Please Press One

Johnnie Moore brings to my attention the issue of voice marketing as discussed by marketing gurus Peppers and Rogers. According to his post, they describe it as follows:

Voice marketing helps retailers strengthen brand and communicate with customers more effectively by combining pre-recorded, telephone messages with professional voice talent. Designed to connect with existing customers, voice marketing allows retailers to accelerate their relationships with individual customers and capture higher value.

Deep sigh. It makes me sad to think marketers would actually discuss the idea of developing relationships with people by sending them recorded messages. Recorded messages can certainly be useful, but I don't see how they accelerate anything, other than accelerating the replacement of my phone handset back into its cradle.

Has the idea of developing relationships with people become such a throwaway concept that we'll now claim it for anything we do?:
"this tv commerical builds relationships"
"this direct mail piece creates stronger connections"
"this forehead tattoo reaches out emotionally to others"

Here's a link to Johnnie's post: Johnnie Moore's Weblog: Phone Spam.

Tag: marketing

Comments

[Andy Havens]

If you track this back from Johnie's post to its link to the post on Chris Lawer's blog, you'll find that the intention of the marketing program described is to leave the prerecorded messages on the answering machines or voice-mail systems of existing customers. In the cases where live people pick up the phone, the pre-recorded message is shunted to a live operator. If your intention is to leave a voice-mail or answering machine message, it is, certainly, much more effective and efficient to do so via a pre-recorded, computerized program than through live telephone operators.

That being said... the description of the program as something that will "accellerate... and capture..." is, of course, total crap. I wish, as we all do, that we could simply describe marketing programs functionally, rather than wistfully. This type of program isn't relationship marketing, it's good, old fashioned, direct marketing.

But, if you ignore the lordly, self-aggrandizing, spinmeister, "let's market our marketing" crud... let me ask the question: what's wrong with this kind of program? I don't think there is anything wrong with it, really. If you follow Johnnie's link back to Chris' blog, you'll see, as I said above, that this program is mainly for current customers. When I was heavily involved in direct marketing in the cellular industry, most of our customers said that they wanted to be informed of new price programs, new products, etc. The number was around 85%. When asked how they'd liked to be informed, about 10% said through bill messages, 30% said by mail and 60% said by phone (not be cell phone, as that would cost them money). This was pre-email days, BTW.

So if 60% want to be called and told when there's new info, but don't want to be bugged during dinner, or woken up in the morning... what's that leave us? I think a personable, polite answering machine message that says, "Hey. This is Greg from Verizon, and we wanted to let you know that we've got a new rate plan that will give you the same number of minutes but is $10 a month cheaper." is a pretty OK message. It's friendlier on the environment than a piece of direct mail. It takes less of the customer's time. If it's pre-recorded and sent out via computerized outcalling process, it's very cost effective.

Can the tech be used badly? Yes. But, then again, there are people who don't brush their teeth and can't shake my hand without squeezing too hard. They screw up the most "personal" kinds of marketing. I don't see that this tech is, at its root, bad. If done well, in the service of programs that have been identified by a mature CRM process as having value to the targetted customer... it might even accellerate some relationships.

[Bruce DeBoer]

Andy -

First, If the 60% was before email days [1996?], toss out the figure, it's garbage. Second, if I once said that I wanted to be notified about program changes, I probably wouldn't mind the brief call when it came in [either by person or message on my VM], however, I sincerely doubt that is how the vast majority of direct marketers would use the privilege. It's one thing if a few people sqeeze my hand too tight but if MOST did I'd stop shaking hands.

I suspect that a new poll would reveal that we are moving away from giving permission to automated sources invading our lives. Hell, if I have to press 7 to delete a marketers message on my voice mail I'm irritated that I had to expend the energy. I don't think I'm in the minority any longer.

[Eric Holmen]

See comment posted at holmen.blogspot.com in the topic of "Voice marketing is not your father's telemarketing".

[Eric Holmen]

I'm interested in the views in this thread, and I'm curious on the response to this point:

If sending a pre-recorded message is impersonal, how do you suggest communicating with customers in a "relationship marketing" context? Email with a pre-designed template of info? Direct mail with pre-printed content? Or phoning them from a local store/office/call center with a pre-written script?

It seems that there may only be variations along the broad spectrum of 'personal communications'.

Perhaps the offense seen with voice marketing is that it looks like intrusive telemarketing. Fortunately, Peppers & Rogers Group and some other CRM innovators realized that it is not telemarketing as we have come to think of telemarketing. These same innovators are among the successful few users of other media - like email - in a non-saturation manner as much as is possible. Many people still regard email as SPAM, universally. In the same regard, it is not the medium that causes the offenses, it is the user: all targeted media can be and are regularly abused. Voice marketing is no different and an accurate review of voice will yield high CRM potential in the hands of the right companies.

I hope that you enjoy the white paper.
-Eric Holmen from SmartReply, Inc.