advertisement
advertisement
advertisement

This is page 2 of:

Social ROI: Isn’t A Loyal Shopper Already Going To Buy From You?

June 18th, 2013

One of the counter-intuitive realities of social media is that, as it’s become more popular, it has become much less effective at influencing (rather than facilitating) actions. In the early days of Facebook or Twitter, for example, a shopper would have a limited number of friends/followers, but they would truly be friends or people the shopper either respects or at least has reason to trust. With some people today following sometimes tens of thousands of people on Twitter (or having a similarly absurd more-than-one-thousand Facebook friends), someone in those huge circles saying a product or service is really wonderful has much less impact. There are celebrity or famous politician exceptions (where an endorsement is indeed worth a lot to that person’s loyal fans), but the influence factor today is overrated.

But the facilitation factor isn’t. That doesn’t generally come from another person on the social media forum as much as it does from the retailer or consumer goods manufacturer directly. If a shopper was already in the market for a new gas grill, using social media to send out a 40 percent off coupon to “buy now” at a local retailer could be quite worthwhile.

Let’s take a closer look at the survey mentioned. It came from a marketing vendor called ExactTarget. Some of their Canadian conclusions: 44 percent of consumers that subscribe to a brand’s E-mail program have made a purchase after receiving an E-mail marketing message; 24 percent of consumers (ages 25-34) on Facebook have made a purchase after receiving a marketing message on Facebook; 47 percent of Canadian Twitter users follow brands to keep up with a company’s products, services or offerings; and 5 percent of consumers on Twitter have made a purchase after receiving a marketing message on Twitter.

First, let’s clarify that surveys never show what shoppers did. At best, assuming the questions are clear, assuming the shoppers are answering honestly, assuming the results are being analyzed correctly, it shows what shoppers told a survey that they did. Did the shoppers remember their actions accurately? Did they even think the question through fully, to deliver an accurate reply? One doesn’t need to get to “the shopper is lying” when “the shopper doesn’t care enough to think their answer through” is a more likely explanation. Let’s remember that apathy is still the greatest export from both the U.S. and Canada.

For the moment, though, let’s assume that all of the answers were fully in context and correct. What do those stats really mean? Almost half of shoppers who subscribe to a brand’s E-mail made a purchase after receiving an E-mail marketing message. But if someone knowingly signs up for the E-mail messages from, let’s say, Walgreens, isn’t it reasonable to conclude that the shopper is quite likely a regular Walgreens customer? The question had no time limit so the question was really asking “Over the course of your lifetime, have you ever made a purchase after receiving an E-mail pitch?” Given that context, it’s more interesting that 56 percent apparently said “no.”

Two other of those stats demand a comment. “47 percent of Canadian Twitter users follow brands to keep up with a company’s products, services or offerings.” As opposed to what? Presumably, “coupons” would be within “offerings,” so what other reason would there be to follow a chain’s Twitter account? To track the movements of a competitor? To try to get a job with that chain? For shoppers, those seem minor issues.

The most interesting of the stats referenced was the last one: “5 percent of consumers on Twitter have made a purchase after receiving a marketing message on Twitter.” This stat would seem to suggest that Twitter blasts have an impact, but a very limited one. But this is likely muddied by shopper perceptions.

Most Twitter interactions are not the kind mentioned earlier (click here to get 40 percent off and to buy now). They are merely the first step and they plant the idea of the purchase. If a Twitter message begins the process and the shopper ends up buying the item 10 days later on Amazon—and inbetween Twitter and Amazon there were a lot of reviews read, demos watched and other e-tailers visited—is that shopper likely to even associate that long-forgotten Twitter message with the eventual purchase? Asking a shopper that question may not deliver the accurate information sought.

Social media could be—and in fact is—a very powerful retail tool. If we could only find a way to get shoppers out of the equation—where their presence just mucks up otherwise clean ROI stats—we’d really have something.


advertisement

Comments are closed.

Newsletters

StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!
advertisement

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

StorefrontBacktalk
Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.