Tag Archives: Peppers and Rogers Group

Transformations: No Baby Steps

The Fourth Annual Inc Web Awards: Transformations Transformations Peppers and Rogers Group Latour & Lleras Edmunds.com Lucas Group slp3D I ain’t changed, but I know I ain’t the same. — Jakob Dylan, The Wallflowers, “One Headlight” Many company founders who did their founding before the mid 1990s will recognize the paradox at the core of Jakob Dylan’s lament. Their companies are still in the same industries and locations, still managed by the same leadership. And yet they’re not the same. Something significant has changed about what they do or how they do it, about their customers or their revenue models or their cultures. All because the Web came knocking and they let it in. The winners in our Transformations category weren’t satisfied with tweaks. Tantalized by the Web’s potential, they tossed out their old approaches and started fresh. Local businesses reinvented themselves as national stars virtually overnight. Technology laggards rushed to the front lines. Companies that had grown comfortable over decades started working and making money in ways their owners could not have imagined. The Web, these founders realized, is not a baby-steps technology. Having embraced it, they know that their companies are not the same. They wouldn’t want them to be. The Fourth Annual Inc Web Awards Transformations Thank You for Sharing Paradise Found This Year’s Model The Search Engine MD-TV Please e-mail your comments to editors@inc.com.

Solving the Opt-in/Opt-out Debate

Privacy issues are everywhere in business. Like dandelions in summer, Chief Privacy Officers are popping up among the Fortune 1000 and beyond, tackling compliance issues, deciphering new legislation, cultivating the “privacy brand,” and keeping up with competitors. But CPO or otherwise, most execs only do what’s necessary to avoid litigation. Their goal is to achieve compliance, using privacy strategies to protect the bottom line rather than boost it. It also positions privacy protection as a cost center rather than a customer-based revenue generator. Decision makers must implement privacy strategies that act in the customers’ best interests as well as protect company interest. In doing so, firms can become trusted agents able to capture revenue. A good place to start is the familiar opt-in vs. opt-out policy debate. “Opt in” gives communication control to the customer, allowing him to check a box if he wants to be contacted by a company. If he doesn’t check the box, he’ll never hear a thing, even from a company he’s already doing business with. The opt-out system, however, acts as a “tacit yes.” It lets customers decide not to receive further communications; but until the customer explicitly requests a cessation of contact, a marketer can bombard her indefinitely. It strikes us that companies that limit themselves to these choices aren’t effectively serving the needs of customers or themselves. When black and white gets fuzzyIn other words, consumers must often choose between accepting a full-scale, marketing assault or a “lights-out” approach in which they’re never informed of relevant offers. With such strict choices, it should come as no surprise that Forrester Research reports only 18 percent of customers respond to opt-in or out-out requests. Such low response hurts the company and possibly the customer. Why? If the 18 percent opt in, then a company is limited to contacting less than one-fifth of its customer base — even though many customers just never got around to letting the company know they want to be contacted. If the opt-out route is taken, key customers may become annoyed about receiving communications they didn’t ask for. From lose-lose to win-winPeppers and Rogers Group has long advocated letting customers determine the style and pace of a relationship. So why not translate this to privacy policies as well? Customers should be able choose what they want, when to be contacted, and across which channels. The solution may be a tiered opt-in system that gives the customer more choices when it comes to communication. For example, a customer might say, “It’s okay to email me three times a month for product ‘A’, but don’t ever call me.” Companies that honor this request will provide relevant and timely messages based on customer needs, cutting through the marketing noise to achieve better results. Instead of opt in or opt out, companies can focus on customer choice and company policy disclosure. This begs an important question: Why would anyone bother with the tiered system if only 18 percent of customers opt in or out? Here’s one solution: Pay customers to provide information. After all, firms pay list brokers top dollar for valuable customer information, and competitors sometimes share their lists for a price. By going directly to the customers, companies can cut out the middleman while simultaneously learning each customer’s interaction preferences. Technology barriers would emerge at first — especially campaign and database management issues — but the ROI would be well worth the investment. From the courtroom to the boardroomPerhaps the biggest challenge is the change in executive mindset that would be required. Most companies haven’t thought about customizing their opt-in policies because privacy decisions rattle around legal departments rather than customer strategy areas. Until that vital shift is made, privacy protection will remain an untapped, relationship-building resource. Source: INSIDE 1to1, September 2002© Peppers and Rogers Group

Are Personalization and Privacy Really at Odds?

Today’s companies treat different customers differently for one basic reason: because they can. The technologies that enable personalization have only recently become practical, but the fact that personalization can occur now means that it must occur. Customers demand it. As a result, companies everywhere are incorporating personalization into their business models in order to build loyalty and generate revenue. Bruce Kasanoff, privacy expert and author of, “Making It Personal: How to Profit from Personalization without Invading Privacy,” says the widespread adoption of personalization is inevitable. “You will no more think of ignoring the differences between customers than you would think of charging a customer for a product you never delivered,” he says. Yet, we’ve also heard the frequently repeated maxim that protecting your customers’ privacy must be the centerpiece of any effort to profit from personalization strategies. For many executives, this poses a conundrum: How do I acquire and utilize customer data — and personalization — to generate business while protecting my customers’ privacy at the same time? Why is it that personalization and privacy seem to be at odds? Kasanoff argues the conflict exists because most companies ignore the personal side of one-to-one relationships. They collect personal information solely in order to sell whatever products happen to be in their marketing plan. The truth is that personalization, when applied in the context of a genuinely effective one-to-one program, should not conflict with individual privacy protection. This is because relationships, to be effective, must be built on trust, but a customer’s trust cannot be secured if he has any doubts at all about whether his privacy will be protected. The conflict between personalization and privacy only arises when companies view it from the “wrong end of the telescope.” If you start by asking how you can use personalization to sell your customers more stuff, then privacy abuse is one likely outcome. But this is the wrong philosophical approach to relationship building. The right question to ask is how you can use personalization technologies to add value for your customers, by saving them time or money, or creating a better fitting or more appropriate product. That said, there are several issues executives must be prepared to address when jumping into the personalization game. Just as different customers have different needs, different people have different levels of sensitivity with respect to protecting their privacy. In fact, just agreeing on a definition of privacy protection can be problematic. Do you partner with other companies to render services to your customer? If so, are you accountable for a partner’s privacy policies? If you give a customer’s personal information to an outside company, is that a violation of the customer’s privacy? What if you give it to another division within your own firm? And just what is the damage of a privacy violation, anyway? Getting to the bottom of these issues is critical to making personalization and privacy click. For those companies that do, the secret is out: privacy and personalization are in. E 2001 Peppers and Rogers Group. Do not duplicate. Copyright strictly enforced.

Are Personalization and Privacy Really at Odds?

Today’s companies treat different customers differently for one basic reason: because they can. The technologies that enable personalization have only recently become practical, but the fact that personalization can occur now means that it must occur. Customers demand it. As a result, companies everywhere are incorporating personalization into their business models in order to build loyalty and generate revenue. Bruce Kasanoff, privacy expert and author of, “Making It Personal: How to Profit from Personalization without Invading Privacy,” says the widespread adoption of personalization is inevitable. “You will no more think of ignoring the differences between customers than you would think of charging a customer for a product you never delivered,” he says. Yet, we’ve also heard the frequently repeated maxim that protecting your customers’ privacy must be the centerpiece of any effort to profit from personalization strategies. For many executives, this poses a conundrum: How do I acquire and utilize customer data — and personalization — to generate business while protecting my customers’ privacy at the same time? Why is it that personalization and privacy seem to be at odds? Kasanoff argues the conflict exists because most companies ignore the personal side of one-to-one relationships. They collect personal information solely in order to sell whatever products happen to be in their marketing plan. The truth is that personalization, when applied in the context of a genuinely effective one-to-one program, should not conflict with individual privacy protection. This is because relationships, to be effective, must be built on trust, but a customer’s trust cannot be secured if he has any doubts at all about whether his privacy will be protected. The conflict between personalization and privacy only arises when companies view it from the “wrong end of the telescope.” If you start by asking how you can use personalization to sell your customers more stuff, then privacy abuse is one likely outcome. But this is the wrong philosophical approach to relationship building. The right question to ask is how you can use personalization technologies to add value for your customers, by saving them time or money, or creating a better fitting or more appropriate product. That said, there are several issues executives must be prepared to address when jumping into the personalization game. Just as different customers have different needs, different people have different levels of sensitivity with respect to protecting their privacy. In fact, just agreeing on a definition of privacy protection can be problematic. Do you partner with other companies to render services to your customer? If so, are you accountable for a partner’s privacy policies? If you give a customer’s personal information to an outside company, is that a violation of the customer’s privacy? What if you give it to another division within your own firm? And just what is the damage of a privacy violation, anyway? Getting to the bottom of these issues is critical to making personalization and privacy click. For those companies that do, the secret is out: privacy and personalization are in. E 2001 Peppers and Rogers Group. Do not duplicate. Copyright strictly enforced.

The 2001 Inc Web Awards: Winners

The 2001 Inc Web Awards General Excellence Winner All-Outdoors Whitewater Rafting www.aorafting.com First place, Customer Service Second place, ROI Marketing finalist Honorable Mention Nova Cruz Products LLC www.xootr.com First place, Design Third place, Marketing ROI finalist Customer Service First place All-Outdoors Whitewater Rafting www.aorafting.com Second place Cadkey Corp. www.cadkey.com Third place Street Glow Inc. www.streetglow.com Design First place Nova Cruz Products LLC www.xootr.com Second place TidalWire Inc. www.tidalwire.com Third place Mosca www.moscahome.com Management (intranets and extranets*) First place Sunbelt Business Brokers Network Inc. www.sunbeltnetwork.com Second place National Services Group www.nationalservicesgroup.com Third place SLP Capital www.slpcapital.com Marketing First place Merriman Capital Management www.fundadvice.com Second place Earth Treks Inc. www.earthtreksclimbing.com Third place Nova Cruz Products LLC www.xootr.com ROI First place Ipswitch Inc. www.ipswitch.com Second place All-Outdoors Whitewater Rafting www.aorafting.com Third place The Connoisseur.cc Ltd. www.low-carb.com Sole Proprietors First place Limelight www.limelightart.com Second place Somerset Estate Sales www.somerset-estate-sales.com Third place Restaurant Connection Inc. www.restaurantstaffing.com *Management awards are given for Web sites that are password protected, so the URLs are only for the companies’ general sites. How the 2001 Inc Web Awards winners were selected: Earlier this year, 800 small businesses applied online for the 2001 Inc Web Awards. Using an Internet-based judging site, members of the Inc editorial staff screened all applications, eliminating ineligible entries and selecting finalists in six categories: Customer Service, Design, Management (intranets and extranets), Marketing, Return on Investment (ROI), and Sole Proprietors. We then had outside judges (listed on facing page) review the Web sites and submit comments and recommendations. Based on the judges’ input, Inc selected the winners. The Judges Ryan Bernard is president of Wordmark Associates Inc., in Houston, and the author of The Corporate Intranet. Mary E. Boone is the president of Boone Associates, in Norwalk, Conn., and author of Managing Inter@ctively: ExecutingBusiness Strategy, Improving Communication, and Creating a Knowledge-Sharing Culture. Bonny Brown is director of research at Vividence Corp., in San Mateo, Calif. Erik Brynjolfsson is codirector of the Center for eBusiness@MIT at the Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in Cambridge, Mass. Michelle Chambers is the president and founder of New Tilt, in Somerville, Mass. Larry Chase is a New York-based marketing consultant, author of Essential Business Tactics for the Net, and publisher or Web Digest for Marketers in New York City. Steve Crummey is the cofounder and chairman of Intranets.com Inc., in Woburn, Mass. Bill Demas is an executive vice-president of Vividence Corp., in San Mateo, Calif. Paul Edwards is a self-employment consultant and the coauthor of Home-Based Business for Dummies. He is based in Pine Mountain Club, Calif. Martin T. Focazio is the CEO of Martin T. Focazio LLC, in Upper Black Eddy, Pa., and author of The e-Factor. Jeffrey Harkness is the cofounder of Diesel Design in San Francisco and the host of CNet’s monthly Design Talk radio program. John Hartnett is the CEO and president of BlueMissile, in Minneapolis. Randy J. Hinrichs is the group research manager in Learning Sciences and Technology, Microsoft Research, Microsoft Corp., in Redmond, Wash., and the author of Intranets: What’s the Bottom Line? Donna L. Hoffman is a professor of management, director of the electronic commerce concentration, and codirector of the eLab at the Owen Graduate School of Management, Vanderbilt University, in Nashville. Peter Kent is president of Top Floor Publishing, in Lakewood, Colo., and the author of Poor Richard’s Web Site. Michael P. Largey is the executive vice-president of IT Web Solutions Inc., in West Long Branch, N.J. Terri Lonier is the president of Working Solo Inc., a consulting firm in San Francisco, and the author of Working Solo: The Real Guide to Freedom & Financial Success with Your Own Business. Harley Manning is a research director at Forrester Research Inc. in Cambridge, Mass. Jakob Nielsen is a principal at Nielsen Norman Group, in Fremont, Calif., and the author of Designing Web Usability. Richard W. Oliver is a professor of management at Owen Graduate School of Management, Vanderbilt University, in Nashville. Don Peppers and Martha Rogers are founding partners of Peppers and Rogers Group, in Norwalk, Conn., and the coauthors of One to One B2B. Patricia B. Seybold is CEO of Patricia Seybold Group Inc., in Boston, and the author of Customers.com: How to Create A Profitable Business Strategy for the Internet & Beyond and The Customer Revolution. Beerud Sheth is the cofounder and general manager of eLance Inc., in Sunnyvale, Calif. James Slavet is the cofounder of Guru Inc., in San Francisco. Robert Spiegel is the author of The Shoestring Entrepreneur’s Guide to the Best Home-Based Businesses. He lives in Albuquerque. Phil Terry is the CEO of Creative Good Inc., in New York City. Mark C. Thompson is chairman and CEO of Network Public Broadcasting International Inc., in San Francisco, and chairman of Integration Associates Inc., in Mountain View, Calif. Bruce D. Weinberg is an associate professor of marketing and E-commerce at McCallum Graduate School of Business, Bentley College, in Waltham, Mass. Marcia Yudkin is the Boston-based author of Poor Richard’s Web Site Marketing Makeover and other Internet marketing guides. Ron Zemke is the president of Performance Research Associates Inc., in Minneapolis, and coauthor of E-Service: 24 Ways to Keep Your Customers When the Competition is Just a Click Away and other books. The 2001 Inc Web Awards The Best Small-Business Sites in America The 2001 Inc Web Awards: Winners A Web Strategy Runs Through It Traffic Magnets Duh-sign of the Times Home Groan Many Happy Returns Please e-mail your comments to editors@inc.com.

Web Awards 2000: Customer Service

First place Sumerset Custom Houseboats (See ” Web Awards 2000: General Excellence.”) Second place Help Yourself Company: Ives Development Inc. Web address: www.teamstudio.com Why it won: Robust personal-account management treats each customer as an individual. Company revenues: $7 million Site-launch cost: $75,000 Judge’s view: “This software company has developed innovative, cost-effective ways for getting upgrades to clients and performing complex customer service.” –Evan Schwartz Individual preference is the order of the day at Teamstudio.com, the Web site for Ives Development Inc., a software vendor in Beverly, Mass. Users of Ives’s software-engineering tools can elect to serve themselves in a variety of ways. Customers can send E-mail queries or get free telephone support. They can also search the Ives KnowledgeBase or post a question to one of two discussion forums, where peers as well as tech-support staffers answer questions. Customers appreciate those options — which many software-company sites offer today — although Ives CEO Nigel Cheshire, 41, ruefully admits that most users tend to pick up the phone the minute they have a problem. Human nature being what it is, Ives may never succeed in training its customers to fully help themselves with support issues. So the company has managed to slash costs in other ways. All Ives software is available for downloading on the site, which dramatically reduces CD production and distribution expenses. And customers get an automatic E-mail message when new releases of their products are available, which eliminates snail-mail costs. Personal-account management is by far the best self-service feature on the site. Customers can manage their accounts online, seeing at a glance which products they have licenses for, how many licenses they’ve bought, and when the maintenance agreements on their licenses are due to expire. “In the near future, our customers will be able to link to a page within an E-mail message and renew all their agreements in one place,” says Cheshire. Anything to make life easier for a beleaguered software developer. –Lauren Gibbons Paul Third place PostNet International Franchise Corp. (See ” Web Awards 2000: Community.”) Conversation with Martha Rogers Judge: Customer Service There’s nothing Martha Rogers hates more than being treated like everyone else. And that unfortunately is how most companies treat their customers — like peas in a pod. Ask Rogers for examples of companies that treat her differently from other customers, and she cites American Airlines, which “remembers” what she tells the airline every time she calls or logs on to its Web site. Consequently, American offers her individualized information — not just what a flight to Reno costs this week. “They know my zip code and what school system I’m in, and as a result, they send a message that says, ‘Welcome back, Martha, we’d like to offer your family a vacation package for spring break.’ This is customer service on steroids,” declares Rogers, who is a partner at the Peppers and Rogers Group. How can a company that’s a fraction of the size of American Airlines reach such a lofty standard? Rogers offers these pointers: Identify your customers individually. “If I can’t remember the problem you had six months ago, or I don’t learn from this transaction a way that will help me consistently serve you better in the future, then it’s an isolated incident,” says Rogers. “That’s better than nothing, but it’s far from building a relationship. So the first thing I need to be able to do is identify you as you every time you come in, through any channel.” Determine the value of your customers and treat them accordingly. “This means I recognize that you are of greater value than Martha is, and therefore I’m going to make different offers to you or spend more resources on you.” Get your customers to interact with you. “If I can learn something from you, I can give you what’s best for you and give your next-door neighbor what’s best for your next-door neighbor.” Use that information to customize your site. “I’d like to see these sites go beyond ‘Welcome back, Martha.’ I’d like them to pull together an automated message that’s relevant to me based on information I’ve given them, not based on everything that’s true about my demographic group,” says Rogers. –Elaine Appleton Grant Annual Web Awards 2000 General Excellence Marketing Customer Service ROI Innovation Community Judges Please e-mail your comments to editors@inc.com.