|
|
NOTE: My blog has now moved to HTTP://WWW.SOCIALEFFECT.ORG with all new content aggregated at HTTP://RIZWANTAYABALI.INFO - I'm writing about social business, change and human transformation, customer centricity and organisational design. Please change your subscription link to http://feeds.feedburner.com/socialeffect
-
I'm obviously well behind in the race to be the first trendspotter for 2008, but since it's still January I reckon it's still early enough to look at the year ahead and aggregate what the experts say is likely to be big for multi-channel business innovators as we move seriously into the digital age. I'm going to keep it simple because explanations could run into pages, so here's a few bullets on what I think is worth keeping an eye on for the future Web - Local and Hyperlocal social networks - My Street type thing – neighbourhoods, apartments, clubs, companies etc
- Private social networks - More privacy in social networks
- Opensource social networking - OpenSocial, OpenID, OpenAds, FOAF (Friend of a Friend networks)
- SocialSoftware - White label social networking applications like KickApps
- More Virtual reality - Second Life, There.com, Kaneva, Gaia, Habbo Hotel etc
- DRM free music download from major players - This is pretty much done now
- Internet TV and Video - IPTV, Video streaming & Online Cinema
- Make it yourself media – Pictures, blogs, music, video
- eReaders and eBooks - Kindle, Sony Reader
- Videoblogging
Mobile & MCommerce - Mobile expansion – Yes, it's stating the obvious!
- Open source platforms and applications - Google Android
- WiMax, Wifi services inflight (broadband inflight, on trains etc)
- Mcdonalds recent provision of free wireless could start a high street trend. Once mobile internet becomes fast and free, the mobile as a browsing and commerce medium is seriously going to kick off and Touch Screen phones will become ubiquitous
- Continued uptake of smart phones particularly in offices
- Mobile Marketing
- Mobile Payments - This gap is itching to be filled with a secure cost-effective payments provider. This is happening already with companies like LUUP and mCommerce will become a more serious prospect. Other more direct options like Obopay are also becoming available.
- (Live) videocasting from mobiles to the web
- Mobile social networking - Mobiluck, Migg33, Meetmoi, Loopt, SoonR, Aki-Aki are already some examples, with the standard twitter, tumblr, facebook status updaters already tapping into mobile mania
- Mobile Spam - Surprised it hasn't happened yet! Major security implications.
Ecommerce - Leveraging social networking for business return - Oldish news, but it's going to more than just about Facebook this year
- Group buying - Crowdstorm, Yub.com
- Social Shopping - Kaboodle, Wists, ThisNext
- Network Analysis for marketing and customer relationship management - See my post on Natural Networks
- Increasing digital/internet marketing - Rapidly growing Internet advertising market is expected to rake in US$27.5 billion in 2008, according to eMarketer.
- Revenue sharing advertising models
- Virtual payments - Paypal Secure Card, Google Checkout
- Branded prepaid payment cards - Payoneer
- Revenue based social networking - Dada, MeYouWorld etc. .. yes we're talking the dreaded pyramid schemes for the web
General Technology & Business - Outsourcing maturity
- Business innovation will become more based on creativity and design - Design Thinking
- Disruptive Innovation from other industries as new competition - unexpected entrants like the iPhone and Google adsense
- "Peer-to-peer lending" - Facilitation of loans between complete strangers
- Buyer niches – Gender, age, Generations 'Y' and ‘Z’
- "Premiumisation" – Particularly air travel premium and business classes
- "See hear buy" – eg. Music on websites, Books on kindle, Midomi (sound recognition search engine)
- Social lending & Microfinance
- Social Entrepreneurship & CSR
That should give you plenty to think about. Enjoy!
|
-
As I'm sure you already know, the World Wide Web was invented by a guy called Tim Berners Lee, and I recently came across an interesting interview with him around the social web phenomenon. Here's a short snippet worth taking note of. "The web has developed from a technological tool, based on technical protocols, to something that also combines social rules. The internet is based on a series of microscopic rules that combine to affect social behaviour on a macroscopic level, though we do not yet understand how this works. A site such as eBay is designed and built using protocols such as the mechanisms to identify its users, determine reputations and make payments. However, it is also based on a social system of buying, selling and reputation. It was designed to work for two people, but because eBay got the microscopic design right, it created a new market that works on a large scale. Web 2.0 initiatives such as social networking sites have also been technically designed to define the way people talk to each other, but have grown to form macroscopic communities..." (Read the full article) In effect what Berners Lee is saying is that the success of any online enterprise is going to be more and more dependent on understanding the social psychology of audiences on the web. I guess this means understanding the real life motivations and network interactions of the person behind the customer in your target group. For businesses looking to tap into the benefits of Web 2.0 and social networking, it probably means the need to start extending their Persona models to encompass group behaviour rather than just that of the individual.
|
-
A recent question around the area of personalisation and customisation as part of the web offering of mature retail brands got me thinking about this post, because it's an issue I've seen with a number of organisations. The first problem lies with semantics - i.e. the definition of personalisation vs customisation with respect to the use and design of websites. I see one as automatic audience targeting and the other as the ability for the customer to manipulate the website to fit their needs... the former as personalisation and the latter as customisation. As a business your first priority is to define your understanding of what each one means so that all parties are working from the same standpoint. In terms of personalisation as per the above definition then, I reckon this is the future of customer focused business intelligence. It is about understanding the customer, either as part of a larger group or as an individual and then presenting them with their own unique customer experience. User Experience experts can help with audience segmentation analysis, identifying key audience groups and defining an experience that best fits/targets them. Similar to personas, but a bit more generic and more automated; with some business logic that leverages the user's profile data and preference information along with their browsing habits to present them with the scenario that fits them. From a technology and business intelligence perspective you could implement real time tracking and analysis of user behaviour, underpinning the automated tailoring of content presented as the user progresses through their experience. Sort of an extension of what I was talking about in an earlier post on the targeted channel experience. In terms of customisation, from an online retailing perspective, I don't really see the benefits against cost of development. You could provide a 'Windows Live' type page where users can customise what they see and how they see it, but frankly with mature retailers I don't see who would really use it. Shared personal profiles that users can customise similarly don't really make sense for this type of business, or at least not until social networking in the mature brand shopping context becomes significantly more embedded, if it ever does. However, simpler customisation linked to personalisation, could be very useful; for e.g. possibly like a variation on the Amazon recommendations model, where the user could be presented with an option alongside product displays allowing them to select items into a 'not interested' and 'I like' category that can then not only automatically build them their own page they can refer to and edit later, but also feeds into the intelligent browsing stuff I was talking about in the previous paragraph - i.e. this information is used to understand what the user is looking for and preferentially feed them those products as they browse or search, thus enhancing the targeted browsing experience. This could help retailers improve their offering to customers online, increasing not just browse to sale conversions, but also brand loyalty because the customer feels understood.
|
-
A major struggle in gaining buy-in to fund user experience work is the difficulty in presenting a business case for usability. So here’s some interesting stats from the recent Usability & User Experience Survey Report from July 2007, as compiled through market research by eConsultancy in association with Bunnyfoot. The following are the top 6 benefits of usability ordered by percentage of responses from companies who felt that usability had a benefit Improved perceptions of brand (54%) Increased conversion rates (53%) Greater customer loyalty and retention (46%) Increased customer advocacy (38%) Increased traffic (36%) Improved search rankings (33%)
Crucially some 45% of respondents reported that their organisation gets an ROI of 300% or more from usability investment, although the report didn’t specify the frameworks used for determining ROI. Further in order of popularity, the top 9 usability services being used by organisations are as follows User testing (62%) Expert usability evaluation (52%) Information architecture (50%) Full user centred design (37%) Accessibility audit (34%) Eyetracking (26%) Field research / ethnography (25%) Card sorting (22%) Testing with disabled users (19%)
And finally of course you need to know the main areas of resistance to implementing usability best practice so that you can help the organisation address and manage these The biggest barriers to user experience, again ordered by percentage of respondents who cited them as follows: Time pressure to get things done (56%) Lack of internal resource (45%) Lack of budget (37%) Company culture / politics (35%) IT bottleneck (27%) Lack of internal buy-in (23%) Lack of know-how (16%) Project management difficulties (13%)
Time pressure is cited most commonly as a major barrier for organisations, which suggests that consultants should focus on ways of minimising project management impact on the responsible owners on client side before embarking on any major usability work.
|
-
Interesting snippet from Forrester European research in 2006 suggests that of the people who aren't actually shopping online, the majority avoid ecommerce for two major reasons: They want to be able to see what they're buying and they're worried about financial security. 
For retailers and ecommerce site designers I'd suggest this means two things - Focus on better product display: Thumbnails leading to high quality pictures. Clear descriptions and specifications. Zoom functions. Rotatable 3D views. Size and specification comparisons. What about even video with people displaying and discussing the product particularly for higher end items? Finally why not provide free try and return on products the user is not happy with - similar to catalogue selling. Basically make it easier for people to take the risk of buying a product they haven't physically held.
- Improve the security messages on your websites: Have clear, prominent and easy to understand safeguards to build user confidence. This is not about a simple FAQ page, but an active marketing campaign on the home-page that draws visitors into knowing more about your commitment to their privacy and financial safety. Invest in fraud detection and management software and develop dedicated customer service functions that not only deal with security issues but also field calls and build dialogue with nervous customers.
|
-
POST SUMMARY - Developing the targeted channel experience // I was recently reading up on consumer trends and one that caught my eye was the trend towards businesses focusing on the female oriented experience. You've probably already come across taxi firms catering for female customers with female drivers like Lady Mini Cabs in Archway, and of course Sheila's Wheels with its cringeworthy adverts on TV, but it goes much deeper. Pink Ladies is a women only car hire company, Bud Light targets the female audience as does the Rosee version of Hoegarden, and there are any number of female focused sports and leisure businesses like Outdoor Divas with its excellent tagline that I've stolen for the title of this post. Anyway, this post is not about listing businesses for women (you can read more on that at http://www.trendwatching.com/trends/femalefever.htm) but about making the point that the online male v female experience is not only lagging behind, but once again following physical norms rather than thinking freely and outside the box. Standard Chartered Bank for example has a women only store in India, but has no variation in web exerience. Where stores cater for both men and women, the majority of sites use a one-size fits all design and user-experience approach just like the high street; or you sometimes get sub-sites or variations in design when you enter sections with content specific only to women. This is just like walking into a shop that is split down the middle. Men's clothes on the right and women's on the left with maybe a different colour scheme. We think differently, browse differently, buy different things, and process information differently so why do we have to work through the same web experience? The whole point of customisation is that businesses understand that one-size never really fits all. It just forces the consumer to accommodate the environment. Unlike the physical store however, nothing limits us from developing user specific websites. With the shift to CSS2, not just presentation but also layout is split from content. It really isn't that difficult to identify and target audience groups and then automate the experience and interface presented for all content, especially for sites where users are logged-in. And even if they aren't, "Are you male or female?" is hardly a long questionnaire to present a user when they arrive at your website. This is not about being simplistic and changing the colour of web-sites from blue to pink, but about researching and understanding real differences in presentation needs and then developing audience specific features to engage and interact with visitors on their own terms. We are still some way from real time evolution of websites based on the way the user journeys through them (although with improvements in business intelligence and web analytics this may change), and we know that allowing users to select their own preferences is just that little bit too much work for most browsers who will never really bother, so the onus falls on businesses and their user-experience experts to develop a deeper understanding of their user groups and build a dialogue with them on their own terms. In summary then, gender preferences are clearer than any other demographical difference so instead of the one size fits all approach, why dont we look to tailor the web experience based on the way we browse? It's ok to have women only websites but so far I haven't seen any that allow users to choose a different browsing and information experience based on their age or sex categories. The fear factor here is probably political correctness, but as web technologies get more sophisticated in terms of audience targeting, I'm guessing that it is going to happen at some point so why not be brave and get a jump on the competition?
|
-
If you’ve heard of the different types of Agile team, you may also have read about how they are supposed to be led and managed, but if you're anything like me when I first implemented Agile it is quite probable that you haven't. Agile team classification is basically contrived to fit what is known as Situational Leadership theory as developed by Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard (see Hersey, P. and Blanchard, K. H, Leadership and the One Minute Manager, William Morrow, 1999). This approach is in use because running Agile teams is arguably more about providing leadership than management. The basic premise of the theory is that Leaders should adapt their style to team maturity based on how ready and willing they are to perform required tasks in terms of both their competence and motivation. The classification uses a four quadrant grid matrix outlining four recognised types of team, classified by their Readiness Level (R) based on their overall degree of ability and willingness. For more detail on these levels see my post Recognising different types of Agile team (R1, R2, R3 or R4). 
Leadership in an Agile team comes from three sources in order of impact as follows: - The Team Leader (aka Scrum Master)
- The Responsible Owner for the Project (aka Product Owner)
- The Team Members themselves
The situational leadership approach under discussion applies primarily to the Scrum Master’s interaction with the team. Personally I'm not a huge fan of the classical theory so I've adapted it to make it more practical as follows: --------------------------------------------------- R1 Teams – Little or no ability or familiarity, and Unwilling or insecure about Agile Required Leadership style = Telling / Leading by example The Scrum Master in a team like this is likely to be most successful in an authoritative role, leading by example, making decisions for the team, educating, explaining, giving feedback and demonstrating clarity in terms of both process management and task delegation. The corollary here is that the Scrum Master must already be very familiar if not expert with Agile as a process, and needs to have overcome their own issues with the methodology. Any uncertainty around the process or its merits from a leader in an R1 team rapidly cascades and balloons through the team, resulting in increased resistance to delivery and the resultant efficiency and effectiveness losses. If the Scrum Master is also an Agile novice it is imperative that they remain positive about Agile, locate a source of expertise to deliver the structure needed, and at all costs avoid falling back on traditional ways of working to get through difficult periods. R1 teams are on a steep learning curve but are sceptical at the same time and so will challenge the process and their roles relative to each other. They also typically have very different understandings of what Agile is all about. The Scrum Master must embed the working philosophy, minimise scope for unnecessary argument around how things need to be done, and needs to take a firm stance on dispute resolution. The major leadership focus here should be positivity, team building, education and process enforcement. Some tips for managing novice Agile teams - Take the team on an Agile ‘Team-working & Estimation/Planning’ course (ideally not Scrum-Master focused); once at the start and then once again after a few sprints to ensure that all members are working from the same baseline understanding of the process and their responsibilities.
- Make sure that continuous integration and nightly builds are in place to help with regular and positive end-user feedback.
- Engage the services of complete neutrals for running retrospectives.
- Be careful not to underestimate the amount of time spent managing team interaction, and at all costs avoid taking on any critical delivery role within the team as you will find yourself under significant pressure and most probably end up doing both roles poorly.
- Finally focus on the short term and small wins to boost confidence, and ensure that the team gets recognition for their achievements, both from the Product Owner and from the business.
--------------------------------------------------- R2 Teams – Little or limited ability, but with Willingness to try and apply Agile Required Leadership style = Guidance / Coaching Arguably the key difference between and R2 and R1 team is that members in an R2 team are not sceptical either about the process or working together. This removes some of the need for focusing on trust or team-building and selling benefits of the process. There is more scope to let the team engage in discussion about how they prefer to work, but still a high requirement for the Scrum Master to lead by example with clarity on process and task management. The main challenge is to prevent any loss of confidence, and as such the same elements of the telling style apply. Education is paramount and planning is vital to prevent excessive overtime. Retrospectives can be more open and tend to be more effective because there already are the necessary levels of trust. The above can be elaborated further, but at this point I’m going to be contentious. I’d argue that except right at the beginning of a project there is no such thing as a true R2 team and as such is not an area worth elaborating too much on. Willing or not, people are inherently resistance to change that forces them out of their comfort zones, and in pressure situations will revert to tried and tested ways of coping in such situations – and in some ways rightly so. Even if you introduced Agile to a close team that has worked well together over a significant period of time, the removal of roles and hierarchies, and the dependencies on cross-functionality will change team dynamics and disrupt trust and confidence. In essence then, unless you’re working with a team that already is familiar and comfortable with Agile, you can safely assume that you will be working with an R1 team, and apply a leadership/management style that focuses primarily on telling and leading by example, but with a focus on coaching and selling benefits. Combined R1 & 2 Leadership Style = Telling / Leading by Example / Decision-making / Educating --------------------------------------------------- R3 Teams – Good ability and familiarity, but Unwilling or resistant to Agile Required Leadership style = Supporting R3 teams however are clearly distinguishable and must be considered separately. This type of team already knows what the Agile process is all about. They are able to go through the motions, manage the artefacts and know how to survive within an Agile environment. They do not need much educating or coaching with regards to the process and their responsibilities. However they are unwilling most likely because their previous experiences have not necessarily been successful and/or successes were achieved at a high team or individual price. This type of team reacts badly to being told what do because it is already capable of self-organising if it wants to. And ‘wants to’ is the key. The Scrum Master here needs to focus on moving the team towards wanting to work this way by being support and participative; and by showing commitment to the team and allowing it to use Agile to its advantage. There must be more room for discussion around process and group consensus on ways of working. There is still need to be positive about the merits of following Agile working practices and enough expertise to provide clarity when needed. But most importantly it is the Scrum Master’s role as a remover of obstacles that comes into play. Success horizons are longer because the team can see future issues better than R1 or R2 teams and the Scrum Master must start planning further into the future to deal with dependencies and ensure that necessary conversations are able to be held at the appropriate times. They must make the bigger picture clear to the team and keep members involved with management of deliverables. The Scrum Master also needs to ensure that they are clearly perceived as an integral part of the Agile unit through demonstrating strong commitment and support to all members, as well as confidently backing team decisions to the Product Owner or business. --------------------------------------------------- R4 Teams – High level of ability and experience, with Willingness and confidence in Agile Required Leadership style = Delegating R4 teams work well and confidently both with each other and with the process. They require little or no process or task guidance and exhibit mature working behaviours. The Scrum Master is there to help but not to make delivery decisions, which should be delegated to the team itself to keep them motivated and engaged. This is in other words a ‘high-performing’ team, and thus will most likely be self-motivated and driven by the satisfaction of taking on and overcoming technical and time challenges. The Scrum Master can help keep the team engaged by focusing on removing obstacles, and ensuring that there is a constant throughput of work with the Business capable of feeding back at the pace of delivery. An R4 team is fully capable of self-organising and managing itself, and let’s face it, is therefore an extremely rare occurrence! Frankly it really shouldn’t need a full time Scrum Master, and typically in organisations where these exist, a Scrum Master would probably be involved with a number of Agile teams rather than just the one. 
|
-
As someone new to Agile, when you hear or read about it, the impression you essentially get is that there is a homogeneous philosophy and set of working practices that you and your team will follow. In fact, while this applies to artefacts like the backlogs and cornerstones like the daily stand-up; when it comes to working practices, this is not the case at all. Depending on level of experience and willingness as a group, Agile teams have different and recognisable natures, and require different styles of management and interaction. Obviously this adds complexity to what is essentially sold as a very simple, and thus effective, delivery philosophy. However, in the hard-skills focus of the development environment, this, along with many other change and behavioural aspects of Agile, is crucial knowledge that is often overlooked. There are four recognised types of Agile team, and these are classified by their Readiness Level (R) based on their degree of ability and willingness. The levels extend from 1 to 4, with 1 being the lowest i.e. Novice. R1 – Little or no ability or familiarity, and Unwilling or insecure about Agile R2 – Little or limited ability, but with Willingness to try and apply Agile R3 – Good ability and familiarity, but Unwilling or resistant to Agile R4 – High level of ability and experience, with Willingness and confidence in Agile By this point you're probably thinking, that's good to know, but why should I really care? Well, the short answer is risk management from an organisational perspective, and also quality of life as a team member. If you know what you're dealing with, you can sidestep a lot of otherwise 'unexpected' pitfalls, both as a team and as individuals. To carry on then, arguably teams progress from R1 through to R2, then R3 and finally R4. However, I'm not certain this is the case. Unless you are joining a well established and long standing Agile team, chances are your team will fall into the R1 or R3 categories. In the new to Agile space, a lot of people are initially positive and willing to give Agile a shot, so it is easy to feel that they fit into the more comfortable and positive R2 category, but the real test is when pressure kicks in and team members begin to feel the effects of working outside their comfort zone. Look for evidence of significant incentives and an experienced Agile leader before feeling confident that a new team will naturally pull together to overcome obstacles and change, regardless of their technical abilities. If you don't see this, assume it is an R1 and not R2 team, and log it as a risk factor that needs extra contingency and greater management effort. To reduce risk, the Scrum Master in this sort of team really should not be new to Agile, and must bring confidence and pragmatism to their role. In the experienced arena, things don't necessarily change all that much. Simply having worked on numerous Agile projects does not make individuals more receptive or forgiving of this way of working. They may know the process and what to do, but their previous experience is not guaranteed to have been successful; they may have been through a host of different versions of 'Agile' and have a muddied view of what the philosophy is really all about; they may have been through badly managed or supported projects and seen Agile as the cause; or they may simply continue to feel that traditional methods suit them better. Recognising this can reduce risk by helping to focus effort on addressing resistance and implementing approaches to improve take-up and willingness, rather than ploughing ahead on the assumption that everyone is experienced and willing and therefore requires little or no support and management. Finally of course, if you're lucky you will join or work with a team that has experienced success with Agile, is confident and practised, and has achieved the level of self-organisation and motivation that reduces the behavioural risks to delivery as negligible. This is when it is fun and challenging and delivery is most effective and relevant to business need. This takes time and perseverance, but is what we aspire to. So on to R4... upwards and onwards eh?! NEXT POST: How to manage different types of Agile Team.
|
-
Post Summary: Part 3 of the High Street 2.0 discussion, outlining ideas that retailers could consider if they want to create the next generation high street shopping experience where their consumers can enjoy the benefits of online shopping instore, and which will allow them to compete against online bargains and specialist pure-plays. In my previous post (The High Street 2.0 - Part 2), I raised the point that online and offline channels have complementary but currently exclusive benefits. On the internet, consumers can access related products, accessories, comparative price options, product information, communities, social interaction, reviews, simplified purchase, and delivery, while also being able to feedback to others about the experience. Consumers are therefore becoming used to a richer, faster, and more socially interactive shopping experience. What they cannot do is try out products for fit, look, feel, appropriateness and ease of use before buying, or even benefit from the immediacy of collecting the item at time of purchase, which are the core benefits of buying in-store. In-store benefits unfortunately cannot practically be transferred to the online environment, or at least not until virtual reality goes a whole lot further than secondlife.com! However, there is no reason why online benefits cannot be brought in-store. And that in a nutshell, is what I'm talking about in terms of a vision of the High Street 2.0. To stay competitive against online competition i.e. the pure plays, retailers must start developing a new generation of information and experience rich high street stores. Like Web 2.0 web-sites, the next generation high street store must demonstrate a better appreciation of the target consumer as a person rather than a product buyer. In other words it must make the shopping experience person-centric by providing space, comfort, information, social engagement, easy points to call for help, and valid reasons to come in and enjoy the in-store experience for browsers; whilst providing efficient entry and exit routes for shoppers who know what they want. Retailers must conversely also appreciate the elements of the shopping experience that make store customers uncomfortable and look for avenues to cut them out, for e.g. not enough browsing space, product overcrowding, help not unavailable at the right time and place, and lengthy purchase queues. So what could the High Street 2.0 physically look like? Well, one route might be where large stores evolve into experience-focused social spaces with products as a backdrop, while small stores leverage user computing and web technology to shift towards becoming product information hubs where consumers use touch screens to choose what they want to see, try and buy. Anyway, regardless of the avenue of evolution, the following are some high level ideas that retailers could start exploring in the battle for effective channel-independent competitive advantage. Shop design and layout - Support the social experience. Create shops as places to relax and engage while browsing. Widen out browsing space by reducing products on display but allowing consumers to view more items via screens and have these brought to them on request.
- How about providing comfy sofa seats for customers to relax with built-in pull out touch screens to browse product listings, or read reviews, or order and pay for items etc. in shop? Or free lavatory facilities with interactive product information to capture interest?
- Why not provide changing room tickets so customers don't have to stand around with their items at busy times?
- Provide non-product specific reasons for consumers to enter and walk around. Collaborate with social networking enablers like coffee shops or bars, and design the space around this, rather than shoe-horning a coffee point into some corner of a shop as we see with Costa.
- For multi-brand retailers, mix brands together by product category rather than cordon off areas by brand as is the current norm.
- Place directly related product families together e.g. A Canon camera plus it's case, plus leads, lenses, memory card and batteries displayed as a group next to each other, or via a touch screen or at least a printed card next to each major product item displaying accessories available in-store and where to find them.
Self service information points / screens / kiosks - Provide customisation capability – select size, colour etc, with order and payment capability for immediate collection or delivery, or even simply to find which store has the required version and the option to place it on hold
- Provide review capability – for consumers to browse store and product ratings and reviews
- Provide browsing capability for customers to interactively scan through products available, related to an interactive map to find the item in-store
- Allow customers to use these screens to select and request items to try, with in-store sales assistants tasked to put the selection together at changing rooms or tryout points
- Allow customers to create visualisations of outfits, with workflow that suggests others options, and then be able to select to get the whole ensemble provided by a sales assistant for them to try on directly at the changing rooms
- If really brave and/or price competitive, be open and allow direct in-store price comparison against competitors. Frankly this could even be a business idea in itself to set up stop off points on the high street where shoppers can pop in and run quick price comparisons or read product reviews of things they're about to buy in a nearby shop. Maybe this could be combined with a bar or sandwich space, with this service as a free value-add and supported with revenue through the advertising opportunities it would create.
Simpler purchasing options - Provide self checkout terminals
- Allow customers to create ‘one-click' style accounts in-store using self-type pin or password verification – synchronise these with online services and vice-versa, i.e. recognise one-click accounts created online.
- Incentivise buyers to go online and register one-click accounts and credit cards like Amazon. Provide offers or free credit that are only validated once this is complete, but which are redeemable across any channel
- Use these accounts to create and maintain purchase histories that can be accessed in-store and leveraged to create value for the consumer.
Relevance - Ensure one consistent view of each registered customer with seamless multi-channel integration across both billing account and product history
- Use buyer history to recommend other items worth looking at, or suggest items other people bought – maybe even provide as a printout when handing over purchased items?
- Recommend complementary products when making a sale – again this could automatically be printed out on item scan and handed to the buyer
- As above, suggest related accessories for product being purchased. Complementary and accessory products could alternatively be highlighted at point of display through item grouping, touch screens, flip-cards etc.
Value-adds - Allow online vouchers to be used in-store and vice-versa. Avoid promotions that result in one channel cannibalising sales from another i.e. single channel discounts
- Ensure that online and offline prices are consistent for the same type of purchase, for e.g. if ordering for home delivery in store, the consumer should be able to pay online prices on assumption that the item will be delivered from a warehouse somewhere with cheaper overheads allocated to it.
- Allow customers to specify delivery while paying for items in-store
- Provide try and return policies with free return postage or easy access PUDOs (pick up and drop off points)
Leverage the web and email - Capture email address at point of purchase and use it to auto create user accounts on the store website. Email log-in details straight to the user, along with purchase, receipt and product guarantee details. Auto link product details in the email to review capability.
- Design the website to support the in-store experience, rather to compete as a separate and unique online entity
- Collaborate/tie-up with online social networking sites and bring elements of these in-store – e.g. say Zara advertising on My Space online, while creating a range of My Space branded clothing for sale in-store
- Create and develop free but branded popular culture spaces to embed brand and create new target audiences – e.g. Gap creating a free and open clothing review and discussion site that is only minimally branded to Gap but effectively creates a new audience.
To summarise then, I see the High Street 2.0 comprising information and experience rich stores, where consumers can enjoy the benefits of both web and in-store shopping; developed by retailers with a single channel-unified approach to pricing, marketing and consumer relationship management, and supported by seamlessly integrated information about target audiences across both online and offline channels.
|
-
Post Summary: An outline of what I mean by the High Street 2.0, which is essentially the idea of real world high street stores providing a richer customer experience by focussing on the customer, and enabling seamless integration and cross-over with the benefits of shopping both offline and online. In my last post on The High Street 2.0 (Part 1), I focussed on the drivers behind the trend of customers browsing in stores but then going online to purchase the item of interest, because I believe this suggests that the offline customer experience needs to be improved to provide customers with in-store access to the benefits of buying online. I suggested 10 reasons for completing purchase online as follows: - Bargains / cheaper prices (through general search and via shopping bots)
- Validate product/item quality and function (via online information and reviews before buying)
- Avoid in-store/cashier queues
- Delivery rather than carry home on buses / trains (convenience)
- Search for variant availability in other stores
- Leverage online promotions / vouchers
- Easier payment through one-click accounts (e.g. Amazon)
- Accessories for product listings
- Related product listings and "Other people bought this" type information
- Auto-history of purchases - leading to seller recommendations
By highlighting these, what I'm alluding to is the need for cross-channel symbiosis rather than revenue cannibalisation as we currently have it. In other words, a shift towards physical stores offering the customer access to benefits of browsing and purchasing online, and vice-versa, rather than avenues for making each channel independently attractive to the consumer in ways that simply result in cross-channel competition. I believe that at some point in the near future, forward thinking retailers must recognise the fact that the existing model of shops as one-dimensional rooms for showcasing products by category is fast becoming outdated by consumer familiarity with the online shopping experience. On the internet, consumers can access related products, accessories, comparative price options, product information, reviews, simplified purchasing, delivery, and bargains, while also being able to feedback to others about the experience. What they cannot do is try out products for fit, look, appropriateness or ease of use before buying, or even benefit from the immediacy of collecting the item at time of purchase, so it is clear that both channels are not just relevant but highly complementary, and should be treated as such. However, as far as I'm aware no one has made this leap towards a truly symbiotic, holistic online-offline customer experience. There is absolutely no reason why customers shouldn't be able to shop in-store with the same benefits as online. It just needs a little lateral thinking, and recognising that while the Web started out as a separate and independent commerce stream in order that companies could minimise risk while still learning about it's capabilities and user models, it is now a well established and experience-driven business and usability model that can and should be leveraged to improve customer experience across channels in the real world. Experience is the key. Branding online is primarily about the experience, and it is making the passive, push marketing approach we've lived with since the start of capitalism obsolete. With price and quality becoming more and more homogenous on the high street, retailers must start moving towards experience focused outlets that are built around impressing and engaging their customers, rather than the traditional model of simply cataloguing or showcasing the products or services they can offer. I feel there is significant scope to achieve this by making the in-store customer experience richer and more fulfilling by learning from the web experience, and in the next post will aim to discuss some ideas retailers should be considering if they want to create the next-generation shopper's paradise.
|
|
|
|