Biased advice?

As I'm from a sales background I know all about associated selling [yes you youngsters, Amazon did not invent the concept with " people who bought this book also bought … "] – but in my book and seminars I emphasise the point that for this to be effective online, experienced sales staff must be involved in the choice of 'associated' products [it's all part of my website 'dream team' issue].

So when I was looking for a new pair of Levi's, I was a surprised at Debenhams' recommendations for associated sales for the jeans I was looking at.

You will note that the model showing off the jeans is wearing a pair of baseball boots – and yet the recommended shoes seem to be two pairs of 'dress' shoes and one that might be described as 'casual'. A quick scan of the other Levi's on offer revealed that the vast majority of models are wearing 'trainer'-type shoes with only one in 'dress' shoes. I should disclose that I am firmly in the no-dress-shoes-with-jeans camp, so that might influence me here.

More objectively – I have to assume the Levi's are modelled in what is considered to be the most appropriate footwear for the jeans? So why the three shoes shown here? Could it be because they are on offer and that 'show on-promotion shoes' the 'default' setting for all types of trousers at this time of the year? OK, so I could live with that for one or two recommendations – but why not include the actual shoes shown in the jeans picture? After all, if I were in a store and talking to a sales person would they try and push associated sales that are not really suitable for the primary product? They might … but only if they are no good at their job and if they don't want to see you back in the shop again.

On the plus side – well, partial plus is – that in the product description of the jeans the height of the model is given along with the size of jeans being worn, so giving buyers a better idea of the size and fit of the products. Why 'partial' plus? Not all jeans' descriptions included this information – including the 501s I was looking at.

not that ... but this

For reasons I won't go into I was looking for an early Toyota MR2 - that is, a Mk1 [Mark One] MR2. Amongst the pages that appeared after a search was this one from Kelkoo.

You will note that it is for a different car.

So who decided that Kelkoo's on-site search should present this return - and why?  OK, so I worked in sales and I know that if a customers asked for a black shirt and if you don't stock them you might suggest a dark blue or dark brown one and maybe the customer will take a look at them. But this is not a shopping experience, it is a specific search for a specific product. Ho humm.

listen: I said we are closed !!!

When researching a new assignment for my e-marketing module [yes students, I do put some thought into these things :) ] I was looking at some online jewellery stores - and came across this one in Kuala Lumpur [the module is also delivered in Malaysia].

OK, so I do not know why this business is closed over - and before - the Christmas period. There could be a perfectly valid reason - though it is unlikely to be 'Christmas' as Malaysia is an Islamic country. Perhaps, historically, it is the quietest business period of the year and so they take their holidays in this time - though it does make a mockery of the 24/7/365 nature of online-shopping. Anyhoo, the owners have decided to close it,  but that is not the point of this entry - it is the way they tell customers about it. Or should I say, potential customers. Or maybe I should say never-to-be-customers?  

Unless you were already a satisfied customer who had made previous purchases, would you return to this store in the New Year? Why not explain the closure, or just have a softer message rather than this one which is the equivalent of slamming the door in customers' faces?

jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none?

I'm back on my hobby-horse again - you know ... the one about techies developing websites. This is a website I came across as a link at the bottom of another website [if you own a website you NEVER have a 'designed by' link on your site]. Here's the navigation bar from the designer's site:

Yep - these folk are experts at all of these things. It is my experience that few - and I mean very, very, very few - can do all of these things. Of course, it might be a biggish company employing staff with this range of skills - but the content of their site suggests otherwise. In other words, the same people who handle the hard- and software issues also design websites. Which means they might be able to produce a website technically - but can they produce a website that can meet the online objectives of that organization? And do they even ask what the objectives are? And do they have the marketing skills and/or qualifications to help the org realise those objectives? In my experience, the answer is no. And so their customers get ineffectual websites - oh, they might look nice, but do they do the job they are there for? [and if you think I am the only one who feels this way, take a look at the quote from James Dyson in my review of the Stranger's Long Neck] 

I have removed anything that might identify the company concerned - but this is the page you get when you click on the 'web design' link.  

Notice how it makes no mention of marketing, communications or content - but instead concentrates on ASP, HTML, VB, database [there should be a hyphen in here as it is a compound adjective] driven sales, Flash animation and dynamic sites. I don't know what some of those are - so will your average business person?   And do they need to? These are technical aspects of a website that might [a big might, regular readers will know my opposition to Flash] help it meet the needs of its visitors, but the business person doesn't need to know about the behind-the-scenes IT aspects of the site.  Ho hum - it is developers like these that keep me in consultancy work.

Footnote - I cover this same issue all over the place, but the latest is on websites made easy.

Google on message?

I got a leaflet in a Sunday supplement last week - well, I say 'leaflet' ... think more 'small brochure' - and yesterday I saw the same promotion featured in an ad in The Times newspaper. It is for Google's good to know campaign.

I find the whole thing very interesting - on a number of levels. I suggest you spend a few minutes on the site before considering my comments.

• On a marketing level: telling the 'person in the street' that Google [still?] does no evil and how it [Google] helps them live their lives?

• On a content level: I find my students struggle a little with things like IP addresses [they're marketers not techies, see what is it with me and IT?] and yet the promotion uses such terms - though yes, it is in simplistic terms.

So do I like the campaign? Well, it is in partnership with the Citizens Advice Bureau [a UK non-profit organization] which means it carries some validity in its stated aim of  being primarily about privacy and safety online. 

So why do I still have an uncomfortable feeling about the search giant's new privacy portal?  And why does the term 'PR stunt' keep coming to mind? [in fairness, if it is - kudos for a good PR stunt]

switch & bait?

The concept of bait and switch includes the practice of advertising at a low price - with the actual buying price being higher. This ad does just the opposite. Oh dear.

just the ticket. not

At the beginning of the year I posted register - just to check availability complaining that I had to register on the Blackpool FC website just to see if there were any tickets still available for a match. Welllll ... that's not the end of the issue, because yesterday I received this email:

Now, I'm pretty sure that somewhere in the registration there was small print saying they could contact me with marketing offers [I can't remember if the was a tick-box to opt out], so this isn't illegal - but it is very bad practice to send direct marketing emails out on a 'cc' basis so that all of the recipients can see all of the emails addresses of all of the other recipients. I would be really surprised if my address - along with around 300 others isn't already doing the spam rounds as I type.

 

Oh, and by the way ... related to my original posting - take a look at the greeting on the email: 'dear BFC season ticket holder' - clearly I am not. 

demandware demanding too much

I've hi-lighted this kind of thing before - but it seems some folk just don't learn. This one is more ironic because the requested document is a piece of commissioned research - let's hope the research questionnaire was better designed than this form.

I can remember back in the 1990s how it was common practice for US-based organizations to insist on a 'zip code' on their online forms. Well, I thought we'd moved past that ... but apparently not. This form actually gives the user of choosing their country from a long list - but still insists on a State being entered [Sunderland is now in Wyoming, by the way]. All it needed in the 'States' field was a 'not in the USA' option. Or better still, have the techies override the necessity for the 'State' field to be completed if the user selected a country other than the USA. 

an email from Emily Bronte?

One of the problems of having me as a customer is that I get the opportunity to point out your faults - and it's KLM again. My personalized copy of the latest edition of their 'ifly' online magazine looked like this:

Am I the only one in thinking that this greeting was not only a bit too personal, but from the pages of a Nineteenth Century novel?

double vision

No explanation required on this one - though be sure it is the designers' fault and not that of my computer. If my PC couldn't handle whatever software that is being used it is not my fault for owning that PC, it is the designers' for serving up a page which its target market couldn't read.

bad connection from Sky

I had reason to contact Sky about my broadband connection. When I eventually found a contact phone number on their website, the page gave me pop-up message:

 ... but when I typed sky.com/callpricing into my browser I was redirected to this page:

... and on it I could find no trace of call pricing. I've got a feeling that the provision of call rates to 08 numbers is a legal requirement?

fishing for a phishing link

I got an email in my inbox which - to me - was an obvious phishing attempt which purported to be from my Cahoot credit card account. So being the civic-minded kind of chap I am, I logged on to my Cahoot account to tell them about it. Now, many sites [eg eBay, PayPal] have an obvious 'report suspicious emails' link where you can forward such emails so that the company is aware of them and so take action to prevent them. Sure enough, when logging on to Cahoot [it is a Santander brand] the following was next to the log-on box:

However, when you get into the site there is no 'report phishing' link or email address. Indeed, the only email address on the site is complaints@santander [anyone else see the irony there?] - so I forwarded my phishing email to that address, asking that it be passed on to the right folk. I then got an immediate automated reply, which is standard practice, but take a look at part of that message:

Hello
Thanks for your e-mail.
 This is a receipt to let you know we've received your message, and we'll reply as soon as we can. 
...

Please note - A NUMBER OF FRAUDULENT E-MAILS ALLEGING TO BE FROM SANTANDER ARE CURRENTLY IN CIRCULATION.

Santander will never send you an e-mail asking you to click on a link, or to enter, reconfirm or change your security or card details. We will never ask you to tell us your passwords by e-mail or over the phone.
...

You can also help Santander by forwarding any Phishing email you receive to: 
phishing@santander.co.uk

We can’t respond directly to any questions via this e-mail address, but all e-mails are processed, and urgent action is taken against Phishing sites identified.   

Is it stating the obvious to ask why that email address isn't on the main website? And how many people would have set out to forward the phishing email - but given up when such a contact email wasn't on the site? The cynic in me asks if Santander really want you to send them your phishing emails - or is it just poor website content management?

would you like some snake oil with that sir?

My regular postman [person?] knows that my monthly box of contact lenses goes through my letter box, but when it arrived on his day off the temp guy took it back to the Post Office - leaving a card saying what he had done. So I went online and selected another day for it to be delivered [very efficient use of the web]. Sadly, it didn't turn up, so I completed the relevant 'missing parcel' form online. To cut this already boring story short, the box arrived eventually - but the following is the final email from the 'Escalated Customer Resolution Team' [escalated ... do they all arrive in the office on a moving staircase?]

 Dear Mr Charlesworth

Thank you for your further contact with Royal Mail.

May I offer my sincere apologies for the concern and inconvenience that this matter has caused.  I fully appreciate how important it is for our customers to have confidence in our ability to redeliver mail when requested and it is always disappointing when a customer expresses dissatisfaction with any aspect of our service.

On receipt of your email I contacted the Manager of your local Delivery Office asking for a report into this matter. 

I have been advised that the item had been located at callers' office in Mary Street for redelivery.  This I was advised was taking place on Saturday 1 October and I’m please to learn from your further email that the item has now been received. 

In closing, I would like to give you my assurance that we at Royal Mail are not complacent about such failures in our service, and we are constantly striving to ensure that you receive the level of service you have every right to expect. I hope your future dealings with us are of a more positive nature.

I trust you will be satisfied with my response.  However if you remain unhappy you can have your case reviewed by the Postal Review Panel.  The Panel will take a new look at your complaint and will provide you with a final response on behalf of Royal Mail.  They can be contacted by emailing:

postalreview@royalmail.com

or by writing to: FREEPOST Postal Review Panel.

Regards

**** *******
Escalated Customer Resolution Team

In my book [page 103], I say that website content should never be 'self-serving' - well this moves into being sycophantic. OK, I know this is in an email, but the same applies. As I suggest in the title of this entry,  this has the ring of a snake oil salesman about it.  A simply; 'sorry, we got it wrong but it out sorted it out in the end' would have meant much more to me. 

Apple: stylish in memorial

Can't say I'm a fan of Apple - but I can appreciate that its products have changed things a lot [with a lot of help from some world-class marketing]. One thing Apple has is style - and that is reflected in the apple.com home page on the day Steve Jobs died.

no saving this subscription

Here's an online store I have spent a lot of money with over the years - but it is an example of getting your email promotion frequency wrong. I buy a pair of gloves once, maybe twice, a year - so do I need emails every week? No I don't. Which brings us to the subject of this entry to my blog: I decided to unsubscribe, but the 'unsubscribe' link is embedded in the image, and doesn't work [note in the image below, the arrow should have become a pointing finger to denote a link]. I'm pretty sure that in the UK at least, that is illegal.