Marketing BS with Edward Nevraumont

About Marketing BS with Edward Nevraumont

Two-part interviews with successful CMOs: Their careers and how they got to where they are, and a deep dive into marketing channels for a specific business. Companion to the Marketing BS Newsletter by Edward Nevraumont marketingbs.substack.com (https://marketingbs.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast)

Publisher

Edward Nevraumont

Category

business · business

Language

en

Explicit

No

First episode

31 Aug 2020

Latest episode

8 Feb 2023

Latest episodes

55 episodes in the feed.

1. 

   8 Feb 2023

   Marketing BS Podcast: Theatrical Dynamic Pricing

   I realize there has not been an essay or a briefing in a while. I am trying hard not to let this newsletter distract me from writing comedy. It’s coming along nicely, but at some point I will pivot back to writing more here. In the meantime, I hope you continue to enjoy these short conversations I am having with Peter and we are hitting the more interesting marketing news in any given week or two. In other news, my 1960s comic book podcast is re-branding. “Super Serious 616” is becoming “WHAT IF… MARVEL was real?”. I wrote a little about why we are making the change here (https://www.superserious616.com/p/super-serious-616-is-now-what-if). The big impedes was a big advertising push we are doing later this week that should (if all goes well) blast us to the top of the Apple Podcast charts. The hope is that after an artificial boost or two to the top of the charts, we can use the momentum to maintain that position naturally. It will be an interesting experiment. In the meantime I think the quality of those podcasts have gotten better and better. If you are at all interested, now may be a good time to jump onboard. In the latest episode we discuss just how fast Thor would have to fly in order to cross the Atlantic Ocean in three minutes (https://www.superserious616.com/p/episode-188-is-thor-faster-than-a), and what that means for situations like saving someone from a speeding truck. Now onto this newsletter’s podcast: Full Transcript Edward: Peter, when was the last time you saw a movie in the theater? Peter: Oh, we go every couple of weeks. Every now and again, it's a very different experience now with, the big crazy seats and having to pick your seats in advance. And it's just, it's not like it used to be, but still it's a nice getaway. Edward: Nice. So you paused during covid, but then you're back at it the same frequency there before. Peter: Actually, even during Covid we'd go a couple of times. There was one time we went to tenant. Only people in the theater . Edward: My crazy tenant story is, for a buddy of mine's birthday, I rented the entire theater so the two of us could go see it. Peter: There you go. Well, we didn't have to rent the theater, we just bought regular tickets and you still got it. Don't think or so, but during Covid when no one was going to theaters, it was like the safest place you could be cuz no one else was there. So fair it out. So we'll still do it, every now and again. But it is funny how the industry has changed and maybe not funny, maybe sad how it's changed so much. Edward: Yeah, I think it's interesting how little theaters have changed over the years, and it feels like they're changing quite a bit now. As you said they've made changes in terms of the seats are fancier and more comfortable and they're serving better food and so on. But in terms of like things like pricing, pricing has been, Hey, pay one price. Everyone pays the price to walk in and sees the theater. When you're dealing with a product that has an expiration date, like after 8:00 PM on Thursday, anyone who's not bought the ticket, those empty seats in the theater are going unsold. It's very much like an airplane, but theaters have never been priced like an airplane. Peter: I have never understood that. Yeah, they should definitely be using different kinds of dynamic pricing. And of course it's not just them. It's gonna be the same thing with sports venues and concerts and yeah. It's funny in those domains, you keep hearing a lot about it. Sometimes controversial, but movie theaters seem to be just clinging to their kind of dinosaur ways. Although I guess just now starting to change. Edward: And then even things like. Not just dynamic pricing, but even pricing by title. If you go and buy books, books vary in price. Every book you buy, I don't know what the price of the book is gonna be until I look at the price on it. And they're all over the map. Whereas when you go to see a movie, whether you're gonna see a 500 million avatar sequel, or are you gonna go see a nice little small new indie. They're all the same price. Peter: That, and that's why it's so interesting. So there's that new, 80 for Brady movie just came out and there's all this headline news about it's going to have a different price as if this is a radical. Even in the articles, it's saying this bold move just cuz they're charging a different price for movie. Yeah, they're absolutely right. That should be the way it always works. Not, this kind of one time weird. Edward: And apparently it has been done in Europe, so in Europe they have priced blockbusters at different prices than like smaller indie, lower budget movies. But in the US there's been a tendency not to do that. And I think the logic is like right or wrong, the logic has been if we price a movie at a lower amount, it will signal that the movie is flawed in some way and therefore it'll drive, even though it's almost like the idea of a luxury good. If I go and start discounting a luxury good, then maybe. Price elasticity is a negative elasticity. It might drive people away because it's considered bad because it's a lower price and it seems like that was the fear in the US if we reduce the price of the movie, people are gonna think it's a bad movie and no one's gonna go. Peter: And that's why we shouldn't teach economics courses cause people jump to these ridiculous conclusions, you know? You know, it was the same thing with professional sports a lot of major League baseball teams were saying, oh, no, no, no, no. We can't change the prices. Same issue that we don't want to devalue the product. And now they're doing it all the time, not only charging different amounts for different games. But changing the pricing as the game gets closer and even based on weather and who's pitching and so on, that's just become the rule. Now. It's just a matter of how you do it. It's just weird that some sectors, like movies have just stayed behind and just haven't gotten with the times. Edward: I went and saw, David Chappelle and Chris Rock were in town here in Seattle in December, and we went to get tickets. They like most of the seats in the house were at set prices now. Like the better seats were, better prices and so on. But the best seats in the house, it said this on the website, our top seats are dynamic pricing changing on a day by day basis based on demand. Peter: That's kind of interesting cause like go to a restaurant where they have fixed prices for everything, but then there's that, special steak or fish market price, which implies that everything else charged isn't at. Prices, everything should be in a market price and people get used to it. That's The Thing a lot of these venues hesitate to do it because of some sense of fairness or something. It's like, oh no, we don't wanna go down the same path as the airlines, but people get used to it. People understand that, as long as they're not being gouged, the fact that they bought the tickets later or they're buying better seats they should be willing to pay a little bit more. Edward: That's right. And, I think, maybe the airlines get us used to it, to a point where now it's not a big deal when it happens in the movie theaters. I remember it was probably 2003, 2004 was the first time I went to movie theater where I bought my ticket, like I bought my seat of where I was going to sit. Prior to that, I think every time I went to the movie theater you'd buy a ticket and then it was first come, first serve for where you were gonna be in the theater, of course. And it was around that time, 15 years ago or so where they said, Hey, no, you can actually buy your seat and now you can buy in advance. And now you can show. Just before the theater, just before the movie starts. And I think the concern at the time, at least what I heard prior to that was we don't want to do that because we want people to get to the theater early so we can serve them the ads. And if we start letting them buy their seat, they can show up at the last minute and they won't be able to advertise to them. Peter: Wow, that's such bad logic given how much of a premium they can make for those better seats. It's a whole lot more than putting a couple of eyeballs in front of ads. And in some way the psychological weirdness of having to choose the seat, I think is actually less painful, less cognitively taxing than the idea of paying a little bit more money because, you're closest to the showtime. It's a different kind of process and people adapt to it and become second nature just as dozen these other domains. Edward: And what's fascinating too, I think is who controls this pricing. When I was at Proctor and Gamble, we could go to the retailer and say, Hey, we want Swiffer to sell for nine 90 but we couldn't tell them that Walmart would, whatever price we told them, Walmart would put it lower and we'd be like, please don't put it lower. We're like, we want this be higher. We want this be high margin product. We want everyone else to charge more money for it. But they could do whatever they wanted. We couldn't force 'em to do anything. Now, we could rent ads on television saying, go to your local retailer and pick up your Swiffer for 9 99. But at the end of the day, the retailer decided, and it's that it's the same way with theaters. And so Paramount, you mentioned 80 for Brady. They can't set the price. But what they did is they went and spent a whole ton of market research and then put together a research pack. Basically it was a sales pitch. So they went all the big theater change and said, we did some research and it shows that the price sensitivity for 80 for Brady is really, really high. And if you reduce your price, you can fill seats with older people who otherwise wouldn't even go to the theater at all. And they had to make a pitch. And apparently, I guess that pitch. . Peter: That's great. And that's the way it should be, to get, whether it's the theater owners or again, any kind of venue, to run experiments that take chances, I think there's a real opportunity, whether it's the studio itself or some third party to come on in and start offering that, that kind of pricing expertise. Now, the next thing you gotta wonder about is will there start being a secondary market? For movie tickets. You know it's the idea is ludicrous right now, but anything's possible. Edward: Yeah. It just, it feels like, at least right now, the supply of seats is so much higher than the demand for seats. And also you have a zero marginal cost electronic product that you can just put more showings, right? So if you don't go and see it at a certain time, they can run another showing at another time. Like unlike live shows like a Beyonce show or Taylor Swift show, like Beyonce can only be in so many places at once. It can only be so many shows. They can keep showing avatar forever and ever and ever. And you're gonna get this almo, if not the same experience. Pretty close to the identical experience. No, no matter when you. . Peter: No, that's a good point. That there's not as much of a necessity for a secondary market as there is for sports or concerts. But on the other hand, there's a lot of people who are becoming accustomed to buying their tickets through the secondary market. You know, they'll start by going to StubHub or SeatGeek, and to see what's available. They, don't want to go to the primary market. Maybe it's cuz they don't trust the venues who are selling the tickets, or maybe they have a good experience with the secondary market. So I think it will emerge even if it's not quite as vital. Edward: So we've talked about this, these companies that have been very reluctant to move into this direction. Right. So Airlines did this decades ago. Hotels did it decades ago. Cruise ships have done it decades ago, like movie theaters took a long time to do it, like athletic venues like baseball and stuff took a long time to move in this direction. Is there any example of a company that started moving this direction or an industry that started moving this direction where it was a mistake? We keep talking about, everyone's like afraid to do this. They're like, oh, I'm afraid to put them, buy their seats in advance cuz they'll will miss the ads. Or we're afraid to do this cause our customers will hate us. But is there an example where they were right, where like they should have moved more slowly or not moved? Peter: Well, in terms of the overall movement, I don't think it's ever a mistake, but there's no doubt there's specific times, you know, specific games, specific sections of seats that are either gonna be priced too high or low. That's just the chance that these organizations take. I mean, let's face it, every game or movie or concert, they're never gonna get the pricing exactly right for every seat. So you just have to hope on average that works out in their favor. But, it's not an exact science, but it's a hell of an interesting science, no doubt about it. Edward: But is there an example of where dynamic pricing wasn't the right choice? That like, Hey, we had fixed prices. Oh, everyone wants us to move to dynamic pricing. We think it's a bad idea. Every example that we're talking about. It was actually a really good idea. Theaters are slow. They should have done it earlier, but is there an example where someone moved too fast and they shouldn't have done Peter: Oh, yeah. I'll tell you where the third rail is. Personalized pricing. Yeah. A lot of people mix that up with dynamic pricing. Of course, with dynamic pricing, as we get closer to the date or if it's a better seat or whatever, anybody would, would pay that higher price but personalized pricing to say, based on, given your characteristics, we're gonna charge you differently than me, even though we're coming in to buy tickets at the same time. Back around, right around the turn of the century Amazon experimented with that little bit and they got caught. They were charging two different people at the same time, different prices. And they, boy, oh boy, did they back down on that? They apologized, never again. It was just a little experiment. So yeah, that's a real danger zone. Not, to say it can never happen, but given our kind of how naive we are, even with just regular dynamic pricing. That's a step too far. Edward: Well, it's interesting you say it's funny, I remember that when that happened at the time, I didn't make the connection, but you're right, they did that. Where they got nailed, I think, was personalized pricing where some people were paying higher prices than others. We do personalized pricing where some people pay lower prices than others all the time, and no one gets upset about it. Like if rather than charging $8 for this CD for most people, but $10, if you, we knew you're like a high level, like a adamant CD buyer and you're priced in sensitive. They could have just priced it at $10 and offered $2 off coupons to a whole bunch of people. Instead of pricing at $8 for everybody and 20% of people paid 10, they could just price it at 10 for everybody and 80% of people got $2 off, and everyone would've been fine with that. Peter: That's a great point. As long as you separate out the list price from that discount from the coupon or whatever, then it's okay as long as people have to do something. But when it's just offered. And then when the face value is different for different people at the same time. And you're right, it might sound a little, hypocritical, but, that's the reality that we, haven't yet come to grips with. Edward: One thing I see on Amazon all the time now, not all the time, but fairly consistently, is I'll go to buy a product and on the main pages listed at one price, after I click through and go onto the product page, there'll be a little box and it says, Hey, click 5% off coupon, click here. Yeah. And I see that regularly. I wonder. If I imagine that's probably personalized that I'm getting, I'm seeing that coupon and other people aren't Peter: that's right. And that again that's fine. That's totally kosher and people are good with that. It'll be interesting to see it. At what point though, do we graduate from that to just showing different prices and calling a spade a spade? I still think we're a long ways away from that. Edward: Fair enough. This has been fascinating, so think we're agreed that theaters are smart to do this. They should have done it a long time ago. The consumer backlash is going to be negligible. Theaters are just coming up with excuse, that's the word I'm looking for. It's an excuse rather than a reason. Peter: That's right. They're not willing to do the hard work. They're not willing to figure it out. And given the state that they're in economically, man, they better do some homework. They better find these kinds of revenue opportunities if they're gonna stay afloat. Cuz the old rules do not apply anymore and they get a adapt or die. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit marketingbs.substack.com (https://marketingbs.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1)

2. 

   23 Jan 2023

   Marketing BS Podcast: Have Electric Vehicles Changed the Rules of Loyalty?

   Some quick updates: * I have an essay in progress. Will hopefully get it to you in the next couple of weeks * Stand up comedy is coming along. My first “big show” is on Tuesday. If you are in Seattle feel free to stop by at Club Comedy. * If anyone is interested in learning how to edit these podcasts and is willing and able to do fast turn-arounds, just reply to the email and let me know. It’s not hard and it’s kind of fun with the software I am using, but it is something I am ready to get off my plate. Quick Take aways: * Here is the article we talk about in the podcast (free link): With New EVs Arriving, Brand Loyalty Goes Out the Window (https://www.wsj.com/articles/with-new-evs-arriving-brand-loyalty-goes-out-the-window-11672182485?st=lkfcmhdwpuzoonv&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink) * Here is the book Peter mentions: How Brands Grow (https://www.amazon.com/How-Brands-Grow-What-Marketers/dp/0195573560/) * Too long/didn’t listen: EVs have not changed the rules of loyalty Full Transcript Edward: Peter, now that electric vehicles are around brand loyalty doesn't matter anymore. It's all the Wild West. That's what the Wall Street Journal is selling. Peter: Oh man, I've heard this song before . It's the same old tuned men whether it was gonna be the internet, oh, that's gonna change everything. Or social media or covid. It's gonna totally upset the rules of loyalty. Yeah, those rules are pretty locked in and I'm willing to say same story here. Edward: So what are those rules of loyalty? What are the rules that the Wall Street Journals claiming are garbage now? Or are they just missing the entire. Peter: It all depends on how we define the rules. Where I'm coming from it coming forward it is from the top down. If we just look at actual behavior and just look at the choices that people make over time and how often they switch around and what they switch around from in two, there's some very regular patterns to that. And we could talk about it, but all if you go a level deeper and say, what are they thinking? How are they making these decisions? Sure. Maybe the psychology's a little bit different, but from a business standpoint, that's all cheap talk. All we really care about is what are people doing? And in that regard it's no different than people rolling a dye to say, which, which of these different items am we gonna buy? Edward: What they're, so let me quote from the actual article. It says that basically in the past, whenever someone bought a Ford vehicle, 58% of the time it was a Ford vehicle. Now, when they're buying the Ford Electric vehicle, 66% of the time, it's not a Ford vehicle. So there's significantly more people switching to Ford to buy the electric vehicle than we're switching to Ford to buy the non Ford vehicle. Peter: Yeah. First of all, we don't even know if it's significant or not, but second of all, it's cuz the set itself is changing. The number of electric vehicles out there is really different. It, no that's just nonsense. It's cherry picked, rubbish. Yeah. The way it's interesting that we talk about cars cuz the people who first set out these rules that I'm referring to and I know you know it well. There was a guy in London called Andrew Berg and his heir Byron Sharp at the University of South Australia. They basically say that it's you have your die. I have my die. And what drives our choices is, It's just as if random, and it's remarkable how well that story works. The do sleigh model as we call it. And there's no reason to believe it'll be any different here. Do you think So? Edward: You say it's random, but that's not entirely true. It's weighted random, right? Because if I have, if I bought, if my last car was like a Subaru Forester I think when I go buy to buy my next car, I'm more likely to buy a Subaru Forester than amped. Whatever the average of all the other market shares are. I assume Peter: you are so right about that. It's, yeah. It's not that we're all rolling a six-sided equally way to die. In fact, it's not like we're all rolling the same dye that, that there's gonna be this distribution of dice and even that is gonna be well described by again, a. Jewish lay distribution. Look that word up. And yeah, you, but you have your die. And the important point is that your die doesn't change very much over time. So whether it is covid or internet or EVs, you're rolling pretty much the same die. And there's just so much randomness around the choices that you make that it appears that there are some patterns, but there's really. Much to it. The only thing that could be going on here is that we might sometimes. what these like guys like to call a structured submarket. So it could be that though that that just as gasoline split off into leaded and unleaded, then people would move into one corner of it. Maybe we'll see something like that. But it's not some kind of fundamental change in the way that people make decisions. Edward: So again, I go back to. We're talking about, there's no, like the brand loyalty is not a thing, but brand loyalty in that example is right. There's something to, even if it's not oh, I love my Subaru Forester. It's the fact that. That I had a Subaru Forester before, I'm more comfortable. I'm the type of person who would buy a Subaru Forester the first time, which means I'm probably still the type of person who's gonna buy it a second time. Plus the fact that now that I'm used to using it, right? So I'm the, and I know it works and I know it. Presumably it operated the way I wanted it to operate. And so when I go to buy my next car, my default choice is the same car I had before. Now it could change, but the default choice is there, and that's a form of brand loyalty. Peter: But, so there, there's two pieces to brand loyalty and you described them really well. One is just that you just have this natural propensity for whatever reason, to buy some things more than others. That part Absolutely. Positively. And that's why your die might be, a little bit weighted more towards the Subaru Forester. And mine might be weighed a little bit more towards, I don't know, a Tesla or something. Edward: And is that the selection effect? The fact that I bought a Subaru Forester means that, I'm probably the type of person who buys Subaru forests. Peter: Exactly. Yeah. Cuz then the second piece to it, which is the part I take issue with is this idea of lock in this idea that my propensities get shaped by my behavior over time. There's not much evidence to that. Again, if you're a supervisor person Yeah. Then you're gonna lean towards it more than most people would. But your propensity to do it isn't gonna get higher over time. It's pretty. Maybe, but it's gonna pretty much stay at that same level no matter how many times you, you roll that die or buy a car, that's the big piece of it. We don't see that kind of lock in. We don't see that kind of learning. We don't see all of that romantic stuff that we like to talk about where the customers learn to love us and we learn to serve them better. There's not much to that Edward: really. But I feel like. Say I'm doing, let's switch to a new category. Let's say I'm doing laundry. Let's say I moved to a new country, so now I have no brand loyalty at all. The first time I go in I, I look at the shelf and I pick one effectively at random, and I take that home and it works. I feel like the next time I go to the store to buy laundry, I'm gonna go and buy that same one. Just cause I know No, it works. Rather than trying to gamble on something that I don't know that. Peter: First of all, what you said effectively at random, there's gonna be a lot of influences on it. It could be the brand name. It could be where it's located on the shelf. It could be the colors, it could be stuff that you heard about, but you haven't even thought about, seeing ads for it on the subway or hearing people talk about it. So there's a lot of influences there that. Things look random, but they're not. And those messages, one way or another got through to you. So it might be less about the actual experience you had with the product and more about the, some of that implicit prior exposure you had to it, that's gonna drive those choices that you make. That's, that, that's the real important point. Edward: Sure. And so I, so you say, Hey, the, whatever those influences were the first. They're gonna influence me the second time, but doesn't, the fact that I used it and it worked influenced me like I feel like it does. I feel like. Once I have a chocolate bar that I like, I'm more likely to buy that chocolate bar again. Even if it was, let's say it was gifted to me. Let's say someone gave it to me rather than me choosing it. Once I have something that I know works, it feels like why wouldn't I stick with what works Peter: well? Because of all, you might, you just might have a propensity to, to stay with that chocolate bar, but there's all kinds of reasons why it might be just variety seeking, that let's just try something different. I like this thing, but, , Edward: that may, maybe that makes sense for chocolate bars, but I. For cleaning my clothes. You know what, let's just . Peter: But, but it could be a situational thing that, oh, my mother-in-law is staying with us this week. And, and she only likes certain kinds of things. And so there could be things that, that might be perfectly rational. Why you're switching around. But to, to me, as an outside observer, I'm just looking at that sequence of choices. And man, oh man, it looks an awful lot. , rolls of the dice. Now to be fair I mentioned all this work by Aaron Bergen Sharp, and they basically said, you have your dye, and it never changes. Now, I myself have written a bunch of papers that show that, that model's a pretty good first pass. But every now and again, people. Do throw the old die away and do start with a new one. So I don't rule out the idea of changes, what we technically call non-stationary. But the times that you do that tend to be relatively infrequent and they tend to be dare I say, random. It's not like necessary because of a pandemic or a or change in the macro economy. It's just, there's just something in your life that. Be related to anything anyone else is doing that just causes you to shift your preferences. And it doesn't happen that often. Edward: What about sampling? So say I'm a I'm a loyal, I don't know, strawberry jam eater, and I'm doing it all the time. Not because I'm loyal, but because I have a propensity to eat Strawberry Jam. And then I go into the grocery store and they give me a sample of, I don't know, grape. , does that have no influence on the chance of me eating crypto jelly? Peter: I did say that in, in fact, I'd say it's stuff like that. It's sampling, it's word of mouth. It's seeing a Super Bowl ad that sometimes we'll have people switch around a bit. It could be just a change in which things are on which shelf in this store. And and that's why to, again, to me as an outside observer, I see some switching around again there. Perfectly good reason. It's cuz someone, forced that grape jelly on me. But it makes it seem like that you are rolling a die. And so yeah, a lot of these influences will will have some impact on it. But to the outside observers, it looks pretty random and it looks relatively steady over time. Edward: But if, again, if I outside observer, if I'm the marketer who's running the sampling program, , I r I go and start sampling a bunch of these jams stuff. Can I expect that my jam sales are gonna increase and that the people who switch over to start buying that grape jelly are more likely to buy grape gel in the future? Like the impact is more than just the next purchase, but it might be like a series of purchases after that. Peter: This starts where it gets really interesting. So again, a lot of this. Great. Work by Aaron Berg and Sharp. And Byron Sharp has this book that I'm sure some of your listeners would know called How Brands Grow. And they talk about a thing called Double Jeopardy, which again, I know you know Ed, which basically says if you can get more people to buy it, if you could increase the penetration, the footprint, just the overall number of people who tried The Thing at least once. That in and of itself is gonna be associated with higher degrees of loyalty. So yeah, your point is pretty good. You get more people to buy it, they're gonna tend to buy it more often. They're gonna appear to be slightly more locked in having a slightly higher propensity to buy it. It's really counterintuitive, this idea of. Double jeopardy. But it's really powerful. It's pretty much universal. And it's something you should expect to see instead of it being the exception. Edward: Yeah. So then looping back to the wall Street Journal Electric car article sounds like they're doing the right thing by introducing the electric cars, they're getting people, so Ford introduces an electric car and it's getting people who didn't buy Ford before to be more likely to buy them now. So it's a customer acquisition play it brings and it brings 'em into the Ford fold. And then once they're in there, Ford's market share increases because they now have more customers they acquired with a electric vehicle. And then once that happens, the double jeopardy kicks in and they should. Those people who have bought those four vehicles the first time, more likely to keep buying them in the future. Peter: So you will see some of that. Absolutely. The big key is how to get that wonderful cycle going. And in other words, how do you do the acquisition? And again, going back to the great work of Aaron Bergen Sharp and others, you can't just lean on one attribute. You can't say, this is the coolest, newest electric vehicle. You gotta. Broadly appealing. You gotta really punch up a number of different attributes that, yeah, it's gonna save the environment. But you know what? It's all, it's also fun to drive and it's very safe and and your friends will like you better. So you don't lean too heavily. Don't nichey yourself. You want to make yourself broadly appealing and that's gonna bring in more people and just, implicitly get them to do to. Or to roll your side of the die a little bit more often. It, it really is amazing how counterintuitive that he did. Double jeopardy is, but you just see it it's funny to see a lot of companies stumbling upon it as if it's something new and unexpected, it's been there all the time. Edward: And what's neat about this is it does hint at that, the next paragraph in the article talks about how these people buying these $70,000 new electric vehicles it what says they're, I dunno if this is actually true, but this is what the journalist is saying. They're as likely to own a $30,000 Subaru Outback as they are to buy, as they are to have previously owned a $100,000 Porsche 9 1 1 sports car. And whether that's true or not, the idea that we should make these vehicles to appeal. Everyone rather than just some sub-segment. Sounds like a step in the right direction for the marketers anyway. Peter: Yeah, it, and it goes against the grain of so much of what we've taught and learned in the marketing 1 0 1 s. We just figure out what your distinctive attribute is and hammer that and find people who care about that instead. We're trying to say, not so much be all things to all people, but a step more in that direction. Edward: Great. Anything else to add, Peter? Peter: We just want people to appreciate that this is the way the world works, whether it's electric vehicles, whether it's soup, whether it's hotels we expect to see these kinds of patterns. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit marketingbs.substack.com (https://marketingbs.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1)

3. 

   6 Jan 2023

   Marketing BS Podcast: Southwest Loyalty and some announcements

   Happy new year! Expect fewer posts this year. I will keep going with this podcast, but I am shifting my time commitment to (1) get the book over the line. No more excuses; and (2) Work on developing “business comedy”. I will write more about #2 at some point, but for now enjoy the podcast, and be happy if you weren’t flying Southwest the last few weeks! Full Transcript Edward: Peter, how were the holidays? Peter: Wow. It seems like a million years ago, doesn't it? It's amazing. We had that kind of one day after New Year's adjusting and then boom. But it was great. I went down to Antarctica and it was amazing. Super fun, super interesting. What about yourself? Edward: We tortured ourselves by taking our four little children to Guatemala and Belize. Peter: Wow, that's bold. That's bold. Edward: But I think the nice thing is both of us missed the travel meltdown that happened. I think we both got out before everything started falling apart across America. Peter: It was amazing actually being down in Antarctica. where it's kind of warmer and more pleasant than it was in most parts of the us. What a mess that was Edward: Go to Antarctica for the heat . Peter: Well, it was summer and, I think unfortunately the repercussions of that are still rippling through and it's gonna be a while before that all settles down. Edward: It's interesting. We were flying on Alaska and there's now a direct flight between Seattle and Belize City. and there were three flights before ours, and they're a limited number of flights now that go back and forth. Like they're only every couple of days. And the three flights before ours were all canceled, so we're on the edge of our seats and whether we were gonna get back on time. Peter: And between all the cancellations that were happening earlier in the summer for different kinds of reasons, staffing, and now all of the kind of Southwest mess, which is more kind of operational issues, we have a very different feeling in the stomach when we pull up to the airport these days. Edward: One of the news this week, southwest Airlines had a big, big mess up where every, all the airlines kind of had trouble, but I think Southwest had the most at one point, I think they'd canceled half their flights. It was like a huge, huge, huge. Peter: Yeah. And I guess, if you read, some of the, articles and blogs about it, it seems like it was, it was inevitable, right? That they've been on a bit of a downward spiral in recent years and letting go of some of the operational aspects that would've never happened back in the old days. But, it's a shame it had to hit. Abruptly, and it's such an inconvenient time. Edward: Well, that's what's gonna happen, right? When you run really lean, if everything's going well, it's not a problem. It's when things start to go wrong, all of a sudden they can go really, really wrong because that's when things break. Peter: Exactly. And of course, the lessons to be learned are, How not to let them break, but also how to, how to recover from it. And I still think there's a lot of lingering questions about that. Edward: I think the Wall Street Journal was just publishing earlier this week about how Southwest is now saying, sorry. They're admitting their failures. They're offering, they said 25,000 frequent flyer points so that passengers hit by the travel meltdown. What do you think of that? Like, what is the value. The passengers who are getting that treatment to get them to come back? Or is it the signaling to non passengers that, Hey, we really. Peter: It's very interesting. My, initial reactions be really, really fun to, to talk through, was not a positive one. About that move. Couple of reasons. Number one, devalues the point. It's like, we're just gonna throw some stuff at you. You spent all this time trying to get people to value points and earn and get status and all the great things you can do. But just to use it as a way just throwing stuff at you, it kind of makes you wonder about the value of that currency and what it really means to Southwest. So there's one reaction. What, do you think about that? Edward: I think they claimed in that same article they said, those 25,000 points is worth $300, which would, which you put each point at worth more than a penny, maybe it's $300 if you do it absolutely perfectly in how you use it. But I think most people value these points at less than a penny. But you're saying that the fact they're giving points at all rather than giving people the $300, in either future travel or $300 in cash, the fact they're doing it in points, what degrades the value of the point . Peter: I think it does, maybe less from a fungibility standpoint, but from a psychological one, we try to associate these points with good things and aspirations and bonuses and like, wow, look at all things we can do with it. But here we're framing it or they're framing it as, this is a way that we're covering our ass and, and making up for a problem. And, I think it taints the idea of, of what these points are all about. Edward: I'm just thinking, when I was traveling, I stayed at,, back before Marriott bought them. I was staying at Starwood Hotels and they offered points for all sorts of things, but that was their go-to for both good things for, Hey, do these things we want you to do and we'll give you bonus points., get our credit card, we'll give you bonus points, stay in our hotels, get more points. But they would also use them for when things went wrong. And I remember times where like, Hey, they messed up my hotel room. Or there was really loud noise at night. Or they had, the pool wasn't working. And in those cases when you said, Hey, you guys made a mistake, their go-to thing was, well, here's some points. And I don't think I felt bad about that. I felt, I think I felt good about that. Peter: = I think it's different. I think it's a very different situation because, I've of course been in many of those situations myself, but, when it happens on an ad hoc basis like that, it's like, look at me, you know, I was a good negotiator. Look at what I got out of them. So at that point, it seems like a bonus. , I got something that other people might not have gotten. Whereas in this case it's a blanket offer, so it's not so no one's gonna feel like that they got something that they earned it, they're being treated all the same, and it's just sort of being thrown at them. It's not the outcome of some kind of, negotiation or something like that. So I think it's the points are framed very differently. Edward: Should they have done it below the line? . So instead of announcing that the Wall Street Journal they were doing it, should they have just approached each individual independently and said, Hey, we felt really bad. What happened to you specifically? Here's 25,000 points to make up for. Peter: And maybe vary the amount of points based on what people paid for the ticket or just how much inconvenience they were. Something like that. I think if they tried to make it a little bit more personal instead of just, again, sweeping it under the rug. Here you go, people, here's your points. Now shut up and let's keep going. I think that it might have just felt a little different. Edward: Who's to say they're not doing that? Maybe, they led out with the top line saying, Hey, it's 25,000 points to everybody. Here's the Wall Street Journal article. But maybe below the line they're saying, Hey, we're giving 25,000 points to everybody. But for you, We're gonna give you 30 or we're gonna give you 40 because of what happened to you and we wanna make so special. Peter: Or maybe it opens up that negotiation where people will go back to 'em and say, 25 isn't enough. I deserve more. In which case they would feel a little better about those incremental points that they were able to negotiate for. One of the other things that I find interesting about it, and this just kinda shows our age over here a little bit, is that Southwest, unlike the other airlines, hasn't been as, Has dependent on the loyalty program. They haven't called attention to it quite as much, and for years and years and years, they actively resisted having one. They always said that, look, we're just giving you a good deal. We're gonna treat you really well. We don't need to sweeten it in the way that some of these other big evil and personal airlines do. I kind of admired that about them, but then eventually they caved in. Everyone has to have it, but Edward: now they're so much money and a credit card. Peter: They have to do it, and that's fine. It's inevitable they would, but now they're calling even more attention to the program. And again, they're doing it in a way that has nothing to do with loyalty, that has nothing to do with that good feeling. It's just another currency. And it, takes, something special out of it and makes you start thinking about Southwest in a slightly more, I don't know, commoditized way . Edward: Have you looked at cohorts like this? So, like either an airline or something similar where something really bad happens. The people who experience that really bad thing, do you see what happens to their lifetime value? Does it drop significantly? Peter: I love that. I I love that. I can't believe that you raised that before I did. We do that all the time. In fact, the most obvious example being covid. But plenty of others, you know, we'll, we'll find cases where there's some kind of either competitive entry or the company engaging in some kind of other big strategic change. Not so much the first thing to do, but maybe the most telling thing to do is to say, , what's the nature of those customers, of the customers acquired during that time and how do they compare, you know, better or worse to, to others? I think that's a really great analysis to do and ends up being, I think, much more telling about the impact of that intervention than just a lot of the kind of day-to-day moment to moment. Nonsense on social media. So it's a great analysis. Now let's press pause on that and pick it up, a year from now and it would be great if Southwest would divulge some of that data. Edward: To me there's, three effects. There's one which is Southwest did this big mess up. It's in the news. How is that gonna affect my future travel with Southwest? Like how many times was I going to travel with Southwest? I wasn't affected by it, but I heard about it. Is that gonna drive down my future likelihood to fly Southwest then? Then number two is the people who were actually affected by it. They were traveling on Southwest, they released somewhat loyal to Southwest and that they bought one ticket. How is that going to affect their future travel with Southwest and is it gonna be more so than how my, I'm affected? You can even break that down even further by. People who, people who that was their first flight with Southwest. That's their only experiences with those Southwest. Versus a frequent traveler. And then number three is what effect did the intervention have? And I think the problem with this is that, Number two and number three, we can't separate because they're giving it to everybody. Now, if they've done it below the line, they could have just given it to like 90% of the people and 10%, 10% get nothing. You're screwed, buddy. Just so they can measure the effect of whether their intervention paid out. Peter: I love that. I love that. Or at least to communicate it differently to different people. Some people it could be a more positive message like, Hey, you get a free vacation on us. Or with other people it might be a, oops, we screwed up. You know, we feel bad. So that there still could be ways that they could try to get some insight from it. I suspect they're not, I suspect they're gonna try to make it as blanket and generic and, just get it out there and forget about this thing, which of course raises another problem which is they, giving points away isn't addressing the problem. all the operational issues that have been creeping up on them. The last thing they want is to throw a bunch of points at people and to see issues like this keep recurring, even if it's not quite as severe and public as what happened a couple of weeks ago. They're gonna still have operational concerns. And this whole points thing, the fact that weren't even talking about it, might call even more attention to future problems they have. Edward: Have you seen any examples like that? Like what should Southwest expect? What should it do to propensity to fly for people like me that weren't, didn't experience it? What should it do to the propensity to fly to the, for the people who got hit? Peter: Maybe The Thing to do, you gotta give some points or money or do something. But maybe it should be more communications around here's what we're doing to fix the problems. You know, here are the new people we're gonna hire and the new systems we're gonna integrate, and the new processes that we're gonna have to try to keep people alert. Again, I haven't stayed that close attention to this, but, I'd rather hear about the issues and how they're addressing them, rather than trying to just, throw points at people and pretend it's all better. Edward: I imagine this what the investors would care about more than anything else. Peter: Sure. And ultimately that might be what matters most, cuz there's no doubt they took a big hit here and I think people are gonna be looking at 'em skeptically for a while now. They need to earn people's trust back and again, it's not clear that 25 k points, closes the chapter here. Edward: They need a new, what's their tagline? Like, flying the Friendly Skies. Is that Southwest? Peter: No, that's, United. Edward: Oh my gosh. What's Southwest tagline? Peter: Oh, geez. , we should know our airlines better here. You're look, looking it up. Edward: Lofas. Nothing to hides. That's transparency. That's their, oh my gosh. That's terrible. . Peter: Yes, exactly. And, and here they're, they're trying to hide a lot, . And again, it's not very evil. It's not a conspiracy, but they're not being transparent. They're not addressing the issues. At least through this one tactic, Edward: they can do the new tagline. We will try harder. We'll do better. Peter: and we'll throw some points at you if it doesn't work. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit marketingbs.substack.com (https://marketingbs.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1)

Reach and audience

Public platform figures. Ratings count people who left a rating, not total listeners.

Apple Podcasts (US)

3.7 / 5

3 ratings

Contact Marketing BS with Edward Nevraumont

Guest appearances

Books guests

Based on episode analysis; this does not confirm that the show is currently accepting guests.