continues as the gamer is actively incentivised to recruit their friends and expand their networks to include other players. Friends can be sent free gifts and receive special rewards for helping each other. As friends are recruited, their wall posts become a reminder to continue playing.
It works brilliantly because it incentivises the behaviours that the player wants to demonstrate in that environment: friendship, sharing, social interaction.
Some financial institutions do some of these things some of the time. I receive regular statements that remind me about my bank account. I have a savings account that rewards my behaviour as well as my balance by paying more interest in months when I don't make withdrawals. Private and corporate banks run networking events that encourage people to bring their friends and colleagues.
However, all too often banks do none of these things. I have a term savings account with a bank that has not contacted me once since I opened it. It would be all too easy to forget it even existed. Presumably they hope I will continue to invest with them once the term has ended - but they have wasted the opportunity to build a relationship with me and are relying solely on interest rates and apathy to achieve that.
5 ways financial services marketers could turn loyalty into a game
- Provide a welcome pack for new clients shortly after the account has been opened that includes something for the client to share with their network
- Communicate returns in the context of a goal - for example, allow customers to personalise their online environment by inputting a savings/loan reduction/loyalty points goal and track and reward progress towards it. Enable users to opt to share their progress with their network if they wish
- Actively market your social marketing offerings eg Facebook pages, blogs etc to encourage clients to engage with your brand and use the channel frequently to engage clients with eg advice, invitations to exclusive events, time limited promotions etc
- Do more split testing and don't automatically rule out the variants that have lower response rates - try mapping respondents against segments to see if you have captured a different audience
- Set up your own Facebook game, tied to your brand promise and offering, and send it viral
Saturday, 3 October 2009
Credit ratings go transparent
The president of Standard and Poor's has today outlined the changes S&P will be making to restore confidence in credit ratings.
Transparency will be a key theme for financial services for the foreseeable future and S&P are responding to this by providing much more detailed information about the assumptions, stress tests and scenario analysis underpinning their ratings.
About time too.
Fund managers will find it easier to understand the ratings in the light of their own assumptions, peer review will be richer and marketers will be able to better communicate the risks involved in complex products.
However, we must remember that a demand for transparency is just another way of saying that trust and confidence has disappeared. This additional data is a really way of meeting the first two of the conditions for trust I discussed in yesterday's post - keeping promises and acting competently.
Although institutional investors may find some of the information transparency demands useful, realistically much of it is already available to them in one form or another. As for retail clients - their classification means that we have to assume the data is of no practical value to them - after all, we have the same duty of care to explain the underlying risks and ensure suitability as we ever had.
The way this information is presented is therefore potentially as important as what it says. When we incorporate it into marketing collateral, we need to remember that a major role is to communicate the underlying competence and reliability of our institutions - to the people that can't critique it as much as to those who can. After all, that's one of the reasons S&P is providing it in the first place.
Transparency will be a key theme for financial services for the foreseeable future and S&P are responding to this by providing much more detailed information about the assumptions, stress tests and scenario analysis underpinning their ratings.
About time too.
Fund managers will find it easier to understand the ratings in the light of their own assumptions, peer review will be richer and marketers will be able to better communicate the risks involved in complex products.
However, we must remember that a demand for transparency is just another way of saying that trust and confidence has disappeared. This additional data is a really way of meeting the first two of the conditions for trust I discussed in yesterday's post - keeping promises and acting competently.
Although institutional investors may find some of the information transparency demands useful, realistically much of it is already available to them in one form or another. As for retail clients - their classification means that we have to assume the data is of no practical value to them - after all, we have the same duty of care to explain the underlying risks and ensure suitability as we ever had.
The way this information is presented is therefore potentially as important as what it says. When we incorporate it into marketing collateral, we need to remember that a major role is to communicate the underlying competence and reliability of our institutions - to the people that can't critique it as much as to those who can. After all, that's one of the reasons S&P is providing it in the first place.
Thursday, 1 October 2009
What kind of relationship do you have with your customers?
As marketers, we are always looking for ways to build the relationship between our brand and our customers. It's more profitable to maintain a relationship with an existing customer than to recruit a new one and our loyal customers are the ones that can tell us what we are doing well - and badly.
That's why it's important to understand what kind of relationship we have with our customers and segment our customer base accordingly.
According to Ehrenberg et al, most customers exhibit 'polygamous loyalty' - in other words, they have a shortlist of trusted brands they do business with. Donaldson and O'Toole have suggested that there are four types of relationship we can have with our customers:
Close relationships are most likely in corporate or private banking, where the proposition is bespoke to each individual customer and switching costs are high. These days, we should probably add those customers most keen to interact with our brand: the ones that write to us with suggestions, set up fan pages, blog and tweet about our brands. These customers can become 'lighthouse customers' (Prokesch 1993) who are willing to be actively involved in focus groups, new product development and so on.
Dominant partner relationships are those where one party has (or perhaps is perceived to have) all the power - these relationships have low levels of trust and the subordinate party is probably keen to find a better relationship with another partner.
Recurrent relationships are those where the customer tends to choose the same brand but would find it easy to change to another - for example instant access savings account customers.
Discrete relationships are those where the customer makes each purchase decision individually and won't favour the existing provider - for example 'rate tarts'.
We can move customers from one category to another and increase their loyalty by increasing their trust in our brand - according to Sako, we do this by keeping our promises, performing competently, and exceeding expectations through 'goodwill' actions - the warm and fuzzy stuff that makes customers likeand identify with your brand as opposed to seeing their product as a commodity.
I think it is this final element that is most important - keeping promises and being competent are, surely, hygiene factors - it's expected and therefore will go unnoticed and unrewarded.
However, demonstrating a willingness to treat our customers as people will encourage customers to invest in a relationship with us that moves beyond the products they hold now. The better we do this, the more likely we are to be prioritised among the brands to which our customers are 'polygamously loyal'.
That's why it's important to understand what kind of relationship we have with our customers and segment our customer base accordingly.
According to Ehrenberg et al, most customers exhibit 'polygamous loyalty' - in other words, they have a shortlist of trusted brands they do business with. Donaldson and O'Toole have suggested that there are four types of relationship we can have with our customers:
| ACTION COMPONENT | |||
| High | Low | ||
| BELIEF COMPONENT | High | Close | Recurrent |
| Low | Dominant partner (hierarchical) | Discrete | |
Close relationships are most likely in corporate or private banking, where the proposition is bespoke to each individual customer and switching costs are high. These days, we should probably add those customers most keen to interact with our brand: the ones that write to us with suggestions, set up fan pages, blog and tweet about our brands. These customers can become 'lighthouse customers' (Prokesch 1993) who are willing to be actively involved in focus groups, new product development and so on.
Dominant partner relationships are those where one party has (or perhaps is perceived to have) all the power - these relationships have low levels of trust and the subordinate party is probably keen to find a better relationship with another partner.
Recurrent relationships are those where the customer tends to choose the same brand but would find it easy to change to another - for example instant access savings account customers.
Discrete relationships are those where the customer makes each purchase decision individually and won't favour the existing provider - for example 'rate tarts'.
We can move customers from one category to another and increase their loyalty by increasing their trust in our brand - according to Sako, we do this by keeping our promises, performing competently, and exceeding expectations through 'goodwill' actions - the warm and fuzzy stuff that makes customers likeand identify with your brand as opposed to seeing their product as a commodity.
I think it is this final element that is most important - keeping promises and being competent are, surely, hygiene factors - it's expected and therefore will go unnoticed and unrewarded.
However, demonstrating a willingness to treat our customers as people will encourage customers to invest in a relationship with us that moves beyond the products they hold now. The better we do this, the more likely we are to be prioritised among the brands to which our customers are 'polygamously loyal'.
Savings ratio at 16 year high - but still way off funding pensions
According to The Guardian, the savings ratio has jumped from 3% in the first quarter to 5.6% in the second quarter of 2009 - the highest level for 16 years.
However, with building societies also reporting savings outflows, it looks like people are using their savings to pay down their debts rather than building up nest eggs - although personal borrowing has levelled off rather than fallen.This suggests that financial capability (see my previous post) is improving - spending less than you earn is a key criterion and those additional pounds are being channelled in the most logical and cost-effective direction.
Given low savings interest rates, that seems sensible - but I was interested to read David Smith's point in the Sunday Times this weekend that historically, even 3% is a good savings ratio - in the 1950s, for example, the savings ratio averaged 0%. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that marketers have had some influence on that, with a wide range of savings accounts tailored to different savings needs now available making saving easier, more convenient and often more rewarding than in the past.
At the height of the last recession, the savings ratio hit 12% - suggesting that there is potential for savings balances to rise yet. However, even that figure is some way off the recommended levels needed for people to fund their retirements. With final salary pension schemes closing, as marketers we should be considering what steps we can take to encourage people to continue to increase the percentage of their income they save - and to do so in good times as well as bad. Our old ages - and our economy - depends on it.
However, with building societies also reporting savings outflows, it looks like people are using their savings to pay down their debts rather than building up nest eggs - although personal borrowing has levelled off rather than fallen.This suggests that financial capability (see my previous post) is improving - spending less than you earn is a key criterion and those additional pounds are being channelled in the most logical and cost-effective direction.
Given low savings interest rates, that seems sensible - but I was interested to read David Smith's point in the Sunday Times this weekend that historically, even 3% is a good savings ratio - in the 1950s, for example, the savings ratio averaged 0%. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that marketers have had some influence on that, with a wide range of savings accounts tailored to different savings needs now available making saving easier, more convenient and often more rewarding than in the past.
At the height of the last recession, the savings ratio hit 12% - suggesting that there is potential for savings balances to rise yet. However, even that figure is some way off the recommended levels needed for people to fund their retirements. With final salary pension schemes closing, as marketers we should be considering what steps we can take to encourage people to continue to increase the percentage of their income they save - and to do so in good times as well as bad. Our old ages - and our economy - depends on it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
