Live communication produces sustained increase in customer loyalty Direct dialogue scores high in effectiveness comparison Enormous potential for ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Live communication produces sustained increase in customer loyalty
Direct dialogue scores high in effectiveness comparison
Enormous potential for effectiveness and efficiency is still to be exploited
through increased use of live communication instruments in brand
communication. Using these instruments also reduces the risk of losing
customers in critical life cycle phases.
By Dagobert Hartmann and Manfred Kirchgeorg
Companies should follow the well-known economic principle of doing the right
things (effectiveness) with limited resources in a very profitable way (efficiency).
Still, for the past two years, not a month has gone by without the topic of
effectiveness and efficiency of brand communication being at top of the list of
conferences, professional magazines and round table discussions.1
The state of efficiency in German companies is the subject of the current
Uniplan LiveTrends 2004 study. This was carried out jointly by live
communication agency Uniplan and the Marketing Management chair at the
HHL - Leipzig Graduate School of Management in May 2004.2 The
representative study interviewed 387 marketing and communication managers
about the effectiveness and efficiency of live communication.
Live communication includes all personal communication instruments, such as
trade fairs, showrooms, events, roadshows, promotions and sponsoring.
Whereas impersonal communication is prevalent in traditional communication
methods, instruments of live communication focus on the personal encounter
with people and encourage the target group to actively experience the brand in
a staged and often emotionally appealing environment.
1
Cf. e.g. the documented Round Table Discussion of the Marketing Journal on Die
Effizienzlüge (The efficiency lie) in its May issue, no. 5, 2004, pp 46-51.
2
Cf. the detailed results of the M. Kirchgeorg and M. Klante study on Trendbarometer Live
Communication 2003, published by Uniplan, Kerpen 2003, p. 24 et seq.2 This article examines the significance of live communication in the communication mix and its contribution to success. It also shows the superiority of live communication instruments with regard to establishing and widening valuable customer relationships. Successful management of the customer-brand relationship Brand management is relationship management, now more than ever. Customers remain loyal to strong brands for a long time. Strong brands can turn potential new customers into loyal, regular customers. However, only very few brands succeed in retaining their new customers over all phases of a customer-brand relationship. High churn rates in the customer relationship cycle (see fig. 1) are often incurred in the following two phases: in the transition from brand awareness to brand familiarity and in securing customer loyalty after a purchase. Traditional communication instruments reach their limits especially in these two problem areas. This is where live communication can demonstrate its strengths. Live communication instruments initiate personal dialogue with the customer and turn the experience of a brand into a memorable event. Given this background, companies across all sectors are verging towards a strategic re-orientation with regard to their communication mix.
3
Problem areas in the customer loyalty cycle
Share Target
Group
100%
Purchase
Awareness Familiarity Intention Purchase Loyalty Repurchase
Binding Phases
Fig. 1: Problem areas in the customer loyalty cycle
Strategic re-orientation in the communication mix
The current Uniplan LiveTrends 2004 study proves these points. Figure 2
shows the development of communication instruments in the medium term as
seen by marketing managers.
Problem areas in the customer loyalty cycle
Significance Ranking based on Significance Change untill 2004*
Budget Share for 2004
Decreasing Increasing
Significance Significance
1. Traditional Advertising -7,3%
2. Trade Fair Engagements -8,8%
3. Events 34,7%
4. Promotions 17,1%
5. Public Relations 42,9%
6. Internet / Digital Communications 74,9%
7. Direct Marketing 13,7%
8. Sponsoring -7,0%
2004 nmax = 387
*calculated as a net effect of propotions of increasing and decreasing significance
Fig. 2: Strategic changes in the significance of instruments in the communication mix4 The two most budget-intensive instruments are decreasing considerably in their significance: traditional advertising is losing its dominant position but remains the leading strategic instrument. Participation in trade fairs is also showing strong consolidation in the medium term. According to the respondents, the main reason for this is the lack of proof of efficiency for the trade fair instrument. The strongest drivers of the development are the internet and public relations. Events are also growing in significance. They enable the company to reach its target group directly and emotionally. Promotional events will be used much more in future, as short-term special offer sales can be achieved with this instrument. Sponsoring, on the other hand, is slightly in decline. Here, respondents are again very critical as far as proof of efficiency is concerned. Two trends are relevant for future developments: on the one hand, a stronger orientation towards direct, emotional and trust-inspiring communication is becoming apparent; on the other hand, the pressure on individual instruments to achieve high effectiveness and efficiency ratings will increase even further. In the future, companies will therefore have to embark on a strategic re-orientation of their communication mix in response to changed priorities regarding communication instruments and to top managements increased controlling requirements. Effectiveness and efficiency put to the test In this context, controlling and optimising the communication mix according to effectiveness and efficiency aspects takes on a new meaning. The cross-sector evaluation of the individual communication instruments is shown in the effectiveness/efficiency matrix (fig. 3). The evaluations are based on success analyses as well as on subjective assessments made by marketing managers. To ensure that all respondents had the same idea of what is meant by effectiveness and efficiency, both terms were explained before the interview took place. In this case, effectiveness should be perceived as return on objectives and efficiency as return on investment.
5
Effectiveness/efficiency matrix of communication instruments in the overall
evaluation
Ø Efficiency
2
Digital Communications
2,5
Public Relations
Events
Direct Marketing
3
Promotions
Traditional Advertising
Sponsoring
3,5
Trade Fair Engagement
4
4 3,5 3 2,5 2
n = 387; Ø Efficiency = 2,88; Ø Effectiveness = 2,66; 1 = very high Efficiency and Effectiveness respectively; 6 = very low Efficiency and
Effectiveness respectively
Ellipses indicate t he indust ry related scatter when evaluating t he instruments
Fig. 3: Effectiveness/efficiency matrix of communication instruments in the overall evaluation
The upper right-hand quadrant of the matrix shows the particularly successful
instruments. These include the Internet, Public Relations and events.
Sponsoring is one of the underachievers (lower left-hand quadrant). A critical
assessment is made of the mid-field instruments: promotions and direct
marketing as well as advertising and trade fairs.
Trade fairs in particular have given rise to the question of how efficient it is to
participate in them, given the high budgetary costs involved. The survey shows
that trade fair engagements focus increasingly on leading shows and company
events as well as in-house exhibitions, as opposed to traditional trade fair
participation. Marketing managers regard 65 per cent of all appearances at
trade fairs in their sector as interchangeable. Conventional appearances at
trade fairs are therefore put to the test. Strong trade fairs are unique, i.e.
unlike anything else. Only this uniqueness will allow a company to benefit from
the trade fair instrument and to fully exploit its advantages and efficiency
reserves ordinary, standard appearances at trade fairs can never achieve
this.6 Fig. 3 shows, in the form of ellipses, how the individual live communication instruments are spread across the sectors. With the exception of the food industry, events are clearly rated as the most successful form of live communication across all sectors. Trade fairs, however, show a larger disparity between the sectors. The automotive, telecom and industrial goods sectors show the highest success rating for trade fairs, whereas the food, media and fashion sectors show the lowest. These results demonstrate the following two points: on the one hand, they show that live communication still holds enormous potential to increase effectiveness and efficiency; on the other hand, it becomes apparent that generalised evaluations regarding effectiveness and efficiency are not very useful. Two levers are particularly important in order to exploit effectiveness and efficiency reserves in a targeted way: (1) harmonisation of the live communication activities with the other instruments in the communication mix and (2) their targeted use in the customer-relationship cycle. Live communication is prevalent in the management of customer relationships The results of the effectiveness evaluation of live communication instruments in comparison with traditional advertising in different customer-relationship phases are shown in fig. 4.
7
Effectiveness evaluation of live communication and traditional advertising in
different customer-relationship phases
24,0% 21,0% 25,0%
35,0% 29,0% Total 38,0% Food
51,0% 52,0%
62,0%
nmax = 387 n max = 55
84,0%
76,0% 79,0% 75,0%
65,0% 71,0%
62,0%
49,0% 48,0%
38,0%
16,0%
Binding Phases Binding Phases
Awareness Familiarity Preference Purchase Loyalty Awareness Familiarity Preference Purchase Loyalty
15,0% 18,0%
36,0% 33,0% Automotive 40,0% 39,0% 28,0% Fashion
52,0%
65,0% nmax = 30 64,0% n max = 38
85,0% 82,0%
67,0% 72,0%
64,0% 60,0% 61,0%
48,0%
35,0% 36,0%
Binding Phases Binding Phases
Awareness Familiarity Preference Purchase Loyalty Awareness Familiarity Preference Purchase Loyalty
34,0% 38,0%
Health 21,0% 27,0% 21,0% Industry
47,0% 43,0%
57,0%
60,0%
nmax = 31 60,0%
n max = 47
79,0% 73,0% 79,0%
66,0% 62,0%
53,0% 57,0%
40,0% 40,0% 43,0%
Binding Phases Binding Phases
Awareness Familiarity Preference Purchase Loyalty Awareness Familiarity Preference Purchase Loyalty
Advantage live communication
Advantage advertising
Fig. 4: Effectiveness evaluation of live communication and traditional advertising in different
customer-relationship phases
To create brand awareness (phase 1), 62 per cent of all decision-makers
favour traditional communication instruments. This result is hardly surprising, as
in practical marketing terms brand awareness is usually bought by means of
high media spending, i.e. through sufficient advertising pressure. The
automotive sector is an exception in the effectiveness evaluation. In this sector,
spectacular productions at leading trade fairs are used to draw plenty of
attention effectively to new vehicles and to the entire brand.
During the second and third customer-relationship phases, where the focus is
on creating familiarity and brand preferences, live communication is the
prevailing method. Here, events, promotions, showrooms and appearances at
trade fairs score highly, as they offer opportunities to present brand worlds in
direct contact with the customer in a unique and emotionally charged
atmosphere. The respondents from the automotive and fashion sectors are
particularly convinced of the benefits of these instruments.
With regard to purchase (phase 4), both categories of instruments are given
more or less the same priority. However, a sector-specific examination of the
results is needed in this case too, as in the fashion sector live communication8
instruments are regarded as more beneficial than traditional communication by
61 per cent of the respondents, whereas in the automotive sector this
percentage is as low as 35 per cent.
For the after-purchase phase (phase 5), 71 per cent of the decision-makers
regard live communication as most important with regard to the objectives to be
reached. Contrary to traditional advertising, the personal and interactive
communication channel encourages a particularly lasting and emotional
attachment of customers to the brand. Especially in the very down-to-earth B-
to-B business, live communication is therefore on the way to becoming the
dominant instrument to be used in customer care and customer retention.
The comments show that live communication instruments play an important
role in the management of customer relationships. Especially in the critical
problem areas of trust-building and customer loyalty where a company may
lose customers, live communication instruments are gaining a dominant
position over traditional advertising. Using live communication in a well-planned
and targeted way during the entire customer life cycle helps to increase
customer value considerably.
Making better use of live communication potential
The Uniplan LiveTrends 2004 study shows that the potential of effectiveness
and efficiency in brand communication is still far from being fully exploited. A re-
orientation of the communication mix offers levers to increase communication
success. Marketing managers identified the live communication instruments
and above all the events instrument as future value drivers. Possibilities to
increase potential can be found in the systematic management of
communication with the customer within the customer-relationship cycle. In this
area, live communication instruments are starting to play a dominant role
compared with traditional advertising in particular in the areas of trust-building
and customer loyalty.
*)
The authors: Dagobert Hartmann (40) is the Director of Consulting and
Research at Uniplan International. Prior to his current position, he worked for a9 number of agencies, e.g. grey cc and TBWA, in a similar position. Prof. Dr. Manfred Kirchgeorg (46) holds the Marketing Management chair at the HHL Leipzig Graduate School of Management. Apart from live communication, his research focuses on the areas of integrated brand management, market research and media and trade fair management. Annex: Empirical design of the Uniplan LiveTrends 2004 study. The study was carried out jointly by Uniplan International and the Marketing Management chair at the HHL Leipzig Graduate School of Management. The field work was conducted in May 2004 by TNS Emnid. In total, 387 decision-makers from the areas of marketing and communication participated in approx. 20-minute interviews. The following sectors were included in the study: automotive, finance, health, food, fashion, media, telecommunications, industrial goods, high-tech, others. Literature: AUMA_Ausstellungs- und Messe-Ausschuss der Deutschen Wirtschaft e.V. (2002): Erfolgreiche Messebeteiligung Tipps für Aussteller, Berlin. Bongard, J. (2000): Werbewirkungsforschung Grundlagen, Probleme, Ansätze, Münster. Brühe, Chr. (2003): Messen als Instrument der Live Communication, in: Kirchgeorg, M. et al. (2003): Handbuch Messemanagement Planung, Durchführung und Kontrolle von Messen, Kongressen und Events, Wiesbaden, pp 73-85. Kirchgeorg, M. et al. (2003): Stellenwert und Entwicklung von Live Communication im Kommunikations-Mix eine Analyse auf Grundlage einer branchenübergreifenden Befragung von Marketingentscheidern in Deutschland, research report, published by Uniplan, Kerpen, Leipzig. Bongard, J. (2003): Imagewirkungen von Eventmarketing, Wiesbaden. Lasslop, I. (2003): Effektivität und Effizienz von Marketing-Events, Wiesbaden. Zanger, C. (2003): Beurteilung des Erfolgs von Messeevents, in: Kirchgeorg, M. et al. (2003): Handbuc h Messemanagement Planung, Durchführung und Kontrolle von Messen, Kongressen und Events, Wiesbaden, pp 1070-1089.
You can also read
