I just saw a presentation that reviewed a methodology for how to identify the right mobile channel opportunities for your company. The methodology followed a pretty straight up strategic planning model, when it comes to driving IT decisions: you can either grow revenue or reduce costs. If you're focusing on growing revenue, then what objectives are you setting for that revenue growth? And what activities will you undergo in order to achieve that revenue?
This is all wrong! Have we learned nothing from customer centricity? Especially when looking at mobile, where the odds of any kind of mobile activity actually driving revenue are slim. Very slim. You have to flip this kind of planning on its head: what does the customer try to achieve as part of their shopping experience? What are the pain points in that experience? What parts of the experience do we not get our chance to shine at? What parts of the experience could be differentiators, and what parts are ante nowadays? Through that kind of analysis, you'll identify hopefully lots of opportunities to help out your customers through the mobile experience.
THEN you look at those and analyze them to identify which opportunities offer the most bang for the buck. THAT helps you prioritize which opportunities to pursue (by the way, this presumes that you have identified the opportunities that you have for reaching consumers via mobile - for example, that they are big users of SMS, for example, or that they tend to download a lot of free content. Obviously, you want your opportunities to be constrained by the context of your customers' willingness to use certain mobile capabilities).
Only by starting with the customer first do you have a chance at matching up initiatives or innovations that will make you money (or save you money) with initiatives or innovations that customers will actually use. You can get there from the "revenue vs. cost" planning, but it's going to be a much rougher road.
Showing posts with label mobile shopping. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mobile shopping. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Is it really as cliche as Web 3.0?
I have been thinking for the last month about "Connected Commerce" - in my head, I was thinking about it in the context of eCommerce evolved in a world of Web 2.0 (a term I dislike, but get - and it doesn't seem to have wandered too far from its original meaning, but does seem rather broad). When the actual transaction piece of buying something online becomes unbounded by the website - so, available via mobile, or plugged into a social networking site, or even pulled into someone else's blog - then how do you define "eCommerce" in that context? Coming at it from the retailer point of view, I saw that as "Connected Commerce," but find the term lacking something (something even more than just the "e").
Then I encountered Optaros, who approached it more from the Content side of the web. They call it "W3CM" which is a play on Web Content Management, except the C is actually 3 C's: content, commerce, and community. They see a convergence across all three of these dimensions, and see brands and retailers struggling with this convergence - brands, who have content and are trying to figure out how it integrates with community and commerce, and retailers, who have commerce and are trying to figure out content and community.
In some ways, retailers especially have been looking at Optaros' 3 dimensions from a 2-D perspective. Retailers tend to discount content, either because they don't take it seriously enough, or because they tend to view it as an offshoot of products and thus wrapped into eCommerce. And those that do take on content, for example with their own blogs, often do it independently of the commerce function, almost as if they don't want consumers to consider the content to be tainted by introducing a commerce aspect to it.
But just as retailers are living in a plane with dimensions of commerce and community, and Optaros sees the world in three dimensions, with Content being the third, I think there is a fourth dimension at play as well, which is the physical world. The "real" world, which encompasses both product and brand location, as well as an individual's physical relationship to those things at a point in time. Maybe this can be summed up as "physical context."
The natural analogy would be, just as Web 2.0 in many ways freed the "Web" of the constraint of an individual site or even an internet browser, what we're groping towards in retail is a kind of Web 3.0 - where, thanks to increasingly ubiquitous hardware like mobile phones or kiosks, the virtual world and the physical world are continuously co-located. So while we have been thinking about the Web in all of its complexity as a 3-D object, it is an object that exists in relation to a fourth dimension: physical context, in all its glory and complexity. (By the way, TrendWatching just put out a fantastic piece about "Transparency", which touches on this topic and has some great examples.
As much as I dislike the term "Web 3.0" or even the more aspirational "Web Unbound," I cannot for the life of me think of something better. I've tried getting geeky: The Web/Context Continuum (analogous to the Space/Time Continuum). Contextual Commerce? ECommerce Unbound? Blech!
What do I call this thing? The closest I've come to is "Not Your Father's Internet"...
Then I encountered Optaros, who approached it more from the Content side of the web. They call it "W3CM" which is a play on Web Content Management, except the C is actually 3 C's: content, commerce, and community. They see a convergence across all three of these dimensions, and see brands and retailers struggling with this convergence - brands, who have content and are trying to figure out how it integrates with community and commerce, and retailers, who have commerce and are trying to figure out content and community.
In some ways, retailers especially have been looking at Optaros' 3 dimensions from a 2-D perspective. Retailers tend to discount content, either because they don't take it seriously enough, or because they tend to view it as an offshoot of products and thus wrapped into eCommerce. And those that do take on content, for example with their own blogs, often do it independently of the commerce function, almost as if they don't want consumers to consider the content to be tainted by introducing a commerce aspect to it.
But just as retailers are living in a plane with dimensions of commerce and community, and Optaros sees the world in three dimensions, with Content being the third, I think there is a fourth dimension at play as well, which is the physical world. The "real" world, which encompasses both product and brand location, as well as an individual's physical relationship to those things at a point in time. Maybe this can be summed up as "physical context."
The natural analogy would be, just as Web 2.0 in many ways freed the "Web" of the constraint of an individual site or even an internet browser, what we're groping towards in retail is a kind of Web 3.0 - where, thanks to increasingly ubiquitous hardware like mobile phones or kiosks, the virtual world and the physical world are continuously co-located. So while we have been thinking about the Web in all of its complexity as a 3-D object, it is an object that exists in relation to a fourth dimension: physical context, in all its glory and complexity. (By the way, TrendWatching just put out a fantastic piece about "Transparency", which touches on this topic and has some great examples.
As much as I dislike the term "Web 3.0" or even the more aspirational "Web Unbound," I cannot for the life of me think of something better. I've tried getting geeky: The Web/Context Continuum (analogous to the Space/Time Continuum). Contextual Commerce? ECommerce Unbound? Blech!
What do I call this thing? The closest I've come to is "Not Your Father's Internet"...
Friday, July 25, 2008
Shopping by TV - TiVo and Amazon Team Up
The New York Times reported that TiVo and Amazon are teaming up to enable consumers to shop from their TV's. Some of the first shows to try it out will be The Oprah Winfrey Show, and The Late Show with David Letterman. They'll offer the books, CD's, and DVD's that guests will be promoting when on the shows.
On the one hand, this is producer nirvana. I've spoken with a couple of producers for cable channels, and they consider this the holy grail - to be able to quantify their audiences not in terms of reach, but in terms of immediate market potential. In terms of sales.
Books, movies, and music are an easy way to go. I'm curious how this might ever possibly work for fashion or home decor, because it seems like the potential will only ever apply to first-run shows. But maybe that's how to make them TiVo-proof, with a certain degree of irony there - imagine, "Tonight's episode of Gossip Girls will feature limited availability of Serena's and Nate's outfits, provided by [insert brand name here]. Don't miss your chance at getting the look!"
There's one other implication to consider about this kind of matchup. Our whole world of advertising and retail is built on the assumption that there is a gap between when a consumer may decide they want a product, and when they actually purchase it. In the case of something seen on TV, once you decided you wanted, say, Serena's shoes from Gossip Girl, you had to figure out who made them, find out who sells them, make sure they fit at some point (though this could be after you've purchased them), and then actually buy them. This link between a set-top box that enables interactive and internet access, and a retail store that enables commerce short-circuits that whole process. And it's not the only technology doing that: mobile phones, even consumers with wireless laptops sitting in front of the TV change this dynamic.
Do retailers need to become producers? Some CPG brands have already gotten into the mix. But it's a lot harder to enable the commerce than it is to feature the product.
On the one hand, this is producer nirvana. I've spoken with a couple of producers for cable channels, and they consider this the holy grail - to be able to quantify their audiences not in terms of reach, but in terms of immediate market potential. In terms of sales.
Books, movies, and music are an easy way to go. I'm curious how this might ever possibly work for fashion or home decor, because it seems like the potential will only ever apply to first-run shows. But maybe that's how to make them TiVo-proof, with a certain degree of irony there - imagine, "Tonight's episode of Gossip Girls will feature limited availability of Serena's and Nate's outfits, provided by [insert brand name here]. Don't miss your chance at getting the look!"
There's one other implication to consider about this kind of matchup. Our whole world of advertising and retail is built on the assumption that there is a gap between when a consumer may decide they want a product, and when they actually purchase it. In the case of something seen on TV, once you decided you wanted, say, Serena's shoes from Gossip Girl, you had to figure out who made them, find out who sells them, make sure they fit at some point (though this could be after you've purchased them), and then actually buy them. This link between a set-top box that enables interactive and internet access, and a retail store that enables commerce short-circuits that whole process. And it's not the only technology doing that: mobile phones, even consumers with wireless laptops sitting in front of the TV change this dynamic.
Do retailers need to become producers? Some CPG brands have already gotten into the mix. But it's a lot harder to enable the commerce than it is to feature the product.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
How Much Info is Too Much at the Shelf?
I've posted plenty of times on RetailWire as a supporter of NYC's initiative to get calorie counts on the menus at chain restaurants. I think it's very misleading to consumers to use terms like "low fat" when hidden behind that sign is something that slugs 1,000 calories or more. So, sure, some restaurants post calorie counts online or in little brochures that sometimes are easy to find or available in the store (and sometimes not), and their argument has been that because they do make the information available, they should not have to put it on menu boards.
The problem with online information is that it's not accessible for when you're making a product selection decision. A lot of online calorie calculators that I've seen restaurant chains put out are not mobile phone friendly at all - they require you to "build a meal" and then tell you, once you've configured multiple options through multiple screens - you get a result. Taco Bell's is a good example.
Here's where it gets interesting. Contrast that with efforts by companies like Staples, who has debated publishing consumer-generated product reviews at the shelf - and the huge number of questions doing something like that generates. Which review do you pick? Is it misleading if you publish a highly favorable review when overall the reviews tended toward the negative? What do you do with a product that received mostly negative reviews? And on and on.
Mobile phones do change the game a bit - providing price and sometimes availability through a mobile phone search is rapidly becoming ante. Reviews (or at least summarizations of reviews) will likely be next, if not additional spec or detailed information - like nutrition info, in the case of restaurants. There are calorie-counting sites out there that will help - like My Calorie Counter - but it's still interface-intensive to compare multiple products against one another.
The ultimate challenge is balancing what you can provide to consumers against what different customers want as part of the experience. MSNBC calls reaction to the calorie information "sticker shock" of a sort, and quotes a NYC health official who is perfectly happy with that result, while meanwhile a restaurant patron wants to switch menus with her friend who received an old one that doesn't have the calorie counts - because she wants to be kept in the dark. It all just makes me think that dynamic displays are an inevitability (granted, once the cost to implement reaches something that retailers can afford to invest in) - so that consumers can taylor what they see, not just online, but even when they're looking at the shelf.
And, for the record, given that California is looking into even stricter standards, and that retailers already have to accomodate New York's specific rules, I believe it will be a short amount of time before we see calorie labeling spread nationwide.
The problem with online information is that it's not accessible for when you're making a product selection decision. A lot of online calorie calculators that I've seen restaurant chains put out are not mobile phone friendly at all - they require you to "build a meal" and then tell you, once you've configured multiple options through multiple screens - you get a result. Taco Bell's is a good example.
Here's where it gets interesting. Contrast that with efforts by companies like Staples, who has debated publishing consumer-generated product reviews at the shelf - and the huge number of questions doing something like that generates. Which review do you pick? Is it misleading if you publish a highly favorable review when overall the reviews tended toward the negative? What do you do with a product that received mostly negative reviews? And on and on.
Mobile phones do change the game a bit - providing price and sometimes availability through a mobile phone search is rapidly becoming ante. Reviews (or at least summarizations of reviews) will likely be next, if not additional spec or detailed information - like nutrition info, in the case of restaurants. There are calorie-counting sites out there that will help - like My Calorie Counter - but it's still interface-intensive to compare multiple products against one another.
The ultimate challenge is balancing what you can provide to consumers against what different customers want as part of the experience. MSNBC calls reaction to the calorie information "sticker shock" of a sort, and quotes a NYC health official who is perfectly happy with that result, while meanwhile a restaurant patron wants to switch menus with her friend who received an old one that doesn't have the calorie counts - because she wants to be kept in the dark. It all just makes me think that dynamic displays are an inevitability (granted, once the cost to implement reaches something that retailers can afford to invest in) - so that consumers can taylor what they see, not just online, but even when they're looking at the shelf.
And, for the record, given that California is looking into even stricter standards, and that retailers already have to accomodate New York's specific rules, I believe it will be a short amount of time before we see calorie labeling spread nationwide.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Retail's Killer App is Now Free For the iPhone
When I say "killer", I mean in the sense that this is the application that retailers have been worried about (or at least should be) making it onto consumers' phones. What is it? A free, innocuous little app called "Save Benjis", available for download to the iPhone via Apple's new app store. According to the company that developed it, Sol Robots, you can even use the iPhone's camera to snap a picture of the barcode in order to look up prices. It also provides access to product information and reviews, and enables consumers to buy it if they find it cheaper online.
The app is based off of the FindersCheapers website, which also does product search and price comparison. It is functionality similar to Google's product search, or MySimon, though for my part I had not heard of it before today. What makes Save Benjis different - besides being built specifically for the iPhone - is that it is designed for mobile use, for example with preferences to let users specify default settings for data entry fields (in order to minimize typing on the iPhone's touch screen, probably the most awkward part of the iPhone user experience).
I've said it before, but I mean it this time: if retailers have not figured out how they are going to deal with consumers who have access to online pricing - and product reviews - while standing in the store, they better figure something out quick - real quick.
Alas, I am not iPhone-enabled - having just finally gotten my Blackberry to sync with Entourage, I am hesistant to disrupt what works - but my husband is. We'll check it out this weekend.
TechCrunch's coverage of Save Benjis (among other iPhone apps)
LifeHacker's coverage of Save Benjis
The app is based off of the FindersCheapers website, which also does product search and price comparison. It is functionality similar to Google's product search, or MySimon, though for my part I had not heard of it before today. What makes Save Benjis different - besides being built specifically for the iPhone - is that it is designed for mobile use, for example with preferences to let users specify default settings for data entry fields (in order to minimize typing on the iPhone's touch screen, probably the most awkward part of the iPhone user experience).
I've said it before, but I mean it this time: if retailers have not figured out how they are going to deal with consumers who have access to online pricing - and product reviews - while standing in the store, they better figure something out quick - real quick.
Alas, I am not iPhone-enabled - having just finally gotten my Blackberry to sync with Entourage, I am hesistant to disrupt what works - but my husband is. We'll check it out this weekend.
TechCrunch's coverage of Save Benjis (among other iPhone apps)
LifeHacker's coverage of Save Benjis
Monday, January 7, 2008
A Mobile Shopping Scenario
I attended two sessions on Mobility on Sunday at CES. They were both geared more towards content providers and the future of that medium on phones – not really oriented on shopping. But one of the speakers – Shane Lennon of Gypsii, a mobile-based social networking service – gave an example of how someone might use their service, and it has a lot of serious implications for retail. He spoke of how someone could upload a video of a drunk friend, potentially straight to something like MySpace or YouTube and alert other friends to the revelry, complete with directions. Andrew Perlman of Vringo picked up on the story and noted that with his service you could then set that video as your video ring tone – on other people’s phones. So if you call your buddy, he or she is greeted with the video evidence of their drunken revelry. I must lack the social networking gene, because I fail to see how that’s cool, but that’s another story.
What I started thinking about was what that means in the store. The sleeping Comcast guy is already beyond infamous, but what happens when a customer records a video of employees behaving badly in a store on their cell phone, and zaps it straight to YouTube? How long before we see the nightmare Home Depot help, or the Best Buy employee blithely getting the technology explanation completely wrong? According to Douglas Craig from Discovery Communications, we’re only 1-2 phone iterations away from turning every consumer into a broadcaster (at least in the US).
How do you combat this? With our most recent research on workforce management and loss prevention, Paula and I have been circling this issue, trying to find a way to break what really becomes a vicious cycle – employees are not engaged, so customers get mad, so corporate cracks down, and employees, caught between corporate and customers, disengage further. And everybody loses.
We're still working on that, but a place to start would be Jack Mitchell, of Hug Your Customers fame - he's got a new book coming out, called Hug Your People. If the retail industry could pull that off, what a wonderful world it would be.
What I started thinking about was what that means in the store. The sleeping Comcast guy is already beyond infamous, but what happens when a customer records a video of employees behaving badly in a store on their cell phone, and zaps it straight to YouTube? How long before we see the nightmare Home Depot help, or the Best Buy employee blithely getting the technology explanation completely wrong? According to Douglas Craig from Discovery Communications, we’re only 1-2 phone iterations away from turning every consumer into a broadcaster (at least in the US).
How do you combat this? With our most recent research on workforce management and loss prevention, Paula and I have been circling this issue, trying to find a way to break what really becomes a vicious cycle – employees are not engaged, so customers get mad, so corporate cracks down, and employees, caught between corporate and customers, disengage further. And everybody loses.
We're still working on that, but a place to start would be Jack Mitchell, of Hug Your Customers fame - he's got a new book coming out, called Hug Your People. If the retail industry could pull that off, what a wonderful world it would be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)