Friday, August 19, 2011

Why Groupon WON’T Save Your Company



Current economic environment notwithstanding, most consumers are attracted by ways to save money - not in their bank account, but on stuff - because they are going to spend. Businesses, naturally, oblige by offering “deals,” the growth of which has exploded thanks to Groupon, LivingSocial, Daily Deal and the dozens of other wannabes. Of course, the growing number of daily deals appeal to our human nature – getting the best offer before the next person does. One doesn’t have to be a coupon hoarder or penny pincher to fall in that category, and Groupon has been most “helpful” in transforming so many of us into online deal hunters.

In less than a year, the “Groupon experience” has become incredibly popular with retailers and restaurants trying solicit new customers and get the cash register ca-chinging again. But if they expect a lot of these new customers to jump all over non-Groupon prices after paying heavily discounted rates at the start of the relationship, they are delusional and tragically mistaken.

Last month, I posted a comment on a Loyalty group I’m a member of on LinkedIn:

“While relatively innovative, Groupon is not a company that helps brands build loyalty. Because Groupon offers consumers discounted goods/services from an ever-changing variety of companies, it inherently encourages consumers to purchase a scattershot of different items, driven by heavy discounts offered during a short timetable - not through developing brand loyalty. The process works against loyalty because it drives consumers to try many new brands – rather than sticking with one brand consistently - all on a single factor. Price. Groupon essentially says to consumers, why stick with the usual go-to salon/restaurant/bookstore when you can try this coupon for another, different company that's much cheaper than what you're probably paying? Companies may increase business by using Groupon to bring in new consumers who might not normally try their brand, but in terms of encouraging long-term brand loyalty the service simply isn’t equipped to offer real results. I've always argued that when marketers go down the discount highway, it's almost impossible to turn back around. Think about it... it's highly unlikely that a consumer making a purchase decision based on a percentage discount from an unknown retailer/brand will return to that retailer/brand for "non-Groupon" prices. Why would they? Instead, they'll simply look for the next bargain delivered by Groupon from yet another retailer/brand... and so on.”

That discussion is gaining a lot of traction as the “Great Groupon Debate” is argued among retail marketers and business reporters alike:

- Bryon Morrison, president of The Marketing Arm's wireless practice discusses the cons of Groupon in his article featured in Mobile Commerce Daily Countering the Groupon effect and linking tactics to strategy
- And Fred Minnick, writing for Stores, asks if daily deal sites good or bad for retail in his article “The Great Groupon Debate”

In a recent Slate feature, Noreen Malone lived off Groupon for a week. There was a lot of effort involved (20-minute walks each way for a coffee shop? No thanks.) and a little pressure (don't forget your coupon!), and Malone noted that it's also an easy way to be blinded by the deals: “We might not know, sitting in our cubicles, that we want these things—but take 50 percent off the sticker price, and suddenly we do,” she said.

And that's the trouble with Groupon. In a social deals-type environment, we look at sticker price, not at brand value. Groupon is less about the brand, more about the price. Why go back and pay full rates if you're always presented with something new—and that deal you grabbed wasn't even nearby?

Yes, we are even willing to go out of our way for a good deal, but will we return to the same place when we don't have a chance at a discount? Fat chance. In a recent survey by Cooper Murphy Copywriters, 82 percent of companies that had Groupon promotions in the past said that they were unhappy with the level of repeat business they received after running their promotion.

To continue Groupon momentum, a company might consider another deal, and another one... and they're continuing that cycle of margin giveaways in the process, not to mention alienating loyal customers who have been paying standard prices for months or even years. With an influx of new customers waving deals, will the regulars have the same level of service, the same experience?

It's better to concentrate on customer connections in the long run. Keeping costs low for all buyers—not just the Groupon set—will ensure repeat customers. Specialized pricing and competitive edge can hook new clients, but how can we keep customers coming back? is a better question than how low can prices go this month?

There is no quick fix to finding new customers – any marketer worth their grain in salt will tell you. The experiences that consumers are having with Groupon like not being able to redeem coupons for 4+ months (personal story that I’ll share with you next week) or finding out that the deals are only available at very limited times will and work against Groupon, the business and their brand.

My advice? Treat Groupon and its ilk with caution and think about long term ways to connect with customers to build profits – not give away margins and alienate existing customers through deep discounts.

Wednesday, August 17, 2011

The Rise Of Opinion 'News'

The following commentary originally appeared in MediaPost’s Marketing Daily (8/16/11) where I have a regular column.

"Is traditional news dead and gone?" I'm hearing that question more frequently. During the past 12 months, AOL bought the Huffington Post, "unbiased" Fox topped CNN and MSNBC's profits, and Twitter continued to grow -- boosted by worldwide coverage and the toppling of insidious regimes. With the downsizing of print media and the rise of the blog, we've gotten used to reacting to opinion pieces instead of forming our opinions at the source. A lot like what we're doing right now.

Backtracking just a little bit, you might remember a time when you would read a piece online -- not on a blog, but on a breaking news site -- and wondered where the headlining story came from. A PR resource, perhaps? But ease of access to trending topics and Twitter hashtags can lead to and has led to rampant rumors, from death hoaxes (#ripnickiminaj, 2011) to merger news (AOL-Yahoo merger, 2010) and plain old rubbish. There's just so much stuff to filter that it's really no surprise that traditional news sources can pick up on a trending tag, locate an "insider" to comment, and report on something -- mistakenly -- that happened only in a fantasy cocktail of viral news and online pranksters.

That's the case with conjecture and the odd off-base source, but what about news sites that survive on a daily dose of drama? It's hard enough to follow the online trail of "who reported it first," and if there's a team dedicated to opinion-making and finger-pointing? The original truth is obscured with clever turns of phrase and selective linking.

Since everyone and their dog appear to be blogging, it's particularly difficult to ascertain what is what -- and from where. Editors, guest bloggers, staff members, and "experts" have blogs or online columns hosted by their publishers, and that adds to the fact-opinion blurring of boundaries. Let's call it the "Foxification of News," cheap and quick journalism, or the negative side of citizen blogging: the muddling of opinion and fact-only reporting is killing "news news."

Complaints about opinion-infused reporting often mention Fox. Its representatives claim that it is unbiased, but if it were, would Bill Shine, head of programming, say that Fox can "offer opinions not seen anywhere else"? As is the case with any successful business model, Fox's unique blend of fact and opinion inspired other news sources. Fox's revenue for 2010 is said to have reached profits of $800 million on revenue of $1.5 billion, more than MSNBC and CNN combined. When we noticed MSNBC getting more political, we knew why.

News is morphing, slowly but noticeably. Networks incorporate viral video and social media responses about anything from major sports games to natural disasters. While networks are highlighting YouTube videos and Twitter feeds more frequently, newspapers are continuing to fight for some share of the market. But is it really that much of a change, or simply a return to our roots?

Some suggest that opinion news might not be such a modern move after all. It's different, but the switch could be likened to 19th-century journalism described as "discursive" by The Economist. Back then, news was spread through personal connection and networking. The only problem? The social side of media used by average citizens to share news is now used as a marketing tool for huge networks. It's not the 19th century anymore, and the speed and sheer reach of the Internet, coupled with the ability to put anything live almost instantly, changes the way we access news, react to it, and, from a PR company's perspective, spread any kind of rumors, half-truths, or leading questions we want, at any time, and from anywhere.

PR support for businesses and professionals in the spotlight is more important with the domination of opinion news (and worldwide self-publishing, done gratis). And now that aggregated content is a constant online presence and even networks are spicing up their coverage with an opinionated edge, it takes an eagle eye to find skewed news and quiet a storm. Twitter hashtags can skyrocket in an hour; blog posts can be published in seconds. Navigating online PR minefields is challenging enough without dissecting nuances on formerly trusted sites.

We're looking at the possibility of heavily slanted news passed person-to-person -- a relic of the 19th century -- combined with the speed of a new era.

Is opinion news really "news," and should we mourn the death of unbiased reporting?

http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=155876&nid=129906#