Comments on: Debunking the “Everyone Is Equal” Myth

By: Scott Westerman

Scott Westerman — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 20:47:04 +0000

Hi Tim!

I may be on hiatus, but am still connected.

We_Can_Help@cable.Comcast.com
Scott.Weaterman@Comcast.net

Keep the feedback coming!

By: Tim Staines

Tim Staines — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 18:55:44 +0000

Looks like VP @ComcastScott is no longer available.
Check out his Twitter background/activity: http://twitter.com/comcastscott
He appears to have “moved on” shortly after providing his direct contact information . . . go figure.

By: Sherry Gray

Sherry Gray — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 14:32:43 +0000

Tim, to me that sounds like a fabulous way to weed out people who aren’t really interested in me. To those of us who are not marketers, a big audience is not as important as an interested one.

Twitter missed the boat with pay services. If they had tapped members for paid services like auto-tweets and service directory listings instead of opening it up to third-party APIs, they could have easily monetized. They could also have capitalized on the pay-for-tweet scenario and cut a deal with google to include the value of tweeted links for SEM.

But they didn’t.

By: Tim Staines

Tim Staines — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 04:50:42 +0000

Fair enough, but I still think there’s room for a paid model with Twitter. Just because you post “follow me on facebook” doesn’t mean people will. Sorting out the line that divides consumers and marketers isn’t what I was trying to do, I just think there has to be some sort of way to do that. If consumers are on Twitter, marketers will be happy to pay to get in front of them. I’ll let them figure out the model.

By: DBlizzard

DBlizzard — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 17:10:22 +0000

I agree all customers are not equal. Small-med business owners need to learn to fire their bad customers. The time and happiness you get back will make you money. Big business is different because they can throw low-wage employees at the whiners all day long. It might be profitable because of volume alone.
I don’t agree with the paid Twitter ideas. It’s a bad analogy. Twitter users are not Twitter’s customers. You are just assets providing free content and an attractive audience they can sell or help others sell to. Assets need maintenance but that doesn’t make them customers. Advertisers will be Twitters customers and Feed aggregators are already Twitters customers. They will make a lot more money off Microsoft, Google and advertisers than they would ever make selling service to you and me. I’m not saying they won’t or shouldn’t offer a premium paid service but it will never be their lifeblood.
The restaurant reference doesn’t work either. Why would anyone put a new customer in the bad bucket right off the bat? I think the point was missed. A bad customer has to earn his way to the red bucket. New customers go in the gold bucket until they are a regular and you understand them. Every new customer is potentially your best customer.

By: Sherry Gray

Sherry Gray — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 16:03:50 +0000

Tim, if they started charging for Twitter, I’d make a single post and the content would be “follow me on facebook http://www.facebook.com/sherisaid?ref=profile I am so outta here.” In my capacity as a non-marketer, a twitter where paid advertising rules and personal tweets are limited has less than zero value to me. Cable delivers value for my money in terms of better reception and shows I would not be able to see otherwise. So it is not a similar service, it’s different service for money, and I don’t lose anything in the process, I can still watch free tv. Theoretically. With rabbit ears, tinfoil, a kid standing on one leg by the window and a converter box.

By: Tim Staines

Tim Staines — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 15:25:40 +0000

Note to self: Don’t click on the “Receive Email Updates” check box.

Sherry, I think a reasonable pay model could be worked out. Something like free tweet reading, first 25 tweets per month are free and $5/month to tweet your heart out. At this point, I believe Twitter could act like Cable Television. People were already hooked on broadcast TV as they are with Twitter today. Then Cable came around and started charging people for the same or similar service. At this point, I believe a very low monthly subscription cost would be accepted by many.

By: Sherry Gray

Sherry Gray — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 14:20:40 +0000

On the business level, I agree. Whiny customers who cannot be satisfied can suck up all your time and poison your business (because they will complain regardless of how hard you try to please). Been there with web development. Dream customers who pay on time and don’t overstep the bounds of their contract by asking for programming they aren’t willing to pay for get my prompt attention. Fortunately, most of my customers fall into this category.

But wouldn’t this model applied to Twitter leave “brand evangelists” without an audience? If only the people who get the program and understand the mission are willing to pay to play, then they will be, in effect, preaching to the choir. Which would completely negate the value of Twitter as a social – or social media marketing – tool.

By: vince jelenic

vince jelenic — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 23:05:07 +0000

Hi, man on the street told me:

If i buy a $50 service plan, and you explain what it entails…. well that’s what I expect. Same as Joe over there with his $50 service plan. If I don’t get the same service i’ll scream bloody muder — see I got twitter, disqus, facebook, ning, blog, email, linkedIn and feedburner friends. (yup 3 on each service). :-)
Oh… you mean my service plan doesn’t come with free shipping, and 24/7 concierge service… hmm let me check (rifles through docs) — Nope you’re right. That service plan C, I shoulda taken that one… oh well. So, how about just reconnecting the phone now please , that is in my plan, right?
“my momma taught me a long time ago, there are no VIP’s in coach class”

It sure does seem that from what I read above there is an awful lot of discussion about service levels.
It’s actually a very simple thing.

Most people understand them very clearly, and accept that. What they do NOT tolerate is the mishmash of legalese which surrounds their service offerings, for example cell phone plans. In general people want what they paid for, no more no less. If they are whining about service it’s YOUR fault — either your service is shoddy, or you haven’t invested the time to clearly educate them on their expectations. I see that more and more every day.

I believe companies that take the time to clearly delineate their offerings and services receive a lot less complaints, and save money. They CREATE customers who need little after-service. Most, however, are only too happy to take the cash, get the new customer, and worry about that service later.

By: Esteban Kolsky

Esteban Kolsky — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:43:41 +0000

Lisa,

This is a great discussion and something that I agree with wholeheartedly. Alas, my comment is to try to add the wrinkle of Loyalty to this discussion.

The purpose for any business with customers should be to build long-term, emotional loyalty. Else, why are you in the business of having customers? Your post talks about the rational, short-term loyalty (lower prices, chocolate shake and fries (love that, btw), better terms) as the problem, but it is actually the solution. Your vocal advocates were not born that way, they were made that way by you and the way you treat them. In that sense your reply to David that you use customer service to equalize all customers, but segment for the long-term ones (I am paraphrasing here) was dead-on.

Organizations must focus on short term loyalty matters (price, features, fries and shakes) to retain customers. I am certain that more than one organization out there can look at their top 10 customers and remember that when they were first customers most of them were not top-ten. Rather, more than likely, were there for the short-term benefits and a loyalty and advocacy grew with time.

Excellent post, sorry to have muddled it with my ramblings.