Is it just me, or does it seem as though for every one amazing Black Friday and Cyber Monday offer you receive there’s two that give you buyer’s remorse: you purchased it previously and now you have an email slapping you in the face offering it for up to 80% less than you paid.
Case in point: I purchased a HubSpot theme for $1200 earlier in the year. This morning I received an email promoting* it was on sale for $200.
It’s interesting to take stock of your feelings when this happens. Even though there was no way I could have known about this earlier in the year, I now feel as though I’ve been unwise with my money. I’ve wasted money. I’ve made a bad decision. And I now also have a negative association with that company – since they are the one who has elicited this response.
That’s just one (but the largest) of many experiences my Inbox has given me this Thanksgiving weekend.
I suspect many companies and brands do themselves a longer term customer satisfaction disservice, in the chase for short term profit.
Here’s a quick rule to perhaps embrace:
– if you are offering a consumable item (ie one that a person will likely buy many times) then offering a discount is fine
– but if it is a single purchase item, then offering a discount is potentially alienating your previously happy customers.
Let’s end buyer’s remorse.
* And to make matters worse the email wasn’t even personalised – at a minimum they could have acknowledged I was an existing customer, and perhaps suggested I could now purchase the theme again for another site. Even something as simple as better messaging could have softened the negative experience.
Every time I see a bus packed with people, I say a silent thank you to all of the passengers.
I can’t help but think of this comparison:
(via: Going Car Free)
Taking public transport, even when it’s crowded, or rainy, or hot is a valuable contribution to society. If only more people did it when possible (I totally get that it’s often not feasible).
We don’t need more roads, we need more public transport. It’s been said many times.
Which is why when I see suggestions like this (that has been massively shared on social) I shake my head – all that design and initiative wasted as they try to solve the effects of the problem and not the problem itself:
When Die Hard 2 came out all those years ago, one of the wonderful things it did was skip the opening credits and just got straight into it.
Opening credits though are still very much the norm, and although they can occasionally be a key part of the experience (eg James Bond credits) usually they are just annoying. Who wouldn’t choose to skip the credits if they were given the choice?
Podcasts it seem are a similar situation. Most podcasts insist on having opening (and closing) jingles/credits/annoyances.
There’s a few wonderful exceptions – Exponent and The Talk Show come to mind – but for the main shows have 30 seconds (or more!) of time-wasting self promotion that has everyone either enduring or frantically skipping through (I’m definitely the latter).
Why do podcasts have these jingles/credits? Perhaps a first impression of an episode with a professional sounding jingle will improve the perception it gives. But I doubt it. And it definitely wears off quickly if you hear it every episode. It adds no value to the listener.
I’m fine with a closing call-to-action or a request to leave a review. But to waste 30 seconds of a listener’s time with (usually) terrible stock music and annoying voiceover is a strange practice. And yet almost everyone does it. Why?
I’d love it if a popular podcast tested this. They’d create a new podcast that had exactly the same content but without the jingle/intro/outro. And they simply let listeners decide. I’d bet a cap full of cash that most listeners would switch over to the intro free version in a heartbeat.
Or would they? When Ian and I were starting HubShots one of the things I felt strongly about was having no intro. I wonder if it is has helped us or hindered us?
A good piece by Lauren Ingram (at least I assume she wrote it :) on whether we need to start getting more transparent about the ghost writing that goes on in corporate content strategy.
As you probably know much of the ‘thought leadership’ content produced by CEO and higher management in big enterprise is ghost written, often without any input or even signoff from them before it is published. This typically happens in blog posts on the corporate’s own site, but can also extend to guest posts on other sites, as well as publications and industry magazines.
It’s kind of an accepted practice these days, but is it time to rethink this. Lauren notes:
Let’s look at academia, where using someone else’s writing is absolutely off limits. If you’re caught paying a shady essay mill to write your paper, you’ll probably be suspended and may face expulsion. You didn’t do the research. You didn’t write the paper. Your academic reputation would be in tatters.
Somehow, these consequences don’t apply in a professional setting. Instead, if you pay someone to write your professional guest post, your reputation could be bolstered instead.
Personally I think people are generally happy with the idea of a ghost writer – but the question Lauren raises is whether the ghost writers deserve some of the recognition:
When some celebrities sign book deals for memoirs, co-writers are included in the byline, just in a smaller font. It might seem strange at first, but why couldn’t bloggers use this same system? Or at the very least, put some sort of disclosure at the bottom of the story to acknowledge the name of the person who actually wrote the post.
In much the same way as a Prime Minister’s or President’s speechwriter(s) may themselves receive accolades – is it time we moved to a similar model for our thought leadership writers?
Well played Dan, well played.
“Instant New York Times Bestseller” pretty much sums it up.
The book promotion tour for Disrupted is on and thus the pieces have been coming thick and fast over the past two weeks.
Dharmesh has a calm response that I found impressive (disclaimer: Dharmesh is a personal hero of mine).
Ian and I mentioned our thoughts on episode 29 of HubShots (towards the end) and our friend Moby Siddique (@mobysiddique) has a longer, stronger reaction at the start of episode 7 of Inbound Buzz (well worth a listen).
In the scheme of things these stories are merely distractions, and I don’t think anyone seriously considers HubSpot an isolated example of this kind of startup growth issue. Or any corporate for that matter.
I’d love to know how much of this Dan wrote with interest versus intent. As a writer he needs to sell books, can’t hold that against him. But I wonder if he feels he really has contributed value to the world with this. I hope so.
Not sure if it is a cultural thing and questions like this are more applicable in US to here in AU, but if I was interviewing someone and they started peddling out questions like:
‘What behaviors does the member who struggles most on the team exhibit? Please give me an example.’
…I think I’d be more worried than impressed.
But question 8, that one’s much more like it.
So much gold here, as reported by VentureBeat and Re/code.
Sony’s new SmartEyeglass developer edition glasses seem like an April Fools video accidentally released a few weeks early.
My favourite comment is from Kenneth Li, editor in chief at Re/code:
It’s like wearing a kick-me sign. … And nothing says “future” like a HOCKEY PUCK.
Via BBC News:
Google’s Project Zero seeks to find bugs in popular software and then give the manufacturers responsible 90 days to fix the problem.
This bug, which affects Windows 8.1, was revealed by Google to Microsoft on 13 October 2014.
On 11 January, Google publicised the flaw. Microsoft said it had requested that Google wait until it released a patch on 13 January.
Read Chris Betz’ full post on Microsoft’s approach to vulnerability disclosure:
Microsoft has long believed coordinated disclosure is the right approach and minimizes risk to customers. We believe those who fully disclose a vulnerability before a fix is broadly available are doing a disservice to millions of people and the systems they depend upon.
Kinda hard not to agree with Microsoft on this one, and difficult to understand why Google stuck so rigorously to their 90 day mandate. But people are definitely divided on it.
UPDATE: And Google has done it again. And yet they refuse to fix their own bugs. Crazy.
Oh the lols, as reported by the New York Times on a comment by UK Prime Minister David Cameron:
Mr. Cameron, who has started to campaign ahead of a national election in Britain in May, said his government, if elected, would ban encrypted online communication tools that could potentially be used by terrorists if the country’s intelligence agencies were not given increased access.
“Are we going to allow a means of communications which it simply isn’t possible to read?” Mr. Cameron said at an event on Monday, in reference to services like WhatsApp, Snapchat and other encrypted online applications. “My answer to that question is: ‘No, we must not.’ ”
Putting aside the technical absurdity of this (eg banning Snapchat and Apple iMessage, etc), my interest is why he’d even make a statement like this.
Since politicians are hard to like (barely above car salesmen), they do a lot of polling to understand what their constituents will vote for.
And given that his comments are part of his election campaigning I’m assuming they have been made strategically (ie polling is telling him this is something people want).
Which makes me wonder, who the hell is he talking to?