Make Life Easier for Your Customers!

Are the efforts of marketers making our lives harder or easier? This was one of the key questions asked by a recent comprehensive study of over 7,000 consumers carried out in the UK, US and Australia. In our information rich world, we are increasingly overwhelmed by choice. And too much choice paralyzes us – we simply can’t decide what to buy, so paradoxically, we don’t buy anything. The findings of this Corporate Executive Board study suggests that too often, firms that are spending huge sums trying to engage their customers on and offline are actually turning them away.

Some of the findings of this and other related studies, reported in a recent Harvard Business Review article make for fascinating reading. For example, businesses believe that some of the reasons consumers follow them on social sites are to learn about new products (73%), submit opinion on current products and services (69%), feel connected (64%) and be part of a community (61%). The extent to which these formed part of the consumer’s actual reasons were 51%, 49%, 33% and 22% respectively. So much for all the ‘relationship’ marketing efforts! Their main reason was to get discounts (60%) or to make a purchase (55%). Other interesting findings to note are that 70% of those using a mobile device to search are within hours of a purchase, while 70% of those using a desktop are on average a week away. Similarly, someone searching for ‘luxury cars’ is at an early stage of the buying decision process compared with someone who enters a phrase like ‘BMW vs Audi’.

The main recommendation of the article is that firms need to construct their websites to aid decision simplicity. This involves three elements. First, minimise the number of information sources consumers must touch before confidently moving forward to a purchase. Second, build trust – not in the brand, but in the information being gathered. And finally, make it easy to weigh up the potential options being considered. This involves not only the information provided but also the number of variants actually offered. Is all of this worth doing? Well it would appear so. Brands in the top quarter of the decision simplicity index were 86% more likely to be purchased than those in the bottom quarter, were 9% more likely to be repurchased and were a full 115% more likely to be recommended to friends. In 2012, less is more!

Related Articles

Choices, choices, choices

The Power of Free

What Not To Include on Your Resume!

In the sphere of career building as with so many other walks of life, technology is playing an ever greater role. Job hunters are being advised to develop their LinkedIn profiles, build personal websites and to be very careful about what they post on their Facebook pages. The venerable resume is being supplemented by invitations to create and upload a short video allowing you to pitch for a role or to explain how you would solve a fictitious business problem, for example. Recruiters not only get to review your track record but they also know what you look like and get a sense of your personality.

But is all of this advantageous to you the applicant? The answer it would appear, is yes and no. Research conducted by two Israeli academics Ruffle and Shtudiner which was published last year examined the impact of including a picture on your resume. They sent out over 5,000 CVs, in pairs, to over 2,500 job openings. In each pair, one CV was without a picture, while another almost identical CV contained a picture of either an attractive male/female or a plain-looking male/female. The results were fascinating. Employer call backs to attractive men were significantly higher than to men with no picture and to plain-looking men, nearly doubling the latter group. However, and perhaps surprisingly given the conventional view that attractive women get all the breaks, this beauty premium did not hold in the case of females. In fact, women with no picture had a significantly higher rate of call backs than attractive or plain-looking women.

So what explains these surprising findings? Additional analysis and follow-up research revealed that women were overwhelmingly responsible (93 per cent) for deciding who gets called for interview. Female jealousy of attractive competitors in the workplace and negative perceptions of candidates who attach photographs to their CVs were deemed by the authors to be the likely explanations for the penalization of attractive women. So much for the notion that decisions made in the workplace are rational! And the next time you are applying for a job, a little bit of prior research may be very useful!